Heavy Money, Weightier Problems: The Justinianic Reform of 538 and Its Economic Consequences

RN 2012, p. 363-402

Andrei Gândilă*

Heavy money, weightier problems: the Justinianic reform of 538 and its economic consequences

Summary − In 538, at the peak of his imperial achievement, Justinian introduced an impressive coinage of unusual size and weight. Based on the evidence of hoards and single finds from the Balkans, Asia Minor and the Near East, the economic implications of Justinian’s heavy series (538-542) appear in a new light. Its prolonged circulation and important percentage among finds from the Balkans, in particular, changes our understanding of the role played by this coinage during the sixth century and adds new dimensions to the fiduciary nature of the early Byzantine bronze coinage.

Keywords − Justinian I, hoarding, circulation, Balkans, Asia Minor, Syria-Palaestina.

Résumé − En 538, à l’apogée de son règne, Justinien introduit une monnaie d’une taille vraiment impressionnante. Les implications économiques de l’émission lourde de Justinien (538-542) apparaissent dans une lumière nouvelle selon le réexamen du témoignage des trésors et de trou-vailles isolées des Balkans, d’Asie Mineure et d’Orient. La circulation prolongée de monnaies lourdes de Justinien et surtout leur pourcentage important dans les trouvailles des Balkans, nous permettent une nouvelle approche du rôle joué par cette monnaie au cours du vie siècle et ajoutent de nouvelles dimensions à la nature fiduciaire de la monnaie byzantine en bronze.

Mots clés − Justinien I, thésaurisation, circulation, Balkans, Asie Mineure, Syrie-Palestine.

I. The 538 reform and Justinian’s golden decade

The monetary reform of Anastasius was undoubtedly a major achievement, one that restored the prestige and functionality of the early Byzantine monetary economy, left in tatters after an avalanche of internal and external crises in the fifth century. By 538 Justinian could look back on four decades of unprecedented stability following the major reform of 498. Nonetheless, the emperor would not only reform the iconography, but also operate a dramatic increase in the weight of the follis. What prompted such an ambitious reform? By necessity, the answer requires a certain degree of speculation. It has been suggested that the rapid reconquest of North Africa brought a large quantity of gold to the treasury, and with it an inflationary mechanism leading to the devaluation of the gold solidus

* University of Florida, History Department, 025 Keene-Flint Hall, Gainesvile, FL 32601, USA. Mail: [email protected].

ANDREI GÂNDILă364

RN 2012, p. 363-402

in relation to the copper follis.1 Although this might well be part of the answer, the true motivation seems to lie in the sphere of politics and the general condi-tions of the Empire around 538.

After a swift and cost-effective campaign, Justinian reconquered Carthage and soon after that restored the Roman dominion in North Africa, erasing the memory of the catastrophic failure of Leo I’s campaign of 468. The costs of that expedition have been calculated at 9.5 million solidi, nearly 40 % of the massive treasury surplus left by Anastasius on his death in 518.2 By contrast, Justinian managed to reclaim Carthage after a bold and well-timed attack. Upon his return to Constantinople, Belisarius was awarded a full triumph reminiscent of Rome’s golden age and illustrative of current ambitions.3 Furthermore, in 535 Belisarius made his entry into Syracuse and secured Sicily, while in December 536 he reached Rome and sent the keys of the city to Justinian as a symbol of victory. By 538, although it had become clear that the scenario from North Africa would not be repeated in Italy, it still seemed possible to achieve a decisive victory against the Ostrogoths.

In the East, an “eternal peace” came into effect in 532 after negotiations with the young king Khusro, who wanted peace with the Romans in order to secure his position. Justinian’s coinage dating from this decade is most abundant in the Syrian and Palaestinian provinces, which undoubtedly enjoyed a time of prosperity and consolidation.4 In fact, it is precisely this time of peace in the eastern provinces that offered Justinian the opportunity to direct his attention to the West. His ambitions were, however, more diverse and he concomitantly extended his interests to the East, establishing four provinces in Armenia in 536, after he had already secured the control over Lazica as part of the negotiations leading to the “eternal peace”.5

After more than 150 years, during which “Rome had to fight within her own borders not for glory but for bare life6”, the Empire was once again on the offensive north of the Danube, where Chilbudios led a series of successful campaigns until his death in 533.7 In addition, Justinian was devising a shrewd diplomacy aimed against the expansion of the Cutrigurs and Utigurs, which could have posed a threat to the security of the frontier provinces in the eastern

1. morrisson 1989b, p. 247; MIBE, p. 11; CalleGher 2006, p. 131. However, given that Belisarius brought the treasures found in Carthage to Constantinople in 534, it remains unclear why would Justinian postpone for four or five years the adjustment of the rate of exchange between gold and copper. One possibility is that the emperor wanted to let the indiction cycle conclude in 537 before adjusting the exchange rate between gold and copper.

2. Carlà 2009, p. 330.3. evans 1996, p. 132-133.4. bijovsKy 2011, ch. 3.4.4a.5. adontZ 1970, p. 131-133.6. jerome, ep. 123.17.7. Curta 2001, p. 76.

HEAVY MONEY, WEIGHTIER PROBLEMS 365

RN 2012, p. 363-402

Balkans.8 For the same purpose of strengthening the provinces adjacent to the Lower Danube and the western Black Sea coast, Justinian created in 536 a new and unusual administrative unit, quaestura exercitus, which brought together five provinces linked by sea: Scythia, Moesia Secunda, Caria, Cyprus, and the Cyclades.9

In 538, the year of the monetary reform, Justinian could look back to five years of major achievements, spectacular military victories in the West and the hope of restoring the Mediterranean Empire, an administrative reorganization throughout the Empire, and the codification and reformation of civil law under the direction of Trebonian. The days of the Nika revolt were over, Hagia Sophia had been rebuilt into one of the greatest wonders of the ancient architectural record, and Justinian could proudly boast “Solomon, I have outdone thee.” To be sure, not everybody was happy and especially the imperial aristocracy felt threatened by Justinian’s autocratic measures. In addition, endemic religious dissension threatened the Empire’s unity. Nevertheless, the Empire witnessed the strongest example of rulership since the days of the Tetrarchy.10

It is precisely against this background that we must explain the decision to reform the currency in 538. Besides any possible economic motivations, the decision was above everything a political statement.11 Justinian wanted to stand out from his predecessors by introducing a more majestic iconography and a weight which had not be seen since the days of the Roman sestertius. The size of the follis, which often reached 42-45mm in diameter, was indeed unprece-dented and made these coins exceptional in every way, bringing them closer to the stature of Roman medallions. It is not improbable that Justinian deliberately chose a wider flan instead of a thicker, bulkier coin, which would have been less appealing to the eye. Grandomania may also be recognized in the special gold medallions issued to celebrate his achievements. The 1/2 pound piece formerly in the Paris collection is not only the most famous of those medallions, but also possibly related to Justinian’s military victories from the 530s.12 The use of coins as vehicles for propaganda is well known and cannot be overestimated. Justinian’s reform should be seen along these lines: a direct attempt to portray his rule as outstanding and to appeal to the common people, hence the reduction in the number of folles to one solidus. That pierced folles are, more often than not, large folles also proves that the propaganda message was effective and

8. patoura 1997.9. torbatov 1997; GKoutZiouKostas, moniaros 2009.

10. sarris 2006, p. 215.11. Justinian could have simply raised the price of copper in relation to the solidus without

increasing the weight of the follis. Indeed, the coins of 512-538, which had been struck 18 to the pound, were still allowed to circulate with a more pronounced fiduciary value in accordance to the new Justinianic exchange rate.

12. MIBE, p. 42.

ANDREI GÂNDILă366

RN 2012, p. 363-402

outlived the emperor in whose name it had been produced.13 The monetary reform of 538 was perhaps the last major episode of an eventful decade marked by unchecked ambitions, reforming zeal, and momentous victories.14

II. Circulation and hoarding of the heavy series (538-542)

Much of the attention devoted to Justinian’s monetary reforms focused on metrological issues, especially the relation between gold and copper, on one hand, and gold and coined copper, on the other hand. Despite the abundant literature on this topic, there is still no general consensus and some issues may forever remain obscure. The traditional interpretation of Justinian’s monetary policy relies chiefly on a rather vague and therefore much debated account of Procopius from his equally problematic Secret History, in which he criticizes Justinian for manipulating the exchange rate between the follis and the solidus, abusively reduced from 210:1 (or rather 216:1) to 180:1.15 Different readings of Procopius and of the Abydos tariff,16 led to various propositions regarding the legal standard of the heavy follis introduced in 538. They range from 21.65 g (15 to the pound) to 24.95g (13 1/4 to the pound), with a correspondingly varying number of folles to one solidus.17 The average weight of the actual coins seems to be around 22.09 g,18 which may in fact be slightly higher depending on the added percentage for wear. At any rate, weights above 23 g and even higher are not at all uncommon. Since the average weight of sixth-century folles is, without exception, below the legal standard, there is sufficient reason to favor the hypothesis that the heavy follis was struck at least 14 to the pound (23.19 g). To be sure, the actual weight of Justinian’s reformed follis was up to 35 % above the weight of the coin introduced by Anastasius in 512 and maintained until 538. Aside from strictly metrological implications, which are not the concern of this article, a much more promising avenue for understanding the impact of the 538 reform is to study the actual circulation of the heavy series (538-542) through coin finds from the Balkans, Anatolia and Syria-Palestine. There is much to be gained from the examination of the ever-growing inventory of single finds and hoards, even more so since the exclusive reliance on a slender

13. Gândilă 2009a, p. 176-177. 14. Political motivations may also be attributed to similar reforms introduced by Tiberius II

Constantine and, later, by Constantine IV. In addition to an attempt to restore the Justinianic standard, the latter even named his son after the sixth-century emperor. For the reforms, see MIBE, p. 40 and MIB III, p. 157-158.

15. For recent discussions, see ZuCKerman 2004, p. 80-81; Carlà 2009, p. 396-403.16. Callu 1982. Formerly dated before the 498 reform, the Abydos tariff was recently given

a terminus post quem of 528, for which see ZuCKerman 2004, p. 96.17. ZuCKerman 2004, p. 83 (21.65 g, 240:1 rate); noesKe 2000, p. 152 (24.95 g, 210:1 rate);

MIBE, p. 16-17 (24.07 g, 210:1 rate); morrisson 1989b, p. 248, table 2 (23.19 g, 210:1 rate); hendy 1985, p. 478 (180:1 rate).

18. morrisson 1989b, p. 248, table 2.


RN 2012, p. 363-402

body of written evidence has proved to be insufficient. As we shall see, the heavy coins survived in circulation until the end of the sixth century. This fact alone, once fully established, will shed much needed light on the mechanisms used by the Byzantine government to regulate the circulating mass and on its degree of flexibility in allowing for regional variation according to local circumstances.

Previous interpretations of the numismatic material dated to 538-542 relied primarily on single finds resulting from excavations of major urban centers of the Empire (Athens, Corinth, Sardis, Gerasa, and Antioch), on hoards from the Near East, and to a lesser extent on a selection of hoards from the Balkans. In one of the earliest attempts at a comparative analysis, Michael Metcalf drew attention to differences in coin distribution in various parts of the early Byzantine Empire.19 Familiar with the material from several regions, he immediately recognized the extreme scarcity of heavy coins in hoards and site finds from Palestine. Since such coins were not in such short supply in towns like Athens or Sardis, he concluded that the post-reform coinage had not been introduced in the southern Levant.20

On the basis of hoards, Philip Grierson concluded that the large coins must have been withdrawn from circulation as soon as the weight of the follis was sufficiently low to make withdrawal worthwhile for the state. A decade later, Arnold Spaer used the Rafah hoard to illustrate the absence of the dated issues of Justinian from Palestine. He also pointed to their unusual size, which did not conform either to the pre-538 or to the post-565 standard.21 Spaer did not develop his argument any further, but it appeared to be the opposite of Gresham’s law: hoard owners preferred coins that did not deviate from the official standard of the day over “good money”.

A historical interpretation was later advanced by Henri Pottier who suggested that wars and natural disasters such as the “Justinianic plague” could explain the scarcity of post-reform issues in the Near East22. This interpretation found additional support in the following decades.23 A different historical interpretation was proposed by John Casey after a reexamination of Procopius’ famous account in his Secret History referring to Justinian’s stop on the payments for the limitanei guarding the eastern frontier.24 The scarcity of Justinian’s post-reform

19. metCalF 1960a.20. metCalF 1960b, p. 216; metCalF 1964, p. 32.21. spaer 1978, p. 66.22. pottier 1983, p. 55.23. morrisson 1989a, p. 192; ariel 2002, p. 299.24. Casey 1996, p. 114. To be sure, there is some truth in Procopius’ accusations. Archaeo-

logical research on the Limes Arabicus has revealed a total abandonment of military installations after the first decades of the sixth century, see parKer 2006, p. 567-569; harper 1995, p. 17-20; GiChon 1993, p. 25. It was in part the archaeological research in this region that prompted Casey’s interpretation of the numismatic material in relation to the frontier.

ANDREI GÂNDILă368

RN 2012, p. 363-402

coinage in the East cannot be a direct consequence of Justinian’s measures regarding the limitanei, since much of the evidence comes from non-military sites, where the coins of his successors Justin II and Maurice, are found in abundance.25

Withdrawal due to unusual standard is, however, the preferred explanation in recent publications. In terms similar to Grierson’s interpretation, Wolfgang Hahn argued that the large folles disappeared from circulation once the weight standard was reduced.26 Moreover, he suggested that our understanding of the impact made by the heavy series is founded on the high occurrence of such pieces in public collections, which can be misleading due to collectors’ prefer-ence for such eye-catching specimens. To strengthen his case, Hahn pointed to the scarcity of heavy coins in hoards from the period. However, in Balkan hoards the heavy series is well represented, which completely undermines Hahn’s conclusion.27 Following a similar argument, Kenneth Harl and Hans-Christoph Noeske maintained that Justinian’s heavy coins had been struck in small numbers and were not meant for long-term circulation.28 Again, the evi-dence from the Balkans contradicts such a conclusion. In a recent article, Bruno Callegher compiled a catalogue of Justinian’s heavy series from single finds and hoards.29 It turned out to be a thin inventory of just 74 single finds, in sharp contrast with the far superior number of specimens from Balkan hoards. In light of this material his conclusion was sound: the heavy coins had little impact on the economy, and their outstanding size made them vulnerable to hoarding, according to Gresham’s law. Reconciling the evidence of hoards with the theory of a rapid withdrawal is arguably a most difficult task and cannot been done in a convincing manner. Regional variation adds to the difficulty of the problem and forbids any sweeping generalizations.

1. Hoards

Most of the information about the hoarding of coins dated between 538 and 542 comes from the Balkans (figures 1-2). A close analysis of the age structure of each hoard prompts a number of important observations regarding the circu-lation of these issues (table 3).30 There are few hoards concealed during the

25. bijovsKy 2011, ch. 3.5.26. MIBE, p. 57.27. The full inventory of hoards from the Balkans (Trésors) was not yet published in 2000,

but the majority of the available hoards had already been gathered by Florin Curta, see Curta 1996. Similarly ignoring the Balkan material, Michael hendy (1985, p. 319-320) reached the same conclusion.

28. harl 1996, p. 197; noesKe 2000, I, p. 153.29. CalleGher 2006, p. 134-141.30. Small hoards whose structure did not have a statistical relevance have been excluded

from table 3 (appendix) and figure 3.


RN 2012, p. 363-402

decade following the 538 reform, and the available list reveals that there were not that many large coins around. To be sure, they do appear in hoards with the latest coins struck during the reign of Justinian, but only in small numbers. In the Blagoevgrad hoard, they represent 7,3 % of the total number of coins, while in most other hoards the percentage is never higher than 431. Surprisingly, higher percentages appear in later hoards with closing dates in the 570s: Dolno Sachrane (571/2 – 10,4 %), Nicopolis ad Nestum (574/5 – 10,9 %), Gropeni (577/8 – 16,7 %), and Varna (578/9 - 28 %). It is worth noting that the highest frequency of heavy coins occurs in hoards from the Diocese of Thracia, with a concentration in the last years of the decade, marked by the incursions of the Slavs in the Balkans and the Avaro-Byzantine counteroffensive north of the Danube32. Hoards dated to the 580s have fewer heavy coins, much like hoards dated to the first years after the reform. By the late 580s, heavy coins petered out. Seven out of ten statistically significant hoards without heavy issues – Baba, Jambol, Heraclea Lyncestis, Priolithos, Stobi, Prilep, and Ma’oz Haim Syna-gogue – have been closed after 58433. In fact, such coins become exceedingly rare in hoards of the last decade of the sixth and the first quarter of the seventh century: only 4 out of 45 hoards contain heavy coins of Justinian.

31. Another exception is the Godiachevo hoard (Trésors, no. 89), concealed after 549, in which Justinian’s heavy series accounts for 1/3 of the hoard. However, the hoard has only 24 coins and was not included in the table.

32. ChiriaC 1993.33. For Baba, Jambol, Heraclea Lyncestis and Priolithos, see Trésors, nos. 105, 19, 90, and

183. For Stobi and Prilep, see hadji-maneva 2011, nos. 17 and 25. For Ma’oz Haim Synagogue, see bijovsKy 2011, no. 8.

Figure 1 - Number of hoards per diocese. Figure 2 - Number of heavy coins in hoards per diocese.

Thracia

Illyricum

AsiaOriens "Barbaricum"

Thracia

Illyricum

Asia

Oriens "Barbaricum"

ANDREI GÂNDILă370

RN 2012, p. 363-402

This brief overview helps to elucidate the chronological trajectory of Justinian’s heavy series, which made a slow appearance in hoards closed during the emperor’s lifetime. Their number increased substantially in the 570s, during the reigns of Justin II and Tiberius II. After this moment of “popularity,” the proportion of heavy coins in hoards from the Balkans suddenly drops and reaches a level of insignificance toward the end of the sixth and the first decades of the seventh century. It becomes apparent that a number of major transformations came about during the reign of Maurice, especially in its second decade. Furthermore, the pre-538 coinage is almost absent in hoards from the 590s and the early 600s deposited in the Balkans (Histria III-VI, Bosman, Caričin Grad C, Rakita, Reselec, Unirea, Movileni, and Horgeşti) and Asia Minor (Anemurium), all of which hardly contain any issues pre-dating the reign of Justin II. By contrast, contemporary hoards from the Near East have relatively large numbers of pre-538 coins (Near East, Northern Syria, Cyrrhus, Amman, Khirbet deir Dassawi).34

Three issues need to be explained in more detail: the disappearance of the heavy series from Balkan hoards (figure 3), its conspicuous scarcity in hoards from Syria-Palaestina, and the relation between the age structure of hoards and the general circulation of those unusually large coins. Historical sources offer some clues as to what might have caused the disappearance from circulation of the large coins. In 587, the soldiers’ wages were reduced by a quarter,35 while in 596 Maurice attempted to reform the donativum by paying one third in coin and the rest in military equipment.36 In addition, by 600, the Empire could no longer afford to ransom the prisoners taken by the Avars.37 These episodes suggest that the Empire had entered a profound financial crisis, no doubt as a long-term consequence of the wars fought on multiple fronts since the time of Justinian. An ever-increasing tribute paid to the Avars, a major Slavo-Avar campaign in 586 which devastated the Danubian provinces, and Maurice’s desperate measures to raise an army, while the Empire was also engaged in Persia – all frame the picture of a deep crisis.38 Furthermore, as a result of inten-sive hoarding for two decades, copper was in shorter supply at the treasury, a phenomenon betrayed by the large number of overstruck folles dating from the 590s. Numismatists usually refer to the reigns of Phocas and Heraclius as

34. For Histria III-VI, Bosman, Caričin Grad C, Rakita, Reselec, Unirea, Movileni, Horgeşti, and Anemurium, see Trésors, nos. 71-74, 217, 238, 239, 366, 358, 355, and 339. For the Near East, see pottier 1983, mansField 1995a and 1995b, and noesKe 2000, II, p. 453-468, 682-688, and 632-634. As a matter of fact, as late as the 630s hoards still included pre-538 issues, such as the ones from Tell Bissé, Baalbek, a hoard from Lebanon/Syria, and the group of coins from the Grazel B shipwreck, for which see noesKe 2000, II, p. 541-562 and 564-573; kruszyński 1999; morrisson 1981, p. 35-52.

35. theophanes ConFessor, Chronographia, AM 6079, theophylaCt simoCatta, Historia, 7,1,1.36. theophylaCt simoCatta, Historia, 3,1.37. theophanes ConFessor, Chronographia, AM 6092.38. For the general conditions see Whitby 1988, p. 140-165.


RN 2012, p. 363-402

a time of massive overstriking, aimed at reducing the costs of remelting and preparing new flans, but in fact this practice was already under way during the reign of Maurice. Overstruck coins appear in public collections,39 catalogues of site finds,40 and published hoards.41 Full illustration of published coins would probably reveal the true scale of this phenomenon. More significantly, over-striking often occurred on the large coins of Justinian, whose wide flans were subsequently trimmed to meet the current weight standard of 13.53 g. The large collection of the American Numismatic Society contains fourteen overstruck coins from this period, of which ten clearly display Justinianic undertypes, with their unmistakably larger “M”. It is not mere coincidence that the large coins disappeared from hoards precisely at the time of overstriking. Justinian’s heavy series was the first victim of the process of withdrawal and re-striking, quickly followed by pre-538 folles, probably still 16-17 g heavy, and by other dated folles of Justinian (542-565), all of which were far heavier than Maurice’s own issues of 11.55 g on average.42

39. sommer 2003, p. 59, no. 288; DOC I, p. 307, no. 33e2; BNCByz, p. 185, no. 16; BMCByz, p. 160-161, nos. 138-139; ratto 1930, p. 51, no. 1105; althoFF 1998, p. 111, no. 823.

40. Viminacium: ivanišević 1988, p. 94, no. 56. Sardis: bates 1971, p. 68, no. 562. Caesarea Maritima: ariel 1986, p. 143, no. 67; evans 2006, p. 193, no. 2472. South-Eastern Bulgaria: tenChova 2011, pl. 115/2079, 2082; pl. 117/2131; pl. 118/ 2145; pl. 119/2162, 2173, 2176; pl. 120/2188.

41. Tell Bissé hoard: leuthold 1952-1953, p. 39. qazrin hoard: ariel 1996, p. 75, no. 6.42. morrisson 1989b, p. 248, table 2.

Figure 3 - The gradual disappearance of heavy coins in hoards concealed in the decades following the 538 reform.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

538-550 550-560 560-570 570-580 580-590 590-600 600-610 610-620 620-630

Hoards without heavy coins

Total number of hoards

ANDREI GÂNDILă372

RN 2012, p. 363-402

The much-discussed absence of heavy folles from Syrian and Palaestinian hoards is only apparently surprising. Given that beginning with the 580s, Justinian’s coins were withdrawn in great numbers from the Balkans, it is pos-sible to explain to some extent the absence of such coins from hoards in the Near East, many of which have a closing date after 600. Unlike hoards in the Balkans, the majority of which may be dated between 570 and 590, hoards from the Near East are simply much later and as a consequence do not lend themselves to easy comparison with hoards 30-50 years younger, which had been collected from a very different coin pool. The hoard of Rafah (573/574) along with two small hoards from Beth She’an, which await publication, are the only hoards so far known in the Near East for the 570s.43 To be sure, the Rafah hoard contains no heavy coins, but a North Syrian hoard concealed after 585 has a large number of Justinianic dated issues (25 %) of which one belongs to the heaviest standard. On the other hand, no dated issues of Justinian could be found in the large hoard from Amman concealed after 590.44 The Khirbet Marus hoard discussed elsewhere has three heavy coins and also a significant number of dated issues,45 while a hoard recently found at Beth She’an in Palaestina II contains only heavy coins dated 538-542.46 The unprecedented output of the Antioch mint during the reign of Maurice may be related to a process of with-drawal of older issues, although that process may have started earlier in the Near East, as will be discussed below in relation to single finds. The evidence is so far inconclusive for hoards found outside the Balkans, as published hoards from Anatolia are even fewer than in Syria or Palaestina, while most of the available material from Cyprus is dated to the seventh century and is not very relevant to our question.47 There is only one small hoard found in Mazotos near Larnaca, with a closing date of 574/575, which indeed contains 11 dated coins of Justinian, more than half of the entire hoard. Three of them belong to the heavier standard.48 It remains to be seen whether the prolonged circulation of heavy Justinianic issues in Cyprus has anything to do with the fact that Cyprus

43. spaer 1978; bijovsKy 2011, nos. 46-47. Four hoards from Berytus have a closing date related to the 551 earthquake and do not include any heavy coins. However, the circulating medium of the Lebanese coast is entirely peculiar, with a predominance of Anastasian small module coins, which makes it appear like a very regionalized monetary economy. For the hoards, see abou diWan 2008; beliën 2005; butCher 2003, p. 283-286; arGuelles 1976.

44. noesKe 2000, II, p. 682-683.45. Gândilă 2009a, p. 176, and forthcoming in bijovsKy 2011.46. bijovsKy 2011, no. 9. The coins have been found piled in a row and not detached but seem

to belong to the same weight standard. The only visible date is 538/539. The only known hoard to contain only coins belonging to the heavy series was found at Radingrad in Moesia II (Trésors, no. 53). The fact that all coins belong to the same mint and officina (NIC, B) suggests that they had been recently brought from the mint.

47. noesKe 2000, II, p. 426-440, 445-448.48. pitsillides 2000-2001.


RN 2012, p. 363-402

was part of quaestura exercitus along with provinces such as Scythia and Moesia II in which such coins have been found in great numbers.49

If the heavy coins of Justinian appear in hoards until the last decade of the sixth century, what does that tell us about the circulation of those coins between 538 and ca. 590? The idea of a rapid withdrawal from circulation, immediately after the reduction in 542 of the legal weight standard, cannot be sustained. Those coins were still available for hoarding 50 years after they had been issued and there is no reason to believe that small collections of five to ten coins, which appear so often in the Balkans, are the result of long-term savings. In fact, the level of prices and wages, as well as the general standard of living suggest that the typical Balkan hoards were closer to the concept of pocket money rather than a true fortune.50 Gresham’s law applies mostly to silver and gold. With copper, although the intrinsic value of Justinian’s dated series is clearly higher than that of any coins of the 570s, it remains unclear how generalized the tendency was to withdraw them for the purpose of hoarding. For heavy coins of Justinian, there is no significant statistical difference in proportion between hoards and single finds. While there might have been a certain tendency to hoard larger pieces, that was not the main reason for their disappearance from circulation. There can be no doubt that in the Balkans the large coins were still in use in the 580s.

At least in theory, the Byzantine government must have had an interest in calling in those unusually large coins, especially after Justinian’s death when the weight of the follis was lowered by some 30 %. It is well known that taxa-tion offered the ideal opportunity to regulate the circulating mass. Copper coins were either exchanged for solidi or were used for payment at the current exchange rate. Whether coins were weighed or numbered is ultimately a matter of how fiduciary was the early Byzantine coinage, a question on which the scholarly community is still divided.51 Indeed, if coins were counted, owners may have been inclined to keep the heavier coins for as long as possible, and to use the lighter ones for payments. If, on the other hand, coins were weighed rather than numbered, it was much more profitable to dispose of the heavier specimens through taxation and to gain a few folles in the process, coins which could be used at face value during daily market transactions. However, taxation did not always go smooth in the Balkans and arrears seem to have been common

49. mihailov 2010, p. 111, fig. 1; Gândilă 2008, p. 306, table 2.50. morrisson 1989b, p. 252-256; A. H. M jones (1964, p. 447) advanced the sum of 1.5 solidi/

year for the common man. Even with the advantageous exchange rate of the years following the 538 reform, that still means ca. 315 folles/year, and more than twice that much with the exchange rate from the peak decades of hoarding in the Balkans (570-590).

51. For the concept, see morrisson 1979; salamon 1979; pottier 1983, p. 124-126; yannopoulos 1987, p. 126-128; MIBE, p. 8; banaji 2001, p. 70; ZuCKerman 2004, p. 82-83; Carlà 2009, p. 336-340.

ANDREI GÂNDILă374

RN 2012, p. 363-402

especially under Justin II and Tiberius II, exactly at the time when Justinian’s heavy coins appear in great numbers in hoards. Difficulties in collecting taxes from the frontier provinces received particular mention in the legislation of 566 and 575.52 Such hypotheses aside, we should not dismiss the possibility of a regional pattern of circulation in the Balkans, where the heavy series remained in circulation for many decades, in the same way in which the Lebanese coast is characterized by small-module coins of Anastasius, in mass circulation long after they had disappeared from other regions.

2. Single finds

We now need to turn to single finds for a broader understanding of the economic consequences of Justinian’s ambitious reform. In his recent article Bruno Callegher gathered 74 single finds from various parts of the Empire and concluded that the heavy coins of Justinian did not make a significant impact on the circulating mass.53 In reality, there are more than 800 single finds dated between 538 and 542, many still awaiting publication, while others have been published in less accessible journals, although this is not always the case (table 2).54 Despite the best efforts to gather as much material as possible, it is very likely that this number is itself only a fraction of the total number of coins still unresearched in museums from the Balkans and especially Turkey. Adding an impressive number of coins to what has so far been considered a very slender body of evidence is not a sufficient reason to conclude that the heavy coins made a significant impact on the sixth-century monetary economy. It may well be that researching any given period one is bound to reveal a great number of yet unknown specimens and simply create a larger inventory for use. The real test is to calculate the proportion of heavy coins from 538-542 in the total number of early Byzantine coins found during excavations in ancient settle-ments, or from regional museums in which coins are clearly provenanced. In many cases, no statistical calculations are possible because of the small number of coins available for study. Fortunately, over 50 samples are large enough to

52. Nov. CXLVIII and CLXIII.53. CalleGher 2006 (p. 104) chose to disregard museum collections such as the ones in

Amasya, Amasra, and Zagreb on the grounds that exact provenance is not always known. His skepticism is not entirely warranted since museum records specifically indicate a local provenance for most pieces. In addition, many museum collections, such as in Constanţa, Yalvaç, Isparta, Malatya, or Amasya, contain large numbers of coins resulting from archaeological excavations in the region. At the same time, museum records differentiate between single finds and hoards, especially when more homogeneous groups of coins were acquired. Indeed, non-stratigraphic finds need to be treated with a grain of salt, but not automatically dismissed.

54. See for instance 36 coins of the heavy series from the collection of the museum in Constanţa (ancient Tomis) published in the “Moneta” series, poenaru et alii 2004. For a statistical analysis, see poenaru 1981, p. 369.


RN 2012, p. 363-402

lend themselves to a relevant statistical analysis (table 2). It is not unusual for sites to yield a few hundred early Byzantine coins and even when the numbers are too low to be relevant, they still have some use for our understanding of geographic distribution and levels of monetization (figures 9-11).55

A first observation needs to be made about the rhythm of mint output during this short reform period of four years (figure 4, table 1). Again, the comparison between major public collections, single finds, and hoards proves to be a fruitful exercise.56 The correlation between public collections and single finds is particu-larly striking and offers the image of a high output in 539/540 followed by a drop in 540/541 and a new peak in the last year of this cycle. The activity of the mints of Carthage and Antioch in 539/540 can partly explain these fluctuations. Unfortunately, we are still woefully ignorant of some of the most basic mecha-nisms which determined the level of mint output, although we can speculate that issues related to taxation and military payments constituted the main rationale behind the decision to release a certain quantity of coin into circulation.

Public collectionsSingle findsHoards

0 %

5 %

10 %

15 %

20 %

25 %

30 %

35 %

40 %

538-539 539-540 540-541 541-542

Figure 4 - Annual fluctuations in coin supply (538-542).

55. The numbers on the maps are those from Table 2 (appendix).56. The major collections under discussion are DOC, BMCByz, BNCByz, American Numis-

matic Society, and Duisburg Museum (althoFF 1998). For detailed comparisons, see Gândilă 2009a.

ANDREI GÂNDILă376

RN 2012, p. 363-402

To take the comparison even further, the breakdown by denomination shows in all cases a prevalence of the follis, with over 70 %, and higher proportions, as expected, in the case of hoards (figure 5). Lower denominations were struck in much smaller numbers and we should not be misled by their higher proportion in major urban centers such as Constantinople, Antioch, Sardis or Tomis. The theory that smaller coins are found more frequently because they were more easily lost was founded precisely on such coin inventories from major cities, where the monetary economy was more sophisticated and required a large quantity of small denominations to be used in frequent daily transactions.57 A clear dichotomy was immediately established between hoards which contained almost exclusively folles and half-folles, purposefully selected to be hoarded, and site finds which abounded in small change. Most military sites from the Balkans and much of the evidence from Anatolia contradict this image. The higher percent of folles in hoards cannot be disputed, but site finds contain no significant numbers of decanummia and pentanummia. On the same sites dozens or hundreds of smaller fourth-to-fifth century coins have been retrieved and therefore excavators cannot be blamed for lack of care. Equally questionable in the light of the Balkan finds is the argument that the bigger the coin, the higher the chance the owner would retrieve it, or not even lose it in the first place.58 In regions where the monetary economy was less developed, and this was certainly the case of many frontier fortresses or rural areas, the availability of folles and half-folles sufficed to adjust the payment of taxes at levels below the gold tremissis and to offer a means of exchange for occasional market transactions.

As for the mints responsible for striking the heavy series of 538-542 (figure 6), the important role of Constantinople comes as no surprise and is especially true for the Balkans, where the metropolitan mint covers more than 70 % of the finds. Since major public collections acquired coins from every region of the Empire, the mints of Antioch and Carthage have a higher percentage. In the Balkans the scarcity of coins minted in Antioch during this four-year period can be ascribed to the fact that that mint issued the heavy standard only in 539/540, after which it was shut down for almost three years because of the Persian invasion. Surprisingly, the mint of Carthage has a higher presence in the Balkans, and the majority of finds are not folles, as expected, but half-folles and decanummia.59

57. Grierson 1986, p. 42.58. The argument is still used (sheedy 2001, p. 5) but it clearly needs further empirical

validation. For a brief discussion, see CalleGher 2006, p. 140.59. iuruKova 1964; Gândilă 2008, p. 319, table 1; tenChova 2011; mihailov 2012. Interest-

ingly, the dated issues of Carthage seem to be more abundant in the eastern Balkans than in the western part of the peninsula, just a few specimens being so far published from Serbia, Albania, and Croatia.


RN 2012, p. 363-402


M K I E0 %

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

70 %

80 %

90 %


CON NIC CYZ ANT CAR0 %

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

70 %

80 %

90 %

Figure 5 - Denominations (538-542).

Figure 6 - Mints (538-542).

ANDREI GÂNDILă378

RN 2012, p. 363-402

The presence of Carthaginian coins in the Balkans was ascribed to the movement of troops,60 but commerce and the movement of civilians is also to be taken into consideration given the number of coins found in coastal towns, such as Histria, Tomis, Pitiunt, Antioch, and Caesarea Maritima.

Returning to the proportion of heavy coins in finds of early Byzantine coins, it should be remembered that numbers can be misleading if they are not fully explained. After comparing the number of heavy coins from 538-542 to the other three periods of Justinian’s reign, Bruno Callegher concluded that it represents only 9 % on average, which substantiated the claim that such coins witnessed a limited circulation.61 In reality, this is anything but a small percentage if we take into account the fact that the four years under discussion (538-542) themselves represent only a little over 10 % of Justinian’s long reign and in all probability will compare unfavorably to the last reform period of Justinian which covers fifteen years (550-565).62 Keeping this methodological rule in mind is a crucial step toward a correct interpretation of the proportion of heavy coins in the entire group of early Byzantine coins. The short period when such heavy coins were being issued represents only a little over 3 % of the entire chronological frame, which covers more than a century.

The most striking feature of the geographical distribution is the concentra-tion of such coins in the diocese of Thracia (figures 7-8). Almost 70 % of all single finds in the entire Empire come from the eastern half of the Balkans, and the highest percentages are those of the frontier provinces of Scythia and Moesia Secunda. The heavy series of Justinian accounts for more than 10 % of all early Byzantine coin finds in Turgovishte, Shumen, Gabrovo, and Sucidava, the Byzantine bridge-head on the left bank of the Danube. Such coins are also found more frequently in northern Illyricum, which enlarges the picture of a significant concentration of heavy coins in the frontier region, directly related to the presence of troops. In southern Illyricum, especially the diocese of Mace-donia, the heavy influence of the mint of Thessalonica probably prevented an intense circulation of Justinianic heavy folles. These are the areas where the peculiar 16-nummia pieces were predominant, and later replaced by half-folles issued in great numbers by the Macedonian mint. Justinian supplemented his building program with an able diplomacy aimed at reducing the danger at the Danube frontier. We do not know how well he was able to man his network of fortresses in the Balkans, but if we are to take Agathias at face value, it seemed

60. morrisson 2003, p. 82. With many coins found in the Danube region, the association with the movement of troops is inescapable, especially since, according to Procopius, the army which recaptured Carthage was mainly recruited from the Balkans, see proCopius, Wars, 3.11.10.

61. CalleGher 2006, p. 140.62. Gabriela Bijovsky has recently concluded that the heavy series of Justinian actually

represents the highest percentage of dated coins of Justinian found in Palestine, see bijovsKy 2011, p. 229.


RN 2012, p. 363-402

that by 559, in the absence of a mobile army, the defense system of the Balkans had a diminished efficiency against an invading force, since Zabergan, the leader of the invading Cutrigurs advanced unopposed toward the walls of Constantinople itself.63

The Empire’s policy at the Danube changed after Justinian’s death and Justin II’s decision to discontinue payments to various barbarians tribes as a means of securing the peace. The defense of the frontier had to rely almost exclusively on permanent garrisons and mobile troops, as far as the Empire could afford to deploy troops in the Balkans at a time when the conflict with Persia taxed the Empire’s already diminished resources. It seems that Justin II continued to use the heavy coinage of his predecessor as a form of payment for the troops defend-ing the Danube border. Their pervasive presence in Balkan hoards concealed during his reign, as well as the massive presence of such coins among single finds testify to the importance of this coinage in the second half of the sixth century. Until the 590s, when a deep financial crisis forced the administration to recall the heavy coinage of Justinian in order to gain the much needed raw material for striking fresh coins, the heavy series circulated side by side with the pre-538 coinage, which still included small-module coins of Anastasius,64 and with the coinage of Justinian’s successors, Justin II, Tiberius II, and Maurice.

63. aGathias, Historiarum Libri V, V, 11.64. The latest hoard in the Balkans to include small module issues of Anastasius is Caričin

Grad C, concealed after 595 (Trésors, no. 217), while in the East, the hoard from Baalbek hidden after 630 still contained two small-module folles (noesKe 2000, II, p. 564).

Figure 7 - Single finds of heavy coins per diocese.

Figure 8 - Average percentage of heavy coins per diocese.

ThraciaIllyricum

Asia

Pontus

Oriens"Barbaricum"

Thracia

Illyricum

Asia

Pontus

Oriens

ANDREI GÂNDILă380

RN 2012, p. 363-402

Figure 9 - Thracia, Illyricum and “Barbaricum”.

Figure 10 - Asia, Pontus, Armenia and Lazica.


RN 2012, p. 363-402

Figure 11 - Oriens.

ANDREI GÂNDILă382

RN 2012, p. 363-402

The circulation of Justinian’s heavy coinage was by no means restricted to the Balkans.65 Although much reduced in numbers, these coins appear through-out the dioceses of Asia and Pontus, with a concentration next to the Aegean coast, although no definitive conclusion can be drawn in this respect until the publication of the Byzantine coins from various local museums in central and eastern Turkey and from excavations in important centers such as Amorium.66 Judging from the coin inventory from Malatya (Melitene), it seems that the coins of Justinian made a lesser impact on the eastern frontier compared to the Danube region. To be sure, such coins reached as far as Lazica in Transcaucasia and a connection with a military presence related to the Byzantine control of the region after the “eternal peace” cannot be ruled out. The small number of sixth century hoards from Anatolia may be ascribed to a relatively peaceful century,67 but the connection between hoards and military events is not always warranted. The lack of any Syrian hoards from the troubled 540s is a possible warning in this respect.

An increasing inventory of finds from Syria-Palestine substantiates the claim that the heavy coins of Justinian did circulate in the diocese of Oriens, albeit at a much smaller scale than in the Balkans or in Asia Minor.68 There is a wide geographical distribution of finds with a concentration on the coast of Phoenice and in Palaestina I. Presumably, the circulating mass was under closer control in highly urbanized regions such as Syria and Palaestina and the heavy coins of Justinian could have been withdrawn at an earlier date. Nevertheless, the case of Berytus with its peculiar circulating medium prevents us from seeing the Near Eastern provinces as a more standardized area in terms of coin circulation. The coinage of Constantinople and Nicomedia is abundant in Syria-Palestine, despite the presence of Antioch in the region, and there is no reason to believe that heavier specimens were not accepted. However, with a much smaller loss rate than in the Balkans we must take into consideration an earlier withdrawal, perhaps as soon as Justin II reduced the size of the follis or at the latest when the war with Persia was resumed in 572. We can also envisage a delayed arrival of Justinian’s new coinage in his eastern provinces affected by the Persian invasion of 540 and a devastating plague in 542. To be sure, with the exception of Antioch, there are no single finds in the provinces of Syria and Euphratensis which can be attributed to this particular coinage. Indeed, the small number of publications may be misleading, but the well-published catalogues of finds from Hama, Apamea, Déhès, and Barbalissus nonetheless have no large coins of Justinian.69

65. Such coins are seldom found in Egypt and Italy (CalleGher 2006, p. 134-139, and no. 104), but it should come as no surprise given the different patterns of coin circulation in those regions.

66. For the general situation of Byzantine coins in Anatolia, see liGhtFoot 2002; Culerrier 2006.67. Culerrier 2006, p. 110.68. Gândilă 2009a, p. 173-176; bijovsKy 2011, ch. 3.4.7.69. Hama: thomsen 1986. Apamea: balty 1984. Déhès: morrisson 1980. Barbalissus:

hennequin, abū-l-FaraJ 1978.


RN 2012, p. 363-402

The heavy series of Justinian traveled far outside the Empire’s borders, and although most of the coins are found in the near “barbaricum”, in today’s Romania, Austria, Georgia, Ukraine and Armenia, and to the west, in France and Spain, there are finds reported as far as the Czech Republic, Poland, and Russia.70 This is another testimony of the wide circulation of those pieces, as well as of Justinian’s own policy of controlling the populations living in the shadow of the Empire. Once outside the frontier, the Empire had no control over their circulation and this is one of the reasons why such coins are found in greater numbers north of the Danube, where they were highly valued for their intrinsic value.71

Conclusion

Both the evidence of hoards and single finds point to a normal circulation of the heavy coinage introduced by Justinian in 538 and reformed in 542. If impe-rial propaganda had a major role in the decision to introduce an unusually large coinage, the decision to return gradually to the pre-538 standard was prompted by the new political and economic conditions of the early 540s, when a series of military and natural disasters brought the age of prosperity to an abrupt end. Nevertheless, the heavy coins continued to circulate, as did the previous issues back to the 498 reform of Anastasius. Although there might have been a tendency to withdraw heavier specimens through taxation, the Empire did not embark on a full-scale policy of calling in Justinian’s coinage until a severe crisis demanded it.

There was no standardized policy across the Empire and local conditions decided what measures needed to be taken. We should remember that disaster struck much earlier in Syria-Palaestina. A devastating Persian invasion created chaos in Syria and Antioch stopped minting coins exactly at the time when Justinian’s reform was being implemented. The plague was most virulent in urban areas with high-population density and spread more rapidly in coastal regions where seaborne trade was a major component of the local economy. Finally, a serious earthquake in 551 left many cities in ruin. Anatolia and the provinces of the Balkans did not share that fate in the 540s. Despite some incur-sions, which indeed exposed the fragility of Justinian’s otherwise impressive fortification program, the Emperor’s savvy diplomatic maneuvers insured a period of relative peace for the Balkans. The most destructive invasion took place only in 559, when the Cutrigurs led by Zabergan reached the province of

70. Romania: butnariu 1983-1985. Austria: Winter 2009; Georgia: abramishvili 1965 and 1989. Ukraine: stoljariK 1993. Armenia: mousheGhian et alii 2000. France: laFaurie, pilet-lemière 2003. Spain: marot 1997. Czech Rep.: militKý 2009. Poland: Wołoszyn 2009. russia: KropotKin 1962.

71. Gândilă 2009b, p. 458.

ANDREI GÂNDILă384

RN 2012, p. 363-402

Europa and the walls of Constantinople. By then, Justinian’s new coinage was fully integrated into the monetary economy of the Balkans and would naturally remain so for the following decades, as problems in taxation, on one hand, and an increasingly militarized frontier, on the other hand, shaped the peculiar character of the coin circulation in the region.

The prolonged circulation of Justinian’s large folles side by side with the pre-538 coinage and the much lighter issues of his successors presents us with a picture of a very diverse monetary landscape, which invites us to give proper consideration to the fiduciary nature of the early Byzantine bronze coinage.72 The larger pieces may have been preferred for hoarding in some cases, although this is generally not the rule, but the hoarding phenomenon affected the entire pool of coins in circulation. In statistically relevant hoards, this coinage of Justinian accounts for some 6 % of the total number of coins, which clearly shows that in most cases the issues closer to the time of concealment were most affected by hoarding. The intensive hoarding phenomenon documented for the period 570-590 was probably behind Maurice’s decision to recall the heavier issues, in order to gain much needed metal to continue striking his own coinage in the quantity required by the high demands of waging war on multiple fronts. In this light, the early Byzantine monetary economy appears to have been less rigid than previously envisaged, since it allowed for the coexistence of issues having the same face value but different weights, as well as of older Roman coins having no legal face value but similar weight to the official denominations of the day. As documented by hoards from the Balkans, the coexistence of half-folles of Justinian from 538-542 with folles of Justin II or Maurice, all having roughly the same weight, can only be explained by regarding them as Kredit-münzen in daily transactions. Without adopting a “primitivist” stance, such a flexibility seems inescapable in a monetary economy which could not implement a standardized coinage typical of the modern age and had to deal with a fragile balance between metals and its own capability to amass sufficient raw material to cope with the economic needs of the administration, as well as with the attri-tion rate involving both hoarding and casual loss. For all intents and purposes, the attractive coins of Justinian seem to be more important to modern numisma-tists and collectors than they were to the Byzantine economic policies.

Acknowledgments

I wish to express my gratitude to Georges Abou Diwan for information regarding the Lebanese coast; Gabriela Bijovsky, Stoyan Mihailov, and Alena Tenchova, for allowing me to study their unpublished dissertations containing

72. The fiduciary nature of the early Byzantine bronze coinage was recently defended by Filippo Carlà (2009, p. 336-340). For an equally erudite rejection of the concept, see ZuCKerman 2004, p. 111-114.


RN 2012, p. 363-402

valuable unpublished material from Israel and Bulgaria; Zeliha Demirel Gökalp for her unpublished dissertation and for additional catalogues of Byzantine coins from Turkish museums and excavations; and Maja Hadji-Maneva for information regarding a number of unpublished hoards from Macedonia. Without their generosity and advice this article would not have been possible.

Abbreviations

BSNR Buletinul Societăţii Numismatice Române.Trésors C. morrisson, V. PoPović, V. ivanišević (éd.), Les Trésors monétaires byzantins des Balkans et d’Asie Mineure (491-713), Paris, 2006.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

aGathias, Historiae, Rudolf Keydell (ed.), J. D. Frendo (transl.), Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Seria Berolinensis 2, Berlin / New-York, 1967.

Corpus Iuris Civilis, P. Krueger, R. Schoell, T. Mommsen, W. Kroll (eds.), 5th ed., Berlin, 1928-1929.

jerome, Letters and Select Works, in A Select Library of the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series, vol. VI, Ph. Schaff (ed.), W. H. Fremantle (transl.), Peabody, 1994.

proCopius, Opera Omnia, J. Haury (ed.), H. B. Dewing (transl.), 7 vols, Cambridge, 1914-1928.

theophanes ConFessor, Chronographia, Carl de Boor (ed.), Leipzig, 1883.theophylaCt simoCatta, Historia, Carl de Boor and Peter Wirth (eds.),

Stuttgart, 1972.

Secondary sources

abou diWan 2008: G. abou diWan, Un trésor monétaire de Beyrouth. À propos de la circulation des monnaies d’Anastase au vie siècle, NC, 168, 2008, p. 303-320.

abramishvili 1965: T. abramishvili, Byzantine Coins in the State Georgian Museum (in Georgian), Tbilisi, 1965.

abramishvili 1989: T. abramishvili, Byzantine Coins in the State Georgian Museum 1966-1984 (in Georgian), Tbilisi, 1989.

adontZ 1970: N. adontZ, Armenia in the Period of Justinian, Lisbon, 1970.althoFF 1998: R. althoFF, Sammlung Köhler-Osbahr. Band V/1. Byzantinische

Münzen und ihr Umfeld, Duisburg, 1998.amitai-preiss 2006: N. amitai-preiss, Coins from Shiqmona, ‘Atiqot, 51, 2006,

p. 163-171.

ANDREI GÂNDILă386

RN 2012, p. 363-402

arGuelles 1976: M. R. arGuelles, A Hoard of Small Module Post Reform Coinage of Anastasius from Sarafand, M.A. Thesis, American University of Beirut, 1976.

ariel 1986: D. T. ariel, The Coins, in Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1979 – Final Report, L. I. Levine, E. Netzer (eds.), Jerusalem, 1986, p. 137-148.

ariel 1996: D. T. ariel, A Hoard of Byzantine folles from Qazrin, ‘Atiqot, 29, 1996, p. 69-76.

ashton et alii 2000: R. ashton, C. liGhtFoot, A. öZme, Ancient and Medieval Coins in Bolvadin (Turkey), Anatolia Antiqua, 8, 2000, p. 171-195.

atlan 1976: S. atlan, 1947-1967 yılları Side kazıları sırasında elde edilen sikkeler, Ankara, 1976.

balty 1984: J. balty, Monnaies byzantines des maisons d’Apamée : étude comparative, in Apamée de Syrie : bilan des recherches archéologiques 1973- 1979 : aspects de l’architecture domestique d’Apamée: actes du colloque tenu à Bruxelles les 29, 30 et 31 mai 1980, J. Balty (ed.), Bruxelles, p. 239-248.

banaji 2001: J. banaji, Agrarian Change in Late Antiquity: Gold, Labour, and Aristocratic Dominance, Oxford / New York, 2001.

barKay 2000: R. barKay, The Coins of Horvat ‘Eleq, in Y. Hirschfeld, Ramat Hanadiv Excavations. Final Report of the 1984-1998 Seasons, Jerusalem, 2000, p. 377-419.

bates 1971: G. E. bates, Byzantine Coins, Cambridge, 1971.beliën 2005: P. beliën, A Hoard of Byzantine folles from Beirut, NC, 165, 2005,

p. 314-322.bell, 1916: H. W. bell, Sardis XI, part I, 1910-1914: Coins, Leiden / Boston,

1916, p. 76-95.bellinGer 1962: A. R. bellinGer, Coins, in Excavations at Nessana, H. D. Colt

(ed.), London, 1962, p. 70-75.bijovsKy 2011: G. bijovsKy, Monetary Circulation in Palestine during the

Byzantine Period (Fifth - Seventh Centuries CE), Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University Jerusalem, 2011.

butCher 2003: K. butCher, Archaeology of the Beirut Souks 1. Small Change in Ancient Beirut: the Coin Finds from BEY 006 and BEY 045: Iron Age, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods, Berytus 45-46, 2001-2002, Beirut, 2003.

butnariu 1983-1985 : V. butnariu, Răspândirea monedelor bizantine din secolele VI-VII în teritoriile carpato-dunărene, BSNR, 77-79, 1983-1985, p. 199-235.

CalleGher 2006: B. CalleGher, La riforma della moneta di rame del 538 (Giustiniano I) e il ruolo della c.d. legge di Gresham, in I ritrovamenti monetali e la legge di Gresham. Atti del III Congresso Internazionale di Numismatica e di Storia Monetaria, Padova, 28-29 ottobre 2005, M. Asolati and G. Gorini (eds.), Padova, 2006, p. 129-154.

CalleGher 2007: B. CalleGher, Cafarnao IX. Monete dall’area urbana di Cafarnao (1968-2003), Jerusalem, 2007.


RN 2012, p. 363-402

Callot 2004: O. Callot, Salamine de Chypre. XVI, Les monnaies. Fouilles de la ville 1964-1974, Paris, 2004.

Callu 1982: J.-P. Callu, Le tarif d’Abydos et la reforme monétaire d’Anastase, in Actes du IXe Congrès International de Numismatique, Berne, septembre 1979, T. Hackens, R. Weiller (eds.), vol. 2, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1982, p. 731-740.

Camilleri 2010: V. G. Camilleri, Monete bizantine, in Hierapolis di Frigia. Le monete. Campagne di scavo 1957-2004, A. Travaglini, V. G. Camilleri (ed.), Istanbul, 2010, p. 37-46, 133-151.

Carlà 2009: F. Carlà, L’oro nella tarda antichità: aspetti economici e sociali, Torino, 2009.

Casey 1996: P. J. Casey, Justinian, the limitanei, and Arab-Byzantine Relations in the 6th c., Journal of Roman Archaeology, 9, 1996, p. 214-222.

Casey 2010: P. J. Casey, A Catalogue of the Greek, Roman and Byzantine Coins in Sinop Museum (Turkey) and Related Historical and Numismatic Studies, London, 2010.

ChiriaC 1993: C. ChiriaC, Expediţia avară din 578-579 şi evidenţa numismatică, Arheologia Moldovei, 16, 1993, p. 191-203.

Coulston, GouGh 1985: J. Coulston, M. GouGh, The Coins and Small Finds at Alahan, in Alahan: an Early Christian Monastery in Southern Turkey, M. Gough (ed.), Toronto, 1985, p. 62-71.

Culerrier 2006: P. Culerrier, Les trésors d’Asie Mineure, in Trésors, p. 105-110.

Curta 1996: F. Curta, Invasion or Inflation? Sixth to Seventh Century Byzantine Coin Hoards in Eastern and Southeastern Europe, Annali di Istituto Italiano di Numismatica, 43, 1996, p. 65-224.

Curta 2001: F. Curta, The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500-700, New York, 2001.

Custurea 2000-2001: G. Custurea, Descoperiri arheologice şi numismatice pe raza localităţii Satu Nou (com. Oltina, jud. Constanţa), Pontica, 33-34, 2000- 2001, p. 583-593.

Custurea 2004-2005: G. Custurea, Date noi privind circulaţia monedei bizantine în Dobrogea (sec. V-VII), Pontica, 37-38, 2004-2005, p. 491-536.

Custurea 2007: G. Custurea, Noi descoperiri monetare bizantine din Dobrogea (sec. V-VII), Pontica, 40, 2007, p. 533-562.

Custurea 2009: G. Custurea, Noi descoperiri monetare bizantine din aşezarea de la Capul Dealului - Oltina, Pontica, 42, 2009, p. 415-421.

Custurea, Cliante 2008: G. Custurea, T. Cliante, Noi descoperiri monetare bizantine din Dobrogea (sec. V-VII), Pontica, 41, 2008, p. 533-561.

Custurea, papasima 1992: G. Custurea, T. papasima, Monede bizantine descoperite la Păcuiul lui Soare, Pontica, 25, 1992, p. 363-380.

Custurea et alii 1997: G. Custurea, A. vertan, G. Talmaţchi, Descoperiri monetare în Dobrogea (XI), Pontica, 30, 1997, p. 371-383.

dimitrov 1998: K. dimitrov, Późnorzymskie i wczesnobizantyjskie monety z odcinka iv w Novae z lat 294-612, Novensia, 11, 1998, p. 99-112.

ANDREI GÂNDILă388

RN 2012, p. 363-402

dimitrov 1982: M. dimitrov, Pregled vurhu monetnata tsirkulatsiia v Dioniso-polis prez rannoto srednovekovie (VI-XI v.), Numizmatika, 16, 1982, no. 1, p. 33-40.

edWards 1933: K. M. EdWards, Corinth VI : Coins, 1896-1929, Cambridge MA, 1933.

erol 2005: A. erol, Perge Kazı Sikkeleri: 1989-1998, B.A. Thesis, Istanbul University, 2005.

evans 1996 : J. A. S. evans, The Age of Justinian. The Circumstances of Imperial Power, London / New-York, 1996.

evans 2006: J. de rose evans, The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima. Excavation Reports. Volume VI. The Coins and the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Economy of Palestine, Boston, 2006.

Fisher 1984: J. E. Fisher, Corinth Excavations, 1977, Forum Southwest, Hesperia, 53, no. 2, 1984, p. 217-250.

FitZGerald 1929: G. M. FitZGerald, The Coins, in Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem 1927, J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Fitzgerald (ed.), London, 1929, p. 103-132.

Galani-KriKou et alii 2002: M. Galani-KriKou, G. niKolaou, M. oiKonomidou, V. penna, I. touratsoGlou, E. tsourti, Σύνταγμα βυζαντινών θησαυρών του Nομισματικού Mουσείου (ΣΒΘ), Athens, 2002.

Gămureac 2009: E. Gămureac, Edificiul B1 din sectorul B al cetăţii Tropaeum Traiani. Consideraţii preliminare privind cercetările din 2005-2008, Pontica, 42, 2009, p. 243-299.

Gândilă 2006-2007: A. Gândilă, Early Byzantine Capidava – The Numismatic Evidence, Cercetări Numismatice, 12-13, 2006-2007, p. 97-122.

Gândilă 2008: A. Gândilă, Some Aspects of the Monetary Circulation in the Byzantine Province of Scythia during the 6th and 7th Century, in Numismatic, Sphragistic and Epigraphic Contributions to the History of the Black Sea Coast, I. Lazarenko (ed.), vol. 1, Varna, 2008, p. 301-330.

Gândilă 2009a: A. Gândilă, Early Byzantine Coin Circulation in the Eastern Provinces: A Comparative Statistical Approach, AJN, 21, 2009, p. 151-226.

Gândilă 2009b: A. Gândilă, Face Value or Bullion Value? Early Byzantine Coins beyond the Lower Danube Border, in Byzantine Coins in Central Europe between the 5th and 10th Century, M. Wołoszyn (ed.), Cracow, 2009, p. 449-471.

Gândilă 2011: A. Gândilă, Un tezaur de monede bizantine timpurii descoperit la Capidava, Cercetări Numismatice, 2011, forthcoming.

GiChon 1993: M. GiChon (ed.), En Boqeq: Ausgrabungen in einer Oase am Toten Meer, Mainz am Rhein, 1993.

GKoutZiouKostas, moniaros 2009: A. GKoutZiouKostas, X. M. moniaros, Η περι- φερειακή διοικητική αναδιοργάνωση της βυζαντινής αυτοκρατορίας από τον Ιουστινιανό: η περίπτωση της quaestura Iustiniana exercitus, Thessaloniki, 2009.

GöKalp 2007: Z. demirel GöKalp, Yalvaç ve Isparta arkeoloji müzelerinde bulunan Bizans sikkeleri, Ph.D. Dissertation, Eskişehir University, 2007.


RN 2012, p. 363-402

Grierson 1967: P. Grierson, The Monetary Reforms of Anastasius and their Economic Consequences, in International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem 1963: The Patterns of Monetary Development in Palestine and Phoenicia in Antiquity, A. Kindler (ed.), Tel-Aviv / Jerusalem, 1967, p. 283-302.

Grierson 1986: P. Grierson, Circolazione monetaria e tesaurizzazione, in La cultura bizantina, oggetti e messaggio: moneta ed economia, A. Guillou (ed.), Rome, 1986, p. 37-57.

hadji-maneva 2011: M. hadji-maneva, Early Byzantine Coin Circulation in Macedonia Secunda, Cercetǎri Numismatice, 2011.

harl 1996: K. W. Harl, Coinage in the Roman Economy 300 B.C. to A.D. 700, Baltimore, 1996.

harper 1995: R. P. harper (ed.), upper Zohar: An Early Byzantine Fort in Palaestina Tertia: Final Report of Excavations in 1985-1986, Oxford, 1995.

hendy 1985: M. F. hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300-1450, Cambridge, 1985.

hendy 1986: M. F. hendy, The Coins, in R. M Harrison, M. V. Gill, M. F. Hendy, S. J. Hill, D. Brothwell, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, vol. I, Princeton, 1986, p. 278-313.

hennequin, abū-l-FaraJ 1978: G. hennequin, A. abū-l-FaraJ, Les monnaies de Bālis, Damascus, 1978.

hohlFelder 1978: R. L. hohlFelder, Kenchreai, Eastern Port of Corinth. III. The Coins, Leiden / Boston, 1978.

iaCob 2009: M. iaCob, La circulation monétaire a L(Ibida) (Scythie Mineure) du Ve siècle au debut du VIIe siècle, Byzantine Coins in Central Europe between the 5th and 10th Century, M. Woloszyn (ed.), Cracow, 2009, p. 61-79.

iordanov 1992: I. Iordanov, Srednovekovni moneti i pechati ot Madara, in Madara 3, Shumen, 1992.

ireland 2000: S. ireland, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Coins in the Museum at Amasya, London, 2000.

ireland, aTeşoğullari 1996: S. ireland, S. aTeşoğullari, The Ancient Coins in Amasra Museum, in Studies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey, R. Ashton (ed.), London, 1996, p. 115-137.

isvoranu, poenaru 2003: G. poenaru bordea, T. isvoranu, Monede bizantine de la Tomis şi împrejurimi în colecţia Institutului de Arheologie “Vasile Pârvan”, Simpozion de Numismatică, 2003, p. 137-161.

iuruKova 1964: I. iuruKova, Deĭnostta na kartagenskata monetarnitsa i tsirku-latsiiata na kartagenski moneti v nashite zemi prez VI vek, Arheologiia, 6, no. 1, 1964, p. 7-9.

ivanišević 1988: V. ivanišević, Vizantijski novac (491-1092) iz zairke Narodnog Myzeja y Pojarevci, Numizmatičar, 11, 1988, p. 87-99.

ivanišević 1990 : V. ivanišević, Le monnaies, in Caričin Grad II: Le quartier sud-ouest de la ville haute, B. Bavant, V. Kondić, J.-M. Spieser (eds.), Belgrade / Rome, 1990, p. 259-267.

ANDREI GÂNDILă390

RN 2012, p. 363-402

Janković 1981: Đ. Janković, Podunavski deo oblasti Akvisa u VI i pocetkom VII veka, Belgrade, 1981.

jones 1964: A. H. M. jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602. A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey, vol. 1, Oxford, 1964.

KarWiese 1983: S. KarWiese, Münzliste, in Ephesos, vorläufiger Grabungsbe-richt 1982, H. Vetters (ed.),Vienna, p. 123-167.

KarWiese 1987: S. KarWiese, Münzliste, in Ephesos, vorläufiger Grabungsbe-richt für die Jahre 1984 und 1985, H. Vetters (ed.), Vienna, p. 111-159.

KirKman 1957: J. S. KirKman, The Evidence of the Coins, in The Objects from Samaria, J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot, K. M. Kenyon (dir.), London, 1957, p. 43-69.

Kos 1986: P. Kos, The Monetary Circulation in the Southeastern Alpine Region ca. 300 B.C. - A.D. 1000, Situla, 24, 1984-1985, Ljubljana, 1986.

KöKer 2007: H. KöKer, The Roman Provincial, Roman Imperial, Byzantine, Medieval and Islamic Coins from the 1952-3 Excavations at Cyzicus, NC, 167, 2007, p. 305-314.

KropotKin 1962: V. V. KropotKin, Klady vizantiĭskikh monet na territorii SSSR, Moskow, 1962.

kruszyński 1999: M. kruszyński, A Group of Byzantine Coins from Lebanon, Notae Numismaticae, 3-4, 1999, p. 221-242.

laFaurie, pilet-lemière 2003: J. laFaurie, J. pilet-lemière, Monnaies du Haut Moyen Âge découvertes en France (ve-vIIIe siècle), Paris, 2003.

laKatos 2002: A. laKatos, Monede bizantine din perioada avară în Transilvania, vestul şi nord-vestul României, Ephemeris Napocensis, 12, 2002, p. 237-256.

leuthold 1952-1953: E. leuthold, Monete bizantine rinvenute in Syria, RIN, 54-55, 1952-1953, p. 31-49.

liGhtFoot 1996: C. S. liGhtFoot, The Coins from Satala, in Studies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey, R. Ashton (ed.), London, 1996, p. 147-150.

liGhtFoot 2002: C. liGhtFoot, Byzantine Anatolia: Reassessing the Numismatic Evidence, RN, 158, 2002, p. 229-239.

lilčić, adZievsKi 1999: V. lilčić, K. adZievsKi, Kolektiven numizmatichki naod od Veleshko, Macedonian Numismatic Journal, 3, 1999, p. 73-82.

maC isaaC 2005: J. D. maC isaaC, Early Christian and Later Coin Finds from Nemea, in Excavations at Nemea III. The Coins, J. D. Mac Isaac, R. Knapp (eds.), Los Angeles, 2005, p. 183-237.

maCKensen 1992: M. maCKensen, Die Fundmünzen von Golemanovo Kale (Ausgrabung 1936-1937), in Die spätantiken Befestigungen von Sadovec (Bulgarien). Ergebnisse der deutsch-bulgarisch-österreichischen Ausgra-bungen 1934-1937, S. Uenze (ed.), Munich, 1992, p. 347-354.

mansField 1995a: S. J. mansField, Unknown (Near East), 1994 or before, NC, 155, 1995, p. 348-354.

mansField 1995b: S. J. mansField Unknown (Near East), 1993 or before, NC, 155, 1995, p. 354-358.


RN 2012, p. 363-402

marot 1997: T. marot, Aproximación a la circulación monetaria en la Penín-sula Ibérica y las Islas Baleares durante los siglos V y VI: la incidencia de las emisiones vándalas y bizantinas, RN, 152, 1997, p. 157-190.

matei 1983-1985: C. matei, Câteva monede greceşti, romane şi bizantine din Dobrogea, BSNR, 77-79, 1983-1985, p. 429-431.

metCalF 1960a: D. M. metCalF, The Currency of Byzantine Sirmia and Slavonia, Hamburger Beiträge zur Numismatik, 14, 1960, p. 429-444.

metCalF 1960b: D. M. metCalF, The Metrology of Justinian’s Follis, NC, 20, 1960, p. 209-219.

metCalF 1964: D. M. metCalF, Some Byzantine and Arab-Byzantine Coins from Palaestina Prima, Israel Numismatic Journal, 2, nos. 3-4, 1964, p. 32-47.

metCalF et alii 1999: D. M. metCalF, R. Krool, A. Berman, Coins from the Exca-vations at ‘Atlit (Pilgrims’ Castle and Its Faubourg), ‘Atiqot, 37, 1999, p. 89-164.

metCalF, payne 1965: D. M. metCalF, S. payne, Some Byzantine and Arab-Byzantine Coins Obtained in Jerusalem, NCirc, 73, 1965, p. 130-132, 185-186, 208-210, 257-258.

mihailov 2010: S. mihailov, Etapi v parichnata tsirkulatsiia prez rannovizanti-iskata epoha (498-681) v provintsiia Vtora Miziia, Numizmatika, Sfragistika i Epigrafica, 6, 2010, p. 109-122.

mihailov 2012: S. mihailov, Parichno obrashtenie v provintsia Vtora Mizia (498-681), Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Veliko Turnovo “St. Cyril and St. Methodius”, 2012.

militKý 2009: J. militKý, Finds of the Early Byzantine Coins of the 6th and the 7th Century in the Territory of the Czech Republic, in Byzantine Coins in Central Europe between the 5th and 10th Century, M. Wołoszyn (ed.), Cracow, 2009, p. 357-393.

mirniK, Šemrov 1997-1998: I. mirniK, A. Šemrov, Byzantine Coins in the Zagreb Archaeological Museum Numismatic Collection. Anastasius I (A.D. 497-518) – Anastasius II (A.D. 713-715), Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu, 30-31, 1997-1998, p. 129-258.

mitrea 1974: B. mitrea, Monedele şi prăbuşirea Dinogeţiei la sfârşitul secolu-lui VI, Pontica, 7, 1974, p. 49-72.

morrisson 1979: C. morrisson, La monnaie fiduciarie à Byzance ou « vraie monnaie », « monnaie fiduciaire » et « fausse monnaie » à Byzance, BSFN, 34, 1979, p. 612-616.

morrisson 1980: C. morrisson, Les monnaies, in J.-P. Sodini, G. Tate, B. Bavant, S. Bavant, J.-L. Biscop, D. Orssaud, C. Morrisson, Déhès (Syrie du nord) campagnes I–III (1976–1978), recherches sur l’habitat rural, Paris, 1980, p. 267-287.

morrisson 1981: C. morrisson, Les monnaies byzantines, in L’épave byzantine de Grazel B, Y. Solier (ed.), (Archaeonautica 3), 1981, p. 35-52.

morrisson 1989a: C. morrisson, La monnaie en Syrie Byzantine, in Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie II: La Syrie de l’époque achéménide à l’avènement de l’Islam, J.-M. Dentzer, W. Orthmann (eds.), Saarbrücken, 1989, p. 187-204.

ANDREI GÂNDILă392

RN 2012, p. 363-402

morrisson 1989b: C. morrisson, Monnaie et prix a Byzance du Ve au VIIe siècle, in Hommes et richesses dans l’Empire byzantin, tome I, Ive-vIIe siècle, Paris, 1989, p. 239-260.

morrisson 2003: C. morrisson, L’Atelier de Carthage et la diffusion de la monnaie frappée dans l’Afrique vandale et byzantine, Antiquité Tardive, 11 (2), 2003, p. 405-413.

mousheGhian 2000: K. mousheGhian, A. mousheGhian, C. bresC, History and Coin Finds in Armenia: Coins from Ani, Capital of Armenia, 4th c. BC - 19th c. AD, Wetteren, 2000.

nash 1988: D. nash, The Coins, in Monuments from the Aezanitis Recorded by C. W. M. Cox, A. Cameron and J. Cullen, B. Levick, S. Mitchell, J. Potter, M. Waelkens (eds.), London, 1988, p. 198.

noesKe 2000: H.-C. noesKe, Münzfunde aus Ägypten I. Die Münzfunde des ägyptischen Pilgerzentrums Abu Mina und die Vergleichsfunde aus den Diocesen Aegyptus und Oriens vom 4.-8. Jh. n. Chr, 3 vols., Berlin, 2000.

nubar 1973: H. nubar, Monedele bizantine, in C. Preda, H. Nubar, Histria III, Descoperirile monetare, 1914-1970, Bucharest, 1973, p. 198-233.

oberländer-târnoveanu 1980: E. oberländer-târnoveanu, Monede antice şi bizantine descoperite la Troesmis, Peuce, 8, 1980, p. 248-280.

oberländer-târnoveanu 2004a: E. oberländer-târnoveanu, “Barbaricum apropiat” – populaţiile din Muntenia şi Imperiul Bizantin (secolele vi-x) – mărturia numismaticii, Ialomiţa, 4, 2004, p. 323-368.

oberländer-târnoveanu 2004b: E. oberländer-târnoveanu, Tranziţia de la antichitate la evul mediu timpuriu la marginea imperiului (II). De la prima dispariţie a circulaţiei monetare la renaşterea ei în zona Porţilor de Fier ale Dunării (circa 375-565), Muzeul Naţional, 16, 2004, p. 39-83.

öZyurt 2006: H. öZyurt öZCan, Erzurum Arkeoloji Müzesi’ndeki Bizans Sikkeleri, in 24. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt, çanakkale, 2006, p. 1-16.

pennestrì 2003-2004: S. pennestrì, Monete greche, romane e bizantine dagli scavi a Iasos (1960-1979). Dati preliminari, Bollettino di Numismatica, 40-43, 2003-2004, p. 269-288.

papasima, vertan 1995-1996: T. papasima, A. vertan, Monede romane şi bizantine inedite din colecţia muzeului constănţean, Pontica, 28-29, 1995-1996, p. 271-278.

parKer 2006: s. t. parKer (ed.), The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan. Final Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980-1989, 2 vols., Washington DC, 2006.

parushev 1991: V. parushev, Antichnite moneti ot Kaliakra, Izvestiia na Narodniia Muzei Varna, 27, 1991, p. 32-36.

patoura 1997: S. patoura, Une nouvelle considération sur la politique de Justinien envers les peuples du Danube, Byzantinoslavica, 58, 1997, p. 78-86.

peleG, reiCh 1992: M. peleG, R. reiCh, Excavations of a Segment of the Byzantine City Wall of Caesarea Maritima, ’Atiqot, 21, 1992, p. 137-170.


RN 2012, p. 363-402

pitsillides 2000-2001: A. G. pitsillides, A Hoard of 6th Century Byzantine Coins from Mazotos, Larnaca District, Cyprus Numismatic Society’s “Numismatic Report”, 31-32, 2000-2001, p. 25-32.

poenaru 1981: G. poenaru bordea, Problèmes historiques de la Dobroudja (vie-viie siècles) à la lumière des monnaies byzantines traitées par des méthodes statistiques, in Statistique et numismatique: table ronde organisée par le Centre de mathématique sociale de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales de Paris et le Séminaire de Numismatique Marcel Hoc de l’Université Catholique de Louvain, Paris, 17-19 sept. 1979, C. Carcassone, T. Hackens (eds.), Strasbourg, 1981, p. 365-377.

poenaru 2003: Gh. poenaru bordea, Monedele, in Al. Suceveanu, M. Zahariade, F. Topoleanu, Gh. Poenaru-Bordea, Halmyris I, Cluj-Napoca, 2003, p. 127-189.

poenaru, diCu 1994-1995: G. poenaru bordea, P. I. diCu, Monede din secolele II-XII descoperite la Niculiţel, jud. Tulcea, BSNR, 88-89, 1994-1995, p. 33-64.

poenaru, dima 2007: G. poenaru bordea, M. dima, Monnaies, in Histria XIII : La basilique épiscopale, A. Suceveanu (ed.), Bucharest, 2007, p. 153-193.

poenaru et alii 1989: G. poenaru bordea, R. ocheşeanu, E. niColae, Axiopolis aux iiie-viie siècles de n.è. à la lumière des découvertes monétaires, SCN, 9, 1989, p. 53-73.

poenaru bordea et alii 1995: G. poenaru bordea, E. niColae, A. popesCu, Contributions numismatiques à l’histoire de Noviodunum aux vie-viie siècles, SCN, 11, 1995, p. 135-161.

poenaru et alii 1998: G. poenaru bordea, R. ocheşeanu, A. popesCu, Monede greceşti, romane şi bizantine din Dobrogea în colecţia muzeului din Brăila, SCN, 12, 1998, p. 83-117.

poenaru et alii 2004: G. poenaru bordea, R. ocheşeanu, A. popeea, Monnaies Byzantines du Musée de Constanţa (Roumanie), Wetteren, 2004.

pottier 1983: H. pottier, Analyse d’un trésor de monnaies en bronze enfoui au vIe siècle en Syrie byzantine : contribution à la méthodologie numismatique, Wetteren, 1983.

radić, ivanisević 2006: V. radić, V. ivanisević, Byzantine Coins from the National Museum in Belgrade, Belgrade, 2006.

ratto 1930: R. ratto, Monnaies byzantines et d’autres pays contemporains à l’époque byzantine, Lugano, 1930.

salamon 1979: M. salamon, Pełnowartościowy a kredytowy character pieniądza bizantyńskiego (do XI wieku), Historia i wspólczesnosc, 5, 1979, p. 95-120.

sarris 2006: P. sarris, Economy and Society in the Age of Justinian, New York, 2006.

sCheers 2000: S. sCheers, Coins Found in 1996 and 1997, in Sagalassos V: Report on the Survey and Excavation Campaigns of 1996-1997, M. Waelkens, L. Loots (eds.), Leuven, 2000, p. 509-549.

sChönert-Geiss 1989: E. sChönert-Geiss, Die Fundmünzen, in Iatrus-Krivina. Spätantike Befestigung und frühmittelalterliche Siedlung an der unteren Donau. IV. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975-1981, Berlin, 1989, p. 213-241.

ANDREI GÂNDILă394

RN 2012, p. 363-402

sheedy 2001: K. shedy, Byzantine Period Coins, in K. Sheedy, A. R. Carson, A. Walmsley, Pella in Jordan, 1979-1990: the Coins, Sydney, 2001, p. 43-55, 129-145.

sommer 2003: A. S. sommer, Katalog der byzantinischen Münzen, Göttingen, 2003.spaer 1978: A. spaer, The Rafah Hoard. Byzantine Sixth-Century Folles, NC,

138, 1978, p. 66-70.spahiu 1979-1980: H. spahiu, Monnaies byzantines des ve-xiiie siècles décou-

vertes sur le territoire de l’Albanie, Iliria, 9-10, 1979-1980, p. 353-422.stoljariK 1993: E. S. stoljariK, Essays on Monetary Circulation in the North-

Western Black Sea Region in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine Periods: Late 3rd Century – Early 13th Century A.D, Odessa, 1993.

teKin 1998: O. teKin, Byzantine Coins from Yumuk Tepe Including a Lead Seal, Anatolia Antiqua, 6, 1998, p. 273-278.

tenChova 2011: A. tenChova, Monetna tsirkulatsiia prez VI - VII vek v zemite na dneshna Iugoiztochna Bulgariia, Ph.D. Dissertation, National Institute of Archaeology and Museum Sofia, 2011.

theoKlieva-stoytCheva 2001: E. theoKlieva-stoytCheva, Medieval Coins from Mesemvria, Sofia, 2001.

thompson 1954: M. thompson, The Athenian Agora. V/2: Coins from the Roman through the Venetian Period, Princeton, 1954.

thomsen 1986: R. thomsen, The Graeco-Roman Coins, in A. Papanicolaou Christensen, R. Thomsen, G. Ploug, Hama, fouilles et recherches, 1931–1938. III. The Graeco-Roman Objects of Clay, the Coins and the Necropolis, Copenhague, 1986, p. 59-69.

todd 1987: R. todd, A Late Sixth-Century Hoard from Northern Syria, NC, 147, 1987, p. 176-182.

torbatov 1997: S. torbatov, Quaestura exercitus: Moesia Secunda and Scythia under Justinian, Archaeologia Bulgarica, 1, no. 3, 1997, p. 78-87.

torbatov 2002: S. torbatov, Monetnata tsirkulatsiia v gradishteto kraĭ Odurtsi, Turnovo, 2002.

torbatov 2002-2003: S. torbatov, Rannovizantiĭsko monetno sukrovishte ot kalepa Carea / Creas (provintsiia Skitiia), Numizmatika i Sfragistika, 9, 2002- 2003, p. 20-27.

tsuhishvili 1977: I. A. tsuhishvili, Byzantine Coins from “Great Pitiunt” (in Georgian), in The Great Pitiunt II (in Georgian), Tbilisi, 1977, p. 305-334.

ünal 2004: C. Canuyar Ünal, Izmir ili ve ilçeleri (Bergama, Efes, Ödemiş, Tire müzeleri) örnekleri ile I. dönem Bizans sikkeleri (5. Yüzyıl Sonu-8. Yüzyıl Ortası), B.A. Thesis, Ege University Izmir, 2004.

vertan, Custurea 1981: A. vertan, G. Custurea, Descoperiri monetare în Dobrogea (III), Pontica, 14, 1981, p. 331-356.

vertan, Custurea 1986: A. vertan, G. Custurea, Descoperiri monetare în Dobrogea (VII), Pontica, 19, 1986, p. 297-308.

vertan, Custurea 1995-1996: A. vertan, G. Custurea, Descoperiri monetare în Dobrogea (X), Pontica, 28-29, 1995-1996, p. 309-321.


RN 2012, p. 363-402

vetters 1980: H. vetters, Ephesos, vorläufiger Grabungsbericht 1980, Vienna, 1980, p. 154-168.

vetters 1982: H. vetters, Ephesos, vorläufiger Grabungsbericht 1981, Vienna, 1982, p. 86-102.

WaaGe 1952: D. WaaGe, Antioch-on-the-Orontes. Vol. IV, Part 2: Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Crusaders’ Coins, Princeton, 1952.

Whitby 1988: M. Whitby, The Emperor Maurice and his Historian: Theophilact Simocatta on Persian and Balkan Warfare, Oxford, 1988.

Winter 2009: H. Winter, Die byzantinischen und karolingischen Fundmünzen aus dem österreichischen Bereich der Avaria – eine Neubearbeitung, in Byzantine Coins in Central Europe between the 5th and 10th Century, M. Wołoszyn (ed.), Cracow, 2009, p. 325-356.

Wołoszyn 2009: M. Wołoszyn, Byzantinische Münzen aus dem 6.-7. Jh. in Polen, in Byzantine Coins in Central Europe between the 5th and 10th Century, M. Wołoszyn (ed.), Cracow, 2009, p. 473-530.

yağiz 1998: O. yağiz, Ainos Kazı Sikkeleri, Ph.D. Dissertation, Istanbul University, 1998.

yannopoulos 1987: P. yannopoulos, Inflation, dévaluation et réévaluation à la transition des mondes romain et byzantin, in Histoire économique de l’antiquité : bilans et contributions de savants belges présentés dans une réunion interuniversitaire, T. Hackens, P. Marchetti (éd.), Louvain-la-Neuve, 1987, p. 123-133.

ZheKova 2006: Zh. ZheKova, Moneti i monetno obrashtenie v srednovekovniia Shumen, Sofia, 2006.

ZuCKerman 2004: C. ZuCKerman, Du village à l’empire : autour du registre fiscal d’Aphroditô (525/526), Paris, 2004.

ANDREI GÂNDILă396

RN 2012, p. 363-402

APPENDIX

Table 1 - Number of coins/year in single finds and hoards.

Year HoardsSingle finds

TotalBalkans Asia Minor Near East

538/9 39M/9K 103M/45K/11I 16M/12K 5M/4K 163M/70K/11I539/0 87M/18K 167M/45K/9I 18M/8K/1I 8M/16K 280M/87K/10I540/1 46M/4K/1I 76M/15K/8I 15M/1K/1I 11M 148M/20K/10I541/2 79M/21K 122M/30K/2I 18M/5K/1I 10M/1K 229M/57K/3ITotal 251M/52K/1I 468M/135K/30I 67M/26K/3I 34M/21K 820M/234K/34I

M = follis; K = 1/2 follis; I = 1/4 follis; E = 1/8 follis.

Table 2 - Single finds of heavy coins dated 538-542 and their percentage from the total number of early Byzantine coins (c. 498-616).73

N. Location Province Heavy Coins Denomination % Reference 1 Mangalia Scythia 6 4M/2K 9.8 poenaru et alii 1998

2 Adamclisi Scythia 16 10M/5K/1I 7.6 Custurea 2004-2005; Gămureac 2009

3 Capidava Scythia 10 8M/2K 5.6 Gândilă 2006-2007; Custurea, Cliante 2008

4 Dinogetia Scythia 4 2M/2K 5.5 mitrea 1974 5 Slava Rusă Scythia 12 - 5 iaCob 2009

6 Histria Scythia 19 12M/5K/2I 4.5 nubar 1973; poenaru, dima 2007

7 Halmyris Scythia 5 4M/1K 4.4 poenaru 2003 8 Odurtsi Scythia 5 2M/2K/1E 3.6 torbatov 2002

9 Tomis Scythia 18 10M/7K/1I 3.4 poenaru et alii 2004; isvoranu, poenaru 2003

10 Kaliakra Scythia 3 1M/2K 3.3 parushev 199111 Sacidava Scythia 5 1M/4K 3 Custurea 2007

12 Troesmis Scythia 2 1M/1K 2.2 oberländer-târnoveanu 1980; Custurea, Cliante 2008

13 Noviodunum Scythia 3 3M 1.6 poenaru et alii 1995; Custurea 2004-2005

14 Cernavoda Scythia 4 1M/3K - poenaru et alii 198915 Balchik Scythia 2 3M - dimitrov 198216 Niculiţel Scythia 2 2M - poenaru, diCu 1994-199517 Oltina Scythia 2 1M/1I - Custurea 200918 Pecineaga Scythia 2 2M - poenaru et alii 200419 Ulmetum Scythia 2 1M/1K - vertan, Custurea 1995-1996

73. The steady flow of new coin to the Balkan provinces came to an abrupt end c. 616, and although sporadic coin finds are attested throughout the seventh century, their number is insig-nificant and would only distort the statistical analysis which relies on the steady supply of coin in the period 498-616.


RN 2012, p. 363-402

N. Location Province Heavy Coins Denomination % Reference20 Unknown locations Scythia 2 1M/1K - poenaru et alii 200421 Enisala Scythia 1 1K - vertan, Custurea 198622 Medgidia Scythia 1 1M - poenaru et alii 200423 Năvodari Scythia 1 1K - matei 1983-198524 Ovidiu Scythia 1 1K - vertan, Custurea 198125 Poarta Albă Scythia 1 1M - Custurea 2004-200526 Seimeni Scythia 1 1M - papasima, vertan 1994-199527 Topalu Scythia 1 1M - Custurea, Cliante 200828 Turgovishte region74 Moesia II 8 7M/1I 12.5 mihailov 201229 Shumen region Moesia II 36 19M/11K/6I 11.7 ZheKova 200630 Gabrovo region Moesia II 11 8M/3K 11.2 mihailov 201231 Sucidava Moesia Secunda 7 4M/3K 11.1 butnariu 1983-198532 Varna region Moesia II 55 42M/12K/1I 9 mihailov 201233 Ruse region Moesia II 8 7M/1K 8 mihailov 2012

34 Novae Moesia II 19 15M/3K/1I 6.5 mihailov 2012; dimitrov 1998

35 Silistra Moesia II 43 29M/10K/3I/1E 4.5 National History Museum of Romania

36 Dobrich region Moesia II 18 11M/5K/2I 4.3 mihailov 201237 Veliko Turnovo Moesia II 12 6M/5K/1I 2 mihailov 201238 Razgrad region Moesia II 3 3M - mihailov 201239 Lovech region Moesia II 2 2M - mihailov 2012

40 Păcuiul lui Soare Moesia II 2 1M/1K - poenaru et alii 2004; Custurea, papasima 1992

41 Iatrus Moesia II 2 2M - sChönert-Geiss 198942 Pleven region Moesia II 1 1M - mihailov 201243 Izvoarele Moesia II 1 1M - Custurea et alii 199744 Satu Nou Moesia II 1 1M - Custurea 2000-200145 Madara Moesia II 1 1M - iordanov 199246 Lozarevo Moesia II 1 1M - tenChova 201147 Obzor Moesia II 1 1M - tenChova 201148 Ruen Moesia II 1 1M - tenChova 201149 Unknown locations Moesia II 48 42M/5K/1I - mihailov 201250 Pomorie Haemimontus 3 1M/1I/1E 6.3 tenChova 201151 Mesembria Haemimontus 6 4M/2K - theoKlieva-stoytCheva 200152 Malko Turnovo Haemimontus 4 4M - tenChova 201153 Aitos Haemimontus 1 1M - tenChova 201154 Burgas Haemimontus 1 1M - tenChova 201155 Karnobat Haemimontus 1 1K - tenChova 201156 Bata Haemimontus 1 1M - tenChova 201157 Vizitsa Haemimontus 1 1M - tenChova 201158 Goliamo Bukovo Haemimontus 1 1M - tenChova 201159 Zidarovo Haemimontus 1 1M - tenChova 201160 Izvorishte Haemimontus 1 1K - tenChova 2011

74. The precise location of the single finds from Moesia II will be published with full details by Stoyan Mihailov in his forthcoming dissertation.

ANDREI GÂNDILă398

RN 2012, p. 363-402

N. Location Province Heavy Coins Denomination % Reference61 Karavelovo Haemimontus 2 1M/1K - tenChova 201162 Bakadjitsite Haemimontus 1 1I - tenChova 201163 Malenovo Haemimontus 1 1M - tenChova 201164 Sliven Thracia 6 6M 6.7 tenChova 201165 Hissaria Thracia 7 5M/2K 6.6 tenChova 201166 Perperikon Thracia 3 1K/2E 5.8 tenChova 201167 Kabile Thracia 6 4M/2K 2.7 tenChova 201168 Gabritsa Thracia 4 4M - tenChova 201169 Sopot Thracia 2 1M/1I - tenChova 201170 Septemvri Thracia 1 1M - tenChova 201171 Izvorovo Thracia 1 1M - tenChova 201172 Devin Thracia 1 1M - tenChova 201173 Boshulia Thracia 1 1M - tenChova 201174 Stara Zagora Thracia 1 1K - tenChova 201175 Harmanli Thracia 1 1M - tenChova 201176 Goliam Manastir Thracia 1 1M - tenChova 201177 Goliamo Shivachevo Thracia 1 1M - tenChova 201178 Gabranlovo Thracia 1 1K - tenChova 201179 Iunatsite Thracia 1 1M - tenChova 201180 Orlov Dom Thracia 1 1M - tenChova 201181 Kralevo Thracia 1 1M - tenChova 201182 Kalugerovo Thracia 1 1M - tenChova 201183 Unknown locations Thrace 43 35M/7K/1I - tenChova 201184 Smolyan Rhodopa 1 1M - tenChova 201185 Aianos Rhodopa 1 1K - yağiz 199886 Constantinople Europa 1 1E 0.2 hendy 198687 Sadovets Dacia Ripensis 7 6M/1K 7.3 maCKensen 199288 Aquis Dacia Ripensis 10 - 4.5 Janković 198189 Belgrade Museum Moesia I / Pannonia (?) 24 19M/4K/1I 7.9 radić, ivanišević 200690 Viminacium Moesia I 3 3M - ivanišević 198891 Caričin Grad Dacia Mediterranea 1 1M 2.2 ivanišević 199092 Shkodër Praevalitana 5 4M/1K - spahiu 1979-198093 Tirana Museum Epirus Nova? 5 4M/1I - spahiu 1979-198094 Dimal Epirus Nova 1 1M - spahiu 1979-198095 Berat Epirus Nova 2 2M - spahiu 1979-198096 Dajti Epirus Nova 1 1M - spahiu 1979-198097 Lin Epirus Nova 1 1M - spahiu 1979-198098 Nemea Hellas 5 5M 5.5 maC isaaC 2005

99 Corinth / Kenchreai Hellas 13 6M/6K/1E 5.3 edWards 1933; hohlFelder 1978; Fisher 1984

100 Athens Hellas 7 5M/1K/1I 1.5 thompson 1954101 Zagreb Museum Pannonia / Dalmatia 19 18M/1K 3.3 mirniC, Šemrov 1997-1998102 Suuk-Su Bosporus 1 1K - KropotKin 1962103 Cyzicus Hellespontus 1 1E - KöKer 2007104 Pergamum Asia 1 1M - morrisson 1993

105 Ephesus Asia 6 4M/2K 3 KarWiese 1983, 1987; vetters 1980, 1982


RN 2012, p. 363-402

N. Location Province Heavy Coins Denomination % Reference106 Izmir Asia 1 1K - ünal 2004107 Sardis Lydia 14 9M/4K/1I 1.4 bell 1916; bates 1971108 Iasos Caria 1 1M - pennestrì 2003-2004109 Fethiye75 Lycia - - - -110 Hierapolis Phrygia Pacatiana 6 3M/3E 5.6 Camilleri 2010111 Aezanitis Phrygia Pacatiana 2 1K/1E - nash 1988112 Isparta Pisidia 5 5M 5.2 demirel-GöKalp 2007113 Yalvaç Pisidia 17 11M/5K/1I 4.7 demirel-GöKalp 2007114 Sagalassos Pisidia 2 2M - sCheers 2000115 Perge Pamphilia 3 2M/1K 5 erol 2005116 Side Pamphilia 3 3M 0.9 atlan 1976117 Bolu Bithynia 4 3M/1K 3.7 demirel-GöKalp 2007118 Amasra Paphlagonia 4 2M/1K/1I - ireland, aTeşoğullari 1996119 Bolvadin Galatia II 1 1M - ashton et alii 2000120 Amasya Helenopontus 11 5M/6K 3.5 ireland 2000121 Alahan Isauria 1 1M - Coulston, GouGh 1985122 Sinope Helenopontus 2 2M 2.9 Casey 2010123 Satala Armenia I 1 1M - liGhtFoot 1996124 Erzurum Armenia I ? 1 1M - öZyurt 2006125 Malatya Armenia III 1 1M 0.4 demirel-GöKalp 2007126 Yumuktepe Cilicia I 1 1M - teKin 1998127 Salamis Cyprus 1 1M - Callot 2004128 Antioch Syria I 10 2M/8K 1.1 WaaGe 1952129 Beirut Phoenice 4 4M 1.5 butCher 2001-2002 130 Paneas Phoenice 1 1M - bijovsKy 2011131 Shiqmona Phoenice 1 1M - amitai-preiss 2006132 Qastra Phoenice 5 5M - bijovsKy 2011133 Haifa Phoenice 1 1M - bijovsKy 2011134 Tel Hefer Phoenice 1 1M - bijovsKy 2011135 ‚Atlit Phoenice 1 1M - metCalF et alii 1999136 Pella Palaestina II 2 2M 2.3 sheedy 2001137 Gesher Palaestina II 1 1M - bijovsKy 2011138 Capernaum Palaestina II 1 1M - CalleGher 2007139 Sepphoris Palaestina II 1 1K - bijovsKy 2011140 Horvat‚ Eleq Palaestina I 3 2M/1K 1.5 barKay 200076

141 Jerusalem Palaestina I 5 2M/3K - FitZGerald 1929; bijovsKy 2011

142 Jerusalem region Palaestina I? 3 2M/1K 2.2 metCalF, payne 1965.

143 Caesarea Maritima Palaestina I 6 2M/4K -ariel 1986; peleG, reiCh 1992; evans 2006; bijovsKy 2011

75. The important collection of Byzantine coins in the Fethiye Museum is awaiting publication. For a brief synopsis, see Casey 2010, p. 141.

76. The two folles (both dated 541/2) appear to be too light for the heavy series, weighing 9,54 g and 10,9 g, respectively, which makes their dating rather dubious, see barKay 2000, p. 392, nos. 248-249.

ANDREI GÂNDILă400

RN 2012, p. 363-402

N. Location Province Heavy Coins Denomination % Reference

144 Samaria Palaestina I 2 2M/1K - KirKman 1957; bijovsKy 2011

145 Lod (el-Khirbe) Palaestina I 1 1K - bijovsKy 2011146 Batia Palaestina I 1 1M - bijovsKy 2011147 Shoham Palaestina I 1 1M - bijovsKy 2011148 Tel Qitan Palaestina I 1 1M - bijovsKy 2011149 Nessana Palaestina III 1 1M 0.8 bellinGer 1962150 Cîmpeni “Barbaricum” 2 1M/1K - butnariu 1983-1985

151 Colibaşi “Barbaricum” 2 1M/1K - butnariu 1983-1985; stoljariK 1993

152 Bucharest “Barbaricum” 2 1M/1K - butnariu 1983-1985

153 Băiceni “Barbaricum” 1 1K - butnariu 1983-1985154 Dumitreşti Gălăţii “Barbaricum” 1 1M - butnariu 1983-1985155 Fuzăuca “Barbaricum” 1 1M - butnariu 1983-1985156 Huşi “Barbaricum” 1 1M - butnariu 1983-1985157 Lopatna “Barbaricum” 1 1M - butnariu 1983-1985158 Ţâpala “Barbaricum” 1 1M - butnariu 1983-1985159 Ţibucanii de Sus “Barbaricum” 1 1M - butnariu 1983-1985160 Vasil’evka “Barbaricum” 1 1M - stoljariK 1993161 Orlea “Barbaricum” 1 1M - butnariu 1983-1985162 Otopeni “Barbaricum” 1 1M - butnariu 1983-1985163 Novaci “Barbaricum” 1 1M - butnariu 1983-1985164 Țigăneşti “Barbaricum” 1 1M - butnariu 1983-1985165 Ghindeni “Barbaricum” 1 1M - butnariu 1983-1985166 Ostrovu mare “Barbaricum” 1 1M - butnariu 1983-1985167 Simeria “Barbaricum” 1 1M - butnariu 1983-1985

168 Caracal “Barbaricum” 1 1K - oberländer-târnoveanu 2004b

169 Râmnicu Vâlcea “Barbaricum” 1 1M - oberländer-târnoveanu 2004b

170 Cherson “Barbaricum” 1 1M - stoljariK 1993171 Herepeia “Barbaricum” 1 1M - laKatos 2002172 Rifnik “Barbaricum” 1 1M - Kos 1986173 Majaki “Barbaricum” 1 1M - stoljariK 1993

174 Vlădeni “Barbaricum” 1 1M - oberländer-târnoveanu 2004a

175 Tbilisi Museum “Barbaricum” 4 3M/1I 1.4 abramishvili 1965, 1989176 Pitiunt “Barbaricum” 1 1K - tsuhishvili 1977177 Ani “Barbaricum” 1 1M - mousheGhian et alii 2000

Total 806 561M/181K/32I/12E


RN 2012, p. 363-402

Table 3 - The percentage of heavy coins (538-542) in hoards.Location Province Heavy coins % of total Last coin BibliographyGrnčar Dardania 2 2.2 541/2 Trésors, n. 253Constanţa Scythia 7 5.3 545/6 Trésors, n. 66Blagoevgrad Macedonia I 4 7.3 546/7 Trésors, n. 87Diulino Moesia II 3 3.7 549/50 Tenchova 2011Selce Macedonia II 7 3.3 551/2 Trésors, n. 110Skachinci Macedonia II 5 2.5 553/62 lilčić, adZievsKi 1999Zelenigrad Dacia Mediterranea 5 5.4 557/8 Trésors, n. 231Carea Scythia 1 2.9 563/4 torbatov 2002-2003Topalu Scythia 4 7.3 569/78 Trésors, n. 80Kamen vruh Haemimontus 1 1 570/1 tenChova 2011Thasos Macedonia I 10 8.4 571/2 Trésors, n. 99Dolno Sachrane Thracia 5 10.4 571/2 Trésors, n. 14Nova Mahala Thracia 1 2 571/2 Trésors, n. 24Vojnica Macedonia II 6 7.3 572/3 Trésors, n. 112aNicopolis ad Nestum Rhodopa 15 10.9 574/5 Trésors, n. 6Gabrovo Moesia II 1 2.8 574/5 mihailov 2012Skala Moesia II 4 9.3 574/5 tenChova 2011Thebes Hellas 11 4.7 575/6 Trésors, n. 204Varna Moesia II 14 28 578/9 Trésors, n. 59Gropeni «Barbaricum» 8 16.7 577/8 oberländer-târnoveanu 2004bSadovets Dacia Ripensis 16 9.9 579 Trésors, n. 240Capidava Scythia 7 13.7 579/82 Gândilă 2011Koprivets Moesia II 3 7.5 582/3 Trésors, n. 47Athens Hellas 3 2.4 583/4 Trésors, n. 131Eleusis Hellas 8 3 583/4 Trésors, n. 152Pellene Hellas 7 3.8 584/5 Trésors, n. 176Bargala Macedonia II 8 3.1 584/5 Trésors, n. 106Stobi Macedonia II 4 1.1 584/5 hadji-maneva 2011Northern Syria Syria 1 1.7 584/5 todd 1987Adamclisi Scythia 5 10.2 584/5 Trésors, n. 63Zhalad Moesia II 1 1.2 585/6 Trésors, n. 61Ohrid Epirus Novus 1 0.9 586/7 Trésors, n. 208Veliki Gradac Dacia Ripensis 7 6.5 594/5 Trésors, n. 251Cyrrhus Euphratensis 7 1.4 603/4 noesKe 2000Khirbet Marus Palaestina II 3 1.3 609/10 bijovsKy 2011Thasos Macedonia I 3 1.1 617/8 Galani-KriKou 2002

ANDREI GÂNDILă402

RN 2012, p. 363-402

Figure 12 - Late sixth-century circulation pool(Photo courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group, Inc).

Justinian I follis (527-538)

Justinian I 1/2 follis (538-539) Justin II follis (575-576)Maurice Tiberius

overstruck follis (591-592)

Justinian I follis (538-539)

Documents

Heavy Money, Weightier Problems: The Justinianic Reform of 538 and Its Economic Consequences