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
On the edge of the market economy: coins used in social transactions, as ornaments and as bullion in the Roman Empire Johan van Heesch
Outside the borders of the Roman world coins were mainly used in a different way than within the empire. But even in the Roman provinces they could function on different levels. In this contribution I intend to describe how during the Roman imperial period coins were also used in transactions other than those founded on rational economic behaviour related to a measurable and quantifiable profit; how they were also used in all kinds of social transactions without expectation of an immediate return, or just simply as ornament or bullion. In most societies coinage was introduced gradually. In the beginning it was only used by a minority of the population, and often the denominational system was so underdeveloped that the coins could only be used in a limited set of transactions1. To describe these phenomena, anthropologists often make the distinction between special–purpose money and all–purpose money. Though a generalisation, this classification is quite useful. All–purpose money is typical for fully monetised societies. Its properties were well described by Marvin Harris2. It should have the qualities of: portability, divisibility (multiples and small denominations), convertibility (all denominations can be used for any transaction), generality (all objects and services have a monetary value), anonymity (all that is needed for a transaction is money; neither contracts nor the names of the parties are a necessity) and legality (controlled by the state). A fully monetised society therefore is one where this particular type of money is used by everybody for most market transactions. Under the Roman emperors the complex denominational system (in the Early Empire nine denominations), and the general availability of coins to most classes of the population all over the empire allow us to characterize this society as one that was almost fully monetised and used all–purpose money3. This is, of course, an oversimplification! There was an evolution through time, a difference between city and countryside, a divergence between the most and the least populated areas, and probably, also a discrepancy in coin use between social strata. But it remains a fact that in the entire history of Western Europe stray finds (dominated by small change) are only abundant for the Roman period and from the 14th and 15th century onwards (when poor billon coins and coppers appeared)4. But, and this will be the topic of my paper, even in a society were coin use reached a more sophisticated level, more archaic and non-monetary uses exist side by side. I would like to make a distinction between two categories. The first covers all kinds of social transactions where coins lose their primary function of money, and are used in a more symbolic way. Though they retain their “official” character as legal tender, they are used in a different sphere of exchange. In most of these transactions the coins can simply be substituted by other items or activities. One can give money for a birthday, but also replace it by a present; you can offer a pigeon to the gods, but equally coins will do. The primary purpose of these transactions is
1 2
On the origins of coinage see e.g. Le Rider G. 2001. Hodges R. 1988, p. 103 with a reference to Harris M. 1980, p. 239–240. 3 I am well aware of the fact that this is not generally agreed upon. See e.g. Howgego C. 1992, p. 1–31 and Howgego C. 1994, p. 5–21. 4 Any archaeological report publishing a site (mostly urban) that has been occupied over a long period and containing coins finds will confirm this. 49
securing the cohesion of groups or regulating in one or the other way relationships that are not entirely commercial. The second sub-category concerns the use of coins in a completely different way, i.e. when they stop being legal tender. This happens when coins are transformed into collectables, amulets, ingots, ornaments, etc. To the first category of “non-monetary uses of coins” belong most categories of 'gifts', be they between men or between men and the gods. In all cultures gift-giving plays a very interesting role. It can be used to demonstrate wealth and power, but also just be a sign of one’s liberality. Gifts create not only bonds, but also obligations between those concerned. They seem innocent, but they can have the power to modify the social tissue. Universally known are the famous potlatchs of certain First Nations people (or Native Americans) on the Pacific North–West coast of Northern America, which are characterised by the distribution of gifts meant to impress and increase the status of the participants. It prompted responses from others families who in turn tried to impress by their potlatch, and so on. The Romans practised gift-giving in a number of social processes. Liberalitas or benignitas was much praised as a virtue. It was almost as important as iustitia (justice)5. Coins were frequently used as gifts in Roman times. Some of these ceremonial donations were so institutionalised that they became an important aspect of wage–payment, for example donativa to soldiers, or an important aspect of social support/aid, such as the congiaria to the people of Rome6. Their importance increased with the growth of individualism in Roman politics and the emergence of autocratic rulership. Other institutionalised gifts such as sportulae, New Years gifts and offerings to the gods, played an equally important role for large segments of society. Sportulae are the gifts a patron offered to his clients during their daily salutation7. Though sportulae were originally baskets of food, they tended to be money–gifts during the Imperial period. Most of our knowledge about these comes from the rather unreliable texts of Juvenal and Martial. Mention is made of sportulae of 100 quadrantes (mentioned four times), 30 nummi, and 1 as8. These donations create a bond between the clients and the patron, and confirm their mutual commitment to support each other. They guarantee the cohesion of a group of unequal status outside the operations of “the state”9. Another occasion when a ceremonial gift of coin that was very popular in Roman times took place was at the end of each year. On New Year’s Day all kinds of objects were exchanged between members of the family, between masters and servants, and between the people and the emperor. These New Year’s gifts were called strenae. Very popular were biscuits, dates, honey cakes and nuts. They not only refer to the rebirth of nature and the agricultural world, they also symbolize the sweetness of this first day of the year and express the hope that “the whole course of the year may be sweet” (Ovid)10. Coins were also a popular gift; they, of course, symbolized material wealth and fortune11. The gift of coins on New Year’s day is well documented. Dio Cassius writing about Augustus says: “The citizens, it seems, were nearly always and on every pretext collecting money ... (and) would come to him on the very first day of the
5 6
Verboven K. 2002, p. 35–36; Kloft H. 1970. On donativa and congiaria see e.g. Duncan-Jones R. 1994, 39–41, 248–250; on congiaria? van Berchem D. 1939 and also Millar F. 1977, p. 135–139. For a recent bibliography on the subject see Szaivert W., Wolters R. 2005, p. 370–372. Also Metcalf W. E. 1993, p. 337–346. 7 Verboven K. 2002, p. 95–102. 8 Cloud D. 1989, p. 210; Verboven K. 2002, p. 98–99; Szaivert W., Wolters R. 2005, p. 60, 287 (with all references to Martial and Iuvenal). 9 Johnson T., Dandeker Ch. 1989, p. 219–245. 10 Ovid, Fasti p. 185–189. 11 Meslin M. 1970. 50
year and give, some more, some less, into his own hands; and he, after adding as much or more again, would return it, not only to the senators but to all the rest”12. The fact that the receiver had to return a gift or even a multiple of it is a recurrent theme. Suetonius reports of Tiberius that: “He issued an edict forbidding general kissing, as well as the exchange of New Year's gifts after the Calends of January. It was his custom to return a gift four-fold value, and in person; but annoyed at being interrupted all through the month by those who did not have access to him on the holiday, he did not continue it”13. Interesting are the moral judgements of the Romans on the gift of coins on this occasion. At the very beginning of our era Ovid puts the following words in the mouth of Janus: “Nowadays nothing but money counts: fortune brings honours and friendship”14. The author of the Historia Augusta makes Hadrian say of the Egyptians: “For these people money is the only god” (unus illis deus nummus est)15. This illustrates well the general attitude towards the important role money played for some. Most illuminating is also the sermon On the Festivals of the Calends written by Asterius of Amasea c. AD 40016. It not only shows that the tradition of giving coins still existed, it also condemns it as being a completely useless practice. Asterius writes: “With a voice feeble and faint the salutation drops from the lips. Then follows the kiss, as a prelude to the New Year's present. The mouth is kissed, but it is the coin that is loved...Those who have received a gift do not retain it... The money in this festival is as unstable as the ball of boys at play... it all moves by degrees towards the pockets of the most eminent men”. A few paragraphs later he also discusses the absurdity of the distribution of large sums of money by officials and consuls, and proposes to give instead to the poor, the widows, the orphans. What kind of coins were given? Ovid (43 BC – AD 17) makes Janus say: “In the olden time the gifts were coppers, but now gold gives a better omen, and the old fashioned coin has been vanquished and made way for the new (prisca/nova moneta)”17. But old coins remained popular as a New Year’s gift. Ovid mentions the old asses with Janus on the obverse and a prow on the reverse18, and these very same coins are also represented on New Year’s oil lamps next to other gifts of coin and sweets19. Ausonius, writing in the late 4th century, mentions the gift of six royal coins of Philip of Macedon by the emperor, but as the same letter is full of references to ancient authors, myths and the past, this should probably not be taken too literally20. Still, the occasional use of old coins underlines the “symbolic” character of this custom. The offering of coins to the gods may also be considered as a “non-monetary” use of coins. It can, of course, be seen as payment in return for favours, or as a temple tax. But as not only coins but also all kinds of objects were used as donations in sanctuaries, and as the prime function was, or should have been, on a level more elevated than plain commerce, I think it should be included here. The list of votive deposits from all over the empire and from all centuries is long, and it cannot be our intention to consider them in any detail21. One of the most famous places where coins were sacrificed is to be found in Rome. Suetonius tells us of
12 13
Dio, 54, 35 (translation Cary). Suetonius, Tib. 34. 14 Ovid, Fasti I, 215–220. 15 HA, Quadr. Tyr./Firmus e.a. 8,6 cited by Bogaert R. 1975, p. 839 (Hadrian commenting on the Egyptians, no connection with New Year gifts). 16 Asterios cf. Migne J. P., p. 218–219. For the English translation of Anderson G., Johnson Goodspeed E. 1904 see: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/asterius_04_sermon4.htm 17 Ovid, Fasti I, 221–224 (translation: Miller, Goold). 18 Ovid, Fasti, I 229–232. 19 Alföldi A., Alföldi E. 1990, plate 243 and Hellman M.-C. 1987, 25–37, plates 3, 4. 20 Ausonius, Epistles, XIII, 4–6. 21 Sauer E. 2005. 51
Lacus Curtius, a mysterious monument in the Forum where “all sorts and conditions of men, in fulfilment of a vow for [Augustus'] welfare, each year threw a coin into the basin”22. Often coins were ritually “killed” as Sauer puts it in his recently published Ph.D. thesis23. Coins received one or more cuts to demonetise them for ever. Others where “adapted” to become ritual objects, for example, the well known asses of Nîmes with a pig’s leg, or the coin of Severus struck in Pautalia with metal protuberances24. The detailed study of coin finds from the military spa at Bourbonne–les–Bains in France revealed yet another curiosity. Large quantities of halved coins struck in Nîmes and with the back-to-back portraits of Agrippa and Augustus were found in the sacred spring, and statistical analysis of the complex showed that a deliberate selection seems to have taken place as more halves with Augustus' head than with Agrippa's portrait were deposited25! Gifts are a vast subject, and besides those already mentioned there are also donations from the people and the cities to the emperor, gifts from the emperor to foreign rulers, and many others such as dowries etc.26. It is time however to move on to our second part: the use of coins as objects outside the legal monetary system. Evidence for coin collecting in Antiquity is flimsy. Besides some hoards containing old medals, two sources offer some information. Suetonius points out that Augustus distributed coins “including old pieces of the kings and foreign money” “on the Saturnalia (end of December) and at any other time”, and Pliny in his Natural History curiously mentions that falsi denarii are bought for several good denarii27. That old coins were still appreciated in the 4th century is also shown by the contorniates, medals sometimes reproducing coins of Alexander, Trajan and Nero28. In the same century, old imperial medallions were used as ornaments in the catacombs of Rome29. Coins used as amulets are also known30. They are mentioned by John Chrysostom in his Instructions to Catechumens31. In his day, writes Chrysostom, copper (sic) coins of Alexander of Macedon were used as charms and worn around the head or feet. Passing quickly over the golden and silver coins as gaming pieces mentioned by Trimalchio in Petronius’ Satyricon, we now turn to the use of coins as raw material, as bullion32. Coins may of course only be used as raw material when they are completely obsolete, or when their intrinsic value was not higher than their commercial or legal purchasing power. It is, however, also possible that the value of the final product (e.g. jewellery) was so high that the melting down of coins for metal could be taken into consideration. That obsolete coins were used by private persons as bullion is quite probable. Hoards of old coins were found in all periods and most of these coins must have ended in the melting pot. Some escaped being melted down, for example a sestertius of Claudius from the coin
22 23
Suetonius, Aug. LVII (transl. Rolfe). Sauer E. 2005. 24 For the Nîmes coins see e.g. Veyrac A. 1998, 13–14 and 39–47; auction Gorny, Mosch, Auktion 121, 20 March 2003, no 306. 25 Sauer E. 205, p. 118. 26 See note 6. 27 Suetonius, Aug. LXXV (transl. Rolfe) and Pliny, Naturalis Historia, XXXIII, 46, 132. 28 Mittag P. F. 1999. 29 Tocci M. 1965. 30 See e.g. Rosella P. 1993, 347–361 31 Chrysostom, Instructions to Catechumens, Patrologiae Graeca (Migne J. P.) 49, p. 240. 32 Petronius, 33, 2. 52
cabinet in Munich recovered from the Tiber, reused as the head of a nail. The top is decorated with a rim and is polished, on the reverse, the head of the emperor is still visible33. A very interesting find, discovered in 1985, comes from Snettisham in Norfolk (UK)34. It was probably concealed c. AD 160. It is a jeweller's hoard containing silver ingots, bracelets, rings, 117 carnelian seal–stones, most of them not yet mounted, and 110 coins. The 27 bronze coins are considered as small change of the jeweller, but the strangest feature are the silver coins. 74 out of 83 denarii are of Domitian (died AD 96)! All these coins were struck between AD 85 and 96 and belong to coin series which have a much better silver content than similar coins from Domitian's predecessors or even the coins of Trajan and Hadrian (e.g. 93.5 versus 91.5 %). Apparently, they were selected by the owner for their better metal value. The difference from other denarius issues is, however, small (only 2 %), and profit must have been negligible if these coins were really meant to be melted down. With a fineness between 61 and 89% the silver bars from the hoard have a much lower silver content than the coins. This brings us to the fundamental problem of the value of Roman coins: were they overvalued or not? If they were heavily overvalued, if their purchasing power or rate of exchange was much higher than their intrinsic or metallic value, then using coins as bullion would have been irrational senseless. Several books have been written on this subject, and the sources have been meticulously commented on35. Yet the evidence is not always simple to interpret. What should we think, for example, of the data provided by the Edict on the Maximum Prices published in AD 301 by Diocletian? A pound of gold in ingots or in coin (in regulis sive in solidis, 30,1a) is priced identically at 72,000 denarii! But a pound of silver is tariffed at 6,000 denarii (30, 9), while a pound of good silver coins (argentei) is tariffed at 9,600 denarii, that is a difference of almost 60 % between bullion and coined silver36! This is not the place to study the problem in detail, but it is possible to make a number of observations. First of all it appears quite reasonable to suppose that coins struck al marco were in a way fiduciary. Secondly, it is probable that the percentage of overvaluation was highre for the cheaper bronze coins than for the expensive gold ones, mostly struck al pezzo. It is also to be expected that governments or mint masters, even during Antiquity, tried to obtain a maximum benefit from their coinage without endangering the trust in it. Coins had to be overvalued if only to allow old and worn coins, or those of a lower fineness to co-exist in the same circulation pool. Coin hoards from the Principate largely demonstrate this; old and worn aurei of Nero are still in circulation and hoarded at the end of the 2nd and in the early 3rd century AD37. How much aurei were actually overvalued is hard to calculate, but on the evidence of papyri Guey proposes figures between 3 and 10%38. That coins were a less probable source of raw metal for private individuals (forgers excluded, of course) is fairly easy to demonstrate from Roman legal texts39. These make it clear that coins are not weighed but counted. Gaius (2nd cent. AD), talking of a distant past,
33
Many thanks to B. Overbeck for providing the photograph for my presentation. This object is mentioned in Maué H., Veit L. (eds.) 1982, p. 138. 34 Johns C. 1997, (with a contribution on the coins by Burnett). 35 Bolin S. 1958; Hasler K. 1980; Pankiewicz R. 1989. 36 On the Price Edict: Corcoran S. 2000, p. 205–233 and for these prices in particular see Crawford M. H., Reynolds J. M. 1979, p. 164, 176 and 197. 37 Duncan–Jones R. 1994, p. 208. 38 Guey J. 1966, p. 464. 39 Hasler K. 1980. 53
writes “In those times, a person paying money would not count it but weigh it / eorumque nummorum vis et potestas non in numero erat, sed in pondere”40. Coins are called pecunia numerata, and when talking about coins, silver, wine, oil and grain he says that these are identified by weight, number or measure41. The same can be deduced from several texts in the Digests of Justinian, a compilation of quotations of mainly early Roman jurists. An example of this difference in appreciation or treatment of bullion and coins is given by the following passage in Ulpian (early 3th century AD): “When gold or silver is bequeathed, any gold or silver which was left is included in the legacy, whether manufactured or not. It is, however, well established that money, which is coined (pecunia signatam), is not included in the legacy”42 and: “[...] no one ordinarily classes his money as silver–ware. Likewise, where manufactured silver is bequeathed, I do not think that coins are included43. Finally I would like to talk about what seems to be the most evident non-monetary use of coins: their use as ornaments. Sestertii and especially Roman bronze medallions were used as mirrors, boxes for pocket sundials, etc.44. Gold and silver coins were particularly popular as jewellery, and quite a few of them survive. That old coins were mounted in jewellery is also mentioned in Justinian's Digest, quoting the 2nd century jurist Pomponius. In the Digest we read that “For old gold and silver coins which are ordinarily used for ornaments, a usufruct can be bequeathed”45. However, pierced coins are surprisingly rare in Roman contexts. J. – P. Callu found only seven perforated aurei among almost 2000 aurei known from Gaul46. The oldest is of Hadrian (117–138), the most recent of Marcian (450–457) and as such evidently lost after the Romans had abandoned the Rhine frontier. Brenot and Metzger published an inventory of coin jewellery in the Roman West47. They list: two paterae, four fibulae, 15 rings, six bracelets and almost 50 necklaces48. While in the East (especially Egypt) jewellery made from coins was often worn by men, and appears to have been made throughout the imperial period, the jewellery from Gaul seems to be for women. Most of the examples found in the West were produced in the 3rd century, between the reigns of the Severi and Postumus. How can this be explained? Is this simply a reflection of changing taste or fashion, or is it due only to the fact that many more hoards are known from the 3rd century? Both explanations are acceptable, but it should be remembered that the 3rd century witnessed “the clash of the coinages”. Not only did silver coinage deteriorate, even gold coins were reduced in weight and around AD 253 their fineness lowered49. The old exchange rate of 25 denarii for one aureus could not be sustained. Gold not only became rare because of the loss of mining regions or their exhaustion, it was also preferred for hoarding. In the third century receiving pay in gold seems to have been an
40 41
Gaius, Institutes I, 123. For the translation see: Gordon W. M., Robinson O. F. 1988. Gaius, Institutes, III, 90. 42 Dig. 34,2, 19. 43 Ulpian in the Dig. 34,2, 27. 44 Mirrors: Besombes P. A. 1998, p. 119–140 and Dahmen K. 1998, p. 319–345; sundials: Buchner E. 1971, p. 457–482 and Buchner E. 1976, p. 329–346. 45 Digest 7,1, 38. 46 Callu J.-P. 1991, p. 103. 47 Brenot C., Metzger C. 1992, p. 313 –371. Also Brenot C., Loriot X., Nony D. 1999, p. 186. 48 A third patera with a gold medallion of Gallienus is published in Biancamaria F., Delmon Casanova J. L. 2004, p. 96. 49 Callu J.-P., Brenot C., Barrandon J.-N., Poirier J. 1985, p. 81–96. 54
honour and is even mentioned in inscriptions as a special favour50. Gold coins of Gallienus illustrate well the complexity and the general collapse of the system; pieces vary in weight from 1.31g to 49 grams, in a system that is hard to understand51. In Historia Augusta we find gold coins named after the emperors who struck them (antoniniani, philippei, valeriani, saloniniani, etc.), and this may very well be a reflection of these troubled times. By giving the name of an emperor to a coin, the user gets a general idea of its weight52. It is not at all difficult therefore to imagine how gold coins became not only a good investment but also a sign of wealth and a mark of distinction enabling the owners to demonstrate their privileged status in society. By way of conclusion I would like to quote a remarkable legal text transmitted by Gaius (2nd cent. AD). Describing the transfer (sale) or mancipation of women, animals or land in a sort of imaginary sale, he writes that the transfer is sealed with the use of bronze scales and a piece of bronze. The text runs as follows: “Then one strikes the scales with the bronze, and gives it to him from whom he is taking by mancipation by way of a price. The reason for the use of the bronze and the scales is because in earlier times men used only copper money; there were the “as”, the dupondii, the semisses and the quadrantes, and no gold or silver coin was in use”53. This reminds us of the Fetiales priests who in an age when most tools were of iron still slaughtered pigs using a stone knife54. More than any other example of gift–giving, these fossilised customs demonstrate how in a highly developed society, with complex economic transactions and using a complex monetary system, relics of more primitive economic systems persist and exist side by side. In a way we could say that in societies which reached the level of all–purpose coinage, most aspects of “special purpose money” continue to exist. The more complex the society becomes, the more different levels of coin–use we shall find55.
Bibliography
ALFÖLDI A., ALFÖLDI E. 1990, Die Kontorniat–Medaillons, 2, Antike Münzen und Geschnitte Steine, vol. VI, teil 2, Berlin, New York. ANDERSON G., JOHNSON GOODSPEED E. 1904, Ancient Sermons for Modern Times by Asterius, Bishop of Amasia Circa, New York, p. 375–405. BERCHEM D. v. 1939, Les distributions de blé et d’argent à la plèbe romaine sous l’empire, Genève. BESOMBES P. A. 1998, Les miroirs de Néron, Revue numismatique 153, p. 119–140. BIANCAMARIA F., DELMON CASANOVA J. L. 2004, Le trésor de Lava. La fièvre de l’or romain chez les plongeurs corses, Paris. BOGAERT R. 1975, Geld, [in:] Klauser Th. (ed.), Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, Stuttgart, p. 839. BOLIN S. 1958, State and currency in the Roman Empire to 300 A.D., Stockholm.
50
Thorigny-inscription: Pflaum H. G. 1948, p. 9 (line III, 16), p. 27; Loriot X. 2003, p. 60; Loriot X. 1973, p. 464–467. 51 Doyen J.-M. 1987, p. 293. 52 See Callu J.-P. 1969, p. 133 note 5. For all numismatic expressions in the HA see Menadier K. 1914, p. 136– 139. 53 Gaius, Institutes I, 116–123 (For the translation see Gordon W. M., Robinson F. 1988). 54 Livy, I, 24, 9. 55 I am very grateful to David Wigg–Wolf for editing the English of this paper. 55
BRENOT C., LORIOT X., NONY D. 1999, Aspects d'histoire économique et monétaire de Marc Aurèle à Constantin, 161–337 après J.-C, Paris. BRENOT C., METZGER C. 1992, Trouvailles de bijoux monétaires dans l'occident romain, [in:] Brenot C., Loriot X. (eds.), L'or monnayé III. Trouvailles de monnaies d'or dans l'occident romain, Cahiers Ernest–Babelon, vol. 4, Paris. BUCHNER E. 1971, Antike Reiseuhren, Chiron 1, p. 457–482. BUCHNER E.1976, Römische Medaillons als Sonnenuhren, Chiron 6, p. 329–346. CALLU J.-P. 1969, La politique monétaire des empereurs romain de 238 à 311, Bibliothèque des Ecoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 214, Paris. CALLU J.-P. 1991, La perforation de l'or romain, [in:] Noeske H.-C., Schubert H. (eds.), Die Münze. Bild–Botschaft–Bedeutung. Festschrift für Maria R. Alföldi, Frankfurt am Main, p. 99–121. CALLU J.-P., BRENOT C., BARRANDON J.-N., POIRIER J. 1985, „Aureus obryziacus” [in:] Morrisson C. et all. (eds.), L’or monnayé I, Purification et altérations de Rome à Byzance, Cahiers Ernest-Babelon, vol. 2, Paris. CLOUD D. 1989, The client–patron relationship: emblem and reality in Juvenal's first book, [in:] Wallace–Hadrill A. (ed.), Patronage in Ancient Society, London, New York, p. 205–218. CORCORAN S. 2000, The empire of the Tetrarchs: imperial pronouncements and government, AD 284–324, Oxford. CRAWFORD M. H., REYNOLDS J. M. 1979, The Aezani copy of the Prices Edict, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 34, p. 163–210. DAHMEN K. 1998, Ein Loblied auf den schönen Kaiser. Zur möglichen Deutung der mit Nero– Münzen verzierten römischen Dosenspiegel, Archäologischer Anzeiger, p. 319–345. DOYEN J.-M. 1987, Les émissions d’or de Gallien à Rome, Milan et Siscia (260–268): métrologie et aspects quantitatifs, [in:] Depeyrot G. et all. (eds.), Rythmes de la production monétaire de l’Antiquité à nos jours, Numismatica Lovaniensia 7, Louvain–la–Neuve, p. 291–309. DUNCAN-JONES R. 1994, Money and government in the Roman empire, Cambridge. GORDON W. M., ROBINSON O. F. 1988, The Institutes of Gaius, Ithaca. GUEY J. 1966, De “L’or des Daces” (1924) au livre de Sture Bolin (1958). Guerre et Or. Or et Monnaie, [in:] Mélanges d’archéologie, d’épigraphie et d’histoire offerts à Jérôme Carcopino, vol. 15, Paris, p. 445–475. HASLER K. 1980, Studien zu Wesen und Wert des Geldes in der römischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis Severus Alexander, Bochumer historische Studien. Alte Geschichte 4, Bochum. HARRIS M. 1980, Culture, People, Nature, New York. HELLMAN M.-C. 1987, Monnaies et lampes romaines: de l’intérêt des études comparatives, Revue numismatique 29, Paris, p. 25–37. HODGES R. 1988, Primitive and Peasant Markets, Oxford. HOWGEGO C. 1992, The supply and use of money in the Roman world, 200 BC to AD 300, Journal of Roman Studies 82, p. 1–31. HOWGEGO C. 1994, Coin circulation and the integration of the Roman economy, Journal of Roman Archaeology 7, p. 5–21. JOHNS C. 1997, The Snettisham Roman Jeweller's Hoard, London. JOHNSON T., DANDEKER Ch. 1989, Patronage: relation and system, [in:] Wallace–Hadrill A. (ed.), Patronage in Ancient Society, London, New York, p. 219–245. KLOFT H. 1970, Liberalitas Principis. Herkunft und Bedeutung. Studien zur Prinzipats-ideologie, Kölner Historische Abhandlungen, vol. 18, Köln. LORIOT X. 1973, Votis x, co(n)giariu(m) X aurios! Observations sur Dion, LXXVI, 1, 1 et CIL, VI, 2998, Bulletin de la Société française de Numismatique 28, p. 464–467. LORIOT X. 2003, Réflexions sur l’usage et les usagers de la monnaie d’or sous l’Empire romain, Revue numismatique 159, 2003, p. 57–74.
56
MENADIER K. 1914, Die Münzen und das Münzwesen bei den SHA, Zeitschrift für Numismatik 31, p. 1–144. MAUÉ H., VEIT L. (eds.) 1982, Münzen in Brauch und Aberglauben. Schmuck und Dekor – Votiv und Amulett – Politische und Religiöse Selbstdarstellung, Mainz am Rhein. MESLIN M. 1970, La fête des kalendes de janvier dans l'empire romain. Étude d'un rituel de Nouvel An, Collection Latomus, vol. 115, Bruxelles. METCALF W. E. 1993, Whose liberalitas? Propaganda and audience in the early Roman empire, Rivista Italiana di Numismatica 95, p. 337–346. MILLAR F. 1977, The emperor in the Roman world: 31 BC – AD 337, London. MITTAG P. F. 1999, Alte Köpfe in neuen Händen. Urheber und Funktion der Kontorniaten, Antiquitas Reihe 3, 38, Bonn. PANKIEWICZ R. 1989, Fluctuations de valeur des métaux monétaires dans l'Antiquité romaine, Frankfurt am Main, Bern, New York. PFLAUM H. G. 1948, Le marbre de Thorigny, Paris. RIDER G. Le 2001, La naissance de la monnaie. Pratiques monétaires de l’Orient ancient, Paris. ROSELLA P. 1993, La moneta antica come talismano, Rivista Italiana di Numismatica 95, p. 347– 361. SAUER E. 2005, Coins, cult and cultural identity: Augustan coins, hot springs and the early Roman baths at Bourbonne–les–Bains, Leicester. SZAIVERT W., WOLTERS R. 2005, Löhne, Preise, Werte: Quellen zur römischen Geldwirtschaft, Darmstadt. TOCCI M. 1965, I medaglioni romani e i contorniati del medagliere Vaticano, Vatican. VERBOVEN K. 2002, The Economy of Friends. Economic Aspects of Amicitia and Patronage in the Late Republic, Collection Latomus, vol. 269, Bruxelles. VEYRAC A. 1998, Le symbolisme de l’as au crocodile, Montagnac.
57
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
Academia © 2012