Byzantine Barbaricum

Byzantine Coins in Central Europe between the 5th and 10th CenturyM. Wołoszyn (ed.)

MORAVIA MAGNA. Seria Polona, vol. IIIKraków 2009, p. 449-471.

Abstract. Face value or bullion value? Early Byzantine Coins beyond the Lower Danube Border.The author discusses the presence of early Byzantine bronze coins in the territories north of theLower Danube border and attempts to explain the relations between the Empire and the popula-tions outside the border which led to the arrival of bronze coins in the area between the riversTisza and Dniester. Previous interpretations pointing to intense economic relations are challen-ged and instead the author proposes a different approach, showing that different regions outsidethe border followed distinct patterns. It is suggested that except for the area close to the Danu-be there did not exist a true monetary circulation and the face value of coins was insignificant.Instead, coins were used for their intrinsic value, being melted to produce bronze objects suchas fibulae. It is argued that the high presence of folles in “Barbaricum” and the scarcity of smalldenominations, along with the large number of molds and associated objects used to producebronze items are important arguments in favor of this interpretation. The author draws a compa-rison between the Lower Danube provinces and “Barbaricum” and concludes that the presenceof coins outside the border paralleled the evolution of coin flow in the Byzantine provinces.Based on this fact it is argued that political and military developments in “Barbaricum”, hereto-fore considered as having the main impact on the coin flow, are mostly irrelevant, as internalmechanisms in the provinces regulated the arrival of coins in “Barbaricum”. Without offeringany final pronouncements, the study aims to draw the line between the two characteristics, facevalue and bullion value, in the territories beyond the Danube border.

IntroductionThe presence of early Byzantine coins in “Barbaricum” continues to be a largely undeveloped area of

study for numismatists and historians working on the early Middle Ages. Recently, the symposium held inKrakow brought together a number of scholars from Western, Central, and Eastern Europe in an attemptto shed some light on this still obscure phenomenon. One conclusion drawn after this meeting was thatdifferent regions, from the Rhine to the Dniester, have their own particularities in terms of early Byzantinecoin finds, but also common features. The explanation is neither simple nor definitive. Doubtlessly manyparticularities can be ascribed to political developments in the territories outside the border. However, ifpolitical issues could be related to the presence of gold or silver coins in “Avaria”, for instance (Somogyi1997), copper coin finds outside the Empire should be considered a much more complex phenomenoncombining political, economic, cultural and even religious factors.

The Early Byzantine coin finds from the “Barbaricum” stretching north and east of the Danubeborder (Fig. 1-2) should be approached at two distinct levels, corresponding to their intrinsic value: precio-us and base metal issues (Fig. 3-7)1. As mentioned, the presence of gold or silver coins in these territories is

ANDREI GÂNDILĂ

FACE VALUE OR BULLION VALUE?EARLY BYZANTINE COINS BEYOND THE LOWER DANUBE BORDER

1 Figs. No. 3-7 are placed at the end of the paper.

450 Andrei Gândilă

generally ascribed to political payments sent from Constantinople to appease certain tribal warlords or tosecure the Empire’s border. Once the subsidies crossed the Danube, they were redistributed by the warlordto his tribal military elite. Mercenary payments, looting, and prisoner ransom are also among the acceptedhypotheses for the presence of gold and silver coins in the territory beyond the border2. Unfortunately thesefinds tell us little about the populations living outside the Empire and even less about the inner developmentsof those societies.

The present study focuses on the second level represented by the copper coinage used in small markettransactions in the border provinces, without being subject to any kind of political payments outside theborder. The study of copper coin finds permits a closer insight into the economic and cultural relationsbetween the Empire and the northern populations. The question in the title “Face value or bullion value?” isthe key to understanding the presence of copper issues outside the Empire’s boundaries. Before proclaimingthe existence of a monetary economy based on a more or less intense and continuous coin circulation it

Fig. 1. Stray finds and hoards of Byzantine bronze coins in “Barbaricum” and in the Lower Danube provinces and thedistribution of bronze objects, molds, crucibles, and ladles in “Barbaricum” (6th-7th c.).

2 The scattered distribution of gold specimens, usually single finds, substantiates these hypotheses, cf. Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2002.

451Face value or bullion value? Early Byzantine Coins beyond the Lower Danube Border

should be established whether the use of coins for exchange purposes was necessary in “Barbaricum”. Oftenthis issue was equated with a discussion of the internal development of the societies outside the Danubeborder and whether they were able to embrace a monetary economy. The main question should not be “werethey capable” but “was it necessary” for these populations to engage in a monetary economy. Did theireconomic needs require the existence of trade based on the use of bronze coins or was the natural economysufficient?

The structure of coin finds, where a substantial number of specimens is available, can only be under-stood in relation with the trends in the monetary circulation of the neighboring Lower Danube provinces.A large number of finds and a variety of denominations similar to a provincial pattern of circulation is usuallya good indicator of an incipient monetary economy. However, although the copper coin represented only a tinyfraction of a solidus, we should not overlook the intrinsic value of the metal as raw material for a number ofitems used in daily life (pins, fibulae, bracelets, crosses etc.)3. The bullion value of these issues should not beignored especially in the case when most of the finds are comprised of folles. Many bronze objects discussedin the following pages were produced locally and the need for a constant supply of metal could be partly

Fig. 2. The distribution of lower denominations in “Barbaricum” (6th-7th c.).

3 For a previous discussion see Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2002, 182.


covered by melting down coins. This study does not attempt to ascribe the use of coins to certain ethnicgroups, as it is rather epiphenomenal to the questions posed here. Potential Byzantine traders would havecertainly engaged in monetary exchanges regardless of the ethnic groups if it was economically profitable forboth parties. However, a discussion of the evolution of material culture in this area is necessary to establishwhether coins were used for their face value or as raw material for bronze objects.

The structure and distribution of coin findsIt is perhaps useful at this point to attempt a cursory review of the 6th-7th century coin finds in “Barba-

ricum” and of the political context often forcibly held as the main catalyst in the influx of coins across theriver and, conversely, the main reason for the decrease in or lack of coin finds in this area. The monetaryreform of Anastasius meant the beginning of a new stage in the monetary economy of the Empire and alsothe moment when coins started to arrive once again in the territories north of the Danube. This does notautomatically imply that Roman life was re-established (Toropu 1976; Olteanu 1997), that somehow thereappearance of coins testifies to a growing prosperity and tighter relations with the Empire (Bîrzu 1980;Preda 1975; Barnea 1991). It might only imply that after the virtual collapse of the monetary system duringthe fifth century and after the effects of the Hunnic shock began to dissipate, the financial reform of Anasta-sius had a rather quick effect in the areas beyond the border. Such a quick response, if substantiated, wouldbe important for understanding the larger framework of the relations between the early Byzantine provincesand the “Barbaricum” stretching north of the Danube during the second half of the fifth century. If therelations were completely broken until the reign of Anastasius, then we should expect a later arrival of hiscoins (e.g. during the reign of Justin or Justinian), assuming a longer process of transition.

This process might have already begun during the second half of the fifth century although the numi-smatic evidence cannot be very helpful in this respect, with the exception of a few gold specimens found inWallachia and Moldavia (Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2001; 2004a) and a bronze coin of Zeno (Moisil 2002).The minimi of Marcian and Zeno found at Drobeta and Romula on the Danube’s left bank are certainlysignificant indicators of this process (Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2002), but they cannot warrant the existenceof the same situation further afield. At the same time, one should not forget that older, fourth century coins,found in great numbers in “Barbaricum” might have still been in use (Moisil 2002). Older coins as early as theHellenistic age were still circulating in the empire according to the evidence provided by hoards (Morrisson,Popović, Ivanisević 2006).

Therefore, the hypothesis of a quick arrival of coins immediately after the reform of Anastasius is farfrom being ascertained. It is too often ignored that coins of Anastasius could have arrived north of the riverpossibly as late as the seventh century4. Although coins issued by Anastasius are reported at Gherla (judeţulCluj) in Transylvania (Butnariu 1986, 219) or Zaim in Bessarabia (Corman 1998, 158), quite far from theborder, we should not rush to the conclusion that at the beginning of the sixth century fruitful and mutuallyprofitable relations had been established between the Empire and the northern populations. Most likelythe only specimens with a high degree of probability of arriving in these territories before 518 are thesmall module issues dated 498-512, which, theoretically, were soon withdrawn from circulation after thereform of 5125. Very few such coins have been reported in “Barbaricum” although the find from Bârlad(judeţul Vaslui) is certainly worth mentioning (Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Popuşoi 1992, 228). Early post-reform coins are scarce among finds in the Lower Danubian provinces as well. Only approximately 15% of thetotal number of coins from Anastasius found in Scythia can be dated to the first interval, 498-512 (Gândilă2005; 2008), with the Balkans being one of the best supplied regions of the Empire in this respect (Metcalf1969). Along these lines it would be unwarranted to link the small number of specimens in “Barbaricum”with the attacks of the Bulgars in 499 and 502. An overview of the coin finds of Anastasius shows an interes-ting cluster of coins in Southern Moldavia on both sides of the river Prut (Stoljarik 1993) which should beconsidered for future discussions of the developments undergone north of the Danube Delta early in thesixth century.

4 Coin hoards in the Balkans certainly testify to this fact, cf. Morrisson, Popović, Ivanisević 2006; see also Curta 2001, 238, n. 18 for a similardiscussion.

5 Morrisson, Popović, Ivanisević 2006. Out of 36 hoards containing well dated coins of Anastasius only 7 have small module specimens.


Most often the period Anastasius I-Justinian I is seen as a time of gradual and continuous increase incoin finds and prosperity in the Lower Danube provinces and consequently in the northern “Barbaricum”.Procopius’ De Aedeficis and modern scholarship have extolled the works of Justinian and presented thereign of Justin I as a preamble to the “age of Justinian” (Vasiliev 1950). Once we move beyond this pre-definedscheme and attempt to analyze the numismatic evidence it becomes clear that a peak is in fact reachedduring the reign of Justin I, both in the Empire and in “Barbaricum”, while the first decade of his nephew’sreign is a decline in the volume of coins arrived in the area (Gândilă 2008)6. A few specimens issued duringthe short joint reign of Justin I and Justinian I (April-August 527) were found north of the Danube, at Oţeleni(judeţul Iaşi; cf. Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2001, 316) and Ghindeni (judeţul Dolj; cf. Butnariu 1986, 219) andcould be important for understanding the rythm of the coin flow, if indeed they arrived in the respectivelocations closely after they were issued. Unfortunatelly very few publications provide information about thecoins’ state of preservation, which would be crucial in reaching a conclusion in this respect. Heavily wornspecimens found in “barbaricum” had certainly circulated intensively on provincial markets and consequen-tly the date of their issue becomes irrelevant for building any historical framework around their presence in“barbaricum”. The fluctuations in coin finds during the early years of Justinian’s reign were most oftenascribed to the military breakdown after the death of Chilbudios in 533 (Poenaru-Bordea, Ocheşeanu, Pope-scu 1997), a hypothesis, however, impossible to substantiate given the fact that it is a widely spread phenome-non throughout the Empire (Gândilă, forthcoming).

During the first decade after the monetary reform of 538 coins arrived in greater numbers in “Barba-ricum”. The heavy follis introduced by Justinian seem to have been very appealing to the communitiesoutside the Empire, a phenomenon discussed in the next section. The sharp decline that followed in thesecond half of his reign has multiple causes and should not be considered a peculiarity of the Danube area.The prodigal expenses on the stupendous plan of reclaiming the former Western provinces along with theinternal demographic and economic crisis caused by the great plague brought about a disruption of themonetary system and a growing inflation. Along these lines, the issue of the settlement of early Slavic groupsin the Wallachian plain (Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2004a) or in Banat (Comşa 1974) is irrelevant because it wasnot the potential change in the ethnic structure that triggered the downfall in coin supply. Moreover, a higherpeak in coin finds is reached during the reign of Justin II. An increase in coin finds, however, can be noticedin the area lying north of the Danube Delta where the Antae, who were allies of the Empire, were supposedlysettled and were offered the fortress of Turris for defensive purposes (Madgearu 1992; 2005).

The often cited paragraph from Procopius (De bello Gothico, III, 14.6) stating that after the death ofChilbudios the Danube was easy to cross by barbarians is hardly of any use as it is difficult to determine theprecise effects of the subsequent invasions in the following decades on the territories outside the border7. Ifraids of pillage and plunder were launched from camps located north of the Danube then, on the contrary, weshould expect to find a larger number of coins, copper but especially gold8, which is not the case according tothe current information (Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2002). In the whole region between the rivers Tisza andDniester the number of finds decreases after 550, a period which coincides with a shift in the coin productionof the Eastern mints, Constantinople, Nicomedia, and Cyzicus which provide the bulk of the finds both in“Barbaricum” and the Danubian provinces (Fig. 6). The production of folles and half-folles decreased in favorof decanummia, a rare denomination in “Barbaricum” and a precious clue for answering the main questionregarding the use of bronze coins in “Barbaricum”.

Justin II took several inflationist measures decreasing the value of the follis in relation to the goldsolidus which consequently increased the number of issues struck to meet the economic and military de-mands. Based on this fact it is interesting to note the uneven distribution of coin finds with a quite significantnumber of coins from Oltenia – 113 (Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2003) and very few specimens from Muntenia –

6 V. Butnariu (1986, 205) had observed the fact that the distribution of finds on the map during the reign of Justin I covers a wider area than theearly coins of his successor but did not follow the argument any further.

7 For a chronologic list of the raiding activity in the Balkans see Curta 2001, 116-7 (Table 4).8 In general terms the number of gold coins in Wallachia is very reduced compared to the neighboring territories of Pannonia and the areas west and

north of the Black Sea, to the west, cf. Somogyi 1997; see also Smedley 1988.


12 (Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2004a) and Moldavia – 18 (Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2001). Although the findsfrom Oltenia and Banat have always been more numerous due to the presence of the Byzantine bridge-heads, there is an unprecedented difference during the reign of Justin II. This situation was associatedwith the settlement of Slavic groups in the Wallachian plain and the disruption of the relations between thecommunities forming the Ciurel culture and the Empire (Comşa 1975; Dolinescu-Ferche 1984). The demo-graphic boom and an increase in the number of settlements followed by changes in the material culture wouldpoint to the arrival of new groups (Curta 2001). The decrease in coin finds could also be ascribed to theinsecurity in the area in the late 570s when the Avars led a successful campaign against the Sclavenes ofDauritas, settled in eastern Wallachia and southern Moldavia (Chiriac 1993).

The short reign of Tiberius II is characterized by his ambitious attempt to lift the value of the coppercoin to its Justinianic level but also by the devastating raids of the Slavs prolonging during the first years ofhis successor, Maurice Tiberius (Whitby 1988, 88). Only three coins from Tiberius II are so far recordedamong the finds from Muntenia, Moldavia, and Transylvania. Again, Oltenia provides a larger batch due tothe presence of the Roman bridge-heads Sucidava and Drobeta, which still played an important strategicfunction on the left bank of the Danube (Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2003; Butnariu 1986). Nevertheless, inBanat there is a marked discontinuity in coin finds after Sirmium was lost to the Avars; very few coins arerecorded during the reign of Maurice and his successor and it appears that the region was almost completelyunder the rule of the Avars. This does not appear to be the case in the Wallachian Plain. The Avar Khaganateconsidered the territory of present Wallachia as part of the territories under its direct control (Curta 2001),but this seems to be an ideological claim rather than a fact, considering that more than once the Avars andthe Romans had the common goal of defeating the Slavs in Wallachia (Madgearu 1997b, 22).

The relations between the Lower Danube provinces and the populations in “Barbaricum” were serio-usly hindered by the military events unfolding in the area. The attacks of the Avars and Slavs between 584and 586 affected the western sector of the Danube limes on the line Aquae (Janković 1981, 213) – Bononia(Ivanov 2003) – Ratiaria (1984) – Appiaria (Ivanov 2003) – Durostorum (Velkov 1988). It is hard to say if thepresence of the Slavs led by Dauritas in the Wallachian plain had a negative effect on the arrival of coins inthe area, as only seven copper coin finds are reported, five of which issued after 586 during the short periodof peace at the Danube border (Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2004a). Nevertheless, there is still an importantnumber of coins from Oltenia and Moldavia until the mid 590s when the coin supply was drastically dimini-shed. As a matter of fact there is only one late specimen, dated 599-600, found at Bacău in Moldavia (Butna-riu 1986). The reduction of coin finds from the reign of Maurice was interpreted as a result of the arrival ofnew slavic groups (Preda 1972, 1975) with disregard to the fact that coins from this period are also scarce inthe Danube provinces (Gândilă 2005). The reduction in coin supply in the Danube area is a direct result ofthe reduction in mint output at Constantinople and is less connected to a Slavic presence north of the river(Gândilă, forthcoming).

More than twenty years of almost continuous warfare at the Danube culminated with the rebellion ofPhocas in 602. However, recent scholarship has refuted the theory of the total collapse of the limes in 602(Barnea 1991; Madgearu 1997b; Curta 2001; Damian 2004). The numismatic evidence points to the sameconclusion. There are only 13 recorded finds but well distributed on the map in each historical provincebetween the rivers Tisza and Dniester. An even larger number of coins found in this territory are dated to thefirst six years of Heraclius’ reign and might show that the Empire was still influent and surpassed the difficultmoments at the beginning of the century (Velter 2002; Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2001; 2003; 2004a). However,shortly after 610 the coin circulation ends in all the major urban centers of the Lower Danubian provinces:Novae 611/2 (Dimitrov 1998), Dionyssopolis 613/4 (Dimitrov 1995), Bizone 613/4 (Iordanov 1982), Capidava612/3 (Gândilă 2007), Ibida 612/3 (Vertan, Custurea 1998), Histria 613/4 (Nubar 1960), Halmyris 613/4(Poenaru-Bordea 2003), Aegyssus 613/4 (Oberländer-Târnoveanu 1980), Argamum 613/4 (Iacob, Poenaru-Bordea 2000), Tomis 613/4 (Isvoranu, Poenaru-Bordea 2003), Acres 613/4 (Parušev 1991), Varna 613/4(Lazarenko 2003), Axiopolis 614/5 (Poenaru-Bordea, Ocheşeanu 1986), Ulmetum 614/5 (Mitrea 1966),Sacidava 615/6 (Vertan, Custurea, Talmaţchi 1999), Tărnovo 616/7 (Dochev 2002), although at least at Duro-storum, Callatis, and Tomis a small number of coins arrived after this date (Oberländer-Târnoveanu 1996;Poenaru-Bordea, Ocheşeanu, Popescu 1998; Isvoranu, Poenaru-Bordea 2003). This is the period when coinfinds are no longer recorded in “Barbaricum”, a situation which will last for a few decades. The powerful


offensive initiated by the Slavs and Avars after 616 with its climax during the siege of Constantinople in 626,marked the retreat of the Byzantine administration from the Lower Danube after a few decades of insecurity,followed by a diminution of its influence north of the Danube (Madgearu 1997b). An interesting situationoccurs in Banat, where after two decades of virtual lack of any significant finds coins reappear in highernumbers than the usual statistical level of this territory during the sixth century. Late and rare copper coinsdated 616-624 were found in the area along with a significant number of silver and gold issues (Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2003). If the latter can be ascribed to political payments, the presence of copper coins is harderto explain, although it has been suggested that Roman prisoners of war could have brought these coins(Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2003). I believe this solution to be less probable as it does not explain the lack ofsuch finds in other parts of “Avaria”, unless we accept the idea that Roman prisoners were kept or “coloni-zed” only at the border.

Three copper coins of Constans II and two issued by Tiberius III are the only finds recorded for theremainder of the seventh century. The latter two, found at Drobeta (Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2003) and Bere-zeni (judeţul Vaslui; cf. Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2001) are important for our understanding of the relations ofpower after the arrival of Asparuh. These two finds seem to testify that the empire did not completely lose itsinfluence in “Barbaricum”, maintained especially with its superior fleet (Damian 2004). The presence ofwestern mints in “Barbaricum” as well as on the Black Sea coast (Gândilă 2008) is an important argumentin this respect. The follis from Berezeni was minted in Ravenna while a follis of Constans II from Novaci(judeţul Ilfov) came from Carthage (Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2004a). The hoard found at Obârşeni (judeţulVaslui) also included two half-folles from Carthage and another two from the reign of Heraclius along with sixdodecanummia from Alexandria issued by the same emperor (Dimian 1957).

Face value or bullion value?After this cursory review of the early Byzantine coin finds in “Barbaricum” we can attempt to explain

the presence of copper coins outside the Danube border. First and foremost we need to establish the sourceof the coin supply in “Barbaricum”. The map testifies to the unevenness in the distribution of copper coinfinds in the area under discussion. Around 550 coins and 12 hoards have been found in 277 different locations(Butnariu 1986; Stoljarik 1993; Velter 2002; Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2001; 2003; 2004a; 2004b; Kropotkin2006). Most of the finding places are located along the Danube within 100 kilometers from the river, from theIron Gates to the area north of the Danube Delta. The geographical features of the whole area, almostengulfed by the Danube to the south and the Carpathian mountains to the north, ensured the strategicprerequisites for a direct control by the empire by creating a buffer zone north of the river. Danube itself wasonly a theoretical border (Curta 2002; Madgearu 2005), useful in times of conflict as a natural barrier, butnot limiting the Empire in its expansion northwards when its military and economic stability permitted sucha policy, as it was the case in the fourth century when Constantine the Great reclaimed parts of this territory(Curta 2005).

However, the relative density of finding places on the map should not automatically lead to the conclu-sion that a monetary economy was a reality of the communities living in the northern territories. Severalauthors use the phrases “coin circulation” and “intensive trade” to describe the presence of coins inWallachia and Moldavia ignoring the fact that a monetary economy presupposes the analysis of other socialand economic phenomena which should concur for the existence of a true monetary economy (Preda 1975;Teodor 1981; Dolinescu-Ferche 1984; Stoljarik 1993; Olteanu 1997; Madgearu 1997b; Corman 1998; Stratu-lat Lăcrămioara 2002)9. I also feel that only a comparative framework with the finds in the Lower Danubianprovinces can provide a correct approach of this phenomenon. Although the publication of early Byzantinecoin finds in Bulgaria is far from being up-to-date one can still count a total of approximately 6000 coins foundin 176 different locations in the provinces Moesia Prima, Dacia Ripensis, Moesia Secunda and especially Scy-thia. Without any sophisticated calculations it becomes clear that the average number of coins per finding placeis quite unbalanced in the two studied regions: about 35 coins in the provinces and 2 coins in “Barbaricum”.

9 For a similar criticism see Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2004b, 347.


Apart from the common understanding of surviving finds as small fractions of the circulating mass in ancienttimes, it is nevertheless inappropriate to substantiate the theory of a monetary economy in “Barbaricum”based on so few specimens scattered on such a large geographical area, four times the size of the imperialprovinces adjacent to the Danube. It should also be stressed at this point that the monetary economy isusually a characteristic of urban settings and to a lesser extent of rural areas, and here as well only throughconnections with neighboring towns. Or in the territories north of the Danube urban life was non-existent, ifwe disregard the few Byzantine bridge-heads on the left bank (Madgearu 2005).

The graphs provided at the end of this essay ascertain the fact that the structure of coin finds in“Barbaricum” follows in detail, albeit at a smaller scale, the trend in the coin circulation of the LowerDanube provinces. Peaks and falls in coin supply are shared by the two regions throughout the sixth andthe beginning of the seventh century and in both cases the presence of coins diminishes dramatically after615 (Fig. 3-4). The same mints supplied the territories north and south of the river following the sameevolution from the preponderance of Constantinople early in the sixth century to the diversification of mintsduring the reign of Justinian. Based on these arguments I think it is safe to conclude that most of the coinsfound in “Barbaricum” originated in the circulating milieu of the provinces Moesia Prima, Moesia Secunda,Dacia Ripensis, and Scythia. Against the commonly held interpretations it can be argued that the evolution ofcoin flow north of the river was less related to political and military developments in “Barbaricum”; the factthat most of the finds originate in the aforementioned provinces indicates that the presence of coins in“Barbaricum” depended primarily on the situation south of the Danube.

Having established the source of supply we now move to the discussion of the main routes of distribu-tion. The map clearly shows that coin finds cluster along the major rivers, Olt, Mures, Argeş, Prut, Dniester,which were important routes of communication and trade10. Another characteristic is the great density offinds in the territory west of the river Olt11. We should keep in mind that the unbalanced distribution of coinfinds in favor of the region west of river Olt is also due to the different evolution of the territories north of theDanube after the province of Dacia was created by Trajan at the beginning of the second century (Opreanu1998). Wallachia and Moldavia were never part of the Roman Empire although the great influence of theRoman culture and civilization is undeniable (Teodor 1997; Teodor 2005). The Empire was directly interestedin establishing a direct control in the territories of its former province and the ambitious project initiated byConstantine the Great regained momentum in the sixth century once the turmoil of the fifth century hadpassed and the economic and military power of the Empire was reestablished. The control was insuredthrough the bridge-heads maintained on the left bank of the Danube, most important being Sucidava andDrobeta, entertaining an urban life comparable to their counterparts on the other side of the river, at thescale of a peripheral region. It is precisely in these locations where we can assume the existence of a smallscale monetary economy12. The urban centers were probably sustaining a local exchange system based onsmall scale transactions involving copper coins within the network of settlements in Oltenia and Banat. Thestrategic importance of maintaining the control of a sizeable region north of the border should not be unde-restimated. The presence of a Romanized Christian population13 with a long tradition of contact with theEmpire could have proven valuable in time of conflict as a source of recruiting, labor force, and supplies forthe army. Regional interests, however, should not be linked only to the presence of a Romanic population.The author of the Stategikon asserts that the descendants of the Romans were not always ready to sustain

10 This seems to be a widely spread phenomenon; Byzantine coins cluster on major river valleys in Kievian Rus’, on the Bug and Dniepr rivers,cf. Kropotkin 2006, map 3, and Stoljarik 1993, map 2; in Austria and Slovakia on the Danube and its tributaries cf. Menghin 1985, map 28, andFusek 1994, map 4; in Bohemia on the Elbe, cf. Militký 2008; in Poland on the Vistula, cf. Wołoszyn 2005, map 1; in Eastern Germany on theOder, cf. Biermann, Dalitz, Heussner 1999, map 3; Western Germany on the Rhine, cf. Drauschke 2008; in France on major river valleyscf. Lafaurie, Pilet-Lemière 2005.

11 Around 50% of the total number of coins were found west of the river Olt.12 G. Williams offers a similar interpretation for early Byzantine coins in post-Roman Britain, cf. Williams 2006, 159. See also the discussion by

T.S.N Moorhead who argues that a monetary economy continued in the first half of the fifth century in areas where there was little Anglo-Saxon control, cf. Moorhead 2006, 108.

13 For the distribution of Christian objects in “Barbaricum” see Curta 2002, Fig. 5-9.14 According to the author of the Strategikon some Romans living north of the Danube “have given in to the times, forget their own people, and

prefer to gain the good will of the enemy” (cf. Strategikon, XI.4.31, p. 124). For a discussion of this particular passage see Madgearu 1997a,119-121.


the imperial efforts in the area14. The Empire’s policy in “Barbaricum” was certainly not based on brotherlysentiments towards the Romanic population but on a pragmatic attitude guided by political expediency. Thescarcity of gold coins among the finds in this region, until the reign of Heraclius when gold and silver issuesappear especially in Banat, shows that the region was not used as a base for raids of plunder and neitherwas it necessary for the Empire to send subsidies or “bribes” in the form of gold solidi as the population,especially west of the river Olt, was integrated in the religious and perhaps administrative system of theEmpire (Barnea 1991; Curta 2002; Madgearu 2005).

It is difficult to envisage a similar situation in the rest of the territory between the rivers Tisza andDniester. Although cultures of Roman tradition following the remains of the former Sîntana de Mureş –Chernjachov cultural horizon have been identified by archaeologists in Transylvania (Bratei culture; cf. Zaha-ria 1971; Horedt 1975), Wallachia (Ciurel Culture; cf. Dolinescu-Ferche 1984; Teodor 2004), and Moldavia tothe Dniester (Botoşana-Hansca culture; cf. Teodor 1984; Corman 1998) they were not the only recipients ofByzantine coins arriving in the area15, and, in fact, few can be placed in a certain archaeological context16.

The crux of the matter is to establish what exactly these populations had to offer in exchange for coins.As many of the potential items that could attract traders from the Byzantine provinces were perishable andthus cannot be traced in the archaeological record, we can only identify potential trading commoditiesbased on the natural resources in the region: especially salt, but also honey, cattle, possibly furs and skins.Both the Empire and the political powers in “Barbaricum”, the Gepids and later the Avars and Slavs, neededsupplies for the numerous military campaigns underwent north of the Danube and the literary sources,most important Michael the Syrian and the author of the Strategikon mention the importance of securing foodsupplies for the army (Horedt 1975; Curta 2001, 188). The trade route on the river Dniester, where a signifi-cant number of coins have been found, could be linked with the major trade route coming from the Baltic andalso with the territories north of the Black Sea. The numerous finds along the rivers Jiu, Olt, and Argeş wereimportant routes leading to the salt resources in Transylvania (Horedt 1975).

Even if this interpretation is correct and traders south of the Danube were genuinely interested incertain products from “Barbaricum” we are not even near demonstrating that copper coins were used in thetransaction for their face value. In order to do that we must first bring arguments in favor of the hypothesisthat the communities in “Barbaricum” were using the coins for their monetary designation, that they wereinterested in accepting the fiduciary nature of the Byzantine bronze coin (Morrisson 1979) and a marketwith a range of prices connected to the Empire. It should be stressed that a coin circulation does notpresuppose only a vertical bilateral relation Empire – “Barbaricum” but also a horizontal one betweencommunities and settlements in “Barbaricum”, which is hard to imagine with the current knowledge. Animportant number of imports, especially amphorae but also small objects, have been reported north of theDanube (Toropu 1976; Olteanu 1997; Teodor 1981; 1997; Curta 2001). One can formulate the hypothesis thatdifferent imports were purchased with cash by communities in “Barbaricum”. This premise presupposes thatan important number of coins were already in the possession of those communities and we should now turnthe tables and make another logical assumption, namely that Byzantine traders themselves used coins to payfor commodities purchased from “Barbaricum”. This logical sequence raises certain questions. First, thepopulations in “Barbaricum” had to accept and trust an exchange system based on a conventional value set bya centralized economic system in which they did not officially participate. They would accept to provide com-modities in exchange for objects (coins) less valuable considering the inner value of the metal and insteadthey would have to put their faith in the fiduciary nature of the coins, hoping to return them in a similarfashion, in exchange for imports from the Byzantine provinces. Let us make a final assumption that thescenario presented above was possible and that constant economic relations between the empire and the“Barbaricum” insured the necessary confidence in the fiduciary nature of the exchange. Why would thesecommunities need to risk anything by engaging in a monetary-based exchange with an unstable coin as the 6th

15 For a recent overview of the archaeological finds in Transylvania see Harhoiu 2003; for Wallachia see E. Teodor 2005.16 Two folles of Justinian were found at Botoşana, cf. Teodor 1984, 31, 37. Five coins from the same emperor were unearthed during archaeological

excavations in the area of Bucharest, cf. Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2004a, 336. Two folles from Justinian I and Justin II, respectively were found inBessarabia during the excavation of the sites Alcedar-Odaia and Lopatna, cf. Corman 1998, 98.


century Byzantine follis when the barter trade would suffice for a small-scale exchange of goods between thetwo regions? Finally, we return to the rarity of coins in sixth century settlements in Wallachia and Moldavia;as only 9 coins have been found during archaeological excavations, meaning less than 2% of the total numberof finds in “Barbaricum”, it is hard to substantiate the existence of a monetary economy.

I have mentioned the parallel evolution of the regions on both sides of the Danube in terms of thestructure of finds during the entire time span under discussion. The only point of divergence is the structureof denominations (Fig. 7). While in the Lower Danube provinces there is a certain balance between the fourmain denominations – follis, half-follis, decanummium, and pentanummium – in “Barbaricum” above 65% ofthe finds are folles (Fig. 5). Moreover, the big coins introduced by Justinian seem to have been very popularnorth of the Danube as the follis covers more than 70% of the finds from this emperor. Decanummia andpentanummia are rare finds in “Barbaricum”, only 5% of the entire batch. The map presenting the distribu-tion of lower denominations, fractions of the follis, shows that most finds are located close to the Danube,especially the few recorded decanummia and pentanummia (Fig. 2). The small change is the vehicle of a truemonetary economy as evinced by the finds in major urban centers of the empire (Gândilă, forthcoming).The preponderance of heavy specimens is an important argument in favor of the hypothesis that suchcommunities valued coins for their intrinsic value.

Archaeological monographs drawing on a rich literature on sixth-to-seventh century settlements provi-de evidence for a rather large array of bronze objects (mostly brooches17 but also crosses, buckles, pins,bracelets, rings, earrings, buttons) and even more significant, the existence of molds (Fig. 1)18 and work-shops pointing to a local production of bronze items (Preda 1967; Teodorescu 1972; Comşa 1975; Bejan 1976;Teodor 1981; 1997; Barnea 1991; Dănilă 1983; Corman 1998; Madgearu 1997b; Velter 2002; Postică 2007;Curta 2006). Obviously such items would have required an important quantity of bronze19 and although wemight assume that old Roman bronze objects were melted down for reuse20 (Postică 2007), early Byzantinecoins remained a more constant and reliable source of metal21. The sunken-featured dwelling No. 20 excavatedat Botoşana provided one of the rare occasions when coins were found in a clear archaeological context.This case is even more revealing as the follis of Justinian was found in the same context with a crucible anda ladle used to pour the metal (Teodor 1984, 36-7)22. Finally, the hoard found at Horgeşti (judeţul Bacău) isan epitome of the structure and role played by early Byzantine bronze coins in “Barbaricum”: in a bronzecontainer (c. 1. 3kg) were placed 52 folles, 5 half-folles (c. 650 g), a bronze chain (c. 250 g), and broken piecesfrom a bronze sheet (Căpitanu 1971; Buzdugan 1974)23.

After the “age of bronze” came to an end at the beginning of the seventh century, an “age of silver”took its place (Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2002), and some of the coins, this time hexagramma, were probablyused to produce jewelry such as the widely spread earrings with star-shaped pendants. The hoard found at

17 For the distribution of brooches in the Lower Danube area see Curta 2001, 237.18 Fig. 1 clearly shows that the region west of the river Olt follows a different pattern as most of the molds and the associated items used to produce

small objects of bronze were found outside this area, in Wallachia, Transylvania, Moldavia, and Bessarabia.19 For the copper resources in Transylvania see Rusu 1975, Fig. 4.20 Older bronze items were also reused in the Balkan provinces, as evinced by the large deposit of bronze objects found at Stara Zagora in Bulgaria

cf. Cholakov, Ilieva 2005.21 Analyses of metal composition of Byzantine coins and bronze artifacts cannot provide definitive answers, as most of the objects as well as the

coins are made of alloys, cf. Grierson 1965; Butler, Metcalf 1967; Padfield 1972; Cooper 2000, and therefore the coins themselves are hard totrace in the composition of bronze items. However, K. Dąbrowski (1980, 238-9) has analyzed a few dozens bow fibulae and concluded that themetal composition matched the one observed on Roman coins (1st-3rd c.).

22 Another interesting association of artifacts was found in a dwelling at Ipoteşti (judeţul Olt) where parts of a bronze sheet were found along witha first century bronze coin from Nerva, cf. Roman, Ferche 1978. Two hypotheses can be formulated in this case: either the coin, with a compara-ble weight of a sixth century follis, was reaccepted in circulation, or the coin was going to be used as raw material.

23 The hoard from Horgeşti contains a Moneta Militaris Imitativa, MIB 68, Tiberius II Constantine, type Constantinople, small module (9.45 g).The original publication (Buzdugan 1974), prior to the catalog of W. Hahn 1975, described the coin as a var. of Tiberius II, based on the standardcatalogues available (BMC; DOC). However, the coin was confusingly described as regnal year 7 (581/2 sic!), although the illustration (Buzdugan1974, plate II, No. 8) shows quite clearly an year 2, which the author obviously could not explain for an issue of Tiberius II whose coins as soleruler began to be dated with year 4. Even more, the real diameter of the coin is less than 28mm as described by Buzdugan, if we compare it to afollis on the same line on the plate (No. 9) also described as measuring 28mm. The correct attribution of the coin, unnoticed by later publications(Butnariu 1986; Curta 1996; Morrisson, Popović, Ivanisević 2006) is Moneta Militaris Imitativa. Its presence north of the Danube raises intere-sting issues related to the circulation of coins and possibly the movement of soldiers and mercenaries recruited from “Barbaricum”. Furtherattempts to research coins from older publications might present us with a larger number of specimens of Moneta Militaris Imitativa andcontribute to our better understanding of their role at the Lower Danube.


Priseaca (judeţul Olt) is a relevant example in this respect: coins and earrings were found together in a hand-made ceramic pot (Mitrea 1975). The potential use of coins and other silver objects as raw material for jewelryis known in central and northern Europe, from hoards such as the ones found at Zemiansky Vrbovok in Slovakia(Radoměrský 1953) and Gudme in Denmark (Vang Petersen 1994).

I deliberately left aside a thorough discussion of coin hoards because it does not seem very clearwhether they were amassed in “Barbaricum”, brought from the southern provinces, or from more distantregions of the empire. The aforementioned hoard from Obârşeni included issues from Carthage and Alexan-dria which probably came as a sealed group from the West24. Other hoards were found close to the Danube,most of which outside any archaeological context, having a structure very similar to the provincial pattern,which seems to suggests an origin outside “Barbaricum” (Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2004a). A separate groupof hoards is represented by the ones found at Râncăciov (judeţul Argeş) and Troianul (judeţul Teleorman;cf. Oberländer-Târnoveanu 2004a), which include Roman denarii and Late Roman coppers. Analogies can befound in the Czech Republic where several such hoards were found, having the appearance of small collec-tions of old coins, some including silver issues and late Roman coppers (Militký 2005).

The central question – face value or bullion value – maintains its relevance as we progress fartheraway, in the Upper Danube area, Moravia, the Baltic region, and as far as Britain. Several contributors to thisvolume show that copper finds are reported there as well and I suggest that the concept of a monetarycirculation should be employed with great caution. Many such coins were probably brought by travelers,missionaries, mercenaries, traders and left for different reasons, including but not limited to souvenirs,curiosities, “Christian” amulets, objects of prestige, or simply bronze items.

ConclusionsThe presence of early Byzantine bronze coins in “Barbaricum” is one of the most intriguing and unwieldy

issues of this historical period and was often employed as an ideological tool used to assert the high levelof development of autochthonous ethnic groups in relation with the newcomers25. The coins found north ofthe Danube were interpreted as a natural protraction of the provincial monetary economy with disregardto the obvious differences and problems raised by such an approach. The coin circulation in the Danubianprovinces is itself largely restricted to urban centers and fortified places hosting border garrisons (Gândilă2008), while the rural economy is only superficially connected to the coin circulation (Oberländer-Târnove-anu 2005).

The Roman bridge-heads north of the Danube sustained a small scale monetary economy in their areaof influence in Oltenia and the Iron Gates of the Danube, until the first decades of the seventh century. Thecommunities in the Wallachian Plain, Transylvania, and Moldavia to the river Dniester, regardless of theirethnic composition, constantly received bronze coins throughout the period in exchange for goods andservices rendered to the Empire. Many of these coins were probably used as raw material for the productionof bronze items and some were perhaps kept as personal belongings or objects of prestige. The movement ofcoins was most probably unidirectional, from the Empire to “Barbaricum” as it is hard to believe that thecoins ever returned to the Empire in the form of payments for imports.

Regardless of their final designation, the presence of bronze coins in “Barbaricum” during the earlyByzantine period remains important for our understanding of the politic, economic, and cultural phenomenadeveloped through the continuous contact between the Empire and the populations outside the border.

24 The hoard of Hrozova in Moravia is particularly interesting: it is comprised of four issues of Carthage, including a bronze of Zeugitana (241-136BC), which certainly came as a homogeneous group from North Africa, cf. Militký 2005, 286.

25 Copper coins were found in Slavic, Longobardic, and Frankish archaeological contexts in Slovakia, Poland, Austria, and Germany, (fn. 10) and inAvaric contexts in the lower Mureş basin. The presence of bronze coins is clearly not exclusively connected to the existence of a Romaniccommunity. The automatic association of coins with the Romanic population was based on the time-honored belief that the “migrating” peopleswere underdeveloped and could not possibly understand “civilized” mechanisms, cf. Niculescu 2002.


Fig. 3. Number of coins per year of reign – Anastasius I-Justinian II.


Fig. 4. Number of coins per reigns/periods.


Fig. 5. Mints (CON = Constantinople; NIC = Nicomedia; CYZ = Cyzicus; ANT = Antioch; TES = Thessalonica)and denominations (M = follis; K = half-follis; IS = 16 nummia; I = decanummium; E = pentanummium)

in “Barbaricum” and the Lower Danube provinces, c. 498-616.


Fig. 6. The comparative dynamics of mints in “Barbaricum” and the Lower Danube provinces.


Fig. 7. The comparative dynamics of denominations in “Barbaricum” and the Lower Danube provinces.


Bibliography

AbbreviationsCN Cercetări Numismatice, Bucureşti.SCN Studii şi cercetări de numismatică, Bucureşti.

BMC W. Wroth, Catalogue of the Imperial Byzantine Coins in the British Museum, London,1908, vol. I-II.

DOC A. R. Bellinger, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection andin the Whittemore Collection, vol. I, Anastasius I to Maurice 491-602, Washington, 1966.

MIB W. Hahn, Moneta Imperii Byzantini. Rekonstruktion des Prägeaufbaues auf synoptisch-tabellarischer Grundlage, vol. II, Von Justinus II. bis Phocas (565-610), einschlieslich derPrägungen der Heraclius-Revolte und mit Nachträgen zum 1. Band, Denkschriften derÖsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 119,Wien 1975.

Literary sourcesStrategikon

StudiesBarnea A.

1990 Einige Bemerkungen zur Chronologie des Limes an der unteren Donau in spätrömischerZeit, Dacia N. S., 34, 285-290.

Barnea I.1991 Sur les rapports avec Byzance du territoire situe au nord du Bas Danube durant la période

Anastase Ier-Justinien Ier (491-565), Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines, 2, 47-57.Bejan A.

1976 Un atelier metallurgic din sec. VI e. N. De la Drobeta – Turnu Severin, Acta MuseiNapocensis, 13, 257-278.

Biermann F., Dalitz S., Heussner K. U.1999 Der Brunnen von Schmerzke, Stadt Brandenburg a.d. Havel, und die absolute Chronologie

der frühslawischen Besiedlung im nordostdeutschen Raum, Praehistorische Zeitschrift,74, 219-243.

Bîrzu L.1980 Continuity of the Romanian people’s material and spiritual production in the territory of

former Dacia, Bucharest.Butler B. C. M., Metcalf D. M.

1967 Trace elements in Byzantine copper coins, Numismatic Circular, 75, 229-233.Butnariu V.

1986 Răspândirea monedelor bizantine din secolele VI-VII în teritoriile carpato- dunărene,Buletinul Societăţii Numismatice Române, 77-79 (1983-1985), 199-235.

Buzdugan G.1974 Notă suplimentară despre tezaurul bizantin de la Horgeşti (jud. Bacău), Carpica, 6, 47-

63.Căpitanu V.

1971 Tezaurul de monede bizantine descoperit la Horgeşti, Carpica, 4, 253-269.Chiriac C.

1993 Expediţia avară din 578-579 şi evidenţa numismatică, Arheologia Moldovei, 16, 191-203.Cholakov I.M., Ilieva P.

2005 Ein Hortfund von Metallgegenstände der frühbyzantinischen Epoche aus Stara Zagora(Südostbulgarien), Archaeologia Bulgarica, 9/3, 53-85.

Maurice’s Strategikon. Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy, G. T. Dennis, translatedby, Philadelphia, 1984.


Comşa M.1974 Unele date cu privire la Banatul de sud în sec. IV-VII, (in:) Daicoviciu H. (ed.), In memo-

riam Constantini Daicoviciu, Cluj, 85-97.1975 Socio-Economic Organization of the Daco-Romanic and Slav Population on the Lower Da-

nube during the 6th-8th centuries, (in:) Constantinescu M., Pascu Ş., Diaconu P. (eds.),171-200.

Constantinescu M., Pascu Ş., Diaconu P. (eds.)1975 Relations Between the Autochtonous Population and the Migratory Populations on the

Territory of Romania, Bibliotheca Historica Romaniae, 16, Bucharest, 123-153.Cooper H. K.

2000 Analysis of Late Roman-Byzantine copper alloy artifacts from northern Jordan, MA thesis,University of Arkansas.

Corman I.1998 Contribuţii la istoria spaţiului pruto-nistrian în epoca evului mediu timpuriu (sec. V-VII d.

Chr.), Chişinău.Curta F.

1996 Invasion or Inflation? Sixth to Seventh Century Byzantine Coin Hoards in Eastern andSoutheastern Europe, Annali di Istituto Italiano di Numismatica, 43, 65-224.

2001 The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500-700, Cambridge.

2002 Limes and cross: the religious dimension of the sixth-century Danube frontier of the earlyByzantine Empire, Starinar, 51 (2001), 45-70.

2005 Frontier ethnogenesis in the Late Antiquity: the Danube, the Tervingi, and the Slavs, (in:)Curta F. (ed.), Borders, Barriers, and Ethnogenesis. Frontiers in Late Antiquity and theMiddle Ages, Studies in the Early Middle Ages, 12, Brepols-Turnhout, 173-204.

2006 Slavic bow fibulae? Werner’s class I D revisited, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scien-tiarum Hungaricae, 57, 423-474.

Damian O.2004 Despre prezenţa politică bizantină la Dunărea de Jos în secolele VII-X, (in:) Cândea I.,

Sîrbu V., Neagu M. (eds.), Prinos lui Petre Diaconu la 80 de ani, Istros-Brăila, 283-318.Dąbrowski K.

1980 Nouvelles données concernant l’orfévrerie sur le territoire de la voévodie d’Olsztyn(Pologne), Archaeologia Polona, 19, 235-241.

Dănilă N.1983 Tipare de turnat cruci din secolele IV-VI, descoperite pe teritoriul României, Biserica

Ortodoxă Română, 101, 557-561.Dimian I.

1957 Cîteva descoperiri monetare bizantine pe teritoriul R.P.R., SCN, 1, 189-216.Dimitrov K.

1998 Późnorzymskie i wczesnobizantyjskie monety z odcinka IV w Novae z lat 294-612, Novaen-sia, 11, 99-112.

Dimitrov M.1995 Monetite ot Dionisopolis-Karvuna: Izvor za administrativnata, politicheskata i stopan-

skata istoriia na severozapadnoto Chernomorie ot IV v. pr. Xr. do sredata na XV vek,Dobrudža, 12, 173-179.

Dochev K.2002 Rannovizantijski moneti ot Tărnovo (V-VII v.), Izvestiia na Regionalen Istoricheski Muzei

Veliko Tărnovo, 17/18 (2002/2003), 287-298.Dolinescu-Ferche S.

1984 La culture Ipoteşti – Ciuriel – Cîndeşti (Ve-VIIe siecles). La situation en Valachie, DaciaN.S., 28, 117-147.


Drauschke J.2009 Byzantinische Münzen des ausgehenden 5. bis beginnenden 8. Jahrhunderts in den

östlichen Regionen des Merowingerreiches, (in:) Wołoszyn M. (ed.) Byzantine Coins inCentral Europe between the 5th and 10th century, MORAVIA MAGNA. Seria Polona, 3,Kraków, 279-323.

Fusek G.1994 Slovensko vo včasnoslovanskom období, Archaeoloica Slovaca Monographiae, 3, Nitra.

Gândilă A.2005 Sixth-to-seventh century coin circulation in Dobrudja, CN, 9/11 (2003-2005), 109-166.2007 Early Byzantine Capidava: the numismatic evidence, CN, 12-13 (2006-2007), 97-122.2008 Some Aspects of the Monetary Circulation in the Byzantine Province of Scythia during

the 6th and 7th century, Acta Musei Varnaensis, 7 (Lazarenko I. [ed.], Numismatic, Sphra-gistic and Epigraphic Contributions to the History of the Black Sea Coast), 305-334.The Early Byzantine Coin Circulation in the Eastern Provinces: A Statistical Aproach,forthcoming.

Grierson P.1965 Trace elements in Byzantine copper coins of the 6th and 7th centuries, (in:) Berghaus P.,

Hatz G. (eds.), Dona numismatica. Walter Hävernick zum 23. Januar 1965 dargebracht,Hamburg, 29-35.

Hahn W.1975 s. MIB

Harhoiu R.2003 Quellenlage und Forschungsstand der Frühgeschichte Siebenbürgens im 6.-7. Jahr-

hundert, Dacia N.S., 43/45 (1999/2001), 97-158.Horedt K.

1975 The Gepide, the Avars and the Romanic population in Transylvania, (in:) ConstantinescuM., Pascu Ş., Diaconu P. (eds.), 111-122.

Iacob M., Poenaru-Bordea Gh.2000 Les monnaies des IVe-VIIe siecles découvertes à Argamum (Scythie Mineure), (in:) Kluge

B., Weisser B. (eds.), XII. Internationaler Numismatischer Kongress Berlin 1997, Akten-Proceedings-Actes, vol. II, Berlin, 780-792.

Iordanov I.1982 Moneti ot Cirakman, (in:) Vasilev V., Velev M. (eds.), Chirakman – Karvuna – Kavarna,

Sofia, 57-58.Isvoranu T., Poenaru-Bordea Gh.

2003 Monede bizantine de la Tomis şi împrejurimi în colecţia Institutului de Arheologie VasilePârvan, (in:) Simpozion de numismatică, Chişinău, 24-26 September 2002, Bucharest,137-161.

Ivanov M.2003 Bononia, (in:) Ivanov R. (ed.), Roman and Early Byzantine Settlements in Bulgaria, vol.

II, Ivray-Sofia, 18-22.Ivanov R.

2003 Appiaria, (in:) Ivanov R. (ed.), Roman and Early Byzantine Settlements in Bulgaria, vol. II,Ivray-Sofia, 63-70.

Janković Đ.1981 Podunavski deo oblasti Akvisa u VI i pocetkom VII veka, Arheoloski institut. Gradja, 5,

Beograd.Kropotkin V.V.

2006 Les trouvailles de monnaies Byzantines en U.R.S.S. (Georges Depeyrot [ed.]), CollectionMoneta, 61, Wetteren.

Lafaurie J., Pilet-Lemière J.2005 Monnaies du haut Moyen Âge découvertes en France (Ve-VIIIe siecle), Paris.


Lazarenko I.2003 Numizmatčni danni za datirane opožarjavaneto na Odesos po vremeto na imperator He-

raclji, Izvestiia na Narodniia Muzei Varna, 34/35, 150-166.Madgearu A.

1992 The Placement of the Fortress Turris, Balkan Studies, 33/2, 203-208.1997a About Maurikios, Strategikon, XI.4.31, Revue des études sud-est européennes, 35, 119-

121.1997b Continuitate şi discontinuitate culturală la Dunărea de Jos în secolele VII-VIII, Bucharest.2005 The 6th century Lower Danubian bridgeheads: location and mission, Ephemeris Napo-

censis, 13, 295-314.Martelli F.

1984 La fine di Ratiaria in Teofilatto Symocatta, Ratiarensia, 2, 123-126.Menghin W.

1985 Die Longobarden. Archäologie und Geschichte, Stuttgart.Metcalf D. M.

1969 Origin of the Anastasian Currency Reform, Amsterdam.Militký J.

2005a Nálezy mincí ze 6.-7. století v Čechách a na Moravě, (in:) Kuna M., Profantová N. (eds.),Počátky raného středověku v Čechách. Archeologický výzkum sídelní aglomerace kulturypražského typu v Roztokách, Praha, 275-286.

2009 Finds of the Early Byzantine Coins of the 6th and the 7th century in the Territory of theCzech Republic, (in:) Wołoszyn M. (ed.) Byzantine Coins in Central Europe between the5th and 10th century, MORAVIA MAGNA, Seria Polona, 3, Kraków, 357-393.

Mitrea B.1966 Découvertes récentes et plus anciennes de monnaies antiques et byzantines en Rouma-

nie, Dacia N. S., 10, 403-414.1975 Date noi cu privire la secolul al VII-lea. Tezaurul de hexagrame bizantine de la Priseaca

(jud. Olt), SCN, 6, 113-125.Moisil D.

2002 The Danube Limes and the Barbaricum (294 - 498 AD) – a study in coin circulation,Histoire & Mesure, 17(3), 79-120.

Moorhead T.S.N.2006 Roman Bronze Coinage in Sub-Roman and Early Anglo-Saxon England, (in:) Cook B.,

Williams G. (eds.), Coinage and History in the North Dea World, c. AD 500-1250. Essaysin Honour of Marion Archibald, The Northern World, 19, Leiden, 99-109.

Morrisson C.1979 La monnaie fiduciaire à Byzance ou “Vraie monnaie”, “monnaie fiduciaire” et “fausse

monnaie” à Byzance, Bulletin de la Société Française de Numismatique, 34, 612-616.Morrisson C., Popović V. and Ivanisević V.

2006 Les Trésors monétaires byzantins des Balkans et d’Asie Mineure (491-713), RéalitésByzantines, 13, Paris.

Niculescu A. Gh.2002 Nationalism and the representation of society in Romanian archaeology, (in:) Nation and

national ideology: past, present and prospects, Bucharest, 209-234.Nubar H.

1960 Monede bizantine de la începutul secolului al VII-lea şi sfîrşitul cetăţii Histria, SCN, 3,183-195.

Oberländer-Târnoveanu E.1980 Monede bizantine din secolele VII-X descoperite în nordul Dobrogei, SCN, 7, 163-165.1996 Monnaies byzantines des VIIe-Xe siecles découvertes a Silistra dans la collection de

l’Académicien Péricle Papahagi consevées au Cabinet des Medailles du Musée Nationald’Histoire de Roumanie, CN, 7, 97-127.


2001 Societate, economie şi politică. Populaţiile de pe teritoriul Moldovei şi lumea sud-esteuropeană în secolele IV-XIV în lumina descoperirilor monetare, Suceava, 26/28 (1999/2001), 311-355.

2002 La monnaie byzantine des VIe-VIIIe siecles au-delà de la frontiere du Bas-Danube. Entrepolitique, economie et diffusion culturelle, Histoire & Mesure, 17/3, 155-196.

2003 La răscruce de vremuri. Tranziţia de la Antichitate la Evul Mediu timpuriu în zona Porţilorde Fier ale Dunării – Un punct de vedere numismatic, CN, 8, 121-172.

2004a Barbaricum apropiat – populaţiile din Muntenia şi Imperiul Bizantin (secolele VI-X) –mărturia numismaticii, Ialomiţa, 4, 323-368.

2004b Tranziţia de la antichitate la evul mediu timpuriu la marginea imperiului (II). De la primadispariţie a circulaţiei monetare la renaşterea ei în zona Porţilor de Fier ale Dunării (circa375-565), Muzeul Naţional, 16, 39-83.

2005 Les échanges dans le monde rural byzantin de l’est des Balkans, (in:) Lefort J., MorrissonC., Sodini J. P. (eds.), Les villages dans l’empire byzantin IVe-XVe siecle, Paris, 381-401.

Oberländer-Târnoveanu E., Constantinescu M.1994 Monede romane târzii si bizantine din colecţia Muzeului Judeţean Buzău, Mousaios, 4,

311- 341.Oberländer-Târnoveanu E., Popuşoi E.

1992 Monede bizantine din colecţia Muzeului “Vasile Pârvan” din Bîrlad, Carpica, 23, 223-245.Olteanu Şt.

1997 Societatea carpato-danubiano-pontică în secolele IV-XI. Structuri demo-economice şisocial-politice, Bucureşti.

Opreanu C.1998 Dacia romană şi barbaricum, Timişoara.

Padfield T.1972 Analysis of Byzantine copper coins by X-Ray methods (with a numismatic commentary by

P. Grierson), (in:) Hall T., Metcalf D. M. (eds.), Methods of Chemical and MetallurgicalInvestigation of Ancient Coinage, London, 219-236.

Parušev V.1991 Antični moneti ot Kaliakra, Izvestiia na Narodniia Muzei Varna, 27, 20-31.

Poenaru-Bordea Gh.2003 Monedele, (in:) Suceveanu Al., Zahariade M., Topoleanu Fl., Poenaru-Bordea Gh., Halmy-

ris, Monografie Areologică, 1, Cluj-Napoca, 127-189.Poenaru-Bordea Gh., Nicolae E., Popescu A.

1997 Contributions numismatiques à l’histoire de Noviodunum aux VIe-VIIe siecles, SCN, 11(1995/1997), 135-161.

Poenaru-Bordea Gh., Ocheşeanu R.1986 Tezaurul de monede bizantine de aur descoperit în săpăturile arheologice din anul 1899

de la Axiopolis, Buletinul Societăţii Numismatice Române, 77-79 (1983-1985), 177-197.Poenaru-Bordea Gh., Ocheşeanu R., Popescu A.

1998 Monede greceşti, romane şi bizantine din Dobrogea în colecţia muzeului din Brăila, SCN,12, 83-117.

Postică Gh.2007 Civilizaţia medievală timpurie din spaţiul pruto-nistrean (secolele V-XIII), Bucharest.

Preda C.1967 Tipar pentru bijuterii din secolul al VI-lea e.n. descoperit la Olteni, (r. Videle, reg.

Bucureşti), Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche, 18, 513-520.1972 Circulaţia monedelor bizantine în regiunea carpato-dunăreană, Studii şi cercetări de

istorie veche, 23, 375-415.1975 The Byzantine coins – an expression of the relations between the Empire and the popula-

tions north of the Danube in the 6th-13th centuries, (in:) Constantinescu M., Pascu Ş.,Diaconu P. (eds.), 219-233.

`

`


Radoměrský P.1953 Byzantské mince z pokladu v Zemianském Vrbovku, Památky Archeologické, 44, 109-127.

Roman P., Ferche S.1978 Cercetările de la Ipoteşti (jud. Olt). Observaţii asupra culturii materiale autohtone din

secolul al VI-lea e.n. în Muntenia, Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie, 29/1,73-93.

Rusu M.1975 Avars, Slavs, Romanic population in the 6th-8th Centuries, (in:) Constantinescu M., Pascu Ş.,

Diaconu P. (eds.), 123-153.Smedley J.

1988 Seventh-Century Byzantine Coins in Southern Russia and the Problem of the LightWeight Solidi, (in:) Hahn W., Metcalf W. E. (eds.), Studies in Early Byzantine Coinage,Numismatic Studies, 17, New York, 111-130.

Somogyi P.1997 Byzantinische Fundmünzen der Awarenzeit, Monographien zur Frühgeschichte und

Mittelalterarchäologie, 5, Innsbruck.Stoljarik E. S.

1993 Essays on Monetary Circulation in the North-western Black Sea Region in the LateRoman and Early Byzantine periods: Late 3rd century – Early 13th Century A.D., Odessa.

Stratulat Lăcrămioara M.2002 Continuitate şi discontinuitate la nordul Dunării de Jos (secolele IV-VIII d.Hr.), Carpica,

31, 59-78.Teodor D. Gh.

1981 Romanitatea carpato-dunăreană şi Bizanţul în veacurile V-XI e.n., Iaşi.1984 Civilizaţia romanică la est de Carpaţi în secolele V-VII (aşezarea de la Botoşana-Suceava),

Bucharest.1997 Descoperiri arheologice şi numismatice la est de Carpaţi în secolele V-XI, Bucharest.

Teodor E. S.2004 An Update for „Ipoteşti-Cândeşti Culture”, (in:) Fusek G. (ed.), Zborník na počest’ Dariny

Bialekovej, Archaeologica Slovaca Monographie, 7, Nitra, 405-414.2005 The shadow of a frontier: the Wallachian plain during the Justinianic Age, (in:) Curta F.

(ed.), Borders, Barriers, and Ethnogenesis. Frontiers in Late Antiquity and the MiddleAges, Studies in the Early Middle Ages, 12, Brepols-Turnhout, 205-245.

Teodorescu V.1972 Centre meşteşugăreşti din sec V/VI-VII în Bucureşti, Bucureşti, 9, 73-97.

Toropu O.1976 Romanitatea târzie şi strămoşii în Dacia Traiană sudcarpatică (sec. III-XI), Craiova.

Vang Petersen P.1994 Excavations at Sites of Treasure Trove Finds at Gudme, (in:) Nielsen P. O., Randsborg K.,

Thrane H. (eds.), The Archaeology of Gudme and Lundeborg. Papers presented at a Confe-rence at Svendborg, October 1991, Arkæologiske Studier, 10, Copenhagen, 30-40.

Vasiliev A. A.1950 Justin the First: An Introduction to the Epoch of Justinian the Great, Cambridge MA.

Velkov V.1988 Antičnijat Durostorum, (in:) Christov S., Lipchev R. Atanasov G. (eds.), Durostorum-

Drastar-Silistra, Silistra, 25-31.Velter A.-M.

2002 Transilvania în secolele V-XII, Bucharest.Vertan A., Custurea G.

1998 Descoperiri monetare în Dobrogea (X), Pontica, 28/29, 309-321.Vertan A., Custurea G., Talmaţchi G.

1999 Descoperiri monetare în Dobrogea (XIII), Pontica, 32, 347-365.


Williams G.2006 The Circulation and Function of Coinage in Conversion-Period England, c. AD 580-675,

(in:) Cook B., Williams G. (eds.), Coinage and History in the North Dea World, c. AD500-1250. Essays in Honour of Marion Archibald, The Northern World, 19, Leiden, 145-192.

Whitby M.1988 The Emperor Maurice and His Historian: Theophylact Simocatta on Persian and Balkan

Warfare, Oxford.Wołoszyn M.

2005 Monety bizantyńskie z VI-VII w. w Polsce na tle środkowoeuropejskim, (in:) KaczanowskiP., Parczewski M. (eds.), Archeologia o początkach Slowian, Kraków, 637-680.

Zaharia E.1971 Données sur l’archéologie des IVe-XIe siecles sur le territoire de la Roumanie. La culture

Bratei et la culture Dridu, Dacia N. S., 15, 269-287.

Adress of the Author:Andrei Gândilă M. A.University of Florida

Department of History025 Keene-Flint Hall

Gainesville, FL 32611UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

e-mail: [email protected]

Documents

Byzantine Barbaricum