Counterfeiting Roman coins in Dacia

ACTA MVSEI NAPOCENSIS 38/1 2001 137 Cristian Gazdac, Agnes Alfoldy-Gazdac THE ROMAN LAW AGAINST COUNTERFEITING BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE: THE CASE OF ROMAN DACIA During the archaeological excavations from 1 998 at the site of Partos from Alba lulia, a coin of particular interest was found1. On the obverse is depicted the radiate, draped and cuirassed bust of the emperor Gordian III to right. The obverse legend is: IMP [caes] M ANT GORDIANVS AVG. On the reverse is depicted Aequitas standing facing, head turned left, holding scales and cornucopiae. The legend is partially damaged but can be restored as: AE[qvit]A[s/ ti] [p]V[b]LIC[a/ae] (see Plate, no. 1). If the obverse of the coin is a regular one of the third issue of the mint of Rome, the reverse represents a new type. Until now the image of this reverse was not been found together with this legend on coins of any metal or medallions. The representation of Aequitas2 is the ordinary type for the coins in all metals minted during the reign of Gordian III3 but also for those issued before and after this emperor1. This image is always joined by one of the following legends: AEQVIT AVG TR P COS II, AEQVITAS AVG TR P COS II, AEQVIT AS P P, AEQVIT AS II, AEQVIT AS AVG, AEQVIT AS AVGG, AEQVITATI AVG(G)S. At the same time the reverse legend of this coin (AEQVITAS PVBLICA) is characteristic mainly for the coins of the empresses from the reigns of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander or for the later emperors Philip I, Gallienus6 for the prices Caracalla and Geta during the reign of Septimius Severus {AEQVITATI PVBLICAE)7. No coins or medallion with this legend have been found until now for Gordian III. Indeed, in the case of these two legends the image is always the same on both coins and medallions: the three Monetae standing left, each holding scales and cornucopia, with heaps of metal or coins at their feet8. Another peculiar feature of this coin is its style of manufacture. The images on both sides are crudely depicted. The shape of letters is irregular as well as their arrangement in the coin's field, especially on the reverse. 'Coin inv. no. 177/ 1998. We are grateful to Mr. Cristian Roman and Mr. Karoly Torok from the National History Museum of Transylvania Cluj-Napoca for their help in the digital processing of the photo of this coin as well as for other illustrative material included in this article. Also we would like to thank to Alan Dearn (University of Oxford) with whom we had very fruitful discussions on this subject and who kindly helped us with the linguistic corrections of this paper. 2 It should be noted here that since Nerva substituted on his coins the spear (pertica) of Aequitas with cornucopia, Aequitas had the same attributions as Moneta. The only way to identify the personification in each case is the legend, see F. Gnecchi, The Coin Types of Imperial Rome, London 1908, 37. 3 RIC IV.2, 19 ff. 4 See the volumes of RIC from the reign of Nerva onwards. 5 Ibidem. 6 For the legend Aequitas publica on the coins of the empresses from the reigns of Elagabal and Severus Alexander see RIC IV.2, p. 45, no. 209, p. 58, no. 378 (Julia Paula); p. 59, no. 388 (Aquilia Severa); p. 61, no. 409 (Julia Maesa); p. 97, no. 328 (Julia Mamea). For the emperor himself see RIC IV.2, p. 56, no. 344 (Elagabal) and RIC V.I, p. 130, no. 1. 7 RIC IV. 1, p. 229, no. 114 (Caracalla); p. 319, no. 39 (Geta). 8 For coins see RIC IV.1, 2. 3, the type of "Aequitas publica". For medallions see W. Frohner, Les medallions de I'empire Romain depuis le regne d'Auguste jusqu'a Priscus Attale, Paris 1878, 159 (Julia Domna); 162 (Geta); 166 (Julia Soaemias); 174 (Julia Mamaea); F. Gnecchi, I medaglioni Romani.Vol. I. Oro ed argento, Milano 1912, 6 and tav. 2, no. 6 (Gallienus - gold); 45 ff; tav. 22, no. 3, 5, 7, 8; tav. 23, no. 6, 7 (Julia Domna, Caracalla, Geta, Julia Paula, Julia Soaemias, Julia Mamaea - silver); RIC V.1, 109f, for the silver medallions of Salonina. 138 Cristian Gazdac, Agnes Alfdldy-Gazdac Moreover, after restoration, this coin proved to be a plated one, with a very thin foil of poor silver content over a copper core9. On the basis of these arguments it can be considered that this piece represents a crude plated copy of an antoninianus if not even a spoilt coin (see Plate, no. 1). Owing to its status as an ancient imitation, the date of the obverse upon which it is modelled {post AD 240) may only be ragded as a terminus post quern for its production. The archaeological context in which this coin was found does not offer for the moment more information about the date when this coin was dropped/ lost. Another coin, which was found in the same archaeological context, is a plated denarius depicting Septimius Severus on the obverse10. The study of this coin provides an opportunity to extend the research on the frequency of Roman coin copies in the province of Dacia. Were these copies regarded as counterfeit coins according to the Roman legislation? 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 BCn. According to Grierson this law did not survive "the return of Sulla and the praetor's execution"12. The basis of the Roman law of counterfeiting is considered by the same author as a section in Sulla's Sex Cornelia de falsis (c. 81 BC}13, also known as Lex Cornelia testamentaria nummaria™. The original text is lost, although some of its clauses survived in Ulpian's summary quoted in the Digestae: "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'ns. 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 Repubiic. Outside Rome, fairly large issues were struck by military commanders, owing to their imperium^. In the context of this law gold is addressed in the context of controlling the quality of metal used by the goldsmiths17. The punishments for counterfeiting the silver coinage are described in the Institutiones™ and consist of death for slaves and banishment for free men: "...Legis poena in servos uitimum supplicium est, quod et in lege de sicariis et veneficis servatur, liberos vero deportatio'™'. 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. 9We would like to express our gratitude to Mrs. D. Boras from the Restauration and Conservation Laboratory of the National History Museum of Transylvania Cluj-Napoca who kindly agreed to do the restoration work for this coin. 10C. Gazdac, The coin finds from the archaeological excavations in Partos 1998-2001 (forthcoming). n T. Mommsen, Histoire de la monnaie romaine II, Paris 1 870, 82-84. 12 P. Grierson, The Roman Law of Counterfeiting, in Essays in Roman Coinage presented to Harold Mattingly, Oxford 1956, 242, n, 1. "ibidem, 242. '"Cicero, in Verrem, li, I, 42; P. Grierson (n. 12), 242, n. 2. ^Digeste 48.10. 9. ,6P. Grierson (n. 12), 242, n. 4. ,r ibidem. 18 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, see ibidem, 242, n. 3. ^InstitA, 18, 7-8. THE ROMAN LAW AGAINST COUNTERFEITING BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE 139 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 provinciate, Ulpian's Libri de officio proconsutis 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 Antonines20: "Lege Cornelia [...] qui nummos aureos argenteos adultaverit, lavaverit, confiaverit, 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.'™. The law was extended to cover the gold coinage as well as the silver. The definitions of what constitutes abusing the gold and silver coinage are given in great detail: falsifying, washing, melting, clipping, injuring. The punishments were connected to the social status of those found guilty of counterfeiting of the silver coinage: exile for honestiores, work in mines or cruxification for humiliores and capital punishment for slaves. For those guilty of counterfeiting the gold coinage, the measures were even more severe: free men were to be condemned to the beasts in the amphitheaters and slaves were to be tortured to death: "Quicumque nummos aureos partim raserint, partim tinxerint vel finxerint: si quidem liberi sunt, ad bestias dari, si servi, summo supplicio adfici debent. "tz. The lack of any legislation against the counterfeiting of bronze coinage has been explained by Grierson as being due to the fact that the issue of bronze by the state "was not formally imperial at all, but senatorial"23. As the same author has demonstrated, the laws of Tacitus (AD 275-276) on the adulteration of metals and the Lex lulia on peculation refer to metalworkers in general and the public treasury and not counterfeiters and coinage24. The argument that gold and silver was seen as coinage became "imperial money" may be reflected in the clause of Paul's Sententiae, in which the refusal to accept gold or silver coins with the imperial portrait was also considered an offence. This is confirmed also by a passage from Arrian's Comentarii de Epicteti Disputationibus, in which that the bankers and the greengrocers are not legally allowed to refuse Caesaris moneta25. In fact the gold and silver coinages were treated as sacrosanct items depicting the emperor25. If we give credence to Suetonius, during the reign of Tiberius it was considered treason to "nummo vel annulo effigiem [Augusti] impressam latrinae vel lupanari intulisse"17. This statement was still active during the reign of Caracalla when a young knight carried a coin bearing the imperial portrait into a brothel. For this he was at the time imprisoned and awaited execution28. The Roman laws on counterfeiting coin also underwent further modifications from the reign of Constantine I onwards, but they are beyond the chronological frame of this study. At the first sight, the Roman legislation seems to be very strictly concerned with the counterfeiting of gold and silver coinage. How effective was this law in Roman Dacia? 20 P. Grierson (n. 12), 243. 21 Paul, Sententiae 5. 25. 1. 22 Digeste 48. 10. 8. 23 P. Grierson (n. 12), 245. 24 Ibidem, 244, n. 4. "Arrianus, Comentarii de Epicteti Disputationibus III, 3. 3, apud ibidem, 243, n. 3. 26P. Grierson (n. 12), 245. "Suetonius, Tiberius, 58; ibidem, 246. 2BDio Cassius, 78, 16, 5. We would like to thank Dr. Oliver Hekster (University of Oxford) who has indicated this reference. 140 Cristian Gazdac, Agnes Alfbldy-Gazdac The recent analyses of the numismatic material from different sites of this province attest very often to the presence of ancient imitations and copies: hybrids, "barbarous", plated and cast coins29. In the case of the gold, no mistreated coins have been recorded for Dacia. This is a general pattern for the Roman Empire that beside the heavy punishment by law, the gold coinage was not regularly used in the daily transactions as the silver coinage was30. For this study we take into account only those maltreated silver coins, which bear the portraits of emperors starting with Trajan. There is no certainty that similar coins depicting earlier emperors were all struck after the transformation of Dacia into a Roman province in AD 106. The most common ancient imitations are plated denominations. Concerning the coin finds from the Roman towns of Dacia at Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa the plated denarii represent 17.3% of the aggregate number of denarii found at this site and 7.1% of the antoninianii finds are also plated (see comparative tables). At Apulum, 6.8% of the denarii finds are plated. It should be noted that the incidence of plated coins may be higher than is often recorded, due to their misidentification as genuine coins. The excavations from the site of Partos demonstrate that 45.4% of the silver denominations are plated denarii31 (see comparative tables). At Potaissa, 4.8% of denarii and 2.7% of antoninianii are plated32 (see comparative tables). At Drobeta, 29.1% of denarii are plated. It has to be noted that all the plated denarii were found on the territory of the auxiliary forts were they represent 63.6% of this denomination finds (see comparative tables). At Napoca, Tibiscum and Dierna, the plated denarii represent 20%, 21.6%, respectively 11.1% of the total number of finds from these sites. Owing to the state of archaeological research and the publication of the numismatic material, the figures for these urban settlements should be seen as provisional (see comparative tables). Plated coins are also found in the best researched and published auxiliary forts from Roman Dacia: at Buciumi: 22.6% of the denarii are plated; Romita, 11.5% of denarii and 1 out of 3 antoninianii are plated; llisua, 56.4% of denarii and 3 out of 9 antoninianii are plated; Gherla, 9.2% of denarii and 1 out 11 antoninianii are plated; Mehadia, 1 2.1% of denarii are plated (see comparative tables). The number of rural settlements from Roman Dacia with well-published material is even smaller than in the case of the auxiliary forts. From this point of view only two sites were available for this study. At Micasasa and Orlea, 28.4% and 37.7% of denarii are plated. At Orlea, also 2 out of 21 antoninianii are plated (see comparative tables). At the first sight, it seems that the imitative 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. Micasasa was a well-developed pottery center while Orlea was an ZSC. Gazdac, Monetary circulation in Dacia in the period from Trajan to Constantine I (AD 106-337), DPhil thesis, University of Oxford (2001), manuscript. 30 Information Dr. Cathy King. 31C. Gazdac, The coin finds from the archaeological excavations in Partos 1998-2001 (forthcoming). The coins from this excavation are not taken into account for this study. 32 At Potaissa many of the coins found on the territory of the Roman town and legionary fort were part of the collections of Teglas and Kemeny, thus it can be supposed that the owners of these collections have preferred to collect only the 'fine' silver coins and tried to avoid plated coins, for the private collections from Potaissa see A. Hopartean, I. Winkler, Moneda antica la Potaissa, Cluj 1973, 27 ff (Kemeny), 43 ff (Teglas). THE ROMAN LAW AGAINST COUNTERFEITING BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE 141 important place near the Danube with a bridge33 over the River, and was also in the close neighbourhood of the quasi-urban settlement of Sucidava. Therefore both sites could be considered as ones with a high intensity of monetary circulation. Until more information from other rural sites of Dacia becomes available, it is difficult to say whether the incidence of imitative coinage from these two sites represents a pattern of the rural sites from this province as a whole or specific characteristic owing to their particular position. At Porolissum, 29.5% of denarii and 20% of antoninianii are plated. As in the case of Apuium, at Porolissum some parts of the site provide a much larger quantity than the average of the site as a whole (see comparative tables). In the case of the custom's house (statio portorii) 63.04% of the denarii finds are ancient copies, mainly plated (23 plated and 6 billon denarii)34. This very high percentage of copies has been hypothetically explained by some scholars as a result of using such coins to pay the custom taxes35. Due to the large quantity of the coins found at the site, as well as their quality, it has been suggested that these coins could passed as genuine ones, at least for a while36. However, it may also be that the incidence of these coins reflects the discarding of coins without value. It is known that the money from custom taxes was considered in the Roman Empire as one of the most important income sources for the treasury37. Some authors have suggested that the role of this income was at least equal if not superior to the tributa and stipendia provided by provinces and most important amongst the vectigalia38. In this case, does it not seem likely that the quantity of copies is not a result of a deliberate withdrawn of money from circulation by the custom office staff to avoid faked coins entering into the aerarium? Unfortunately, the only written information about a staff in charge to check the quality and the quantity of coins transported by traders come from AD 356: "Portos enim litoraque divers, quo facilior esse navibus consuevit accessu, et itineris tramites statuimus custodiri per idoneos officials ac praepositos a praesididibus et nonnulis praeditis dignitate, ut cognita veritate provinciarum rectores obnoxious iegibus puniant."39. At the same time another explanation for such a strong presence of imitative coins in the statio portorii from Porolissum could be the military presence there. The analysis of the numismatic evidence from the auxiliary fort from Porolissum indicates that from the total number of the denarii found at this site, 53.08% are copies (plated, billon, barbarous pieces)40. The close values of the two parts of the site of Porolissum, the custom and the auxiliary fort, indicate that this large number of copies may have a common explanation: daily losses or discarded coins from the military personnel4' on duty at the statio portorii. 33 D. Tudor, Podurile romane de la Dunarea de Jos, Bucure$ti 1 971, 17 ff; it should be mentioned here that this bridge probably built probable for the expedition of Cornelius Fuscus into Dacia (AD 87) (28), may have also been used by the Romans during the period of the province of Dacia, especially since apart from the bridges from Dierna and Drobeta there were no other links between these two provinces. Moreover, the bridge from Orlea could has been the best connection between Moesia Inferior and limes alutanus. 34 N. Gudea, Porolissum. Un complex daco-roman la marginea de nord a Imperiului Roman. II. Varna romana. Monografie arheologica. Contributii la cunoasterea sistemului vamal din provinciile dacice, Zalau 1 997, 69. 35 Ibidem. 36 Ibidem; E. Chirila, Oteva date despre circulars monetara la Porolissum, ActaMP 14-15, 1990-1991, 169 ff. 37 RE s.v. portorium; DA, s.v. portorium; R. Cagnat, Le portorium chez les Romains, Paris 1880, 162. 38 S. de Laet, Portorium. Etude sur I'organisation douaniere chez les Romains surtout a I'epoque du haut-empire, Brugge 1949, 448. ^Cod.Theod. 9, 23, 1. "°N. Gudea (n. 34), 70. On the basis of the archaeological evidence, it has been suggested that a vexilatio of cohors V Lingonum stationed in the statio portorii, N. Gudea (n. 34), 76. 42 For similar opinion see ibidem, 68; E. Chirila (n. 36), 172. 142 Cristian Gazdac, Agnes Alfdldy-Gazdac Until further evidence becomes available none of these criteria can be exclusively considered or totally ignored as a possible explanation for the strong presence of copies at the custom building from Porolissum. Moreover, it is also plausible that the situation at this place to result from a combination of all these factors. 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. In the case of the antoninianus, 6.3% of this denomination depicting emperors of the period AD 238-253 are plated. Is this percentage of the plated silver coin finds from Dacia a characteristic of this province or is a general pattern of the Roman Empire? An analysis on the monetary circulation in the provinces adjacent to Dacia revealed the following results43. The plated denarii depicting the emperors of the period AD 98- 238 represent 11.8% of the finds in Pannonia Superior and 7.3% of those in Pannonia Inferior for this denomination. Due to the state of research and publication, plated antoninianii revealed significant results for this study only in the province of Pannonia Superior44. The plated antoniniani (illustrating portraits of the emperors from the period AD 238-253} represents 13.2 % of the aggregate number of this denomination. The hybrids and "barbarous" coins, which may be described generally as were found in much smaller quantity at different sites of Roman Dacia. Apart from the coin from Apulum discussed above, other ancient imitations of silver coins were identified in a large number at Porolissum45. The real number of these imitations is much higher, but in many cases the analyses were not carried out with accuracy. The argument for a larger number of ancient imitations can be supposed by the hoard recently found at Apulum, which contained 232 denarii bearing the portraits of the emperors from Vespasian to Elagabal. All pieces are ancient imitations46. Such hoards have been ocasionaily found in the Empire at places such as Gurnrad47, St. Swithins Lane48 (Britain) and Athens49. The number of hoards containing only imitations is much larger for the period after 260 (radiates) but no such hoard has been found in Dacia to date50. In the case of the bronze coinage, the Roman law seems not to regard the imitative pieces as counterfeits until the fourth century51. For the period of the Roman administration in Dacia (2nd- 3rd centuries) the so-called Limesfalsa are well known. These coins are light-weight aes casts with a small thin ffan, often composed of low- quality metal5Z. Some authors consider these bronze issues as a local currency53. This coinage usually comprises issues in the name of the emperors from Augustus to 43 C. Gazdac (n. 29), chap. 4. w In the absence of accurate analyses of this denomination no plated antoninianus was noted in the publication of numismatic material from di fferent sites of Pannonia inferior. For the provinces of Moesia Superior and inferior the scarcity of the published material has led to irrelevant results. For the discussion of all these aspects, see C. Gazdac (n. 29). 45 Ibidem, the catalogue of isolated finds in Dacia - Porolissum; N. Gudea, Porolissum, ill, Sanctuarul zeului lupiter Optimus Maximus Dolichenus, Zalau 2001 (The Coins by R. Ardevan), the catalogue of coin finds. At V. Suciu, Quelques considerations sur les tresors monetaires de la Dacie romaine, in Army and Urban Development in the Danubian Provinces of the Roman Empire, Alba lulia 2000, 328. 47R. Bland, Cowell, A forger's hoard from Gurnard, isle of Wight, in Coin Hoards from Roman Britain, vol. 6 (eds. A. Burnett, R. Bland), London 1986, 31 ff. 49 L. Lawrence, On a hoard of plated Roman denarii, in NC, 5 th series, 20, 1940, 1 85 ff; U. Zwickler et alii, Roman techniques of manufacturing silver-plated coins, in Metal Plating and Patination (eds. S. La Niece, P. Craddock), Oxford 1993, 223 ff. 49 M. Caramessini-Oecominides, On a hoard of plated Roman coins, ANSMUSN 12, 1966, 71 ff. 50 For the bibliography of hoards of radiate imitations, see C. King, Roman copies, SFMA 10, 1996, 247 ff. 51 C. King (n. 50), 246. 52G. Boon, Light-weight and 'Limesfalsa', NC 1965, 161. THE ROMAN LAW AGAINST COUNTERFEITING BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE 143 Severus Alexander, but the coin types provide only a terminus post quern for the date of casting. Up to the beginning of the reign of Septimius Severus, this coinage has a low find-frequency but then begins to rise steadily until the reign of Severus Alexander, and then became very rare under Gordian III54. It should be mentioned that cast coins were common in the 3rd century AD, and many probably were connected with the military camps. Such cast coins, including moulds and spoilt casts, have been found in military sites, namely: Carnuntum55, Brigetio (see Plate, no. 3), Caerleon56, but also at a civilian site at Pachten (Saarland, Germany) (see Plate, no. 2)57, Saint-Mard58 and Rumst (Belgium)59. The date of issue of the casts presents a problem, because at some sites they were "clearly moulded at a fairly late date"60. Similarly, moulds depicting obverses and reverses of different emperors have been found together (see Plate, no. 2)6'. At this stage of research we can confirm the presence of such coins also in Dacia. Spoilt casts of bronze coins have been found at auxiliary forts in Dacia. One of them, a sestertius, depicting Antoninus Pius was found in the auxiliary fort of llisua62 (see Plate, no. 4). Another three similar coins bearing the portrait of the emperor Philip I (2) and his wife, Otacilia Severa (1) were found at the auxiliary fort of Hoghiz63. To date, the last three spoilt bronze casts are the "latest" found in the area of the Lower Danube. Bronze cast bronze coins (3) were found in the excavations from the forum vetus of Ulpia Traiana SarmizegetusaM. The first 2 cast coins are both asses bearing the portrait of the emperor Hadrian65. The 3rd one is a copy of a Gordian sestertius55. As in the case of silver copies, the lack of accurate analyses on previous finds does not allow us to have an accurate picture of the number of cast bronze coins found in Roman Dacia. In conclusion, it can be suggested that despite severe legislation against counterfeiting, around a quarter of the isolated silver Roman coin finds in Roman Dacia are ancient copies of some kind of mistreated silver content. The majority of these copies have been found in the auxiliary forts, which could indicate that they were used for the payments of the troops, as has already been suggested for the similar finds from 53 K. Kranzl, Versuch einer Rekonstruktion des Miinzumlaufes des Prinzipats bis zum Ends der Antoninianpragung in Noricum - eine Auswertung des FMRO, SFMA 10, 1996, 268. 54G. Boon (n. 52), 166 has mentioned one limesfalsum of Gordian III at Carnuntum, but until now there are no records of such coins for this emperor. 55 FMRO HI/1, Wien, 1976, passim. "Ibidem; J. Casey, R. Reece, Coins and the archaeologist, BAR 4, 1974, 107. 57 M. Alfdldi, Die Guliformen und gegossenen <Falschungen>, kaiserzeitlicher Munzen, Chiron 1, 1971, 354 ff. 58 J. Lallemand, Les moules monetaires de saint-Hard (Virton, Belgique) et les moules de monnaies imperiales en Europe: essai de repertoire, in Un quartier de I'agglomeration Gallo-Romaine de Saint- Mard (Virton), Leuvain 1994, 141 ff. 59 J. Van Heesch, The Roman coin moulds of Rumst (Belgium), AAL 26-27, 1988, 29 ff. 60 J. Casey, R. Reece (n. 56), 107; also U. Zwickler et alii, Roman techniques of manufacturing silver- plated coins, in Metal Plating and Patination, (eds. S. La Niece, P. Craddock), Oxford 1 993, 224. 6' M. Alfdldi (n. 57), Tafel V. S2D. Protase, C. Gaiu, Castrul roman de la llisua, Bistrita 1997, 165, no. 163; pi. LXXXVII/ 162. 53 R. Ardevan, C. lonescu, Atelierul de contrafaceri monetare de la Hoghiz, in Al XV-lea Simpozion national de numismatica, Barlad, 1998 (forthcoming). We would like to express our gratitude to Prof. R. Ardevan who allowed us to use this unpublished information. 64The coins are kept in the Museum of Sarmizegetusa, Inv. no: 34282, 34268, 34269. We would like to express our gratitude to the director of the museum, Mr. Gica Baiestean, who kindly allowed us to study these coins. 65The genuine coin for these casts (inv. no. 34282, 34268) was minted at Rome in AD 121-122, cf. RIC II, p. 420, no. 616(a). 66 Museum of Sarmizegetusa, inv. no. 34269. The genuine coin is a sestertius minted at Rome in AD 238-239, see RIC IV.3, p. 43, no. 258. 144 Cristian Gazdac, Agnes Alfoldy-Gazdac Augusta Raurica57. In this case these coins probably played the role of what was called "monnaie de necessite" or "Notgeld", which A. Kunisz has defined as monetary series "produced without official authorization in order to supplement a short-term insufficiency of circulating coin which had inhibited commercial exchanges"68 and G. Boon added that these false coins "continue until, eventually good new coin was provided".69 In this light it may be considered that even the legislation offered some measure of support. In the lex Cornelia de falsis it is mentioned that: "Eadem legem exprimitur, ne quis nummos stanneos plumbeos emere vendere dolo malo vellet."70. According to some authors this could indicate that it was considered an offence to counterfeit, sale or buy such coin with intent to defraud71. 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 gold7Z. 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. 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 entirely consisting of copies73, which probably had a special destination, the imitative coins are very rarely found in other hoards from the area of the Lower Danube. In the hoards from Roman Dacia, coin copies are seldom found, and only in very small numbers74. As King suggested "the false coin in any metal was unpopular and discarded at the earliest opportunity"75. Beside the imitative silver coinage, a bronze cast coinage completes the general picture of Roman coin copies in Dacia. Furthermore, the cast bronze produced in Dacia seems to have a longer existence than the similar issues found in Pannonia. In Pannonia the minting of the cast bronze coins, the so-called Limesfalsa, ceased the mint from Viminacium was opened in AD 2 3 9 76. In Roman Dacia this type of coins are still produced even after the opening of the mint of the province in AD 246 as the spoilt cast coins from Hoghiz proved. The explanation could be a way to fill the need for a hypothetical scarce production and supply of bronze coinage during the reign of Philip I and especially after. 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 67 M. Peter, Eine Werkstatte zur Herstellung von subaeraten Denaren in Augusta Raurica, SFMA 7, 1990, 74 ff. 68 A. Kunisz, La monnaie de necessite a I'epoque du haut-empire romain: problemes et controverses, in Rhythmes de la production monetaire de I'antiquite a nos jours (eds. G. Depeyrot/ T. Hackens, G. Mouchart), Louvain-la -Neuve 1 987, 256. 69 G. Boon, Counterfeit coins in Roman Britain, in Coins and the Archaeologist, BAR 4, 1 974, 117 f; C. King (n. 50), 244. 70 Digest. 48.10. 9. 71 G. Boon, op.cit., 11 3. n Dio Cassius 78, 14, 4. 73 Concerning presence of ancient copies in the hoards from the Lower Danube, it must be acknowledged that the denarii have mainly been considered as the separation between genuine and faked antoninianii/ radiates is still not dearly reflected in the research in this area. 7',For the hoards from Dacia see V. Suciu, Tezaure monetare din Dacia romana si postromana, Cluj- Napoca 2000, the catalogue; for the provinces from the Lower Danube see C. Gazdac (n. 29), the catalogues of hoards from Dacia and the surroundings provinces, manuscript; also for the most recently Roman hoard found in Dacia, containing plated silver coins, see N. Gudea (n. 45), 35 ff. 75 C. King (n. 50), 246. 76C. Gazdac (n. 29), chap. 3. THE ROMAN LAW AGAINST COUNTERFEITING BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE 145 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. Some possible factors of this outbreak in this period have already been suggested: A change to the denominational system followed by a debasement of the silver coinage77; A failure to supply bronze coin north of the Alps78. The higher percentage of plated silver denominations in Dacia in comparison with the both provinces of Pannonia could be a result of the large number of auxiliary troops (see Graph). This aspect also indicates that the outbreaks of the 2nd and 3rd centuries of imitative coinage took place not only in the western frontier provinces of the Empire but also in Dacia79. Such a large number of Roman copies in Dacia raises 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 (see Plate, no. 5), spoilt cast coins (see Plate, no. 3, 4), coin-shaped bars (see Plate, no. 6) in the 3rd century have been recovered, especially from Britain and Gaul80 (see Maps 1 and 2). At the moments no moulds to cast bronze or silver coins were found in Roman Dacia. Owing to the presence of the spoilt bronze casts from Hoghiz, a monetary workshop was hypothetical^ located at this site81. For similar reasons another monetary workshop may have been located at the auxiliary fort of llisua (see Plate no. 4). It has been generally considered reasonable that "if very large quantities of imitations are recovered from a site then the copies may have been [hypothetical^] produced within or near it"82. On the basis of these criteria, in Dacia until now the presence of a ..semi-official" mints at Porolissum has been suggested83. Some authors have also suggested such a mint at Apulum, based on the discovery of a hoard entirely consisting of denarii copies84. This argument can also be used in the case of the monetary workshop from llisua where the plated denarii represents 56.4% of the total number this denomination found at this site. The possibility that the workshop from llisua 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 together85. 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. For all these aspects, Roman Dacia can be considered a representative example. 77 M. Orlandini, Le monete romani imperial! 'coulees en Gauie' degli scavi di Aosta, RINS 87, 1985, 61 ff. , B Ibidem; A. Kunisz, La monnaie de necessite dans les provinces rhenanes et danubiennes de I'empire romain dans la premiere moitie du lit2, in Les 'devaluations' a Rome, epoque republicaine et imperiale, vol. 2, Rome 1980, 136; C. King (n. 50), 243. 79 For the concentration of the outbreaks of the Roman coin copies in the 2nd and 3rd century AD in the western frontier provinces see Cathy King (n. 50), 246. 80 Ibidem, 241. 81 See n. 56. 62 Ibidem. 831. Winkler, Despre circulapa monetara la Porolissum, AMN 1, 1964, 220. WV. Suciu (n. 46), 328. 85 C. King (n. 50), 241. 1 46 Cristian Gazdac, Agnes Alfoldy-Gazdac Comparative tables of the genuine and plated denominations from sites of Roman Dacia VLPIA TRAIANA SARMIZEGETVSA = SARMIZEGETUSA Denarii Period Genuine Plated Total No % No % 1 7 1 1 r 24 85.7 4 14.2 28 117 1 3ft 17 89.4 C 1 U.j 1 3 1 3fi-1 ftl 1 3o 1 D 1 16 88.8 c 111 ii.! 1 ft 1 o iei i on 1o 1 - 1 oU 7 87.5 1 1 ? C 1 0 1 ftn i 4 100 i y3-t i o 51 80.9 1 c. K3 £ i o-£3 0 57 81.4 1 3 1 u.j 7H 7 3 ft-2 ■5 J i nn 1 uu ?Gft t D3-ttDO 176 82.6 IT! ?1 1 a ni /i \ /ij a i □ * II n i a Arla.VTw = ALoA IULIA Denarii Period Genuine Klated I otai No % No % 98-117 16 100 16 117-138 19 100 19 138-161 36 97.2 1 2.7 37 161-180 25 89.2 3 10.7 28 180-192 6 100 6 193-218 112 92.5 9 7.4 121 218-238 153 92.1 13 7.8 166 238-244 1 100 1 244-249 249-253 253-268 Total 367 93.1 27 6.8 394 Antoniniani Genuine No % 10 8 5 3 83.3 100 100 100 Antoniniani Genuine No % 2 2 108 103 118 95 428 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Plated No Total No 16 19 37 28 6 123 168 109 103 118 95 822 Total % 16.6 7.1 Total No 28 19 18 8 4 63 70 12 15 8 8 S 5 3 3 28 241 POROLISSVM - MOIGRAD Denarii Antoniniani Period Genuine Plated Total Genuine Plated Tota! No % No % No % No % 98-117 36 73.4 13 26.5 49 117-138 37 86 6 13.9 43 138-161 71 86.5 11 13.4 82 161-180 42 85.7 7 14.2 49 180-192 10 50 10 50 20 193-218 119 59.5 81 40.5 200 2 50 2 50 4 218-238 72 67.9 34 32 106 1 50 1 50 2 Total No 49 43 82 49 20 204 108 THE ROMAN LAW AGAINST COUNTERFEITING BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE 147 238-244 244-249 249-253 253-268 Total 387 70.4 162 29.5 549 15 88.2 8 72.7 5 100 1 100 32 80 2 11.7 3 27.2 8 20 17 17 11 11 5 5 1 1 40 589 NAPOCA = CLUJ-NAPOCA Denarii Antoniniani Total Period Genuine Plated Total Genuine No % No % No % No 98-117 2 66.6 1 33.3 3 3 117-138 1 100 1 1 138-161 2 100 2 2 161-180 4 33.3 2 66.6 3 3 180-192 i 100 1 1 193-218 2 100 2 2 218-238 3 100 3 3 238-244 2 100 2 244-249 1 100 1 253-268 1 100 1 Total 12 80 3 20 15 4 100 19 POTAISSA = TURDA Denarii Antoniniani Period Genuine Plated Total Genuine Plated Total No % No % No % No % 98-117 17 100 17 117-138 10 100 10 138-161 33 100 33 161-180 21 100 21 180-192 11 100 11 193-218 105 96.3 4 3.6 109 218-238 93 89.4 11 10.5 104 238-244 7 100 7 15 93.7 1 6.2 16 244-249 12 100 12 249-253 4 100 4 253-268 5 100 5 Total 297 95.1 15 4.8 312 36 97.2 1 2.7 37 Total No 17 10 33 21 11 109 104 23 12 4 5 349 TIBISCVM m JUPA Denarii Antoniniani Total Period Genuine Plated Total Genuine No % No % No % No 98-117 7 87.5 1 12.5 8 8 117-138 4 80 1 20 5 5 138-161 10 90.9 1 9 11 11 180-192 1 100 1 1 193-218 1 20 4 80 5 5 218-238 5 83.3 1 16.6 6 6 148 Cristian Gazdac, Agnes Alfoldy-Gazdac 238-244 249-253 253-268 Total 1 100 29 78.3 8 21.6 1 3 1 3 37 7 100 4 100 1 100 3 100 44 DIERNA = ORSOVA Denarii Antoniniani Total Period Genuine Plated Total Genuine Plated Total No % No % No % No % No 98-117 1 100 1 1 193-218 4 100 4 4 218-238 3 75 1 25 4 4 244-249 3 75 1 25 4 4 249-253 1 100 1 1 253-268 4 100 4 4 Total 8 88.8 1 11.1 9 8 88.8 1 11.1 9 18 DROBETA - DROBETA-TURNU SEVERIN Denarii Antoniniani Total Period Genuine Plated Total Genuine No % No % No % No 98-117 4 100 4 4 117-138 2 100 2 2 138-161 2 100 2 2 180-192 1 100 1 1 193-218 3 60 2 40 5 5 218-238 5 50 5 50 10 1 100 11 238-244 3 100 3 244-249 10 100 10 249-253 2 100 2 253-268 28 100 28 Total 17 70.8 7 29.1 24 44 100 68 BUCIUMI Denarii Antoniniani Total Period Genuine Plated Total Genuine No % No % No % No 98-117 10 71.4 4 28.5 14 14 117-138 1 33.3 2 66.6 3 3 138-161 8 66.6 4 33.3 12 12 161-180 ms?- ■ 83.3 1 16.6 6 6 180-192 1 100 1 1 193-218 27 100 27 27 218-238 13 61.9 8 38 21 21 238-244 5 100 5 244-249 3 100 3 Total 65 77.3 19 22.6 84 8 100 92 THE ROMAN LAW AGAINST COUNTERFEITING BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE 149 ROMITA Denarii Antoniniani Total IUSUA GHERLA Period Genuine Plated Total Genuine Plated Total No % No % No % No % No 98-117 1 100 1 1 117-138 4 100 4 4 138-161 3 100 3 3 1 a, a, t ""■ 180-192 2 100 2 2 193-218 5 71.4 2 28.5 7 7 a /"» aaa 218-238 8 88.8 1 11.1 9 9 aaa a j J 238-244 1 50 1 50 2 2 244-249 1 100 1 1 Total 23 88.4 3 11.5 26 2 66.6 1 33.3 3 29 Denarii Antoniniani Total Period Genuine Plated Total Genuine Plated Total No % No % No % No % No 98-117 2 33.3 4 66.6 6 6 117-138 5 100 5 5 138-161 4 57.1 3 42.8 7 7 a -i 1 a A 161-180 2 50 2 50 4 4 1 80-192 1 50 1 50 2 2 193-218 7 31.8 1 5 68.1 22 22 218-238 6 46.1 7 53.8 13 13 a; a, A A j j 238-244 3 100 3 1 33.3 2 66.6 3 6 244-249 5 83.3 1 1 6.6 6 6 Total 27 43.5 35 56.4 62 6 66.6 3 33.3 9 71 Denarii Antoniniani Total Period Genuine Plated Total Genuine Plated Total No % No % No % No % No 98-117 17 94.4 1 5.5 18 18 117-138 8 88.8 1 11.1 9 9 138-161 13 92.8 1 7.1 14 14 161-180 7 87.5 1 12.5 8 8 180-192 1 100 1 1 193-218 32 86.4 5 13.5 37 37 218-238 20 95.2 1 4.7 21 21 238-244 4 100 4 4 244-249 2 66.6 1 33.3 3 3 253-268 1 100 1 1 Total 98 90.7 10 9.2 108 7 87.5 1 12.5 8 116 150 Cristian Gazdac, Agnes Alfoldy-Gazdac MEHADIA Period 98-117 117-138 138-161 180-192 193-218 218-238 238-244 244-249 249-253 253-268 Total MICASASA Period 98-117 117-138 138-161 161-180 180-192 193-218 218-238 Total ORLEA Period 98-117 117-138 138-161 161-180 180-192 193-218 218-238 238-244 244-249 249-253 253-268 Total Denarii Antoniniani Total Genuine Plated Total Genuine No % No % No % No 5 100 5 5 1 50 1 50 2 2 4 100 4 4 1 100 1 1 6 66.6 3 33.3 9 9 19 95 1 5 20 20 3 100 3 7 100 7 1 100 1 1 100 1 36 87.8 5 12.1 41 12 100 53 Denarii Total Genuine Plated No % No % No 6 85.7 1 14.2 7 6 100 6 4 57.1 3 42.8 7 3 75 1 25 4 3 100 3 11 61.1 7 38.8 18 5 27.7 3 16.6 8 38 71.6 15 28.3 53 Denarii Antoniniani Total Genuine Plated Total Genuine Plated Total No % No % No % No % No 1 100 1 1 4 80 1 20 5 5 7 63.6 4 36.3 11 11 5 71.4 2 28.5 7 7 5 83.3 1 16.6 6 6 31 62 19 38 50 50 24 53.3 21 46.6 45 45 2 100 2 6 75 2 25 8 10 5 100 5 5 2 100 2 2 3 100 3 3 79 62.2 48 37.7 127 16 88.8 2 11.1 18 144 THE ROMAN LAW AGAINST COUNTERFEITING BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE 151 a .to i CD E p o % E o c <u ■a i- 1 ■a 8 a. & 2 .1 « a. E 8 O a: RIO HI LU cl z w < z z o o z z < < < a a. Q. □ □ ■ in J n 3 3 1 52 Cristian Gazdac, Agnes Alfoldy-Gazdac Map 1. Finds of moulds for casting coins (after C. King [n. 50]) THE ROMAN LAW AGAINST COUNTERFEITING BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE 153 Map 2. Mints (after C. King [n. 50]) 154 6 _ 1. Plated antoninianus found at Apulum. 2. Bottom of composite mould, showing obverse of denarius of Severus Alexander and reverse of Gordian 111, found at Pachten (after G. Boon [n. 67] 158-1 59, pi. II. no. 7a). 3. Spoilt casts of sestertii from two-piece slab-moulds from Brigetio (after G. Boon [n. 67] 108, fig. 1). 4. Spoilt cast of a sestertius showing obverse and reverse of Antoninus Pius, found in the auxiliary fort at llisua (after D. Protase, C. Gaiu [n. 60] pi. LXXXVII/162). 5. Coin die found at Augusta Raurica: reverse of M. Aurelius for Lucilla (the genuine coin was issued at Rome between AD 164-169, RIC III p. 274, no. 759) (after M. Peter [n. 65] 131 f., pi. 18). 6. Coin-shaped bars for denarii found at the mint at Augusta Raurica (after M. Peter [n. 65] 104 f., PI. 4)