The End of Roman Gold Coinage and the Disintegration of a Monetary Area more

THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE AND THE DISINTEGRATION OF A MONETARY AREA* I. Introduction Few historical theses have given birth in the decades to such a big discussion as the one which bears the name of Henri Pirenne1. As it is well known, the Belgian historian wrote, in a series of articles and then particularly in his posthumous book Mahomet et Charlemagne, that the end of Antiquity and the beginning of Middle Ages was to be seen not in the fall of the Western Roman Empire, but in the rupture of the Mediterranean, with consequent cessation of long–distance commerce (in particular of papyrus, silk, spices) and in the afflux of gold from the Eastern Mediterranean, caused by the Arabian invasions around mid–7th century CE2. On the other hand, the Belgian historian saw the * During the elaboration of this paper I had the chance to present the work in progress and its preliminary results on many different occasions (in Heidelberg, Köln, Lampeter and Trieste). The ensuing discussions were extremely valuable in order to correct, integrate and ameliorate the content of the resulting paper. I would therefore like to thank the organizers of the meetings and all the persons who took part in them and contributed to the discussion; among them I would like to thank in particular Errietta Bissa, Bruno Callegher, Kyle Erickson, Marta García Morcillo, Patrick Geary, Johannes Heinrichs, Peter Franz Mittag, Peter Sarris, Sebastian Schmidt–Hofner, Mark Whittow, Christian Witschel. Additional thanks go to Arnaldo Marcone, who read and discussed with me the contents of this work. Not all of them will agree with the theories presented here, and it stays of course firm that only mine is the responsibility of what is written. 1 N. HORDEN – P. PURCELL, The Corrupting Sea. A Study of Mediterranean History, London 2000, pp. 32–34; C.A. LÜCKERATH, “Die Diskussion über die Pirenne– These”, in J. ELVERT – S. KRAUß (eds.), Historische Debatten und Kontroversen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart 2003, pp. 55–69. 2 There is no need to discuss Lewis’ opposite theory here, according to which the end of Mediterrenean commerce should have been caused, at the end of a 7th century, 45 FILIPPO CARLÀ substitution of a silver currency for the gold one in Europe as proof of a decline in commerce and monetary life3. This thesis has been widely discussed from the very beginning4, it has very early been proved that such a breakdown did not take place at all, that gold continued to be used and minted, particularly in Lombard Italy5, and that the impact of the Arabian invasions was not so disruptive6. The idea of a disappearance of gold from the Western regions – connected with the theory of a “negative” commercial balance and of the continuous flow of precious metals towards the Eastern regions7 – has also been overcome8, and it has been suggested that a silver currency as compared to a gold one is not necessarily a trace of recession and decline, since its lower face value can imply a much by “economic” warfare between Arabs and Byzantines, and in particular by a Byzantine embargo against Arabian ships (A.R. LEWIS, Naval Power and Trade in the Mediterranean. A.D. 500–1000, Princeton 1951, pp. 89–97). This theory has already been strongly criticized (see e.g. D. CLAUDE, Der Handel im westlichen Mittelmeer während des Frühmittelalters, Göttingen 1985, pp. 282–283) and is nowadays completely overcome. 3 H. PIRENNE, Mahomet et Charlemagne, 2e édition, Paris–Bruxelles 1937, in particular pp. 213–241. See also M. BLOCH, “Le problème de l’or au Moyen Age”, in AnnHES, 19 (1933), pp. 1–34, in particular pp. 10–11. 4 See in particular D.C. DENNETT, “Pirenne and Muhammad”, in Speculum, 23 (1948), pp. 165–190. 5 R.S. LOPEZ, “Mohammed and Charlemagne: A Revision”, in Speculum, 18 (1943), pp. 14–38, in particular pp. 15; 28–29; M. LOMBARD, “Mahomet et Charlemagne. Le problème économique”, in AnnESC, 3 (1948), pp. 188–199, in particular p. 189. The fact that gold coinage was not exclusively Eastern had indeed already been underlined by M. BLOCH, “Le problème de l’or…” (see n. 3), pp. 2–3. 6 E.g. A. RIISING, “The Fate of Henri Pirenne’s Theses on the Consequences of the Islamic Expansion”, in Classica et Mediaevalia, 13 (1952), pp. 87–130, in particular pp. 98–102. As a consequence, Riising thinks that the Belgian scholar presented a far too optimistic view of the Merovingian economy and a far too pessimistic opinion of the Carolingian one. 7 E.g. M. BLOCH, “Le problème de l’or…” (see n. 3), pp. 9–11; M. LOMBARD, “Les bases monétaires d’une suprématie économique: l’or musulman du VIIe au XIe siècle”, in AnnESC, 2 (1947), pp. 143–160, in particolar pp. 143–147. See, for a synthesis of this historiographical discussion, D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), pp. 107–116. 8 See already D.C. DENNETT, “Pirenne…” (see n. 4), pp. 186–189. 46 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE broader use in everyday life9, even if the idea of a reduction in the general stock of gold must always be kept present, especially in consideration of the previous progressive debasement of gold coinage in western Europe10. It has been underlined, even more, that it is too simplistic to hope to find such an easy mechanism of cause and effect which could connect the end of the ancient world (or of its economic system) with one historical phenomenon, as important as it may be. Luckily, we stopped looking for “the” single cause of the end of the Roman Empire11; nonetheless, to the scholar of the economic history of Late Antiquity, it still appears clear that the passage from a Late Antique (and then still ancient) to a Medieval (or better Early Medieval) economy is made evident by the disruption of what was an integrated – or at least semi–integrated – system, the Roman world12, in a bunch of 9 D.C. DENNETT, “Pirenne…” (see n. 4), p. 188; R.S. LOPEZ, “Moneta e monetieri nell’Italia barbarica”, in Moneta e scambi nell’alto Medioevo, Spoleto 1961, pp. 57–88; J. LAFAURIE, “Numismatique. Des Carolinigiens aux Capétiens”, in Cahiers de civilisation medieval, 13 (1970), pp. 117–137. For a synthesis of the different positions, see S. SUCHODOLSKI, “Vom Gold zum Silber”, in T. FISCHER – P. ILISCH (eds.), Lagom. Festschrift für Peter Berghaus, Münster 1981, pp. 97–104. M.F. HENDY, “From Public to Private: The Western Barbarian Coinages as a Mirror of the Disintegration of Late Roman State Structures”, in Viator, 19 (1988), pp. 29–78, in particular pp. 30–32, even thought that Carolingian coinage was produced mainly as medium of private exchange, while Late Roman and Byzantine coinage had been minted mostly for State use, even if rejecting the idea that the silver denarius had a rather low purchase power. But this further point would take too far from the aims of this paper. 10 M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage”, in R. MCKITTERICK (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History II: c. 700 – c. 900, Cambridge 2008, pp. 538–559, in particular pp. 544–545. 11 R. HODGES, “Aspects of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, in JRA, 1 (1988), pp. 215–220, in particular pp. 215–216; C. WICKHAM, Framing the Early Middle Ages. Europe and the Mediterranean, 400–800, Oxford 2005, pp. 10–13. 12 What interests here, as it will be more clearly stated later, is the definition of the integration of monetary systems, i.e. the qualification of the entire Empire as one monetary area (see infra for a definition of this concept). It is not the aim of this paper to enter the problematic discussion about the level of integration of Roman economy from the perspective of offer, demand and fixation of prices: on this problem, the strongest position in favor of a complete integration of markets in Roman times has been lately held by Peter Temin (P. TEMIN, “A Market Economy in the Early Roman Empire”, in JRS, 91 (2001), pp. 169–181; D. KESSLER – P. TEMIN, “Money and Prices in the Early Roman Empire”, in W.V. HARRIS (ed.), The Monetary Systems of the Greeks 47 FILIPPO CARLÀ regional economies, whose exchanges and commerce, of course still existing, were not consistent enough to provide an integration, or at least an interdependency, between different areas13. The economical end of Antiquity can therefore be situated there, where, to use Mireille Corbier’s words, “the Empire ceases to be a relevant unity of analysis”14. Having overcome the debate about “natural” and “monetary” economy in the Middle Ages in the second half of the 20th century, we will no longer ask then, if silver is an indicator of crisis, if gold no longer came to the West because of an interruption in communication or similar questions. In reference to Corbier’s quotation, the necessary question comes to be: can we identify the moment when the “Empire”, or the Mediterranean world, are no longer a relevant unit of analysis? Can we define then a process of regionalization of the Late Roman monetary currency, i.e. a moment in which a previously unitary system breaks down into smaller entities? Can we envisage traces of this process, and fix it chronologically? Even if syntheses about the numismatics of this period and its general currency structure have been written, even very recently15, a systematic study of the possibility of free circulation and its breaking down, up to the birth of the “changing authorities”, which will be so important in medieval commerce, appears necessary16: this paper will try to start filling this gap. and Romans, Oxford 2008, pp. 137–159). For a general synthesis see F. CARLÀ – A. MARCONE, Economia e finanza a Roma, Bologna 2011, pp. 167–177. 13 D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), pp. 114–115; M. MCCORMICK, “Bateaux de vie, bateaux de mort. Maladie, commerce, transports annonaires et le passage économique du Bas–Empire au moyen âge”, in Morfologie sociali e culturali in Europa fra tarda antichità e alto medioevo, Spoleto, 1998, pp. 35–122, at p. 41. 14 M. CORBIER, “Coinage, Society and Economy”, in Cambridge Ancient History 2 XII : The Crisis of Empire, AD 193–337, Cambridge 2005, pp. 393–439, at p. 393. See also C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), pp. 829–830. 15 E.g. M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage”, in P. FOURACRE (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History I: c. 500 – c. 700, Cambridge 2005, pp. 660–674. 16 E.A. ARSLAN, “L’oro rifiutato: confini e dogane nell’alto Medioevo”, in L. TRAVAINI (ed.), Valori e disvalori simbolici delle monete. I trenta denari di Giuda, Roma 2009, pp. 119–144 is the only publication, in my knowledge, which directly faces this problem. A. RIISING, “The Fate…” (see n. 6), posed the problem of the “territorial limitation of the validity of all coins” (p. 111) in this period, but interpreting it as a consequence of the debasement of gold coins; we will see in the course of this work that this explanation cannot be held. 48 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE We can no longer be satisfied with the definition of “dollar of the Middle Ages”, which Lopez gave in 1951 to the Late Roman and byzantine solidus, on the basis of its “international success”17: if in Byzantium the weight and alloy of the gold coin remained for centuries surprisingly stabile, we cannot draw a continuous line of circulation, commerce and exchanges from the 6th to the 12th century18, and the great use in the West of the Byzantine gold coin from the 11th century on has a completely different character than the Late Antique circulation. Treating these centuries as a continuous and unique history would be completely misleading, presupposing, of course, that our perspective centers on the Mediterranean and on the contacts with Western Europe. II. The Late Roman Monetary System The Late Roman monetary system was characterized by two parallel currencies. A gold currency, made of coins whose value was the pure intrinsic value, and which were weighed then on the occasion of payments19, was circulating next to a divisional currency, made of coins with higher nominal value, expressed then not in weight units but in accounting units, the most important of which was, after 379 circa, the nummus, equivalent to 6000 of the old denarii20. Between gold and divisional there was no fixed exchange rate, but the “price” of gold, as it is called in our sources, changed frequently, in time and in space21. 17 R.S. LOPEZ, “The Dollar of the Middle Ages”, in Journal of Economic Studies, 11 (1951), pp. 209–234, at p. 211 (also in A.R. LEWIS, Naval Power… (see n. 2), p. 35). See F. CARLÀ, “Il sistema monetario in età tardoantica: spunti per una revisione”, in AIIN, 53 (2007), pp. 155–218, in particular pp. 210–216. 18 R.S. LOPEZ, “The Dollar...” (see n. 17), p. 213. 19 F. CARLÀ, “Il sistema monetario…” (see n. 17), pp. 190–193; F. CARLÀ, L’oro nella tarda antichità. Aspetti economici e sociali, Torino 2009, in particular pp. 475–476. 20 J.P. CALLU, “Monnaies de compte et monnaies reélles: l’ostracon 54 de Douch”, in ZPE, 79 (1989), pp. 73–79; F. CARLÀ, “Il sistema monetario…” (see n. 17), pp. 175–189; F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), pp. 305–307; 337–340. 21 F. CARLÀ, “Il sistema monetario…” (see n. 17), pp. 200–202; F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), in particular pp. 476–479. Silver coins, where minted, were bound either to divisional with a nominal value, multiple of that of bronze coins, or to gold, with a value corresponding to the intrinsic one and anchored to gold through a fixed ratio: F. CARLÀ, “Il sistema monetario…” (see n. 17), pp. 202–210. 49 FILIPPO CARLÀ What made the Late Roman system an integrated system, from the monetary point of view, is the fact that, even if gold, as all other wares, could have in different places different prices, the same coins were valid everywhere, independent from their place of minting22. The solidus was always a solidus, the nummus was always a nummus, and as such they were used as value units and accepted everywhere inside the borders of the Empire. This is what we can define as a “monetary area”, i.e. (1) “a region where some international coins could freely circulate because they were recognized as an unit of account in all the different countries of the area” or (2) “a common monetary market, absolutely unofficial, in which were admitted only the currencies based on some traditional units of account”23. The only coins which could not be accepted were of course counterfeit ones, or coins produced by usurpers, which had to be destroyed and melted down because of political reasons. In particular, the gold coin was connected only, and strongly, to the imperial image, as Macarius explicitly stated in a homily24. It is possible – but not certain – that during the 5th century Ricimer put his monogram on divisional coins, but the portrait was not added, and he surely never dared to change anything on gold25; with Odovacar we have the first barbarian P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage, vol. I, the Early Middle Ages (5th–10th Centuries), Cambridge 1986, pp. 8–10; E.A. ARSLAN, “L’oro rifiutato… (see n. 16)”, p. 121. 23 A. SACCOCCI, “Billon and Bullion: Local and Foreign Coins in Northern Italy (11th–15th Centuries)”, in L. TRAVAINI (ed.), Moneta locale, moneta straniera: Italia ed Europa XI–XV secolo, Milano 1999, pp. 41–65, on p. 52. 24 PG 34, 723 C: tÕ nÒmisma toà crus…ou, ™¦n m∆ l£b˙ kaˆ ™ntupwqÍ t∆n imperial treasuries if it does not show and was not minted with the Imperial image”. 25 A monogram present on many bronze coins from the mint of Rome is traditionally read as RECIMER: this reading has been in any case challenged (RIC X, pp. 190–191; but M. ASOLATI, Il tesoro di Falerii Novi. Nuovi contributi sulla monetazione italica in bronzo degli anni di Ricimero (457–472 d.C.), Padova 2005, pp. 29–30, still defends the traditional interpretation). Even maintaining its validity, it could probably be explained with the 18 months–interregnum between the death of Libius Severus and the arrival of Anthemius as new Western Emperor. Gold coins were actually minted in that moment, in absence of an Imperial authority in the West, in basilik∆n e„kÒna, oÜte e„j ™mpor…an ¢pšrcetai, oÜte e„j basilšwj qhsauroÝj ¢pot…qetai, “the gold coin is neither accepted for commerce nor deposited in the 22 50 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE king indicating certainly his name and adding his portrait on silver and bronze26. But these metals will never be a problem: the name and/or portrait of the kings were added there quite early in almost all the Roman–Germanic States (particularly famous are the Suevic siliquae with the legend iussu Rechiari regis)27. In Ostrogothic Italy silver and copper coins normally had at least a reference to the actual king, as explicitly stated by Cassiodorus, who defines them victualia metalla28. What is interesting to observe, and shows us how an integrated system was still alive in the 5th century, is the consideration of what happened to currency in the Roman–barbarian kingdoms. When we have to deal with different minting authorities, their economic and commercial interactions have of course wide consequences on their coinage and areas with strong exchanges tend to assume the same kind of coinage, to influence each other and to adopt therefore monetary reforms that maintain the similarity29. A process of progressive isolation and regionalization would on the contrary show the breaking up of the system in different monetary areas, in which coins belonging to a different area, if flowing in, were considered as bullion and either exchanged in local coins or melted down, disappearing then from the literary sources and generally also from the stray finds and the hoards30. the name of Libius Severus, then of Leo I. J. FRIEDLÄNDER, Die Münzen der Vandalen. Nachträge zu den Münzen der Ostgothen, Leipzig 1849, pp. 55–56, and C.F. KEARY, “The Coinage of Western Europe: from the Fall of the Western Empire till the Accession of Charlemagne”, in NC, 69 (1878), 49–72; 132–165; 216–258, on p. 151, wrongly assumed that even gold coins were produced with the name or the monogram of Ricimer. The presence of the monogram on bronze coins should therefore be very simply explained with the fact that there was no other authority in the Western part: when Anthemius arrived, Ricimer disappeared from the dies – if he had ever been there. 26 M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage” (see n. 15), p. 663. 27 M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage” (see n. 15), p. 668. 28 Cassiod., Var. VII, 32, 1. P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), pp. 36–38; M. HENDY, “From Public to Private…” (see n. 9), p. 44; M.A. METLICH, The Coinage of Ostrogothic Italy, London 2004, pp. 35–55; F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), p. 469. 29 See e.g. the models presented by J.R. COLLIS, “Functional and Theoretical Interpretations of British Coinage”, in World Archaeology, 3 (1971), pp. 71–84, in particular pp. 71–73. 30 A. SACCOCCI, “Billon and Bullion…” (see n. 23), pp. 52–53. 51 FILIPPO CARLÀ In this context a particular importance is assumed by gold coinage, not only as a case study: with gold was connected a much higher symbolic value in terms of prestige and authority – and in this sense the acceptance of “foreign” gold currency is much more difficult; but on the other side the prestige of the portrait on gold is of course appealing for kings and Emperors. Gold is the currency with the highest value, and therefore the most important one in long–distance and professional commerce, while silver and copper are mostly used in daily transactions31; as a final point, gold – as we already hinted at – had been placed by Pirenne at the very center of his theory, and the “disappearance” of a gold currency, and its substitution with a silver one, had been perceived as one of the traces of the abandonment of the “Roman” monetary system. III. The solidus The byzantine gold coin continued, as the Late Roman coin, to be minted as a solidus (1/72 of a Roman pound) or as a tremissis (1/3 of a solidus), and continued to be evaluated only for the amount of metal, without any nominal overvaluation32. This purely intrinsic value also went on in the Roman–Germanic kingdoms, as can be easily seen in a passage of Gregory of Tours: S. Martin finds a gold coin which looks like a tremissis but, when it is weighed, appears to be a solidus33. 31 C. MORRISSON, “Byzantine Money: Its Production and Circulation”, in A.E. LAIOU (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, Washington D.C. 2002, pp. 909–966, in particular pp. 950–951; E.A. ARSLAN, “L’oro rifiutato…” (see n. 16), p. 122. Gold is of course also the metal in which the highest salaries are paid and the members of the highest social strata hold their wealth, but this has a very minor significance if gold coinage is used, as here, as a possible source for the reconstruction of “international” exchanges. 32 F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), p. 460. For the Byzantine Empire: C. MORRISSON, “Byzantine Money…” (see n. 31), p. 918. The fact that many successor states stopped minting solidi, and produced only tremisses as gold coins (e.g. R.S. LOPEZ, “The Trade of Medieval Europe: the South”, in M.M. POSTAN – E. MILLER (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History, vol. II. Trade and Industry in the Middle Ages, Cambridge 19872, pp. 306–401, in particular pp. 310–311), is not of direct relevance in this context, once admitted that gold coinage was circulating only by weight with its intrinsic value. 33 Greg. Tur., De mir. S. Mart. 4.40. 52 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE The circulation on the basis of the pure intrinsic value allows of course the continued use of old and very old gold coins, provided that they had been minted by “legitimate” emperors: it is absolutely normal to find hoards in which some solidi and tremisses where already one century old at the moment of the burial34. The problem had already been discussed many times in Late Roman law: it was absolutely forbidden to evaluate as less gold coins which had been minted in the name of a past Emperor (and not usurper!) and of a different “shape”, once it had been checked that the weight was the proper one35. In this sense the famous Nov. Val. 16 can be read as a trace of the existence in the 5th century of a trend to fraud by assigning a lesser value to coins minted in the name of the members of the Imperial family of the other half of Empire36. On the other side, the rule that coins bearing the name and the face of someone who was not the “official” Roman Emperor would not be accepted continued of course to exist37 – exactly as had happened before with the coins minted by usurpers38. Only Emperors had the right 34 E.g. H.C. NOESKE, Münzfunden aus Ägypten I. Die Münzfunde des ägyptischen Pilgerzentrums Abu Mina und die Vergleichsfunde aus des Dioecesen Aegyptus und Oriens vom 4.–8. Jh. n. Chr., Berlin 2000, I, p. 78; II, pp. 15–16; 210–212; 631; E.A. ARSLAN (ed.), Repertorio dei ritrovamenti monetali di età altomedievale in Italia (489– 1002), Spoleto 2005, nn. 3120; 6220; C. MORRISSON – V. POPOVIC – V. IVANIŠEVIC Les ´ ´, trésors monétaires byzantins des Balkans et d’Asie Mineure (491–713), Paris 2006, nn. 17, 42, 274, 324, 340, 344. 35 CTh 9.22.1 (343); CJ 11.11.1 (365–367). On “irrational” tendencies to evaluate as less coins not because of their weight or their metal content, but because of their external appearance, see M.F. HENDY, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy, c. 300–1450, Cambridge 1985, pp. 363–368; F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), pp. 172–174; 237–238. 36 Nov. Val. 16.pr., Hoc ergo edicto agnosia universitas capitale manere supplicium, si quisquam vel domini patris mei Theodosii vel sacrarum necessitudinum nostrarum vel superiorum principum solidum aureum integri ponderis refutandum esse crediderit vel pretio minore taxaverit: F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), pp. 431–433. See also C. MORRISSON, “Byzantine Money…” (see n. 31), pp. 918–919. 37 E.A. ARSLAN, “Tra romanità e altomedioevo: autorità delegante ed autorità delegata nella moneta”, in P. DELOGU (ed.), Le invasioni barbariche nel meridione dell’Impero: Visigoti, Vandali, Ostrogoti, Soveria Mannelli 2001, pp. 297–319, in particular pp. 309–310. 38 F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), p. 157. A famous example is Licinius’ desire to melt down, with a patent excuse, coins of Constantine (probably the second, then 53 FILIPPO CARLÀ to appear on gold coins, and all other productions had to be dismissed, as many sources confirm, first of all the already mentioned homily of Macarius. The anonymous Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem (112) introduce the monetary topic in connection with the problem if it is better (or less bad) to attend the mass in a heretic church or not to attend it at all: “Then, as those who want to practice their own business, when they are lingering in a foreign land, do not accept to receive in place of the imperial coinage an external one…”39. The “external” coinage is of course the one not pertaining, according to the definition given above, to the same monetary area; the accepted one is identified with its “imperial” quality, i.e. with the presence of the name and portrait of the Emperor. It is well known how proud the Byzantines were, in the 6th century, of their gold coin, one of the signs of their superiority: “There is yet another sign of the power which God has accorded to the Romans. I refer to the fact that it is with their coinage that all the nations carry on trade from one extremity of the earth to the other. This money is regarded with admiration by all men to whatever kingdom they belong, since there is no other country where the like of it exists”40. At another point in his work Cosmas tells the story of Sopatros, who arrived in Taprobane together with a Persian ambassador. The king of the island asked who had the most magnificent king, and the comparison of the gold Byzantine coin with the silver Persian drachma induced him to conclude that the Romans (i.e. Byzantines) were magnificent, powerful and wise41. already Caesar), as stated by an anonymous continuator of Dio Cassius (FHG IV, 199, 14, 1): see F. CARLÀ – M.G. CASTELLO, Questioni tardoantiche. Storia e mito della “svolta costantiniana”, Roma 2010, pp. 55–57. 39 Transl. J. W. McCrindle. 41 Cosm. Indic. 11.17–19. See F. DE ROMANIS, “Romanukharatta e Taprobane: sui rapporti Roma–Ceylon nel I sec. d.C.”, in Helikon, 28 (1988), pp. 5–58. Even the “Wsper oân oƒ t¾n ˜autîn pragmate…an pwlÁsai boulÒmenoi, Öson ¨n crÒnon ™pˆ xšnhj bradÚnwsin, oÙ katadšcontai labe‹n ¢ntˆ toà basilikoà car£gmatoj tÕ œxw c£ragon…: F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), pp. 461–462. 40 Cosm. Indic. 2.77: “Eteron d shme‹on dunaste…aj tîn `Rwma…wn Ö aÙto‹j kec£ristai  QeÒj, lšgw d¾ Óti ™n tù nom…smati aÙtîn ™mporeÚontai p£nta t¦ œqnh kaˆ ™n pantˆ tÒpJ ¢p' ¥krou gÁj ›wj ¥krou gÁj dektÒn ™sti, qaumazÒmenon par¦ pantÕj ¢nqr∫pou kaˆ p£shj basile…aj, Óper ˜tšra basile…v oÙc Øp£rcei tÕ toioàto. 54 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE Procopius, in a famous passage of which we will talk again, reminds us that not even the Persian king dared to mint gold, limiting himself to silver: “it is not considered right either for him or for any other sovereign in the whole barbarian world to imprint his own likeness on a gold stater, and that, too, though he has gold in his own kingdom”. That happens because all the kings, apart from the Roman Emperor “are unable to tender such a coin to those with whom they transact business, even though the parties concerned in the transaction happen to be barbarians”42. Axumite gold coins, minted since the beginning of the 4th century on a weight–standard brought in to follow the introduction of the solidus in the Imperial territory, always bearing Greek legends till the end of their minting around mid–7th century (only on divisional coins they were replaced in the 6th century by Ge’ez legends) but showing the name and the portrait of the Axumite king, were never found in Imperial territory – in contrast to the Axumite divisional which entered the Byzantine Empire without bigger problems – and instead appear generally in South Arabia and India. Their minting was then organized in order to follow the dimensions, weight and fineness of the Byzantine solidus (presumably to ease up “international exchanges”), but not to be with it in a common monetary area43. Disputatio adversus Iudaeos (PG 89, 1224 C–1225 A) shows the same exaltation of Byzantine gold coinage, but connecting it rather with Christian religion (through the cross present on the dies) than with the power of the Emperors: W.A. KAEGI, Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests, Cambridge 1992, p. 224. The presence of Byzantine gold coins in India and Ceylon in the 5th–7th centuries CE is of no direct interest for this paper, and is a topic which would lead too far: see M. MUNDELL MANGO, “Byzantine Maritime Trade with the East (4th–7th centuries)”, in Aram, 8 (1996), pp. 139–163, at the pp. 155–157 and the literature there quoted. 42 Proc., BG 3.33.6: ka…toi nÒmisma mn ¢rguroàn  Persîn basileÝj Î boÚloito poie‹n e‡wqe, caraktÁra d ‡dion ™mbalšsqai statÁri crusù oÜte aÙton qšmij oÜte d ¥llon ntinaoàn basilša tîn p£ntwn barb£rwn, kaˆ taàta m©llon Ônta crusoà kÚrion, ™peˆ oÙd to‹j xumb£llousi proesqai tÕ nÒmisma toàto oŒoi tš e„sin, e„ kaˆ barb£rouj toÝj xumb£llontaj enai xumba…nei. Transl. H. B. Dewing. 43 D.W. PHILLIPSON, “Aksum, the Entrepot and Highland Etiopia, 3rd–12th Centuries”, in M. MUNDELL MANGO (ed.), Byzantine Trade, 4th–12th Centuries. The Archaeology of Local, Regional and International Exchange, Farnham 2009, pp. 353–368, at the pp. 362–366. See also M. MUNDELL MANGO, “Byzantine Maritime Trade…” (see n. 41), p. 153. 55 FILIPPO CARLÀ Still at the end of the 7th century, Zonaras writes, Justinian II declared war on the Arabs because they, having always accepted the coins with the portrait of a Byzantine Emperor, dared to pay a tribute with “national” gold coins44: “he broke the pacts with the Arabs, having as reason that the coinage of the yearly tribute sent to him did not have the Roman sign, but a new Arabic one. Indeed, it was not allowed to mint on gold coinage another portrait, if not the one of the Roman Emperor”45. Umayyad caliphs had indeed started minting gold around 640 and had at first barely produced imitative coins, “bearing portraits of the emperors Focas (602–610 CE) or Heraclius with his sons Heraclius Constantine and Heracleonas (610–641). The cross and all other Christian symbols were eliminated and in some cases replaced by a pillar standing on three or four steps”46. This production is generally known sunq»kaj paršlusen, a„t…an ™schkëj Óti staln tÕ toà ™ths…ou fÒrou c£ragma oÙ `Rwmakon ece sfr£gisma, ¢lla nšon 'Ar£bion. oÙd g¦r ™cÁn ™n crusù nom…smati caraktÁra ›teron ™ntupoàsqai À tÕn toà basilšwj `Rwma…wn. See also Theoph., AM 45 44 R.S. LOPEZ, “Mohammed and Charlemagne…” (see n. 5), pp. 22–24. Zonar. 14.22.11–12: oŒj geghqj te kaˆ pepoiqëj kaˆ t¦j prÕj toÝj ”Arabaj 6182; Cedr. I, 772 Bonn. 46 G. BERNARDI, Arabic Gold Coins Corpus I, Trieste 2010, p. 99. See also M. LOMBARD, “Les bases monétaires…” (see n. 7), p. 151 (who explains it with the “general conservatism” that commerce leads to attribute to exchange mediums); G.C. MILES, “The Earliest Arab Gold Coinage”, in ANSMN, 13 (1967), pp. 205–229, at the pp. 207–210; P. GRIERSON, Byzantine Coins, London–Berkeley–Los Angeles 1989, pp. 147–148; C. MORRISSON, “La monnaie en Syrie byzantine”, in J.M. DENTZER – W. ORTHMANN (eds.), Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie II. La Syrie de l’époque achéménide à l’avènement de l’Islam, Saarbrücken 1989, pp. 191–204, at pp. 193–195; W. A. KAEGI, Byzantium… (see n. 41), pp. 225–226; C. MORRISSON, “Le monnayage omeyyade et l’histoire administrative et économique de la Syrie”, in P. CANIVET – J.P. REY–COQUAIS (eds.), La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam (VIIe–VIIIe siècles), Damas 1992, pp. 309–317, at pp. 311–312; S. HEIDEMANN, “The Merger of two Currency Zones in Early Islam. The Byzantine and Sasanian Impact on the Circulation in Former Byzantine Syria and Northern Mesopotamia”, in Iran, 36 (1998), pp. 95–112, at pp. 95–96; S. ALBUM – T. GOODWIN, Sylloge of Islamic Coins in the Ashmolean, volume I: The Pre–Reform Coinage of the Early Islamic Period, Oxford 2002, pp. 80 and 91; A. WALMSLEY, “Coinage and the Economy of Syria–Palestine in the Seventh and Eighth Century CE”, in J. HALDON (ed.), Money, Power and Politics in Early Islamic Syria: A Review of Current Debates, Farnham 2010, pp. 21–44, at pp. 24–29. In the moment of giving this paper to print I did not have the chance yet to catch sight of A. ODDY (ed.), Coinage and History in the Seventh Century Near East, London 2011. 56 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE under the name of “Arab–Byzantine” or “Pseudo–Byzantine” coinage47. During this period Byzantine gold was used as a unit of account and was surely circulating in Arab territory (even if probably in a quantity not sufficient to avoid the necessity of local minting, which indeed took the form of the “pseudo–Byzantine” coinage)48: an important proof comes from the Nikertai treasure, found near Apamea, closed probably shortly after 681 and composed of 534 gold coins, all minted in Constantinople, ranging from Maurice Tiberius to Constantine IV; about half of the coins were minted, and entered Syria, after the Arab invasion49. Additionally, hoards containing official Byzantine coins and Arab imitative ones together are known50. An opposite movement of coins, towards the Byzantine Empire, is problematic to prove, because local Arab authorities were then minting S. ALBUM – T. GOODWIN, Sylloge of Islamic Coins... (see n. 46), pp. 74–75; C. FOSS, Arab–Byzantine Coins. An Introduction, with a Catalogue of the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, Washington D.C. 2008, pp. viii–ix; A. WALMSLEY, “Coinage and the Economy…” (see n. 46), p. 26 calls “Transitional Byzantine–Muslim” issues the coins minted ca. 660–680, “in which the image of a specific Byzantine emperor was substituted by a generalized regal figure neither Byzantine Emperor nor calif”. 48 E.g. C. MORRISSON, “Le trésor byzantine de Nikertai”, in RBN, 118 (1972), pp. 29–91, in particular pp. 61–63; S. HEIDEMANN, “The Merger…” (see n. 46), p. 96; H.C. NOESKE, Münzfunden aus Ägypten… (see n. 34), vol. I, p. 87; vol. II, pp. 481–484; 573–576; 607–609; A. WALMSLEY, “Production, Exchange and Regional Trade in the Islamic East Mediterranean: Old Structures, New Systems?”, in I.L. HANSEN – C. WICKHAM (eds.), The Long Eighth Century, Leiden 2000, 265–343, on pp. 332–334; C. FOSS, “A Syrian Coinage of Mu‘awiya?”, in RN, 158 (2002), pp. 353–365, on p. 357. On copper coinage in the area see ibid., p. 358; A. ODDY, “The Christian Coinage of Early Islamic Syria?”, in Aram, 15 (2003), pp. 185–196; and H. POTTIER – I. SCHULZE – W. SCHULZE, “Pseudo–Byzantine Coinage in Syria under Arab Rule (638–c. 670). Classification and Dating”, in RBN, 154 (2008), pp. 87–155. 49 C. MORRISSON, “Le trésor byzantine…” (see n. 48); C. MORRISSON, “La monnaie en Syrie…” (see n. 46), pp. 198–199; M. PHILLIPS, “Currency in Seventh– Century Syria as a Historical Source”, in BMGS, 28 (2004), pp. 13–31, on p. 22; A. WALMSLEY, “Economic Development and the Nature of Settlement in the Towns and Countryside of Syria–Palestine, ca. 565–800”, in DOP, 61 (2007), pp. 319–352, in particular pp. 321–322 (and 324); J. HALDON, “Greater Syria in the Seventh Century: Context and Background”, in ID. (ed.), Money, Power and Politics... (see n. 46), pp. 1–20, on p. 7; A. WALMSLEY, “Coinage and the Economy…” (see n. 46), p. 25. 50 C. MORRISSON, “La monnaie en Syrie…” (see n. 46), p. 199. 47 57 FILIPPO CARLÀ a very scarce amount of coins51: even if some sources seem to attest “the existence of popular resistance to Islamic imitations of Byzantine gold coins which lacked a familiar symbol, the cross”52, this resistance was part of those “irrational” approaches criticized and forbidden by Late Roman law – the reference could indeed be to coins minted by Mu‘awiya in the 660s53 – but the Byzantine Emperor was always portrayed on them and it is difficult to speak of a tentative reform of gold coinage54. Additionally, papyri show that the taxes were still calculated alternatively in dinar or in nomismata, i.e. in solidi55. But from 691–692 ‘Abd al–Malik began a series of monetary reforms through the introduction of gold coins which, still substantially identical to the solidus in dimension, fineness and weight56, showed three 51 C. FOSS, Arab–Byzantine Coins… (see n. 47), pp. 19–20 and 116–117 (but, as it will be clear, I do not agree completely with the idea that the conservation of the Emperor’s portrait was caused by the fact that the coins “were issued by or for an overwhelmingly Christian population, who wanted to use and were willing to accept the kind of coins to which they had long been accustomed”. This explanation seems too reductive, and will be integrated and corrected by the considerations conducted further). A movement of Arab imitation gold coins into the Byzantine Empire is supposed also by S. HEIDEMANN, “The Merger…” (see n. 46), p. 107. 52 Maronite Chronicle (A. PALMER, The Seventh Century in the West–Syrian Chronicles, Liverpool 1993, p. 32): “He [Mu’awiya] also minted gold and silver, but it was not accepted, because it had no cross on it”. See W.A. KAEGI, Byzantium… (see n. 41), pp. 224–225; C. MORRISSON, “Le monnayage omeyyade…” (see n. 46), p. 312; C. FOSS, Arab–Byzantine Coins… (see n. 47), p. 39; H. POTTIER – I. SCHULZE – W. SCHULZE, “Pseudo–Byzantine Coinage…” (see n. 48), p. 125. 53 C. MORRISSON, “Le monnayage omeyyade…” (see n. 46); C. FOSS, “A Syrian Coinage…” (see n. 48), pp. 361–363; M. PHILLIPS, “Currency in Seventh–Century...” (see n. 49), pp. 15–16; C. FOSS, “Mu‘@awiya’s State”, in J. HALDON (ed.), Money, Power and Politics... (see n. 46), pp. 75–96, in particular pp. 85–86; G.W. HECK, “First Century Islamic Currency: Mastering the Message from the Money”, in J. HALDON (ed.), Money, Power and Politics..., pp. 97–123, in particular pp. 112–113. 54 So H. POTTIER – I. SCHULZE – W. SCHULZE, “Pseudo–Byzantine Coinage…” (see n. 48), pp. 126–128. 55 C. FOSS, Arab–Byzantine Coins… (see n. 47), p. 39; G.W. HECK, “First Century Islamic…” (see n. 53), pp. 109–110. On the equivalence of nomismata and solidi see F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), pp. 80–90. 56 P. GRIERSON, “The Monetary Reforms of ‘Abd al–Malik: Their Metrological Basis and Their Financial Repercussions”, in JESHO, 3 (1960), pp. 241–264, on p. 247. 58 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE standing figures (later only one, the so–called “standing caliph”) on the obverse and a pillar on steps on the reverse; the legend quotes the shahada57. The weight was also slightly reduced, to adapt it better to Arab weight standards58. In 696–697 he will proceed to remove any image from the dies59. It is in any case meaningful that, according to our sources, ‘Abd al–Malik would have been ready to go on accepting in his territory Byzantine coins – if the Byzantines had accepted his (Theoph. AM 6182). This did not happen, the circulation of Byzantine P. GRIERSON, “The Monetary Reforms…” (see n. 56), p. 244; G.C. MILES, “The Earliest Arab...” (see n. 46), pp. 210–215 and 224–228; S. ALBUM – T. GOODWIN, Sylloge of Islamic Coins... (see n. 46), pp. 94–95; C. FOSS, Arab–Byzantine Coins… (see n. 47), pp. 58–81; G. BERNARDI, Arabic Gold… (see n. 46), p. 100; O. HEILO, Seeing Eye to Eye: Islamic Universalism in the Roman and Byzantine Worlds, 7th to 10th Centuries, diss. (Universität Wien 2010), available at http://othes.univie.ac.at/10921/1/ 2010–07–21_0549369.pdf, pp. 59–63; G.W. HECK, “First Century Islamic…” (see n. 53), pp. 116–117; A. WALMSLEY, “Coinage and the Economy…” (see n. 46), p. 26. Justinian II minted almost contemporarily his famous solidus showing Christ Pantocrator on the obverse, the Emperor himself standing and holding a cross on the reverse; the problem is explained clearly by Heilo, who in the end agrees with Bernardi in saying that Justinian’s coin was a reaction to the Arab one (so also R. S. LOPEZ, “Mohammed and Charlemagne…” (see n. 5), p. 24; C. FOSS, Arab–Byzantine Coins… (see n. 47), p. 60, seems to think the same, since he attributes ‘Abd al–Malik’s reform only to “the ostentatious proclamation of the Islamic religion that characterized this regime”). This position seems to find a confirmation also in Al–Baladhuri (see infra). Miles and Hahn, among others, believe on the contrary rather that the Arab coins were a reaction to those of Justinian: J. D. BRECKENRIDGE, The Numismatic Iconography of Justinian II, New York 1959, pp. 69–77; G.C. MILES, “The Earliest Arab...” (see n. 46), pp. 215–224; W. HAHN, Moneta Imperii Byzantini 3. Von Heraclius bis Leo III, Wien 1981, p. 165; P. GRIERSON, Byzantine Coins (see n. 46), p. 148; S. ALBUM – T. GOODWIN, Sylloge of Islamic Coins... (see n. 46), p. 95; A. WALMSLEY, “Coinage and the Economy…” (see n. 46), p. 25. This chronological controversy does not interest us specifically. 58 P. GRIERSON, “The Monetary Reforms…” (see n. 56), pp. 249–251; S. HEIDEMANN, “The Merger…” (see n. 46), p. 97 (where the reduction is rather explained in relation to Gresham’s law). 59 P. GRIERSON, “The Monetary Reforms…” (see n. 56), p. 244; C. FOSS, Arab–Byzantine Coins… (see n. 47), pp. 110–111; A. WALMSLEY, “Coinage and the Economy…” (see n. 46), pp. 28–29. From the 680s the Arab financial administration was also reformed, through the establishment of a huge number of mints: C. FOSS, Arab–Byzantine Coins… (see n. 47), pp. 81–83; J. HALDON, “Greater Syria…” (see n. 49), pp. 6–7; A. WALMSLEY, “Coinage and the Economy…” (see n. 46), pp. 21–24. 57 59 FILIPPO CARLÀ gold was forbidden60, after the reform Byzantine gold coins disappear from Arab territory61, while “hoards and site finds of precious and base coin dating to the first half of the eighth century reveal that coins could move great distances within the confines of the Islamic empire, but much less so outside it”62. We can then in part share Lewis’ conclusions – but in a very different perspective from his – that through his reform ‘Abd–al–Malik “was setting up his domains as a separate economic unit […]. It was a declaration of economic independence from Byzantium that none of his predecessors had dared to make”63. In the same period, it could be interesting to underline, even Byzantine mints were abandoning the previous weight and fineness, and it appears convincing to link this “to the transformation of the tax system and the imperial finances that marked the decision to abandon the structures of late antiquity”64. A clear prohibition of Byzantine coins in Arabic territory is spoken of by Al–Baladhuri: “‘Abd–al–Malik ibn–Marwân was the first to inscribe on the upper part of these fabrics [the coins] such phrases as: ‘Declare: Allah is one!’ and others with the name of Allah. One day, he received from the Byzantine king a message, saying: ‘You have recently introduced upon your k≥arât≥îs some inscription that we hate. If you leave that out, well and good; otherwise, you shall see on the dînârs the name of your Prophet associated with things you hate’. This was too much for ‘Abd–al–Malik, who hated to abolish a worthy law that he had established. He thereupon sent for Khâlid ibn–Yazîd ibn Mu‘âwiyah C. MORRISSON, “Le trésor byzantine…” (see n. 48), p. 63. S. HEIDEMANN, “The Merger…” (see n. 46), pp. 96–97; H.C. NOESKE, Münzfunden aus Ägypten… (see n. 34), vol. I, p. 87; W. HECK, “First Century Islamic…” (see n. 53), p. 119; A. WALMSLEY, “Coinage and the Economy…” (see n. 46), p. 26. Abd al Malik’s reform seems additionally to have caused an important phenomenon of thesaurisation of Byzantine solidi: G. BIJOVSKI, “A Hoard of Byzantine Solidi from Bet She’an in the Umayyad Period, in RN, 158 (2002), pp. 161–227, at the pp. 184–185. 62 A. WALMSLEY, “Production, Exchange…” (see n. 48), p. 337. On the “empire–wide” currency introduced by ‘Abd al–Malik see also A. WALMSLEY, “Economic Development…” (see n. 49), pp. 339–341. 63 A.R. LEWIS, Naval Power… (see n. 2), p. 89. 64 C. MORRISSON, “Byzantine Money…” (see n. 31), p. 928. 61 60 60 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE and said to him: ‘O abu–Hâshim! It is a calamity!’ Khâlid replied: ‘Be free from your fright, Commander of the Believers; declare the use of their dînârs illegal; strike new coinage in place of them, and let not these infidels be free from what they hate to see on the fabrics’. ‘Thou hast eased my mind’, said ‘Abd–al–Malik, ‘may Allah give thee ease!’. He then struck the dînârs. According to ‘Awanah ibn–al– akam, the Copts used to inscribe the word ‘Christ’ at the top part of the k≥arât≥îs, and to ascribe divinity to him (may Allah be highly exalted above that!); and they used to put the sign of the Cross in the place of ‘In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful’. That is why the Byzantine king was disgusted and his anger was aroused with the change that ‘Abd–al–Malik introduced. According to al–Madâ’ini, it was stated by Maslamah ibn–Mu ârib that Khâlid ibn–Yazîd advised ‘Abd–al–Malik to declare the use of Greek dînârs illegal, to prohibit their circulation and to stop the sending of the k≥arât≥îs to the Byzantine Empire. Accordingly, no k≥arât≥îs were carried there for some time”65. Returning to the necessity of the Imperial portrait for the acceptance, in Byzantine territory, of gold coins, it is interesting still to underline the frequency with which on papyri – even the Latin ones from Ravenna – the adjective despotikos–dominicus is used as warranty of the legal tender of the coins66. But this political request of the face and name of the Emperor on the dies was not connected to any kind of economical protection, or protection of seignorage, as it is of course quite obvious for a coin which was not overevaluated. This is demonstrated by the fact that, once this request had been fulfilled, by whichever emitting authority, the coin had legal tender everywhere. As Philip Grierson wrote, “modern scholars have sometimes interpreted it as an acceptance of the Emperor’s ‘sacred’ right to a monopoly of coinage, and in few cases it may have involved a tacit recognition of imperial authority. But type immobilization of this kind is common in history, and the explanation is basically economic. Gold coins circulate widely, and it is natural to provide them with features that are generally 65 66 Al Baladhuri 8.2.240. Transl. P. Khûriitti. E.g. PMarini 114; 115. See F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), p. 462. 61 FILIPPO CARLÀ known and accepted”67. In substance, this was exactly what Procopius has clearly stated for us. IV. “Pseudo–Imperial” coins Not by chance, then, all Roman–Germanic kingdoms minted in a first phase, which is generally defined of the “pseudo–imperial” coinage, gold in the name of the Roman and Byzantine Emperors68. In case of a political crisis with the Empire, as it is well known, they proceeded to minting in the name of an Emperor of the past, sometimes maybe distorting the name itself69, substantially separating the Emperor from the Empire itself as an idea and institution70: this guaranteed in any case the legality and acceptance of the coins71, since as we have seen Roman law repeated continuously that coins of dead – and legitimate – Emperors were always considered legal tender. We should then suppose that the Roman–Germanic kingdoms did not begin to mint because of the prestige and institutionalization P. GRIERSON, The Coins of Medieval Europe, London 1991, p. 4. See also A.R. LEWIS, Naval Power… (see n. 2), p. 35, where the “rules” of gold minting are explained “partly for economic reasons and partly for reasons of prestige”, but without better defining them. But the chronology provided there for the birth of “national” coinages and the idea, expressed therein, that any export of gold coin from Imperial territory was forbidden, must be rejected. 68 C.F. KEARY, “The Coinage of Western Europe...” (see n. 25), pp. 65–70; M. BLOCH, Esquisse d’une histoire monétaire de l’Europe, Paris 1954, pp. 13–14; P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), pp. 12–13; P. SPUFFORD, “Coinage and Currency”, in M.M. POSTAN – E. MILLER (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History, vol. II. Trade and Industry in the Middle Ages, Cambridge 19872, pp. 788–873, on p. 789; P. GRIERSON, Byzantine Coins (see n. 46), pp. 77–83; M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage” (see n. 15), pp. 661–662. 69 It is impossible to think that such distortions were due only to analphabetism. Frankish coinage shows unreadable legends till they should say the name of the Emperor, and again perfectly correct ones at the beginning of the national coinage with the name of the kings: M. JENKS, “Romanitas and Christianitas in the Coinage of Theodebert I of Metz”, in ZAC, 4 (2000), pp. 338–368, on pp. 346–347. 70 E.A. ARSLAN, “Tra romanità e alto medioevo…” (see n. 37), pp. 310–311, E.A. ARSLAN, “Dalla classicità al Medioevo. La moneta degli Ostrogoti”, in NAC, 33 (2004), pp. 429–462, on pp. 448–449. 71 M. JENKS, “Romanitas and Christianitas…” (see n. 69), pp. 342–343. 67 62 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE connected with this act, but rather because they needed coinage and the Byzantine production was not enough for the whole former Roman Empire72. In this situation probably prestige, political power and economical authority intermingled in defining a reality – the presence of the sole Emperor on gold coins – which lasted up to the last quarter of the 6th century73. Typologically the coins of the 6th century are still broadly imitations of contemporary or precedent imperial productions74. The area of the former Roman Empire, then, even if politically divided, continued to be what is called a “monetary area”, since it was a space in which coinages with different minting authorities circulated together without difficulties75. Of course, even if in every spot the most used coins were the ones minted in the region, and even if this kind of distribution seems to be accentuated from the end of the 4th century76, in concomitance with the beginning of a perceivable reduction in exchanges, the mobility of coins was still possible, and the political authorities seem to have felt the need to defend it. Proof of this reality comes from the data of the treasures, which show how coins minted in different States were circulating outside their borders. And if it is probably easily acceptable that imperial coins were used also in Roman–Germanic States77, we have to also state that the 72 S. SUCHODOLSKI, “Les débuts du monnayage dans les royaumes barbares”, in P. BASTIEN – F. DUMAS – H. HUVELIN – C. MORRISSON, Mélanges de numismatique, d’archéologie et d’histoire offerts à Jean Lafaurie, Paris 1980, pp. 249–256, on p. 256; M. HENDY, “From Public to Private…” (see n. 9), pp. 44; 46. 73 Ward Perkins’s statement that “the early Germanic kings of Italy, and elsewhere, even minted their gold coins in the name of the reigning emperor in the East, as though the Roman Empire was still in existence” (B. WARD PERKINS, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, Oxford 2005, p. 68) is therefore far too simplistic. 74 J. LAFAURIE, “Les monnaies frappées à Lyon au VIme siècle”, in Mélanges de travaux offerts à M.J. Tricou, Lyon 1972, pp. 193–205 ; Germ. transl. in M.R. ALFÖLDI (ed.), Methoden der antiken Numismatik, Darmstadt 1989, pp. 281–300, on p. 289. 75 E.A. ARSLAN, “Mutamenti di funzione e di struttura degli stock monetari in Europa tra V e VIII secolo”, in Morfologie sociali e culturali in Europa tra tarda antichità e alto Medioevo, Spoleto 1998, pp. 379–460, on pp. 389–390. 76 R. REECE, “Coins and the Late Roman Economy”, in L. LAVAN – W. BOWDEN (eds.), Theory and Practice in Late Antique Archaeology, Leiden – Boston 2003, pp. 139–168, on p. 154. 77 See e.g. for Ostrogothic Italy E.A. ARSLAN – C. MORRISSON, “Monete e moneta a Roma nell’alto Medioevo”, in Roma tra Oriente e Occidente, Spoleto 2002, pp. 63 FILIPPO CARLÀ contrary happened, showing how these coins were still considered parts of an integrated monetary system. In Africa the Vandals did not mint any gold; solidi – relatively abundant indeed – are found mostly on the coast, and two thirds of them are byzantine Imperial coins, with the addition of some coming from the western Roman Empire78; the hoard found in 1969 in Hajduc Vodenica, in the province of Dacia Ripuaria, ˇka closed around 544, maybe during the invasion of the Kutrigurs, contained, together with a balance, weights, 1 tremissis of Justinian I and 29 solidi from Leon I to Justinian I, also one solidus minted by Athalaric and Theodahad in the name of Justinian79. We will see in the next paragraph also some examples of “free circulation” of coins minted in different Roman–Germanic kingdoms. The kings could eventually add a monogram. Of this we have different examples: in Burgundy can be recognized e.g. the monograms 1255–1302, at the pp. 1290–1291; E.A. ARSLAN (ed.), Repertorio dei ritrovamenti… (see n. 34), nn. 1150; 3590; 3690; 3850; 8100; for the territory of today’s France, see e.g. J. LAFAURIE – PILET–LEMIÈRE, Monnaies du Haut Moyen Âge découvertes en France (Ve–VIIIe siècle), Paris 2003, nn. 8.174.1; 8.337.1; 11.152.1.1. 78 H. MOSTECKY, Münzen zwischen Rom und Byzanz. Studien zur spätantiken Numismatik, Louvain–la–Neuve 1997, p. 86; C. MORRISSON, “Caratteristiche ed uso della moneta protovandalica e vandalica”, in P. DELOGU (ed.), Le invasioni barbariche nel meridione dell’Impero: Visigoti, Vandali, Ostrogoti, Cosenza 2001, pp. 151–180, at the pp. 160–161; C. MORRISSON, “L’atelier de Carthage et la diffusion de la monnaie frappée dans l’Afrique vandale et byzantine”, in AntTard, 11 (2003), pp. 65–84, at the pp. 66–67; 77. We are not dealing here with silver and divisional coins, but it may be worth nothing that the Vandalic ones were also circulating in imperial territory. M. HENDY, “From Public to Private…” (see n. 9), p. 48, according to his theory of a coinage produced only for fiscal reasons, thinks rather that “the confiscation of land and the subsequent enjoyment of immunity from taxation” would have made “a gold coinage largely underpinned by the land tax henceforth unviable”. 79 C. MORRISSON – V. POPOVIC – V. IVANIŠEVIC Les trésors monétaires… (see n. ´ ´, 34), n. 234, pp. 312–313. See also E.A. ARSLAN (ed.), Repertorio dei ritrovamenti… (see n. 34), nn. 1898 and 3838 and E.A. ARSLAN, “L’oro rifiutato…” (see n. 16), pp. 127–128 for the italian hoards of Monasterolo Brembio and Massenzatica, maybe closed before 476; still Arslan concludes for a non acceptance of foreign solidi in imperial territory, thinking that only some specific reality, such as the Ostrogothic kingdom, had a recognized right to mint solidi whose circulation was allowed also in Imperial territory. 64 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE of Gundobad80, Sigismund81 and Gundomar82. Theoderic in Ostrogothic Italy added either a monogram or his initial Q on his solidi83, but presumably removed them after being officially recognized by Anastasius84. Theoderic’s successors do not use any kind of monogram on gold coinage. But it is well known that under Theoderic a gold medaillon, with the weight of 3 solidi, was minted, portraying on the recto the king himself as Rex Theodericus pius princis85, and on the verso 80 J. DE PETIGNY, “Monnayage de la Gaule depuis le commencement du Ve siècle”, in RN 1851, 113–141; 185–217; 301–332, at p. 202; P. LE GENTILHOMME, Mélanges de numismatique mérovingienne, Paris 1940, p. 134; P. LE GENTILHOMME, “Le monnayage et la circulation monétaire dans les royaumes barbares en Occident (Ve–VIIIe siècle)”, in RN, s. 5, 7, 1943, pp. 45–112 and 8, 1944–1945, pp. 13–64, (I, pp. 92–93); J. LAFAURIE, “Le trésor de Gourdon (Saône–et–Loire)”, in BSNAF 1958, pp. 61–76, at the pp. 66–67; P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), pp. 75–76. 81 P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), p. 76. 82 J. LAFAURIE, “Les monnaies frappées à Lyon…” (see n. 74), pp. 293–294; P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), p. 76–77. 83 Cfr. W. WROTH, Catalogue of the Coins of the Vandals, Ostrogoths and Lombards and of the Empires of Thessalonica, Nicaea and Trebizond in the British Museum, London 1911, p. xlv; F.F. KRAUS, Die Münzen Odovacars und des Ostgotenreiches in Italien, Halle 1928, pp. 27 and 77; P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), p. 35; E.A. ARSLAN, “La monetazione”, in Magistra Barbaritas. I barbari in Italia, Milano 1986, pp. 413–444, on p. 423; S. SUCHODOLSKI, “Remarques sur les monnaies des Ostrogoths”, in RIN, 91 (1989), pp. 151–180, on p. 152; E.A. ARSLAN, “La moneta dei Goti in Italia”, in I Goti. Catalogo della mostra, Milano, Palazzo Reale, 28 gennaio–8 maggio 1994, Milano 1994, pp. 252–265, on p. 253; E.A. ARSLAN, “Dalla classicità al Medioevo…” (see n. 70), pp. 434–435; M.A. METLICH, The Coinage... (see n. 28), pp. 17–18. The monogram is not present on the tremisses (E.A. ARSLAN, “La monetazione di Goti e Longobardi in Italia”, in Lo scudo d’oro. Moneta e potere da Augusto a Carlo V, Roma – Bruxelles 1996, p. iii.3), which show only, in a few cases, a simple T (M.A. METLICH, The Coinage... (see n. 28), p. 21). 84 In the past it was thought, exactly to the contrary, that the monogram had been added after the official recognition by Anastasius: A. DOPSCH, Wirtschaftliche und soziale Grundlagen der europäischen Kulturentwicklung aus der Zeit von Caesar bis auf Karl den Grossen, vol. II, Wien 19242, pp. 481–482. 85 The last word probably must be read as princeps, but other readings have been proposed, such as princ(eps) i(nclitus) s(emper) o i(nvictissimu)s: F.F. KRAUS, Die Münzen Odovacars… (see n. 83), p. 79; E. BERNAREGGI, “Il medaglione d’oro di Teodorico”, in RIN, 71 (1969), pp. 89–106, in particular pp. 98–99. The title of princeps is regularly used by Gothic bureaucracy (e.g. Cassiod., Var. 3.16): it was therefore no 65 FILIPPO CARLÀ a winged Victoria on the globe with the legend Rex Theodericus victor gentium. Of this medaillon only one specimen exists, found in a burial in Senigallia in 1894. Gnecchi, its first editor, underlined immediately that, as a medaillon, it could not be considered a coin stricto sensu: Theoderic wanted – he assumed – to be portrayed on a gold piece out of pride, and would have realized only this medaillon since he could not put his portrait on solidi and tremisses86. Medaillons could surely circulate since gold was evaluated, as we said, only by weight, but it must be admitted that – even without trying to define Theoderic’s psychological impulses – this portrait on a single medaillon with an evident military character does not violate the Imperial privilege on gold coinage87: it has a celebrative meaning and shows the king with insignia which, by the way, had been attributed to him by the byzantine Emperor88. Even the debate about the correct dating of the medaillon (500, in occasion of the king’s visit to Rome for the celebration of his tricennalia, the most widely accepted proposal89; offense or abuse of the Byzantine court, as Bernareggi (pp. 100–101) wrongly stated: M.R. ALFÖLDI, “Il medaglione d’oro di Teodorico”, in RIN, 80 (1978), pp. 133–142, on p. 139. 86 F. GNECCHI, “Medaglione d’oro di Teodorico re”, in RIN, 8 (1895), pp. 155–169, on p. 162 87 F.F. KRAUS, Die Münzen Odovacars… (see n. 83), pp. 78–79; W. J. TOMASINI, The Barbaric Tremissis in Spain and Southern France. Anastasius to Leovigild, New York 1964, p. 10; M.R. ALFÖLDI, “Il medaglione d’oro…” (see n. 85), p. 140; E.A. ARSLAN, “La monetazione” (see n. 83), p. 423; E.A. ARSLAN, “La monetazione dei Goti”, in XXXVI Corso di cultura sull’arte ravennate e bizantina (Ravenna, 14–22 aprile 1989), Ravenna 1989, pp. 17–72, on p. 46; E.A. ARSLAN, “Emissioni monetarie e segni del potere”, in Committenti e produzione artistico–letteraria nell’Alto Medioevo occidentale, Spoleto 1992, pp. 791–850, at the pp. 801–802; E. ERCOLANI COCCHI, “Gioielli monetari tra tardo antico ed alto medioevo dal territorio italiano”, in Ocnus, 1 (1993), pp. 77–81, on p. 80; E.A. ARSLAN, “La moneta dei Goti…” (see n. 83), p. 252; M.F. HENDY, “Coinage and Exchange”, in A. CARILE (ed.), Teoderico e i Goti tra Oriente e Occidente, Ravenna 1995, pp. 151–158, on p. 152; E.A. ARSLAN, “Dalla classicità al Medioevo…” (see n. 70), p. 436; M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage” (see n. 15), p. 664. 88 M.R. ALFÖLDI, “Il medaglione d’oro…” (see n. 85), p. 135. 89 F. GNECCHI, “Medaglione d’oro…” (see n. 86), p. 164; P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), p. 83; M.R. ALFÖLDI, “Il medaglione d’oro…” (see n. 85), pp. 136–138; M.R. ALFÖLDI, “Das Goldmultiplum Theoderichs des Grossen. Neue Überlegungen”, in RIN, 90 (1988), pp. 367–372, on p. 370. 66 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE the years of the victory upon Odoacer90, a later moment such as 50491, 509, after a victory on Burgundians and Franks92, or even 52693, in a moment of diplomatic difficulties with Byzantium) does not change much in our discourse and can be left aside, once recognized that this single piece does not change the general picture of Ostrogothic “pseudo–imperial” gold coinage. The additions of monograms were therefore apparently not a problem: the portrait and the “main role” were still of the legitimate Imperial authority. This does not mean that the kings were explicitly admitting being “vassals” of the Byzantine Emperor, as it has been said94: the kingdoms went on minting with the imperial name even after the fall of the Western Empire (with which they had their foedera), and even in case of war they were not abandoning the portrait of an Emperor; we must admit that the prestige issue in the complex institutional context of the 5th and 6th century CE, in which factors of “juridical personality” and delegation of minting authority surely also played a role95, was at this point more important than the treatises and the political bounds in defining the production and acceptance of currency. 90 E.A. ARSLAN, “La monetazione dei Goti” (see n. 87), pp. 22–25; E.A. ARSLAN, “Emissioni monetarie…” (see n. 87), pp. 801–802; E.A. ARSLAN, “La monetazione di Goti e Longobardi…” (see n. 83), p. iii.4; E.A. ARSLAN, “Dalla classicità al Medioevo…” (see n. 70), pp. 436–437; M.A. METLICH, The Coinage... (see n. 28), pp. 15–16. 91 F.F. KRAUS, Die Münzen Odovacars… (see n. 83), pp. 78–79. 92 P. GRIERSON, “The Date of Theoderic’s Gold Medallion”, in Hikuin, 11 (1985), pp. 19–26; P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), p. 35; M.F. HENDY, “Coinage and Exchange” (see n. 87), p. 152. 93 E. BERNAREGGI, “Il medaglione…” (see n. 85), p. 105. 94 P. SPUFFORD, “Coinage and Currency” (see n. 68), p. 791; P. S. BARNWELL, Emperor, Prefects and Kings. The Roman West, 395–565, London 1992, pp. 84 (Burgundians); 95 (Franks); 136–137 (Ostrogoths). M. JENKS, “Romanitas and Christianitas…” (see n. 69), p. 343, wrote that pseudo–imperial coinage shows “the essential political coherence of the former Roman Empire”, a coherence which is clearly contradicted by the political and military events of the 6th century. 95 P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), pp. 4–5; E.A. ARSLAN, “La monetazione dei Goti” (see n. 87), p. 44; E.A. ARSLAN, “Tra romanità e alto medioevo…” (see n. 37), in particular p. 309. 67 FILIPPO CARLÀ V. The birth of “national” coinages Everything changed in the second half the 6th century. In this moment began the so–called “national phase” of coinage96, during which the kings of the Roman–Germanic successor States started having their own portrait and name minted on solidi and tremisses. It is well known that the first to dare was the Merovingian Theudebert97, as it is stated in the famous already mentioned passage by Procopius: “[the Franks] make a golden coin from the product of the mines in Gaul, not stamping the likeness of the Roman emperor on this stater, as is customary, but their own likeness”98. It may be interesting to underline once more that the author defines the Imperial prerogative in the minting of gold as themis, and not as nomos, implying then a sort of unwritten, “divine” disposition99. These coins could not, of course, be accepted in the Byzantine Empire: Theudebert’s coins were never found east of Gaul, and out of the Merovingian kingdoms only in England, Frisia and Scandinavia100. This experiment seems, in any case, to have been too much, since after P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), p. 3. The first periodization on this basis – but including silver and divisional – was proposed by C.F. KEARY, “The Coinage of Western Europe...” (see n. 25), p. 136. 97 J.P. CALLU, “Pax et libertas: une légende monétaire de Théodebert I”, in P. BASTIEN – F. DUMAS – H. HUVELIN – C. MORRISSON (eds.), Mélanges de numismatique, d’archéologie et d’histoire offerts à Jean Lafaurie, Paris 1980, pp. 189–199; M. HENDY, “From Public to Private…” (see n. 9), p. 61; M. JENKS, “Romanitas and Christianitas…” (see n. 69), pp. 345–351; M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage” (see n. 15), p. 669; S. ZAAF, “Les relations politiques et économiques entre l’Austrasie et la Burgondie du point de vue du numismate”, in J. GUILLAUME – È. PEYTREMANN (eds.), L’Austrasie. Sociétés, économies, territoires, christianisation, Nancy 2008, pp. 189–194, at the pp. 190–192. The “political” issue at stake, and then the kind of “message” that Theudebert wanted to convey through these coins is not of interest here, but see F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), p. 464. 98 Proc., BG 3.33.5: kaˆ k£qhntai mn ™n tÍ 'Arel£tJ tÕn ƒppikÕn ¢gîna qemenoi, nÒmisma d crusoàn ™k tîn ™n G£lloij met£llwn pepo…hntai, oÙ toà `Rwma…wn aÙtokr£toroj, Îper e‡qistai, caraktÁra ™nqšmenoi tù statÁri toÚtJ, ¢lla t¾n sfetšran aÙtîn e„kona. Transl. H. B. Dewing. 99 100 96 M. JENKS, “Romanitas and Christianitas…” (see n. 69), p. 345. M. JENKS, “Romanitas and Christianitas…” (see n. 69), p. 351; E.A. ARSLAN, “L’oro rifiutato…” (see n. 16), p. 131. 68 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE Theudebert the Franks went back to the previous usage, and their use of national coins really only began with Sigebert I (after 561)101. Lafaurie connected this new coinage to the Lombard invasion of Italy, and then to a reorientation of commercial routes directed northwards102. The explanation sounds interesting, because it would underline how the changes were connected to the disappearance of the necessity of a “common currency” with other states in the Mediterranean basin, while towards the end of the 6th century a new “region” with active commercial exchanges was slowly coming to light: the one including Britain and “the near continent”, centered on the wics on the Channel and on the Baltic Sea103. The last quarter of the century also sees the birth of the “national” C.F. KEARY, “The Coinage of Western Europe...” (see n. 25), p. 226; R.S. LOPEZ, “The Dollar...” (see n. 17), p. 210; S. SUCHODOLSKI, “Les débuts…” (see n. 72), p. 250; P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), p. 91; P. SPUFFORD, “Coinage and Currency” (see n. 68), pp. 790–791; P. SPUFFORD, Money and Its Use in Medieval Europe, Cambridge 1988, pp. 13–14; M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage” (see n. 15), p. 671. Before that, there is one single coin minted in the names of Childebert I and Chramn in 557–558: P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), p. 91. Synchronic with these innovations is also a change in the style: J. LAFAURIE, “Les routes commerciales indiquées par les trésors et trouvailles monétaires mérovingiens”, in Moneta e scambi nell’alto Medioevo, Spoleto 1961, pp. 231–278, on p. 237; J. LAFAURIE, “Les monnaies frappées à Lyon…” (see n. 74), p. 289; J. LAFAURIE – C. MORRISSON, “La pénétration des monnaies byzantines en Gaule mérovingienne et visigotique du VIe au VIIIe siècle”, in RN, 29 (1987), pp. 38–98, on p. 45. 102 J. LAFAURIE, “Les trouvailles de monnaies des Visigots en Gaule”, in Actes du 94e Congrès national des Sociétés Savantes (Pau 1969), Section d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art, Paris 1971, pp. 111–128, on p. 128; J. LAFAURIE, “Les monnaies”, in L. MAURIN – J. P. BOST – J.M. RODDAZ (eds.), Les racines de l’Aquitaine, Toulouse 1992, pp. 205–262, on pp. 227–228. 103 S. LEBECQ, “Routes of Change: Production and Distribution in the West (5th – 8th century)”, in L. WEBSTER – M. BROWN (eds.), The Transformation of the Roman World AD 400–900, London 1997, pp. 67–78, at the pp. 73–75; S. LEBECQ, “Les échanges dans la Gaule du Nord au VIe siècle: une histoire en miettes”, in R. HODGES – W. BOWDEN (eds.), The Sixth Century. Production, Distribution and Demand, Leiden 1998, pp. 185–202, at the pp. 195–201; C. WICKHAM, “Overview: Production, Distribution and Demand II”, in I.L. HANSEN – C. WICKHAM, The Long Eighth Century, Leiden 2000, 345–377, on p. 356; C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), pp. 681–688 and 809–810; C. WICKHAM, The Inheritance of Rome. A History of Europe from 400 to 1000, London 2009, pp. 229–230. 101 69 FILIPPO CARLÀ coinages in Visigoth Spain, through Leovigild (and Hermenegild) around 575–580104, and in the Suevic kingdom with Audeca, king in 584–585105. The “moneyers’ coins” minted in the Merovingian kingdoms once again, since around 575, did not enjoy a bigger success out of France, since the Emperor’s authority was in any case absent from the dies. And that the birth of “national” coinages corresponded to a breakdown of the previously united monetary area can be seen, once again, in the data from the finds. Byzantine coins (or even pseudo–imperial ones) are still sometimes present in Roman–Germanic states: in this case the prestige and superiority of the minting authority explains clearly why even after the beginning of the national coinages, if “barbarian” solidi were not accepted in the Empire anymore, vice versa imperial gold coins continued for a longer time to circulate in Western Europe106; but the contrary did not happen anymore107. L.G. DE VALDEAVELLANO, “La moneda y la economía de cambio en la península ibérica desde el siglo VI hasta mediados del siglo XI”, in Moneta e scambi nell’alto Medioevo, Spoleto 1961, pp. 203–230, at the pp. 208–209; P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), pp. 49–51; M. CRUSAFONT I SABATER, El sistema monetario visigoto: cobre y oro, Barcelona–Madrid 1994, pp. 76–77; E.A. ARSLAN, “Mutamenti di funzione…” (see n. 75), p. 431 (dating Hermenegild’s coins to 579–580, Leovigild’s to 582–584); M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage” (see n. 15), p. 670. In the case of Leovigild, the political motivation is absolutely clear: this king was not only at war with the Byzantines, who occupied the South–Eastern part of Spain, even minting gold coins there, possibly at Carthagena (M.F. HENDY, Studies… (see n. 35), p. 405), but even adopted Imperial attributes, such as the purple robe. 105 P. GRIERSON, “A Tremissis of the Suevic King Audeca (584–585)”, in Estudos de Castello Branco, 2/6 (1962), pp. 27–32; P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), p. 79; P. GRIERSON, The Coins… (see n. 67), pp. 13–14; M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage” (see n. 15), p. 668. The conquest of the Suevic Kingdom by the Visigoths in 585 of course put an end to the production of Suevic coins. 106 An example could be the hoard of Sevilla I (X. BARRAL I ALTET, La circulation des monnaies suèves et visigotiques. Contribution à l’histoire économique du royaume visigot, München 1976, pp. 78–80), or that of Zorita de los Canes which, buried around 576–579, includes together with the first “national” coins of Leovigild, also Merovingian coins, Visigothic coins in the name of Byzantine Emperors and a Byzantine coin, maybe minted in Spain (ibid., pp. 86–92). When it comes to coin finds in today’s France, a solidus of Maurice Tiberius minted in Carthage was found in Velet, and one in Châteneuf–la–Forêt (J. LAFAURIE – PILET–LEMIÈRE, Monnaies du Haut 104 70 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE As we said already, the “pseudo–imperial” coins enjoyed free circulation between the different States108: the hoard from S. Lorenzo di Pusteria (ancient Sebatum) contained 11 solidi, all from Constantinople, and 11 tremisses, all from Ravenna and Rome, with the names of all the Emperors from Leo I to Justinian I, and was buried around 538, maybe in connection with the Frankish invasion of 539109; a treasure from Chinon, buried in the first half of the 6th century, contains, next to Frankish coins, Ostrogothic, Visigothic and Burgundian ones, and it cannot be excluded that Byzantine ones were originally present110. The famous hoard of Alise–Sainte–Reine, closed around 550, contained, in a red terracotta vase, maybe 1 solidus of Valentinian III and one of Theodosius II, surely 3 byzantine solidi (Leo and Anastasius), 1 “5th–century imitation”, 4 Ostrogothic, 19 Visigothic and 19 Burgundian Moyen Âge… (see n. 77), nn. 70.529.1; 87.40.1), two of Phocas minted in Constantinople in Saint–Seine–sur–Vingeanne and in Albi (nn. 21.574.1; 81.4.2), one of Heraclius in Attigny and one in Bordeaux (nn. 8.25.1; 33.307.1), one of Constant II and Constantine IV minted in Carthage in Boutenac (n. 11.48.1), one tremissis of Constant II from Italy in Tourouzelle (n. 11.393.1.9) and one from Syracuse in Orléans (n. 45.234.6). Also found in Dijon was a gold coin of Anastasius II (n. 21.231.3), and in Sceaux–de–Gâtinais one of Constantine V, Leo IV and Leo III (n. 45.303.4). 107 The few exceptions are so scattered and rare, that they induce to think of a completely different kind of circulation (gifts, souvenirs etc.); so one Merovingian coin, minted in Saint–Front–la–Rivière–Chazelles was found in Cyprus: J. LAFAURIE, “Les monnaies” (see n. 102), p. 258, n. 50. On commerce in Cyprus in the 7th century, see now T. PAPACOSTAS, “The Economy of Late Antique Cyprus”, in S. KINGSLEY – M. DECKER (eds.), Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, Oxford 2001, pp. 107–128. It may be worth remembering that no other Western gold coins have been found in the territory of the Byzantine Empire, not even in shipwrecks (such as that of Yassı Ada, ca. 625, with 16 gold coins, all of Constantinople: J.M. FAGERLIE, “The Coins”, in G.F. BASS – F.H. VAN DOORNINCK, Yassı Ada Volume I, College Station 1982, pp. 145–154). 108 E.g. the visigothic tremissis found in the Praetorium in Köln (FMRD VI, 1, 1, p. 109, n. 1002, 1a, 76); or J. LAFAURIE – PILET–LEMIÈRE, Monnaies du Haut Moyen Âge… (see n. 77), nn. 2.215.1; 2.408.4; 13.4.5; 14.666.1.2; 17.142.1; 17.337.1.1–2; 17.382.1; 17.415.4; 22.325.1; 27.13.2; 28.51.1; 28.221.1; 29.259.1; 30.100.1; 31.555.6; 33.498.1.1–2; 34.237.1; 41.18.1; 49.4.1; 49.7.2; 51.15.1; 58.39.1.1; 62.557.1; 62.603.1; 62.889.1; 76.540.1; 80.248.1; 83.61.1; 83.000.1. See also E.A. ARSLAN, “L’oro rifiutato…” (see n. 16), p. 127. 109 O. ULRICH BANSA, in NotScav 1939, pp. 150–164. 110 J. LAFAURIE – C. MORRISSON, “La pénétration…” (see n. 101), p. 48; now J. LAFAURIE – PILET–LEMIÈRE, Monnaies du Haut Moyen Âge… (see n. 77), n. 37.72.1. 71 FILIPPO CARLÀ tremisses, and of course a majority of Merovingian coins, 50 “in name of the Emperor”, and 9 of Theudebert111. In Southern Gaul around 570 the circulating gold coins were mostly Byzantine, Merovingian and Ostrogothic112: the hoard of Hyères (?) included Byzantine, Ostrogothic and Frankish pseudo–imperial coins113. The hoard of Reignac contained 8 coins, of which only 2 are today known: one is a solidus of Marcian minted in Constantinople, the other one a Frankish solidus in the name of Justin I114. Byzantine coins are the biggest part of the Viviers treasure, closed around 570–580, which contained also Merovingian, Visigothic and Ostrogothic coins115: as we will better see, Viviers was part of a district with strong commercial bounds to the Byzantine Empire116. Visigothic gold coins circulated widely up to the last decades of the 6th century, and were found in France, Belgium, Frisia, England and on the Rhine117. Meanwhile in Spain Visigothic, Suevic, Byzantine and “pseudo–imperial” coins of other origin circulated together118. But something changed with the end of the century: Visigothic coins, which before circulated quite extensively in Merovingian Gaul, are still present only in very limited quantity and only in a specific southern region, centered on Septimanie and going broadly from Bordeaux to Marseille119. One could here remember Gregory of Tours’ narration of 111 J. LAFAURIE, “Trésor de monnaies du VIe siècle découvert à Alise–Sainte–Reine en 1804”, in RN, s. 6, 25 (1983), pp. 101–138, in particular pp. 101–109 and 129–137; now LAFAURIE – PILET–LEMIÈRE, Monnaies du Haut Moyen Âge... (see n. 77), n. 21.8.6. 112 J. LAFAURIE, “Les routes commerciales…” (see n. 101), pp. 245–246. 113 J. LAFAURIE, “Le trésor d’Escharen (Pays–Bas)”, in RN, s. 6, 2 (1959), pp. 153–210, p. 173. 114 J. LAFAURIE – C. MORRISSON, “La pénétration…” (see n. 101), p. 48. 115 J. LAFAURIE – C. MORRISSON, “La pénétration…” (see n. 101), p. 49; E.A. ARSLAN, “L’oro rifiutato…” (see n. 16), p. 130. 116 For other examples, see J. LAFAURIE – C. MORRISSON, “La pénétration…” (see n. 101), pp. 75–80; S. HEATH – D. YOON, “A Sixth–Century Tremissis from Psalmodi (Gard, France)”, in American Journal of Numismatics, s. 2, 13 (2001), pp. 63–80, on pp. 68–69. 117 P. SPUFFORD, Money and Its Use... (see n. 101), p. 13. A list of visigothic coins found outside Spain is in X. BARRAL I ALTET, La circulation… (see n. 106), pp. 173–176. On coins found in Frisia see n. 256. 118 M. CRUSAFONT I SABATER, El sistema monetario… (see n. 104), p. 99. 119 J. LAFAURIE, “Les trouvailles…” (see n. 102), pp. 116–120; J. LAFAURIE – PILET–LEMIÈRE, Monnaies du Haut Moyen Âge… (see n. 77), nn. 9.100.1; 11.262.7–10. 72 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE the theft, from the harbor of Marseille, of seventy containers of oil and liquamen coming from overseas120, or his explanation of the origin of plague in Marseille in 588, brought by a ship from Spain, bringing “the usual wares”121. But outside this area, there are no hoards with Visigothic coins after 580122, and from the beginning of the 7th century there is no foreign gold in Spain123. The connections between Aquitaine and Visigothic Spain are well known, and geographically very easily understandable124; this region was probably economically more connected with the Iberian peninsula rather than the other Frankish kingdoms: the hoard of Bordeaux, closed at the very end of the 7th century, contained Merovingian and Visigothic gold coins, but no pieces from other parts of the Frankish world such as Bourgogne or Provence (excluding Marseille and Rouen)125. The independence in trade of Aquitaine has also been recognized by the Greg. Tur., HF 4.43. Greg. Tur., HF 9.22: navis ab Hispania una cum negutio solito ad portum eius adpulsa est. On these two loci see S. T. LOSEBY, “The Ceramic Data and the Transformation of the Roman World”, in M. BONIFAY – J. C. TRÉGLIA (eds.), LRCW 2: Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry, Oxford 2007, vol. I, pp. 1–14, at the pp. 3–4. 122 X. BARRAL I ALTET, La circulation… (see n. 106), pp. 148; 150–151. 123 M. CRUSAFONT I SABATER, El sistema monetario… (see n. 104), pp. 97–100. C. WICKHAM, The Inheritance… (see n. 103), pp. 137–138, provides also a good synthesis of the regionalization of Spanish economy in the 6th–7th century. 124 J. LAFAURIE, “Les monnaies” (see n. 102), p. 238. It should be remembered that Septimanie stayed in Visigothic hands up to the Arab conquest of Spain and the Carolingian conquest. According to J. LAFAURIE – PILET–LEMIÈRE, Monnaies du Haut Moyen Âge… (see n. 77), only one Frankish national coin was found in the department of Ariège (9.42.2), none in Aude, the department of Narbonne, where Byzantine, Visigothic and pseudo–imperial coins of different origins compose the entire stock of gold finds (pp. 68–73); in Hérault tremissis in the names of Egica, Wittiza, Witteric, Chindaswinth, Sisebut are accompanied by four national Frankish coins (pp. 150–153). 125 P. LE GENTILHOMME, Mélanges… (see n. 80), pp. 15–18; J. LAFAURIE, “À propos de la trouvaille de Bordeaux”, in RN, s. 5, 14 (1952), pp. 229–235; J. LAFAURIE, “La monnaie bordelaise du Haut Moyen Age”, in C. HIGOUNET, Histoire de Bordeaux II. Bordeaux pendant le Haut Moyen Age, Bordeaux 1963, pp. 295–325, at the pp. 309–313; X. BARRAL I ALTET, La circulation… (see n. 106), pp. 125–129: “la division territoriale du royaume franc répondait alors à l’existence de régions économiques”. Now J. LAFAURIE – PILET–LEMIÈRE, Monnaies du Haut Moyen Âge… (see n. 77), n. 33.63.5. 121 120 73 FILIPPO CARLÀ archaeologists, who indicate in a strong connection with Spain and a looser one with Ireland the main character of this area126. Aquitanian gold is found in England up to the very beginning of the 7th century127. Generally the 7th century shows a strong regionalization in the provenence of the coins of the single hoards, a sign of an economic fragmentation which cannot be mistaken128; even in Spain, the coins show a division, beginning in the 620s, under Suinthila, between Galice on the one side and Betica and Lusitania on the other side129. The study on the provenance of coin finds in Switzerland in the 7th century, performed by Geiger, allows us to clearly acknowledge the existence of a region, on the left bank of the Rhone and up to the Seine Valley, broadly coinciding with Austrasia and Burgundy130, where coins were locally produced and circulating and which, apart from very few stray finds, and with the sole exception of Marseille, a sort of meeting point of the two regions because of its economic importance (on this we will come back), does not overlap with the “Visigothic–Aquitanian currency zone” 131. An ever–increasing separation has then been noticed for the 7th century with the regions on the right bank of the Rhine132. The birth of “national coinages” seems, therefore, to have consistently reduced, or even almost brought to an end, in comparison with the previous period, the “international” circulation of solidi and tremisses between different States. Only some sporadic hoards show that in some commercial centers coins of various origins were circulating together: in Mons, Belgium, in 1820 was found a treasure composed of X. BARRAL I ALTET, La circulation… (see n. 106), p. 129. D. HODGES, Dark Age Economics. The Origins of Towns and Trade A. D. 600–1000, London 1982, pp. 37–38. 128 X. BARRAL I ALTET, La circulation… (see n. 106), p. 132. 129 X. BARRAL I ALTET, La circulation… (see n. 106), p. 140. 130 The numismatic character of these two regions, deeply connected, has now been analyzed by S. ZAAF, “Les relations…” (see n. 97). 131 H.U. GEIGER, “Die merowingischen Münzen in der Schweiz”, in SNR, 58 (1979), pp. 83–178, on p. 160. J. WERNER, “Fernhandel und Naturalwirtschaft im östlichen Merowingerreich nach archäologischen und numismatischen Zeugnissen”, in Moneta e scambi nell’alto Medioevo, Spoleto 1961, pp. 557–618, at p. 589 spoke of an “einheimischer Münzumlauf am Mittelrhein”. 132 H.L. ADELSON, “Early Medieval Trade Routes”, in AHR, 65 (1960), pp. 271–287, in particular pp. 278–279. 127 126 74 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE jewellery, three Merovingian tremisses, two tremisses in the name of Suinthila and mostly Byzantine solidi in the names of Heraclius and Phoca133. As already hinted, Byzantine coins may have had a bigger force of penetration; nonetheless, also in this case, the amount of pieces found in hoards decreases dramatically since the last quarter of the 6th century, and substantially ceases with the age of Heraclius, particularly with his second issue minted between 613 and 629134. In Merovingian Gaul there are almost no Byzantine coins for the 7th and 8th century135, and it has been supposed that they were reminted as “national” coins136, showing once more how the previous “permeability” had broken up137. In the eastern part of the Merovingian kingdom a moment of recovery of the presence of Byzantine coins is to be recognized under Heraclius, but the general trend is that of a constant decline after Justinian I138, and most of the later gold coins found had been used either in tombs or to compose jewels139: these coins could have had no monetary function, and have been used mostly as social symbols or X. BARRAL I ALTET, La circulation… (see n. 106), pp. 94–95. P. GRIERSON, “Coinage and Money in the Byzantine Empire, 498 – c. 1090”, in Moneta e Scambi nell’Alto Medioevo, Spoleto 1961, pp. 411–453, at the pp. 447–448; E.A. ARSLAN, “Mutamenti di funzione…” (see n. 75), p. 423. 135 J. LAFAURIE – C. MORRISSON, “La pénétration…” (see n. 101), p. 55. One only Byzantine coin of the 8th century has been found in Western Europe, in Westerham (Kent). 136 J. LAFAURIE – C. MORRISSON, “La pénétration…” (see n. 101), p. 46. 137 S. SUCHODOLSKI, “Les débuts…” (see n. 72), p. 250: “la monnaie d’or, jusqu’alors internationale, commença à devenir régionale”. S. SUCHODOLSKI, “Vom Gold…” (see n. 9), p. 100 doubts that this reminting took place, considering it useless and expensive: but this is not a sufficient explanation; problems of royalty and authority (excluded by Suchodolski on the basis of the sole quasi–imperial coins, on which see infra) motivate surely such decisions, and if coins from another area were not allowed to circulate, they simply had to be reminted. The alternative is to think that Byzantine coins stopped completely reaching the Western Mediterranean, which seems even more difficult to explain. 138 J. DRAUSCHKE, “Byzantinische Münzen des ausgehenden 5. bis beginnenden 8. Jahrhunderts in den östlichen Regionen des Merowingerreiches”, in M. WOŁOSZYN (ed.), Byzantine coins in Central Europe between the 5th and 10th century, Kraków 2009, pp. 279–323, at the pp. 286–287. 139 J. DRAUSCHKE, “Byzantinische Münzen…” (see n. 138), pp. 283–284. 134 133 75 FILIPPO CARLÀ elements for local jewel production140. The coins of Heraclius also show a particular geographical distribution, in the eastern part of the region, and a particular concentration, which brings to mind, maybe, only one occasion of entrance141. Therefore, Drauschke interpreted these later Byzantine gold coins as result of some payment from the Empire to the populations living here, because of military help against the Avars142. It is in any case important to underline that they have been found in a region, east of the Rhine, where it is supposed that the situation was broadly similar to the one in Frisia or Scandinavia, and, therefore, the controls on the minting authority could also have been rather smooth. Additionally, the composition of the silver and bronze stocks of this region shows a stronger connection with the Italian monetary area, rather than with the one west of the Rhine143. Also in Visigothic Spain there is no trace of Byzantine gold after the birth of the national coinage, even in the part of the peninsula directly controlled by the Empire, therefore suggesting that the coins were later reminted144. The giant hoard of La Capilla (Sevilla), e.g., buried around 632–633, discovered in 1891 and immediately divided and sold, contained apparently more than 1000 coins. 883 coins were found and attributed to this discovery; they are all Visigothic coins, from Reccaredus to Iudila, coming from mints all over the kingdom, but no piece has a foreign origin145. VI. Confirmations through literary sources Traces of this evolution are also found in the literary sources. In the 5th century a famous and not always correctly interpreted text, J. DRAUSCHKE, “Byzantinische Münzen…” (see n. 138), pp. 292–293. J. DRAUSCHKE, “Byzantinische Münzen…” (see n. 138), p. 291. 142 J. DRAUSCHKE, “Byzantinische Münzen…” (see n. 138), p. 296. 143 J. DRAUSCHKE, “Byzantinische Münzen…” (see n. 138), p. 293. A Lombard coin in the name of Heraclius was also found on the Rhine, in Fessenheim–le–Bas, near Strasbourg: J. LAFAURIE – PILET–LEMIÈRE, Monnaies du Haut Moyen Âge… (see n. 77), n. 67.138.1. 144 X. BARRAL I ALTET, La circulation… (see n. 106), p. 65. 145 X. BARRAL I ALTET, La circulation… (see n. 106), pp. 96–115. 141 140 76 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE Majorian’s Nov. 7, clearly shows the context of circulation of the “pseudo–imperial” coins146. All gold coins with the name and face of the Emperor, says Majorian, must be accepted at the same value, excepting only some “gallic solidi”, which are not discriminated because of their origin (the definition “Gallic” is only meant to identify them)147, but because of the lesser content of precious metal. These coins – here is an important point – are not to be discarded, they can circulate, but at a lesser value, i.e. the value of the metal they contain. It is not written, as in Valentinian’s Novella, that the valid gold coin must have an imperial portrait, because this was taken completely for granted148. In the first quarter of the 6th century an interesting and famous law had been written in the Burgundian kingdom by Gundobad: “With respect to the different kinds of solidi, we order that all gold of whatsoever weight be received save for four particular issues, namely that of Valencia, the older issue of Geneva, the Gothic money which was coined at the time of Alaric, and that of Adaric. But if anyone will not receive gold of accepted weight save for these four issues of money, Nov. Maj. 7.14: Praeterea nullus solidum integri ponderis calumniosae improbationis obtentu recuset exactor, excepto eo Gallico, cuius aurum minore aestimatione taxatur; omnis concussionum removeatur occasio; “moreover, no tax collector, under the pretext of fraudulent disapproval, shall refuse a solidus of undiminished weight, except in the case of a Gallic solidus, whose gold is valued at a smaller estimation. Every occasion for extortion should be abolished”. Transl. C. Pharr. 147 It is not necessary here to discuss the identification of these Gallic coins, which is not certain: I think, following a suggestion by Lafaurie, that they must be recognized in a series of solidi showing in a first phase a “small crown”, then the fictive mint–mark RA, produced in the names of Valentinian III, Majorian and Libius Severus: J. LAFAURIE, “Encore le solidus gallicus”, in BSFN, 50 (1995), pp. 1080–1084; J. LAFAURIE – PILET–LEMIÈRE, Monnaies du Haut Moyen Âge… (see n. 77), pp. 13–14; F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), pp. 446–449. 148 F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), pp. 443–449. E.A. ARSLAN, “L’oro rifiutato…” (see n. 16), p. 126 assumes on the contrary that Majorian’s law excluded from circulation inside the Empire the Gallic coins, while Valentinian’s Novella had repeated the necessity of accepting the “Imperial coinage”. The second statement is acceptable, only if we underline that “Imperial” refers to the minted portrait and name, and not to the minting authority, which is never mentioned in this juridical sources; the first statement, as already made clear, must on the contrary be completely rejected. 146 77 FILIPPO CARLÀ let him lose what he wanted to sell without remuneration”149. The context is once again one in which no Germanic kingdom has yet begun to mint coins with names of the kings. Here it is repeated that the gold coins of correct weight must be accepted as legal tender (underlining once more that gold was circulating with a purely intrinsic value)150, but for four kinds of coinage. It is not here the right context to discuss what these four kinds are, a question which has been very widely debated in literature. As the rightness of weight is clearly presupposed, the problem must be the fineness, as the explicit mention of the adaeratio of Alaric’s coins confirms without any doubt151. It will be enough for our aims to underline that if the “coins from Geneva” are products of the same Burgundian kingdom (even if of another king, Gundobad’s brother and enemy Godigisel), and have been identified in a series, minted 491–501, Const. Extr. 21.7: De monetis solidorum iubemus custodire, ut omne aurum, quodcumque pensaverit, accipiatur praeter quattuor tantum monetas, hoc est: Valentiani, Genavensis prioris et Gotici, qui a tempore Alarici regis adaerati sunt, et Adaricianos. Quod si quicumque praeter istas quattuor monetas aurum pensantem non acceperit, id, quod vendere volebat, non accepto pretio perdat. Trans. K. Fischer–Drew. 150 Quodcumque pensaverit cannot be understood, as H.L. ADELSON, Roman Monetary Policy from Diocletian to Heraclius. A Dissertation Presented to the Department of History, Princeton University, in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 1952, pp. 41–42 thought, that coins were accepted in Burgundy “regardless of weight”. As S. SUCHODOLSKI, “Est–ce que les Burgondes ont été forcés d’accepter l’or au poids?” in NAC, 20 (1991), pp. 247–251, in particular p. 250, rightly saw, pensans means “of right weight”, and pensare therefore “to be of right weight”. This phrase indicates then that any coin of right weight must be accepted, and is very analogous to the formulation on the same topic in Imperial law. 151 H.L. ADELSON, Light Weight Solidi and Byzantine Trade during the Sixth and Seventh Centuries, New York 1957, p. 60. A. DOPSCH, Verfassungs– und Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Mittelalters, Wien 1928, p. 233 and J. BANAJI, Agrarian Change in Late Antiquity. Gold, Labour and Aristocratic Dominance, Oxford 2001, p. 72 thought on the contrary that the problem to be fought would be underweight coins. W. REINHART, “Die Münzen des tolosanischen Reiches der Westgoten”, in DJN, 1 (1938), pp. 107–135, on p. 124 and U. GUALAZZINI, “Aspetti giuridici dei problemi monetari in Italia durante l’alto Medioevo”, in Moneta e scambi nell’alto Medioevo, Spoleto 1961, pp. 89–122, on p. 103, thought that the law is ambiguous and that they could not define if the problem at stake were the weight or the fineness. E.A. ARSLAN, “L’oro rifiutato…” (see n. 16), pp. 129–130, speaks of “reduced fineness or other reasons”. 149 78 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE with an F in the legend and gold content around 89–91%152, the “coins which have been debased since the time of king Alaric” are of course Visigothic ones, minted by Alaric II with an effective lower content in gold, and which were also the object of complaint for Avitus of Vienne153. A necessary consequence is that the Visigothic coins – or better the other Visigothic coins – could circulate without problems in the Burgundian kingdom. Another confirmation comes from the Pragmatica Sanctio, the law with which Justinian reorganized, after the Gothic war, the administration of the prefecture of Italy. Here a paragraph, dated 554, says explicitly: “Since we know that gold pieces of ancient Roman Emperors are easily found in those places (i.e. Italy), but that merchants and other persons cause a loss to our taxpayers on account of the change of the gold pieces, we ordain that gold pieces stamped with the portrait of Roman Emperors shall freely pass through all the provinces without detriment by reason of any change and contracts shall be made by means thereof”154. Once again Justinian tried to repress the frauds of people who tried to assign a lower value to gold coins of full weight and good metal, which were valid because they portrayed legitimate Emperors of the W.A. ODDY, “The Moneta Genavensis and the Lex Burgundionum”, in RN, s. 6, 22 (1980), pp. 131–135, in particular p. 132. 153 Ep. 87: Nec quidem talis electri, quale nuper, ut egomet hausi, in sancto ac sincerissimo impollutae manus nitore sordebat, cui corruptam potiusquam confectam, auri nondum fornace decocti crediderim inesse mixturam: vel illam certe, quam nuperrime rex Getarum, secuturae praesagam ruinae, monetis publicis adulterium firmantem mandaverat; “And not to be sure the sort of electrum that recently tarnished even in the holy and most sincere brightness of an unpolluted hand, as I myself heard. You would have thought present a corrupted mixture of gold that had not yet been purified in a furnace rather than one perfected, or that mixture indeed, the harbinger of ensuing disaster, that very recently, the King of the Visigoths had commanded to the public mints as confirming adulteration of the coinage”. Transl. D. Shanzer – I. Wood. 154 Pragm. Sanct. 20: Cum autem scimus, veterum Romanorum principum solidos per illa loca facile inveniri, comperimus autem negotiatores vel alios quosdam propter mutationem solidorum dispendium aliquod collatoribus nostris inferre, sancimus solidos Romanorum principum forma signatos sine permutationis dispendio per omnes provincias ambulare et per eos celebrari contractus… Transl. J. Blume. See also C. MORRISSON, “Byzantine Money…” (see n. 31), p. 934. 152 79 FILIPPO CARLÀ past155. The consideration that Italy was full of similar coins leads one to think that among the “good” solidi were to be included also Ostrogothic ones minted, as already said, in the name of Byzantine Emperors156. In 554, it is important to underline, Theudebert’s coins were already existing: Justinian not only “positively” reaffirms, then, the validity of “barbarian” imitations in the name of legitimate Emperors, but “negatively” excludes, consequently, the legal tender in imperial territory of coins with name and/or portrait of “other” kings (and the already mentioned Ravennate papyri mentioning solidi dominici can be once more called as a proof). Moving towards the end of the century we find two letters, whose comparison clearly shows the interruption of free circulation after the birth of the “national coinages”. On the 14th December 556, after Theudebert’s “experiment”, but before the real beginning of national coinage in Merovingian France, pope Pelagius I explains what should be done with the incomes from the ecclesiastic possessions in Gaul157. These pensiones should be sent to Italy, to help in the recovery of funds which are in a terrible condition (clearly after the Gothic war); but if it were possible, with the same solidi (which makes clear that the complete income was realized monetarily), some clothes for the poor should be bought directly in France, where they were probably cheaper, and then sent to Italy. Apart from the purchase of clothes, the money collected in France should be sent to Italy, where it could clearly circulate. But after 561, as we said, Sigebert gave definitive birth to the M.F. HENDY, Studies… (see n. 35), p. 366. M.F. HENDY, Studies… (see n. 35), p. 485. The idea expressed by W. HAHN – M.A. METLICH, Money of the Incipient Byzantine Empire (Anastasius I–Justinian I, 491–565), Wien 2000, p. 48, that Justinian wanted to substitute all the Ostrogothic coins in circulation cannot therefore be accepted. 157 Pelag., Ep. 4, 4–5: Praeterea hortamur, ut viro magnificentissimo, filio nostro, patricio Placido, genitori tuo, dicas ut, quod de pensionibus possessionum ecclesiae nostrae collectum est, aut per suum hominem aut per harum nobis dignetur dirigere portitorem; quia Italiae praedia ita desolata sunt, ut ad recuperationem earum nemo sufficiat. Et si possibile est, ut nobis de ipsis solidis saga tumentacia, quae pauperibus erogari possint, et tunicas albas aut cucullas vel colobia, aut si quae aliae species in Provincia fiunt, quae pauperibus, ut diximus, erogari debeant, nobis exinde facite comparari…: see F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), pp. 452–453. 156 155 80 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE national Frankish coinage, and it is no surprise, then, to find a completely different situation in 595. In the month of September of that year, Gregory the Great had indeed to remind Candidus, sent as his representative to Gaul with commendatory letters (either given directly to him or to Augustine) for Childebert II, his sons Theoderic II and Theodebert II and for the bishops of Marseille, Arles, Aix–en– Provence, Vienne, Lyon, Autun, Tours and Gap, that the solidi Galliarum (which of course could not have anything to do with Majorian’s gallici solidi, since in Gallia meanwhile the Visigoths had also left place to the Franks!) cannot be spent in Rome, i.e., in the imperial territory158. The instructions given to Candidus are additionally not referred to as a specific delivery of money, as in this case, but are general indications given in the moment when he was leaving Rome – and must therefore be seen as corresponding to a general law. Thus, “cannot be spent” does not mean that they are accepted at a lower value159: it simply means that between 556 and 595 something happened which caused the loss of legal tender to the Merovingian coins in the imperial area. It is clear that this something is the removal of the imperial authority from the dies160. 158 Greg. Magn., Ep. 6.10: Gregorius Candido presbitero eunti in patrimonio Galliis. Pergens auxiliante domino Deo nostro Iesu Christo ad patrimonium quod est in Galliis gubernandum volumus ut dilectio tua ex solidis quos acceperit vestimenta pauperum vel pueros Anglos, qui sint ab annis decem et septem vel decem et octo, ut in monateriis dati Deo proficiant, comparet, quatenus solidi Galliarum, qui in terra nostra expendi non possunt, apud locum proprium utiliter expendantur. F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), pp. 450–452. 159 This letter cannot therefore be understood as equivalent to Nov. Maj. 7, or Const. Extr. 21.7, as it has been done many times, starting from M. BLOCH, “Le problème de l’or…” (see n. 3), pp. 8–9. At the same time, it also excludes that the problem, as in those cases, was only the fineness of the coins, as supposed by A. RIISING, “The Fate…” (see n. 6), p. 95, and many other scholars. 160 See also E.A. ARSLAN, “L’oro rifiutato…” (see n. 16), p. 121. M.F. HENDY, Studies… (see n. 35), pp. 395–396 thinks rather of “the inferior quality of the contemporary Merovingian coinage” (so already D.C. DENNETT, “Pirenne…” (see n. 4), pp. 187–188); this does not seem the case, since coins with lesser gold content were generally accepted at a lesser value, and not forbidden, as we have already shown, and also because of the comparison with Pelagius’ letter and with another one, written by Gregory himself, which will be discussed infra. 81 FILIPPO CARLÀ The literary data confirms then that the “revolution” of the national coinages around the 570s meant renouncing to produce a gold currency which could be accepted substantially anywhere, and is therefore a precious indicator of a strongly “regionalized” monetary reality. With the birth of these coinages, wrote Durliat, “les monnaies étrangères disparaissent presque totalement dans les royaumes et l’Empire n’admet plus pas la circulation des pièces barbares sur son sol”161. And this agrees perfectly with the archaeological data, according to which after the 6th century in Northern Europe “Mediterranean and Oriental objects are rarities until the Arabs began to influence the course of Baltic sea commerce from the later 8th century”162. Even if Spufford was obviously right in writing that “to expect to find any cataclysmic change in the coinage would be unreasonable”163, we must then recognize a momentous importance to the birth of “national” coinages. We saw that according to Majorian’s Novella 7 even coins with a lesser gold content could theoretically be accepted “abroad”, as long as they showed the imperial face and name, but it is clear that such a huge irregularity in fineness, as the one shown in the 7th century in Spain164 and France165, implies the abandonment of the respect of a kind of previous “international standard”, which had brought to the clear juridical J. DURLIAT, “Le conditions du commerce au VIe siècle”, in R. HODGES – W. BOWDEN (eds.), The Sixth Century. Production... (see n. 103), pp. 89–117, on p. 96. 162 D. HODGES, Dark Age Economics... (n. 127), p. 122. 163 P. SPUFFORD, “Coinage and Currency” (see n. 68), p. 788. 164 D.M. METCALF – F. SCHWEIZER, “Milliprobe Analyses of Some Visigotic, Suevic, and Other Gold Coins of the Early Middle Ages”, in Archaeometry, 12 (1970), pp. 173–188, on pp. 175–176; P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), pp. 53–54; D.M. METCALF, “Visigothic Monetary History: the Facts, what Facts?”, in A. FERRERO (ed.), The Visigoths. Studies in Culture and Society, Leiden – Boston – Köln 1999, pp. 201–217, on pp. 208–209. 165 A.M. STAHL, The Merovingian Coinage of the Region of Metz, Louvain– la–Neuve 1982, p. 68; P. BERGHAUS, “Wirtschaft, Handel und Verkehr der Merowingerzeit im Licht numismatischer Quellen”, in K. DÜWEL – H. JANKUHN – H. SIEMS – D. TIMPE (eds.), Der Handel des frühen Mittelalters, Göttingen 1985, pp. 193–213, on p. 202; P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), p. 109; M. HENDY, “From Public to Private…” (see n. 9), p. 68; G. DEPEYROT, Le numéraire mérovingien. L’âge de l’or, vol. I, Introduction, Wetteren 1998, p. 21; M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage” (see n. 15), p. 672. 161 82 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE denouncement of such debased exemplars. The debasement of Merovingian gold coins is evident from the time of Dagobert I, and clearly the necessity of reminting Byzantine coins, with a higher metal content, could have been connected to this: the debasement itself shows in any case that no one cared to keep a gold currency which could be easily transported and accepted elsewhere without being “changed”166. And this opportunity probably must be taken as a sign of the quantity of gold circulating out of the “regions” we are defining167. Riising’s idea that “many coins were badly made and more or less debased, which resulted in a territorial limitation of their validity”168, should then be changed to its exact opposite: many coins could be debased, because their validity had already been territorially limited. The same happened in Spain, where, since the reign of Leovigild, gold coinage shows a continuous debasement (to about 75% under this king, then to always decreasing quantities during the 7th century)169 and always a greater irregularity, also in weight170. And these debasements, in Gaul as in Spain, appear to have been centrally defined and controlled, since the products of different mints result in a similar quantity of precious metal contained. The debasement of the metal would of course have created trouble in the moment of using the coin S. SUCHODOLSKI, “Les débuts…” (see n. 72), p. 250; M. HENDY, “From Public to Private…” (see n. 9), pp. 62–63. 167 It can be in any case useful to underline that the Rhodian Sea Law always foresaw the transport of gold on ships for commercial reasons, and even the chance that “the captain to whom the ship is entrusted sets sail and runs away into another country with gold by will of the sailors” (3.8, transl. W. Ashburner). 168 A. RIISING, “The Fate…” (see n. 6), p. 97. But at p. 114 she adds that “the Frankish kings lacked the necessary prestige to make their coins acceptable to the international market”, in a sense nearer to the theses presented in this paper. 169 L.G. DE VALDEAVELLANO, “La moneda y la economía…” (see n. 104), 209–211; M. HENDY, “From Public to Private…” (see n. 9), p. 52; M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage” (see n. 15), pp. 670–671. 170 P. GRIERSON, “Visigothic Metrology”, in NC, s. 6, 13 (1953), pp. 74–87, in particular p. 80 showed that after Leovigild’s “restitution” of the Roman standard there were no further reforms to the coins’ weight, but only an always greater irregularity in minting, which presupposes once more that every single gold coin was weighed, and culminating, at the beginning of the 8th century, in the lack of any trace of a weight standard. 166 83 FILIPPO CARLÀ “abroad”, and must presuppose once again the lack of a strong will to keep in life a unitary currency. The reduction in weight could have been a rather small problem: since gold coins were circulating only according to their intrinsic value, they were always weighed, and could therefore be accepted, even if on a standard different than the main one. In this sense, the “light–weight solidi” introduced by Justinian, and most probably invented for internal reasons rather than for export or external commerce, create no difficulty, and we will not deal with them here, having treated them elsewhere171. The adoption of the “Germanic standard”, of 21 siliquae for solidus instead of 24, by the Sueves and the Visigoths before the Franks, who went up with a double standard up to the reign of Dagobert I (629–639), to mint afterwards only on the lighter standard, did not really trouble the circulation. We have e.g. the example of the 6th century “kit” to verify and weigh coins found in Watchfield, Oxfordshire, probably belonging to a “public officer”, collecting taxes and/or fines, and composed of two series of weights, according to the “Roman” and to the “Germanic” standard172. But it can still be noted, as a clear trace of the birth of separated economic regions, that in 7th century Sicily, still in Byzantine hands173, solidi were not minted on the standard of the Empire, but consistently underweight, due “to the deliberate adoption of a different weight standard more closely related to that obtaining in the Germanic kingdoms of the West”174. And it can be underlined that the reduction F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), pp. 378–390. C. SCULL, “A Sixth Century Grave containing a Balance and Weights from Waterfield, Oxfordshire, England”, in Germania, 64 (1986), pp. 105–138; F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), pp. 115–116. 173 On administrative aspects related to the mint in Syracuse, opened around 645 (Catania had been closed around 629), see M.F. HENDY, Studies… (see n. 35), pp. 421–422. 174 P. GRIERSON, Byzantine Coins (see n. 46), p. 130. It can be remembered here that Sicilian coins are generally the latest Byzantine coins present in a non–Byzantine context, and sometimes the only ones attested for the 8th century: C. MORRISSON, “La Sicile byzantine: une lueur dans les siècles obscurs”, in NAC, 27 (1998), pp. 307–334, at the pp. 313–315. But the particular position of Sicily and the numismatic problems connected to the island in these centuries is far too wide a topic to be treated here. 172 171 84 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE of the tremissis to 20 grains, i.e. to the Germanic shilling, was brought on in France under Chilperic I, in the 570s or 580s, then contextually to the creation of the “national” coinage175. Even if weight was creating a smaller problem (we will come back to it dealing with “quasi– imperial” coins), we can presume that the abandonment of “Roman” and “Byzantine” standards was easier when the circulation itself was meant to be substantially national or regional. Also after 640 no Byzantine coins appear in Great Britain176, the last one being a piece contained in the Crondall hoard. Here 100 coins were found, probably the payment of a wergeld, 69 Anglo–Saxon, 24 Frankish, 1 Byzantine, and 6 “home–made”, showing probably the difficulty of the coin supply177. The one Byzantine gold coin at Crondall had, by the way, once been mounted in a jewel: it had therefore circulated in a completely different way, not as coin but as piece of jewelry178. As summarized by A. Stahl, “of 144 coins of the sixth and seventh century found in England, either singly or in small groups, 26 are Byzantine issues, 8 are Visigothic, 85 are Merovingian and related (Frisian, ‘Alemannic’) coinages, and 25 are Anglo–Saxon issues. Most Byzantine coins found in England are of the sixth century, and most Visigothic coins are imitation of these”179. With the end of the P. GRIERSON, The Coins… (see n. 67), p. 17. J. LAFAURIE – C. MORRISSON, “La pénétration…” (see n. 101), p. 52. 177 P. GRIERSON, The Coins… (see n. 67), p. 26. 178 P. GRIERSON, “The Purpose of the Sutton Hoo Coins”, in Antiquity, 44 (1970), pp. 14–18, on p. 15: “Here I think that there can be no doubt of the intention to make up a sum of a hundred shillings. The owner originally disposed of ninety–four Frankish and Anglo–Saxon coins, one of these being a counterfeit. To these, in order to make up a hundred, he added six more pieces of the appropriate weight, three roughly struck so as to imitate coins and three simply left blank. When the sum came to be paid, it was discovered that one of the coins was a counterfeit. It had consequently to be replaced by a small Byzantine coin detached from a necklace, perhaps belonging to the owner’s wife. Only in some such way can one account for the presence in the group of one exceptional coin, an import from much further afield and struck to a different weight system. One may hazard the guess that the Crondall coins represent a wergeld, the hundred shillings at which Kentish law valued the life of a man”. 179 A.M. STAHL, “The Nature of the Sutton Hoo Coin Parcel”, in C.B. KENDALL – P.S. WELLS (eds.), Voyage to the Other World. The Legacy of Sutton Hoo, Minneapolis 1992, pp. 3–14, on p. 3. 176 175 85 FILIPPO CARLÀ “pseudo–imperial” coinages, therefore, the process of regionalization excludes not only Byzantine issues but also Visigothic “national” coins. It is true that the prestige of the Byzantine gold coin was still extremely high, as Lopez noticed, and that Bede used the Eastern nomisma as a symbol of value and purity, applying this name metaphorically to the princess Earcongota180. But this was now little more than a literary topos, and I would doubt that the Byzantine gold coin “was eagerly accepted from England to India as an instrument of payment as good as gold itself”181: circulating only with intrinsic value, in the Western world it was gold itself, as we saw, but its presence became from the latter half of the 6th to the first half of the 7th century always narrower, because the arriving pieces were presumably massively reminted182. This closure of monetary areas is recognized also by Claude; but he recognizes only a political motive behind it, and therefore thinks that the problem was only the fact that the coins had been minted by other authorities. “Das Vertrauen, dessen eine Münze zu ihrer Zirkulationsfähigkeit bedarf, hing nicht zuletzt von der Bekanntheit ihres Gepräges sowie einer möglichst großen Ähnlichkeit des Münzbildes mit den übrigen umlaufenden Münzen ab”183. As a principle, this must of course be readily accepted – and the “similarity” is recognized, as already said, in the presence of the imperial portrait. The general historical reconstruction proposed by the German scholar indeed has many points of contact with what is proposed here. But Claude interprets this “Ähnlichkeit” as a stylistic similarity, and presumes that previous Germanic coins were actually circulating because they were not recognized as such. With the always increasing artistic differentiation between Germanic and Byzantine coins, they would have been immediately distinguished and not accepted184. So, theoretically, coins minted outside the Imperial territory should never have been accepted, and when they were, it was because of the inability to 180 181 Bed., Hist. Eccl. Angl. 3.8. R.S. LOPEZ, “The Dollar...” (see n. 17), p. 211. 182 J. LAFAURIE, “Le trésor d’Escharen…” (see n. 113), pp. 180–181. 183 D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), p. 112. 184 D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), pp. 112–113. 86 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE recognize their provenance185. Correspondingly, Claude accepts on the other side that Byzantine coins were the only ones accepted everywhere as means of payment186. This theory is not convincing, and not only because, as has been showed, since the end of the 6th–beginning of the 7th century the acceptance of the Byzantine gold coins seems to have been strongly reduced in the West. First of all Claude’s theory presupposes, once again, inability and/or ignorance on the side of the ancient money dealers, in spite of the fact that gold coins surely were not a normal component of daily life and were used by a relatively limited amount of people, who probably knew quite well what they were doing. And, one should add, these coins, even if typologically more directly inspired by the Byzantine, were not identical to the Imperial ones and sometimes showed, as hinted at, a monogram or an initial of the Germanic kings. On the other side, the literary sources that we have mentioned, such as Majorian’s Novella or the Burgundian Constitutio, assume that those coins would be perfectly recognizable – and correspondingly treated. Last but not least, as we will see, Lombard pseudo–imperial coins – all but mistakable for Byzantine ones – were circulating in the Byzantine regions of Italy. Therefore, it seems that a more formal explanation is needed – and the disappearance of the Imperial authorities from the dies fits perfectly with all the data at our disposition. VII. Meaningful exceptions In the same period, between the mid–6th and the mid–7th century, Byzantine and Mediterranean wares substantially disappear in It will be enough to mention here briefly that if an overevaluation of the gold coin is assumed – what I exclude (and Claude does not even mention) – it would be necessary to presume that the Imperial authority could never accept coins whose Schlagschatz would have been of advantage to others. Therefore, all coins minted in other areas could never have circulated, and the necessary consequence would be adhering to Claude’s theory, with the additional problem of having to explain why Byzantine coins were accepted in the regna, if those were earning from an overevaluation of the minted metal. 186 D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), pp. 113–114. 185 87 FILIPPO CARLÀ north–west Europe187, and a general decline in commerce between Eastern and Western Mediterranean can clearly be seen in archeological data from all around the basin188: ARS ceramics, still sold in the East (Africa was still a part of the Byzantine Empire), tend to disappear from Western sites after the last quarter of the 6th century, excluding explainable exceptions such as Marseille (we will come back to it) or Byzantine military sites189; Late Roman C ware (Phocean Red–Slip), substantially an Eastern phenomenon, which confirms the regionalization of exchanges, stops being imported to the Western Mediterranean in the second half of the 6th century190. The contacts between Britain and the Byzantine world, supposed through the archaeological evidence for the 5th and 6th centuries, decline steeply after D. HODGES, Dark Age Economics... (n. 127), p. 33. R. HODGES – D. WHITEHOUSE, Mohammed, Charlemagne and the Origins of Europe, Ithaca 1983, pp. 32–33; C. PANELLA, “Le merci: produzioni, itinerari e destini”, in A. GIARDINA (ed.), Società romana e impero tardoantico, vol. 3: le merci, gli insediamenti, Roma–Bari 1986, pp. 431–459, on pp. 432; 454–459; C. WICKHAM, “L’Italia e l’Alto Medioevo”, in Archeologia Medievale, 15 (1988), pp. 105–124, on p. 111; C. PANELLA, “Gli scambi nel Mediterraneo Occidentale dal IV al VII secolo dal punto di vista di alcune merci”, in Hommes et richesses dans l’Empire byzantin, tome I: IV–VIIe siècle, Paris 1989, pp. 129–141, on pp. 138–141; C. PANELLA, “Merci e scambi nel Mediterraneo tardoantico”, in A. CARANDINI – L.CRACCO RUGGINI – A. GIARDINA (eds.), Storia di Roma 3/II. L’età tardoantica. I luoghi e le culture, Torino 1993, pp. 613–697, on pp. 656–657. 189 P. REYNOLDS, Trade in the Western Mediterranean AD 400–700: The Ceramic Evidence, London 1995, pp. 119–120, J.P. SODINI, “Productions et échanges dans le monde protobyzantin (IVe–VIIIe siècle): le cas de la céramique”, in K. BELKE – F. HILD – J. KODER – P. SOUSTAL (eds.), Byzanz als Raum, Wien 2000, pp. 181–208, at the pp. 194–195; C. WICKHAM, “Studying Long–Term Change in the West, A.D. 400–800”, in L. LAVAN – W. BOWDEN (eds.), Theory and Practice in Late Antique Archaeology, Leiden – Boston 2003, pp. 385–403, at the pp. 388–390; S.T. LOSEBY, “The Mediterranean Economy”, in P. FOURACRE (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History I: c. 500 – c. 700, Cambridge 2005, pp. 605–638, on p. 631; C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), pp. 712; 734. The decline in distribution of ARS can be clearly seen in the graphs published in B. WARD PERKINS, “Specialized Production and Exchange”, in Cambridge Ancient History XIV2, Cambridge 2001, pp. 346–391, on p. 372. 190 A. MARTIN, “La sigillata focese (Phocaean Red–Slip/Late Roman C Ware)”, in L. SAGUÌ (ed.), Ceramica in Italia: VI–VII secolo, Firenze 1998, pp. 109–122, on pp. 117–118; M. MCCORMICK, Origins of the European Economy. Communications and Commerce, A.D. 300–900, Cambridge 2001, p. 60. 188 187 88 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE 550191. This does not imply a complete disappearance of commerce or of exchanges between the Byzantine and the Western European world, but a decisive reduction in its scale192; at the same time it does not necessarily imply a contemporary analogous reduction in the commercial exchanges between the different Eastern regions, still in possession – till Abd al–Malik’s reforms, as already explained – of a “common currency”. The described decline, which as a process lasted many decades, accompanied the whole 6th century, and appears to us fully completed in the 7th century. This is also shown by shipwrecks: “after a grain transport was lost off St Gervais in southern France some time between AD 600 and 625, long–distance exchange [in the West] very clearly contracted. The incessant flow of produce that had survived the political disruptions of the Goths, Vandals and Slavs stopped abruptly”193. On the other hand it is also well known that the Byzantine Empire always showed more evident signs of economic decay, and a following vast transformation of economic structures in the 7th century194. “A decrease M.G. FULFORD, “Byzantium and Britain: A Mediterranean Persepective on Post–Roman Mediterranean Imports in Western Britain and Ireland”, in Medieval Archaeology, 33 (1989), pp. 1–6. 192 S. LEBECQ, “Routes of Change…” (see n. 103), p. 73: “It is therefore likely that the supposed extensive trade which continued until the seventh century was nothing more than a secondary process, where a few merchants, principally of eastern origin, or certain sailors who were familiar with ancient routes, provided, at high cost, supplies for a number of old families claiming senatorial descent, barbarian parvenus eager to improve their social standing and churches anxious to celebrate divine worship in a sumptuous manner”. 193 S.A. KINGSLEY, “Mapping Trade by Shipwrecks”, in M. MUNDELL MANGO (ed.), Byzantine Trade, 4th–12th Centuries. The Archaeology of Local, Regional and International Exchange, Farnham 2009, pp. 31–36, on p. 33. N. HORDEN – P. PURCELL, The Corrupting Sea… (see n. 1), pp. 371–372 invite to “caution”, underlining how shipwrecks are generally identified through amphorae, and could therefore not be recognized in periods in which amphorae were less used; on the other hand ancient ships could have been more vulnerable to storms. But these observations are too generic and cannot cancel the fact that the amount of shipwrecks collapses dramatically in the centuries is an object of consideration. Of course big shipwrecks are directly connected to “long distance” and “bulk” commerce, and not to the small cabotage along the coast; on this, see infra. 194 M. WHITTOW, “Decline and Fall? Studying Long–Term Change in the East”, 191 89 FILIPPO CARLÀ in long–distance trade can be assumed from several converging indicators. The number of shipwrecks in the seventh century is less than half that of the sixth century and becomes a mere tenth in the eighth century”195; “contrary to current interpretative trends identifying continuity in classical trade in the Early Islamic period, shipwreck discoveries dry up in the Eastern Mediterranean by AD 650”196. The lack of circulation of “foreign” coins, apart from eventual practices of reminting and refusal of acceptance, is then part of a general degrade of commercial life: in the Late Middle Ages, in a very different context, even coins formally not accepted and produced by another minting authority in another monetary area could have been incredibly difficult to keep out of a territory, and would later lead to formal agreements on areas of shared circulation197. And if we move our attention from the areas where the “national coins” were introduced to those where gold coins went on being minted in the name of the Emperors, we will realize that the economic reason behind such conservatism was meaningful: such areas are those which remained in stronger contact with the Byzantine Empire, and which needed, therefore, a gold currency which could still be accepted by the Imperial authority. The first example – setting aside the Arab territories before Abd al–Malik’s reform, of which enough has been said already – is Italy. Here the Lombards started, after the invasion of 568, to mint gold coins in the name of and with the portrait of the Byzantine Emperor, which only in the 580s show stylistic characteristics that allow a sure recognition. I in L. LAVAN – W. BOWDEN (eds.), Theory and Practice in Late Antique Archaeology, Leiden – Boston 2003, pp. 404–423, in particular pp. 407–408; A.E. LAIOU – C. MORRISSON, The Byzantine Economy, Cambridge 2007, p. 24. 195 A.E. LAIOU – C. MORRISSON, The Byzantine Economy (see n. 194), p. 40. B. WARD PERKINS, “Specialized Production…” (see n. 189), p. 354 admits that between the end of the 6th and the first half of the 7th century the Near East had lived some sort of decline, even if in comparison with the Western Mediterranean its economic sophistication was still outstanding. What is interesting for us is, in any case, not the productivity of the single area, but its integration in a commercial network, and the long–distance trade experienced in this period without a doubt declines. 196 S.A. KINGSLEY, “Mapping Trade…” (see n. 193), p. 35. 197 P. SPUFFORD, Money and Its Use... (see n. 101), pp. 25–31. 90 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE strongly doubt that this coinage can be considered a chance, or a “typical conservatism” of the Lombards; even less would I presume that having arrived last on the former Roman territory they had to necessarily pass through the same phases the other Roman–Germanic kingdoms had already lived198. The English gold coinage began in the 7th century directly imitating the coins with which they had come in contact – the Frankish national ones, of which they took style, character (the first coin has the name of the moneyer) and weight standard, or even Roman coins of the 4th century199. But Grierson’s idea that the Lombards simply imitated the coins with which they were most familiar also seems excessively reductive, in particular if we consider that typologically they are quite different from the Byzantine models200. It is not, therefore, a matter of “barbarian imitations”, but of economic context201: the necessarily stronger connections the Lombards had with the Empire202, through the Exarchate and because of commercial activities and of the geographic and economic position of Italy in general, brought them not to break up this use, which guaranteed the “free circulation” of such gold coins over the boundaries203. P. GRIERSON, The Coins… (see n. 67), p. 20. E.A. ARSLAN, “Un incontro inaspettato: i monetieri del re longobardo Liutprando”, in H.C. NOESKE – H. SCHUBERT (eds.), Die Münze. Bild – Botschaft – Bedeutung. Festschrift für Maria R.–Alföldi, Frankfurt 1991, pp. 1–19, on p. 8 speaks of “backwardness”; the concept is even more broadly explained in E.A. ARSLAN, “L’oro rifiutato…” (see n. 16), p. 134: “l’occupante longobardo, ancora legato ad una cultura, di base nomadica, che voleva il drenaggio violento di beni facilmente trasportabili e non la gestione di realtà produttive nel tempo, sembra non aver percepito […] il significato e l’importanza fondamentale, economica e simbolica, della moneta d’oro e dei fenomeni economici ad essa legati”. 199 J.P.C. KENT, “From Roman Britain to Saxon England”, in R.H.M. DOLLEY (ed.), Anglo–Saxon Coins, London 1961, pp. 1–22, on pp. 9–10; P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), pp. 159–162; M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage” (see n. 15), p. 673. 200 P. GRIERSON, “Monete bizantine in Italia dal VII all’XI secolo”, in Moneta e Scambi nell’Alto Medioevo, Spoleto 1961, pp. 35–55, on pp. 53–54; E. BERNAREGGI, Moneta Langobardorum, Milano 1983; engl. transl. Lugano 1989, p. 42. 201 R.S. LOPEZ, “Mohammed and Charlemagne…” (see n. 5), pp. 30–31. 202 R.S. LOPEZ, “The Trade…” (see n. 32), p. 311. 203 Since the Gothic war and during the whole of the 6th century, Italy has already shown signs of “a further turn towards the Eastern Mediterranean as the main point 198 91 FILIPPO CARLÀ Even after the invasion of 641, Byzantine coins minted in Constantinople, Carthage, Syracuse and Rome were used in Luni, together with Lombard tremisses204 and generally we must assume, also in consideration of grave finds, that Byzantine gold was circulating in the Lombard area without bigger problems205. The hoard of Aldrans, Tirol, found in 1991, contained gold coins worth a value of 100 solidi: 11 of them were imperial coins from Constantinople, 26 from Rome, 3 from Ravenna, 3 were Lombard pseudo–imperial coins from Ticinum, 43 not clearly identifiable pseudo–imperial, or “imitation”, coins. The hoard was probably buried around 590, and shows, once again, how coins with different provenance, provided they had the name of a legitimate of reference” (F. MARAZZI, “The Destinies of Late Antique Italies: Politico–Economic Developments of the Sixth Century”, in R. HODGES – W. BOWDEN (eds.), The Sixth Century. Production... (see n. 103), pp. 119–159, on p. 141); A. SACCOCCI, “Tra antichità e medioevo: aspetti giuridici ed economici della monetazione longobarda”, in V. PACE (ed.), L’VIII secolo: un secolo inquieto, Cividale del Friuli 2010, pp. 31–42, at p. 36. Here (p. 32) is admitted the possibility that not only Lombard gold coins were circulating in Lombard Italy, even if it is proposed (pp. 33–34 and 36–37) that Lombard gold originally had a nominal value, and afterwards (Rothari’s edict of 643 would show already the “new” situation) was again evaluated only according to the intrinsic value. 204 A. BERTINO, “Monete attestate in Luni dal IV al IX secolo”, in RSL, 49 (1983), pp. 264–299, in particular p. 274; A. ROVELLI, “Some Considerations on the Coinage of Lombard and Carolingian Italy”, in I.L. HANSEN – C. WICKHAM (eds.), The Long Eighth Century... (see n. 103), pp. 195–223, at the pp. 196–197; E.A. ARSLAN (ed.), Repertorio dei ritrovamenti… (see n. 34), n. 3380. 205 E.g. E.A. ARSLAN (ed.), Repertorio dei ritrovamenti… (see n. 34), nn. 0060; 2210; 2300; 4060; 4610. See also E. BERNAREGGI, Moneta Langobardorum (see n. 200), p. 36; B. CALLEGHER, “La diffusione della moneta di Ravenna tra VI e metà VIII secolo”, in G. GORINI (ed.), Ritrovamenti monetali nel mondo antico: problemi e metodi, Padova 2002, pp. 247–272, in particolar pp. 251–252; E.A. ARSLAN, “Breve storia della monetazione longobarda”, in S. VITRI – L. PASSERA (eds.), Aurei longobardi. La collezione di monete d’oro della Fondazione CRUP, Trieste 2007, pp. 7–24, on pp. 9 and 11. Also interesting is the relatively huge amount of Lombard gold coins found in Sardinia, considering that during the whole period the island stayed in Imperial hands: E.A. ARSLAN – C. MORRISSON, “Monete e moneta…” (see n. 77), p. 1296; E.A. ARSLAN (ed.), Repertorio dei ritrovamenti… (see n. 34), pp. 102–112. Corsica was also nominally under Byzantine control, but it is known that it was in fact often under direct Lombard control: it is not by chance that the coins found here are only Lombard: a royal tremissis of Liutprand and a hoard of 6 silver coins in the names of Perctarit and Cunicpert (J. LAFAURIE – PILET–LEMIÈRE, Monnaies du Haut Moyen Âge… (see n. 77), p. 113). 92 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE byzantine Emperor (in this case Justin II, Tiberius II, Maurice), could freely circulate together206. The Lombard coinage becomes “national” only one century after the Frankish and Visigothic one: the name of the king was put surely with Cunicpert (688–700) in Northern Italy207, while in Tuscany a municipal coinage began208. The Lombards in any case went ahead with a gold coinage till the Carolingian conquest209, and a debasement of the gold is once again shown after the creation of a “national” coinage (during the whole 7th century the purity stays high, and under Cunicpert gold is always between 94 and 99%)210, and becomes particularly serious from the time of Liutprand (712–744), “in a process which should be read alongside that of the Byzantine mints of Ravenna and Rome on which, in fact, it depended”211. 206 W. HAHN – A. LUEGMEYER, Der langobardenzeitliche Münzschatzfund von Aldrans in Tirol, Wien 1992. E.A. ARSLAN, “L’oro rifiutato…” (see n. 16), p. 135, in accordance with his idea of a Lombard backwardness, does not connect this free circulation with an intentional opening, materialized through the pseudo–imperial coinage, but as a lack of control, as a “mercato selvaggio”. The absence in Lombard Italy of Frankish coins, which could, according to the theory presented here, be explained through its “national” nature, is motivated with the “frontier closure” towards the “historical enemy” of the Lombards. Luni is consequently thought of as a special case, a “porto franco”, where no coin was refused (pp. 138–139). 207 E. BERNAREGGI, Moneta Langobardorum (see n. 200), pp. 50–56; E.A. ARSLAN, “Breve storia…” (see n. 205), p. 13; A. SACCOCCI, “Tra antichità e medioevo…” (see n. 203), p. 37. Discussed is the attribution of a coin with the name of Aripert, who could be Aripert I (653–661) or Aripert II (702–712): E. BERNAREGGI, Moneta Langobardorum (see n. 200), pp. 49–50. 208 E. BERNAREGGI, Moneta Langobardorum (see n. 200), pp. 85–91; E.A. ARSLAN, “Breve storia…” (see n. 205), pp. 16–17; A. SACCOCCI, “Tra antichità e medioevo…” (see n. 203), p. 38. Before these coin productions there were also some “experimental” productions, at the end of the 7th century, the best known of which is the tremissis of the moneyer Marinus: E. BERNAREGGI, Moneta Langobardorum (see n. 200), pp. 45–52; E.A. ARSLAN, “Un incontro inaspettato…” (see n. 198); E.A. ARSLAN, “Breve storia…” (see n. 205), pp. 12–13. 209 In the first time Charlemagne went on minting gold also in Italy, imitating the last Lombard coins. 210 E.A. ARSLAN, “Breve storia…” (see n. 205), pp. 13–14. 211 A. ROVELLI, “Some Considerations…” (see n. 204), p. 204. See also W.A. ODDY, “Analyses of Lombardic Tremisses by the Specific–Gravity Method”, in NC, s. 7, 12 (1972), pp. 193–215; P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage 93 FILIPPO CARLÀ Also interesting is the coinage of Beneventum, a region deeply embedded in territories still in Byzantine hands, where minting began much later, and was still in the name of the Eastern Emperor212: the first coins are pseudo–imperial, in the name of Justinian II, and were minted by the Duke Gisulf I (689–706), of whom only the initials are shown; only Grimoald III (788–806) would have his name fully written on gold coinage213. And while Byzantine coins are found in the Beneventan area, Beneventan tremisses were also found in Naples214. Also here a debasement is gradually shown during the 8th century215; correspondingly, also the Byzantine mints of central and southern Italy, and in particular (see n. 22), p. 62; P. SPUFFORD, “Coinage and Currency” (see n. 68), p. 793; P. SPUFFORD, Money and Its Use... (see n. 101), p. 20. The gold content in 8th–century gold coins from Rome and Ravenna was analyzed by W. HAHN, “Microchemical Analysis of the Metal Content of Some Eighth–Century Coins of Rome and Ravenna”, in W. HAHN – W. E. METCALF (eds.), Studies in Early Byzantine Gold Coinage, New York 1988, pp. 131–133, and general data about the fineness of coins from Italy in the 7th–8th century can be found in W.A. ODDY, “The Debasement of the Provincial Byzantine Gold Coinage from the Seventh to Ninth Centuries”, in W. HAHN – W.E. METCALF (eds.), Studies in Early Byzantine Gold Coinage, New York 1988, pp. 135–142, in particular pp. 141–142. 212 C.F. KEARY, “The Coinage of Western Europe...” (see n. 25), p. 252: “Though at one time a Duke of Benevento is found upon the throne, it would seem that by the beginning of the eighth century the people of the south had very much separated themselves from the court of Pavia, and had gravitated more towards the Eastern Empire”. 213 P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), p. 69; P. GRIERSON, The Coins… (see n. 67), p. 19; E.A. ARSLAN, “Emissione e circolazione della moneta nei ducati di Spoleto e Benevento”, in I Longobardi dei ducati di Spoleto e Benevento, Spoleto 2003, pp. 1031–1052, in particolar pp. 1043–1047; M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage” (see n. 15), pp. 666–667; E.A. ARSLAN, “Breve storia…” (see n. 205), pp. 18–20. Here in Benevento even silver coins were minted as pseudo–imperial pieces for a longer time: E.A. ARSLAN, “Emissione e circolazione…”, pp. 1041–1042. 214 E.A. ARSLAN (ed.), Repertorio dei ritrovamenti… (see n. 34), n. 1320. In Campochiaro (CB) Roman gold coins have also been found: E.A. ARSLAN, “Mutamenti di funzione…” (see n. 75), pp. 441–442; E.A. ARSLAN – C. MORRISSON, “Monete e moneta” (see n. 77), pp. 1298–1299; E.A. ARSLAN, “Emissione e circolazione…” (see n. 213), pp. 1038–1040 (but in spite of the data, Arslan surprisingly suggests that maybe in the core territory of Benevento only local coins could have been accepted). 215 W.A. ODDY, “Analysis of the Gold Coinage of Beneventum”, in NC, s. 7, 14 (1974), pp. 78–109; P. GRIERSON, The Coins… (see n. 67), p. 31. 94 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE Naples, in which a mint opened around 663216, show an analogous reduction of the gold content at the beginning of the 8th century completely unparalleled in Constantinople217 – but also attested in Sicily under Justinian II and Tiberius III218. In Rome, gold stopped being minted around 770219, which was only shortly before the same change came about in Lombard mints – from the late 7th century even here the popes had put their names on silver and copper coinage, but not on gold, which continued to be minted only in the name of the Byzantine Emperors220. Italy shows then an extremely fragmented situation, which has been interpreted as a consequence of “the isolation of the various regions following the Lombard conquest” and of “the growing regionalization and autonomy of local finances”221. This sort of “currency relationship implies that each region or territory was sufficiently involved in trade with the others to warrant W. HAHN, Moneta Imperii Byzantini 3 (see n. 57), pp. 155; 169; M.F. HENDY, Studies… (see n. 35), p. 421. 217 R.S. LOPEZ, “The Dollar...” (see n. 17), p. 218; P. GRIERSON, “Monete bizantine…” (see n. 200), p. 51; P. GRIERSON, Byzantine Coins (see n. 46), p. 143; M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage” (see n. 10), pp. 542–543. Constantinopolitan solidi are still always over 95% gold, and the same levels are respected also in Sardinia and in Carthage (where only in the time of Constantine IV is a clear debasement visible): W.A. ODDY, “The Debasement...” (see n. 211), pp. 136–138. 218 P. GRIERSON, “Coinage and Money…” (see n. 134), p. 418 (and, following him, M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage” (see n. 10), pp. 541–542) claim that in Sicily there was no such debasement; but W.A. ODDY, “Analysis…” (see n 215), pp. 80–81 and W.A. ODDY, “The Debasement...” (see n. 211), pp. 138–140 showed clearly its existence. See C. MORRISSON, “La Sicile…” (n. 174), pp. 309–310; C. MORRISSON, “Byzantine Money…” (see n. 31), p. 934. In Sicily the quantity of circulating Byzantine coins minted in Constantinople remains high: see e.g. E.A. ARSLAN (ed.), Repertorio dei ritrovamenti… (see n. 34), n. 6910. On the commercial connections of Sicily with the rest of the Mediterranean, see D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), pp. 131–133; 149–150. 219 M. F. HENDY, Studies… (see n. 35), pp. 422–423. 220 P. SPUFFORD, “Coinage and Currency” (see n. 68), pp. 789; E.A. ARSLAN, “Mutamenti di funzione…” (see n. 75), p. 436; E.A. ARSLAN – C. MORRISSON, “Monete e moneta…” (see n. 77), p. 1257; M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage” (see n. 10), p. 542. 221 C. MORRISSON, “Byzantine Money…” (see n. 31), pp. 914–915. See also E.A. ARSLAN – C. MORRISSON, “Monete e moneta…” (see n. 77), pp. 1293–1296. 216 95 FILIPPO CARLÀ this reformation of the extant coins”222. But if e.g. bronze coinage reform was according to this principle brought on almost together at the end of the 5th century in Italy, Africa and in the East, these “adaptations” are now on a much smaller scale. Thus, southern Italy comes to be a distinct and recognizable area of coin circulation, with particular characters, independently from its political fragmentation223. As Rovelli properly summarized, Lombard Italy is characterized by a homogeneity (between Lombard and Byzantine areas) and a specificity (in comparison with the rest of the Western world)224: in the 8th century gold had disappeared as everywhere else in the territories of the former Western Roman Empire, and only here in Lombardy did it continue to be minted225. Even more interesting is the survival of coin production in name of the Byzantine Emperors in the Merovingian area while the rest of the Merovingian kingdoms had abandoned it; these coins were also stylistically influenced by the new iconography introduced on the solidi in Constantinople in 578226, generally show a great independency from the Merovingian types and are commonly defined as “quasi–imperial” coins227. They are solidi and tremisses produced in the names of Justin II, Maurice, Phocas and Heraclius, but the weight of the coins is the “Frankish” one, with a tremissis of 7 and not of 8 siliquae, and a solidus of 21 and not 24. This weight is often correctly indicated on the coin itself (XXI and VII)228. As already said, in a context of pure intrinsic circulation of gold, this would not make the coins unacceptable in other D. HODGES, Dark Age Economics... (see n. 127), p. 88. C. WICKHAM, “Studying Long–Term Change...” (see n. 189), p. 392. 224 A. ROVELLI, “Some Considerations…” (see n. 204), p. 204. 225 S. SUCHODOLSKI, “Vom Gold…” (see n. 9), p. 98; P. SPUFFORD, Money and Its Use... (see n. 101), p. 21. 226 J. LAFAURIE – C. MORRISSON, “La pénétration…” (see n. 101), pp. 42–43; K. UHALDE, “The Quasi–Imperial Coinage and Fiscal Administration of Merovingian Provence”, in R.W. MATHISEN – D. SHANZER (eds.), Society and Culture in Late Antique Gaul. Revisiting the Sources, Aldershot 2001, pp. 134–165, on p. 136. 227 S.E. RIGOLD, “An Imperial Coinage in Southern Gaul in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries?”, in NC, s. 6, 14 (1954), pp. 93–133, on p. 94; P. GRIERSON, “The Patrimonium Petri in illis partibus and the Pseudo–Imperial Coinage in Frankish Gaul”, in RBN, 105 (1959), pp. 95–111, on pp. 97–99. M. HENDY, “From Public to Private…” (see n. 9), pp. 68–69, calls them “pseudo–imperial”. 228 S.E. RIGOLD, “An Imperial Coinage...” (see n. 227), p. 103. 223 222 96 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE regions229. Where analyzed, the gold content is always very high, similar to Byzantine standards. These coins were minted in Marseille, Arles, Uzès and Viviers, Sisteron and Venasque from about 580 to about 615230, when the same mints started producing gold coins in the name of Chlotar II231. Coins similar to the “quasi–imperial” ones, with the Byzantine Emperor, but also the name of the moneyer, were also minted in Vienne and Valence232. The chronology of the emissions helps us in understanding their sense: in 561, at the death of Chlotar I, Marseille was divided between Sigebert I of Austrasia and Gontran of Burgundy. It was more the division of the fiscal income coming from the region than a territorial division; this situation was again confirmed in 575 by Gontran himself and Sigebert’s son, Childebert II. The two chose the prefect Dynamius as administrator of the city, who soon came in conflict with the bishop, Theodorus, who called Gondovald to help. He proclaimed himself king, and was then defeated and killed by Gontran in 585. When Gontran died in 592, the city was entirely under Childebert’s control, but in 596 it was divided again between his sons, Theudebert II and Theuderic II. Only Chlotar II, king of the whole Merovingian France since 613, could again take full control of this area233. The other cities were in part under Gontran (Arles), as well as under Childebert (Uzès and Viviers), but they mostly gravitated in the orbit of Marseille and its harbor and its fiscal institutions. Marseille was still indeed an important production centre and a big harbor, at the center of exchanges involving the whole Mediterranean, where plenty of Eastern products were arriving (and 229 Contra, S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille: a Late Antique Success Story?”, in JRS, 82 (1992), pp. 165–185, on p. 177. 230 According to S. E. RIGOLD, “An Imperial Coinage...” (see n. 227), p. 119, the production should have ceased only in the 620s. 231 K. UHALDE, “The Quasi–Imperial Coinage…” (see n. 226), p. 136. 232 K. UHALDE, “The Quasi–Imperial Coinage…” (see n. 226), p. 140. 233 P. GRIERSON, “The Patrimonium Petri…” (see n. 227), pp. 99–100; S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille...” (see n. 229), pp. 174–175; S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille and the Pirenne Thesis I: Gregory of Tours, the Merovingian Kings and ‘un grand port’”, in R. HODGES – W. BOWDEN (eds.), The Sixth Century. Production... (see n. 103), pp. 203–229, on pp. 225–227. 97 FILIPPO CARLÀ plenty of Western, mostly timber, slaves and clothing, were leaving)234. It was also the center of a profitable and branched system of toll–stations, which extended into the Rhone–Valley235, such as Arles, Uzès and Viviers, whose incomes were probably the matter of the division between different kings. The whole system was controlled by an unknown authority, who was presumably also in charge of the cellaria of Marseille itself236. And it will not be useless to recall the hoard from Viviers, mentioned earlier, which shows how, in the period when the quasi–imperial coinage began, the area still displayed a composite circulation of pseudo–imperial gold coins of different origin. The theories according to which these coins should show a regained imperial control on Provence, or generally a strong imperial influence237, or even those which connect this coinage with Gondovald’s usurpation (finished in 585) are then unacceptable238, as is Grierson’s idea that these coins were minted by the patrimonium S. Petri239; of this no coins are known, and the choice of the Frankish metrology would seem particularly weird. I am then inclined to interpret these coins as the productions of a central authority based in Marseille (no moneyers’ coins are known here)240, and strictly connected with the fiscal system (they could be product of the reminting of the incomes). In this context and with this background, Uhalde’s proposal to attribute these coins to J. LAFAURIE, “Les routes commerciales…” (see n. 101), p. 248; S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille...” (see n. 229), pp. 170–171; N. HORDEN – P. PURCELL, The Corrupting Sea… (see n. 1), pp. 164–165. 235 S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille and the Pirenne Thesis I…” (see n. 233), p. 222. 236 M. HENDY, “From Public to Private…” (see n. 9), p. 68; S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille and the Pirenne Thesis I…” (see n. 233), pp. 222–223. 237 S.E. RIGOLD, “An Imperial Coinage...” (see n. 227), pp. 97–101; H.L. ADELSON, “Early Medieval...” (see n. 132), p. 283. 238 On Gondovald’s usurpation see C. ZUCKERMAN, “Qui a rappelé en Gaul le ballomer Gondovald?”, in Francia, 25 (1998), pp. 1–18. Even if Byzantium supported the usurper, we cannot think anymore that this “mission” had been organized in Constantinople; on the contrary, Zuckerman shows how the responsibilities fell on Austrasia. 239 P. GRIERSON, “The Patrimonium Petri…” (see n. 227), pp. 105–111. See also M. HENDY, “From Public to Private…” (see n. 9), p. 70. 240 S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille...” (see n. 229), p. 177; S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille and the Pirenne Thesis I…” (see n. 233), p. 223. 234 98 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE the patricius, or rector, or praefectus, who is attested having control over the city241, seems to be perfectly acceptable – especially if we consider that names of patricii will appear on the silver denarii of the late 7th and 8th centuries242. Since the city was not controlled by a single king, it was impossible to mint these coins in the name of one243; and considering the commercial connections of Marseille with the rest of the Mediterranean, the choice of the Imperial name also enabled these coins to circulate in other political contexts244. If what we said till now makes some sense, it cannot be surprising to see the authority of a major harbor city (the patricius?) minting in the name of the Byzantine Emperors. The Rhône Valley was, after all, area of commercial flows from central and northern Europe to the Mediterranean, especially after the Lombard invasion of Italy, which consistently moved the commercial balance of the Ligurian Sea, thereby substituting the previous commercial route Italy – Alps – Middle Rhine – Frisia with circulation here, enhancing therefore once again the role of Marseille and Arles245. Even if we reject Pirenne’s thesis, we can still K. UHALDE, “The Quasi–Imperial Coinage…” (see n. 226), pp. 134 ff. S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille and the Pirenne Thesis II: ‘ville morte’”, in I.L. HANSEN – C. WICKHAM (eds.), The Long Eighth Century... (see n. 103), 167–193, on p. 184. 243 M. HENDY, “From Public to Private…” (see n. 9), p. 68; P. GRIERSON, The Coins… (see n. 67), p. 18; S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille and the Pirenne Thesis I…” (see n. 233), p. 227. 244 S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille...” (see n. 229), p. 172: “The endurance of the Africa–Marseille link, in apparent contrast to declining African trade with sites elsewhere in the western Mediterranean, suggests that southern Gaul may have become a preferred market, which, if so, would tend to emphasize the lasting importance of this late antique exchange–route. The ceramic evidence therefore shows that Marseille was integrated into a Mediterranean–wide exchange–network which retained some sort of unity until the end of the sixth century”. See also M. BLOCH, Esquisse… (see n. 68), p. 13. In Marseille was found one tremissis of Maurice Tiberius, minted in Italy: J. LAFAURIE – PILET–LEMIÈRE, Monnaies du Haut Moyen Âge… (see n. 77), n. 13.55.9. The absence of other Byzantine coins does not speak for an absence of their circulation in these years, but rather for their reminting, either in the form of quasi–imperial coins or, after 615, in that of “national” coins. The low rate of survival corresponds substantially to the one of the quasi–imperial coins (on which see infra). 245 J. LAFAURIE, “Le trésor d’Escharen…” (see n. 113), pp. 189–190; D. HODGES, Dark Age Economics... (n. 127), pp. 33–34; D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), pp. 242 241 99 FILIPPO CARLÀ agree on the point that conformity to imperial coinage can be intended as a trace of active exchanges246. Rigold’s definition of these coins as “the last antique coinage of the West and the first medieval” can then maybe be accepted from this point of view247. No hoards in imperial territory containing quasi–imperial coins are known, which would be definitive support for this interpretation. Yet, it must be said that the general amount of these coins is small, but the amount of recognizable dies relatively high, which speaks for a very low rate of conservation248, and that Marseille was acting, as already said, as a hinge between Northern Europe and Mediterranean world249. It can be worth remembering the hoard of Escharen, Netherlands, found in 1897, which contained around 600 quasi–imperial coins, buried together with those of the Byzantine imperial and Merovingian national type250. It is true that in this area everything was circulating by weight, but this particular composition would seem to show a provenance of coins from the sketched commercial Mediterranean route (East) – Marseille – Rhone Valley – Saone Valley – Netherlands. And generally a common circulation in Northern Europe with Byzantine coins is well attested251. 39–40; J. LAFAURIE – C. MORRISSON, “La pénétration…” (see n. 101), p. 52; S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille...” (see n. 229), pp. 182–183; M. MCCORMICK, Origins… (see n. 190), pp. 78–82. The “lucky” geographic position of Arles, because of the Rhone and of the easy connection with the Tyrrhenian sea, had already been described in a letter of Thedosius II and Honorius on the occasion of the conventus septem provinciarum of 418 (MGH Ep. 3.14). 246 H. PIRENNE, “Un contrast économique: Mérovingiens et Carolingiens”, in Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire, 2 (1923), pp. 223–235, in particular pp. 225–226. 247 S.E. RIGOLD, “An Imperial Coinage...” (see n. 227), p. 94. 248 K. UHALDE, “The Quasi–Imperial Coinage…” (see n. 226), p. 137. 249 S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille...” (see n. 229), p. 178; S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille and the Pirenne Thesis I…” (see n. 233), p. 221. The active fluvial transportation on the Rhone can be argued also by the speed of the contagion of bubonic plague in 588 in this area: M. MCCORMICK, “Bateaux de vie…” (see n. 13), p. 59. 250 J. LAFAURIE, “Le trésor d’Escharen…” (see n. 113); J. LAFAURIE, “Les routes commerciales…” (see n. 101), pp. 247–248. 251 J. LAFAURIE, “Le trésor d’Escharen…” (see n. 113), pp. 191–196 for a complete list of the quasi–imperial coins found till then. 100 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE Similar conclusions allows the hoard of Wieuwerd, buried ca. 630, containing Byzantine coins, one Visigothic tremissis of Sisebut, Italian solidi in the name of Anastasius, Justinian I and Justin II, Merovingian and quasi–imperial coins, including some minted in Marseille in the name of Chlotar II, then after ca. 615252. All the pieces of this hoard had been transformed into jewels, but this is not relevant for the topic we are dealing with now253. The treasure of Nietap also shows the same composition, with the addition of some local coins254. Frisia is indeed a clear example of a general “free circulation” of coins with different origins – and of broad “international” exchanges: quasi–imperial coins have also been found in Bilgaard, Hichtum and Uitwellingerga255, Byzantine gold coins minted after 575 ca. in Achlum, Cornwerd and in two other Frisian localities256; Germanic pseudo– imperial coins were also abundant before the birth of the national coinages257. FMRN I, pp. 130–132 (226). See J. LAFAURIE – B. JANSEN – A.N. ZADOKS–JOSEPHUS JITTA, “Le trésor de Wieuwerd”, in Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden, 42 (1961), pp. 78–107. 253 A.M. STAHL, “The Nature...” (see n. 179), p. 4; S. LEBECQ, “The Northern Seas (Fifth to Eighth Centuries)”, in P. FOURACRE (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History I: c. 500 – c. 700, Cambridge 2005, pp. 639–659, in particular pp. 644–645. 254 J. LAFAURIE, “Le trésor d’Escharen…” (see n. 113), pp. 154–155. 255 FMRN I, p. 41 (28.1); p. 87 (110.2); p. 228 (220.2). An additional quasi–imperial coin was found in Frisia, but the exact locality is unknown: FMRN I, p. 144 (249.58). 256 FMRN I, p. 32 (4.14); p. 46 (41.1); p. 144 (249.56–57). Byzantine coins of the period from Anastasius to Justinian I have also been found in the region in quite abundant quantities. The region of Groningen (which is also the same region as Nietap) shows funds very similar to the Frisian ones, and can be considered together with this one (in the next occasions the funds will be listed together). Here were also found Byzantine gold coins minted after Justinian I: FMRN II, p. 62 (1055.1); p. 90 (1109.16–18). 257 Merovingian: FMRN I, p. 35 (11.1); p. 43 (34.2); p. 79 (93.1); p. 102 (152.2); p. 127 (218.4); p. 136 (235.12); pp. 143–144 (249.45; 50–55); Burgundian: FMRN I, p. 45 (40.1); Ostrogothic: FMRN I, p. 94 (131.1); p. 122 (205.3, maybe Lombard); p. 129 (223.3); p. 143 (249.42; 46–49); Visigothic: FMRN I, p. 72 (84.11); p. 80 (94.2); FMRN II, p. 88 (1107.5); other Germanic imitations: FMRN I, p. 43 (32.1); p. 67 (71.3 and 72.1); p. 78 (90.1); p. 82 (101.14); p. 127 (218.3); p. 143 (249.39; 44); FMRN II, p. 47 (1024.1); p. 90 (1109.9; 12–14); p. 178 (3036.4, from Steenwijk, in Overijssel). In Herbaijum, additionally, a solidus of Justinian I has been found together with a 252 101 FILIPPO CARLÀ Quasi–imperial coins were probably also circulating in Great Britain around 600, and are present in the treasure of Sutton Hoo, together with Merovingian “national” issues258; but as said the treasure of Crondall showed almost only coins from Great Britain and northern France259: it is, as Hodges remarked, the product of a regionalization process260. And Gregory the Great comes once more to help us. If the previously quoted letter attracted a big deal of attention from historians, much less did another one, to the same patricius Dynamius, which states clearly that coins from Provence could, in contrast to the other “Frankish” ones, freely circulate in Rome261. These solidi which came to Gregory are called Gallicani: which means we should then either presume that something radically changed in the two years between this letter (593) and the already analyzed one (595)262, or that solidi Gallicani Merovingian pseudo–imperial coin (of justinianic type): FMRN I, p. 84 (104). In Wijnaldum again a solidus of Justinian I was found, as well as a visigothic imitation: FMRN I, p. 134 (231.3–4). 258 A.M. STAHL, “The Nature...” (see n. 179), in particular pp. 9–10, has demonstrated that the coins buried in mound 1 at Sutton Hoo were not produced by a conscious selection, but from a good representation of coins circulating at that moment. 259 J. LAFAURIE, “Le trésor d’Escharen…” (see n. 113), p. 178; A.M. STAHL, “The Nature...” (see n. 179), p. 3. 260 D. HODGES, Dark Age Economics... (n. 127), p. 35. 261 Greg. Magn., Ep. III, 33: Suscepimus namque per Hilarium filium nostrum de praefatis ecclesiae nostrae reditibus Gallicanos solidos quadringentos.See also E.A. ARSLAN, “L’oro rifiutato…” (see n. 16), p. 119. On Dynamius, see J.R. MARTINDALE, Prosopography of the Late Roman Empire, vol. IIIA, s.v. Dynamius 1, pp. 429–430. 262 D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), p. 111 thinks that the experience of 593, trying to import the solidi gallicani in Rome, was so negative, and implied many problems in re–using the money thus received, that he decided in 595 not to have the coins sent to Rome anymore. Correspondingly to his theory, which has been illustrated before, he must indeed think also that “quasi–imperial” coins were not accepted in Imperial territory, which seems particularly difficult to conciliate with the fact that, in accordance with Grierson, he sees them as products of the ecclesiastical patrimonium in Provence. This explanation does not seem convincing, not only because it is set in a general context that, as already said, hints towards another explanation, but also because it seems difficult that a man such as Gregory the Great would be “surprised”, because of ignorance, by monetary phenomena happening around him. Now E.A. ARSLAN, “L’oro rifiutato…” (see n. 16), pp. 119–120 thinks that something radically 102 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE and solidi Galliarum are not the same thing. I prefer this second solution: both kinds of coins are recognizable in their provenance from Gallia, but the second are not accepted as the first are, for the reasons already explained. I would identify these with the “quasi–imperial” coins, recognizable as Gallicani because of their origin, but also because of their reduced metrology263. We can notice once again that after the treasure of Nietap, which was closed probably around 630 when the quasi–imperial coins were not produced anymore, the Netherlands also show a progressive disappearance of Byzantine coins, as well as of coins minted in Southern France, while the circulation appears always more composed by products of the Rhine valley – and therefore always more regional in character264. With the second quarter of the 7th century the Rhône hinge – it seems – had also collapsed, and even the port of Marseille – which of course remained a pivotal harbor in the Mediterranean communications longer – stopped receiving imported ceramics before the end of the century; the imports cannot in any case hide a general sense of decline during the whole century265. The list of imports at Fos provided in the donation to the Abbey of Corbey by Chlothar III, as many other sources mentioning merchants and/or products, is representative of the existence of exchanges, and not of their quantities or of the commercial interdependence of different areas266. Loseby could therefore speak of a steady deterioration of commerce in Marseille from the third quarter of the 7th century267. Not changed between 593 and 595, but does not consider the geographical difference between Dynamius, patricius in Marseille, and Candidus, sent to Childebert II, king of Austrasia and Burgundy 263 On the contrary, S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille and the Pirenne Thesis I…” (see n. 233), p. 224, identifies the quasi–imperial coins with the “Gallic” solidi which could not circulate in Rome. 264 J. LAFAURIE, “Le trésor d’Escharen…” (see n. 113), p. 176. 265 D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), p. 40; S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille and the Pirenne Thesis II…” (see n. 242), pp. 174–175. After 650 there is almost no trace of ARS outside Constantinople: M. MCCORMICK, Origins… (see n. 190), p. 55. 266 N. HORDEN – P. PURCELL, The Corrupting Sea… (see n. 1), pp. 163–164. 267 D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), p. 40; S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille and the Pirenne Thesis II…” (see n. 242), p. 190. See also p. 191: “The collapse of Marseille as 103 FILIPPO CARLÀ surprisingly, in the 7th and in the 8th centuries the commercial axis will again get shifted, and the Rhône valley will stop playing the role it had in the 6th century, in favor of Switzerland and the Rhine valley, another area that has already been described268. By the end of the 7th century, the commercial links with the East had stopped leaving archaeological traces269, while in Spain their intensity had already become much smaller a century before, with the sole exception of the regions which stayed in Byzantine hands till c. 628270. In the last quarter of the century gold disappeared from Frankish currency and hoards, and was substituted with the silver denarius. This disappearance will be complete with Louis the Pious when solidus became just a unit that corresponds to 12 denarii271. The end of the quasi–imperial coins did not put an end to the peculiarity of Marseille as a mint (the coins produced here are still different from the ones minted in the rest of France, probably in connection with the exploitation of the toll system; they are generally royal and not in the name of the moneyers)272, but once again marked the an emporium is more likely to be caused by a failure of production and distribution–networks in the Mediterranean than by a failure of demand on the Frankish markets”. See also R.B. HITCHNER, “Meridional Gaul, Trade and the Mediterranean Economy in Late Antiquity”, in J. DRINKWATER – H. ELTON (eds.), Fifth–Century Gaul: a Crisis of Identity?, Cambridge 1992, pp. 122–131, on pp. 130–131, where it is stated that up to the 7th century Southern Gaul “still belonged soundly to the Mediterranean economic system created by Rome”; J. P. SODINI, “Productions et échanges…” (see n. 189), p. 188; C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), pp. 689–690. 268 M. MCCORMICK, Origins… (see n. 190), pp. 78–79. 269 M. MCCORMICK, “Bateaux de vie…” (see n. 13), pp. 50–51. 270 S.T. LOSEBY, “Marseille...” (see n. 229), p. 172; M. MCCORMICK, Origins… (see n. 190), p. 102; J.M. BLÁZQUEZ, “Relaciones de España en la tarda Antigüedad con África y el Oriente. Últimas aportaciones de la cerámica”, in J.M. CARRIÉ – R. LIZZI TESTA (eds.), Humana sapit. Études d’Antiquité Tardive offertes à Lellia Cracco Ruggini, Turnhout 2002, pp. 299–307; S.T. LOSEBY, “The Mediterranean Economy” (see n. 189), p. 632; C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), pp. 748–751. 271 M. BLOCH, Esquisse… (see n. 68), pp. 24–25. 272 E. FELDER, “Zur Münzprägung der merowingischen Könige in Marseille”, in P. BASTIEN – F. DUMAS – H. HUVELIN – C. MORRISSON (eds.), Mélanges de numismatique, d’archéologie et d’histoire offerts à Jean Lafaurie, Paris 1980, pp. 223–229; S. T. LOSEBY, “Marseille and the Pirenne Thesis II…” (see n. 242), p. 183. 104 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE renouncing of a universally accepted currency. Chlotar II did not have to share control of the city and of its toll system with other kings – and did not see any point in keeping a pseudo–imperial currency alive. And, as was to be expected, with the “nationalization” of this coinage its debasement began quite quickly also bringing these coins to the standard of the other Frankish ones. In 610 the presence of Orientals in France is attested for the last time in a literary source273, and around 634 we also have the last trace of an “official” diplomatic communication between the Frankish rulers and the Byzantine court274. VIII. Conclusions The birth of “national coins”, which must be dated around 570–580, since Theudebert’s experiment was rejected by his immediate successors, is a choice which implies a deeply changed economical and commercial scenario in the Mediterranean basin: the “economic sophistication” – to use the terminology introduced by Ward Perkins275 – had left space for a condition of “economic simplicity” and, therefore, the gold coin, to quote Lafaurie, had acquired a local character276. Each region remained, in its own way, monetized; the idea of a return to a “natural economy” is of course to be completely rejected. In the same way, as has already been hinted at, it is not implied that contacts and exchanges between Eastern and Western Mediterranean were completely interrupted: the literary sources attest in the 7th century to the existence of merchants and trade routes not only in the territories which were still in Byzantine hands277, but also with Western Vita Columb. 1.21. D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), p. 180. Fredeg. 4.6. D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), pp. 26–27; P. GRIERSON, The Coins… (see n. 67), p. 20; J. DRAUSCHKE, “Byzantinische Münzen…” (see n. 138), pp. 296–297. 275 B. WARD PERKINS, “Specialized Production…” (see n. 189), p. 366. 276 J. LAFAURIE, “La monnaie bordelaise…” (see n. 125), p. 296. 277 As in the case of Jacob: Doctrina Jacobi, 1.3 and 5.20. Mirac. Artem. 5 also presents the case of a merchant from Chios operating in Constantinople; 32 the one of Menas, Alexandrian merchant residing in Argyropolis during Maurice’s reign; 35 the Rhodian shipowner and merchant George. Leont., Vit. Joh. Eleem. 28 speaks of 274 273 105 FILIPPO CARLÀ Mediterranean278 – it is enough to remember the transmarinus negotiator of the Visigotic law279 – even if such commerce might not have taken place directly, but through successive redistributions, e.g. via Carthage280. commercial ships belonging to the bishopric of Alexandria in the Adriatic sea, presumably directed to the Exarchate of Ravenna. See D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), p. 186; C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), pp. 783 and 788–789. D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), pp. 220–221 refers also of other examples of attested merchants operating between the East and the Byzantine territories in Italy and Sicily. The Life of John shows also the existence in the 7th century of commercial routes connecting Alexandria with the East, and in particular with India: M. MUNDELL MANGO, “Byzantine Maritime Trade…” (see n. 41), pp. 149–151. It may be worth underlining, additionally, that fleets of commercial ships in possession of the Church are surely attested, for the 6th and the 7th century, only in Byzantine territories, and particularly in Alexandria and Palermo: D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), p. 236 and pp. 239–240. J.P. SODINI, “Productions et échanges…” (see n. 189), p. 186, talks about the presence of ceramic produced in Cyprus in Rome, Constantinople and Carthage, while vessels produced in Constantinople in the 7th century reached Carthage, Rome, Crimea and Marseille – i.e., in territories belonging to the Byzantine Empire and in the particular French harbor we have already dealt with. 278 E.g. the shipbuilder Theoteknos sailing to Gaul in Mirac. Artem. 27 or the famous foreign naukleros introduced by Leont., Vit. Joh. Eleem. 8, who travels from Alexandria to Great Britain, then to Cyrenaica before coming back to Egypt or again Paesius’ and Isaias’ father, who was trading with Spain according to Pallad., Hist. Laus. 14. See D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), pp. 153–154; M. MUNDELL MANGO, “Byzantine Maritime Trade…” (see n. 41), pp. 143–145; M. MUNDELL MANGO, “Beyond the Amphora: Non–Ceramic Evidence for Late Antique Industry and Trade”, in S. KINGSLEY – M. DECKER (eds.), Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, Oxford 2001, pp. 87–106, at the pp. 95–102. The literary sources attesting the presence of Oriental merchants in Merovingian Gaul (such as Priscus, Jewish merchant at Chilperic’s court) are collected in S. LEBECQ, “Les échanges…” (see n. 103), pp. 188–190. Here it is also correctly underlined that “ce commerce–là ne concernait qu’une clientele rare et privilegiée, où se côtoyaient aristocrates gallo–romains perpétuant des habitudes de luxe héritées de l’Antiquité, parvenus barbares enclins à la parade sociale, et églises soucieuses de se ravitailler en ces produit précieux qu’exigeait la liturgie”. 279 Lex Visig. 11.3. D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), p. 125; C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), pp. 799–800; M. DECKER, “Export Wine Trade to West and East”, in M. MUNDELL MANGO (ed.), Byzantine Trade, 4th–12th Centuries. The Archaeology of Local, Regional and International Exchange, Farnham 2009, pp. 239–252, at the pp. 243–247. For a complete presentation of the material present in the sources about commercial exchanges in these centuries, see still D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), pp. 75–107. 280 S.T. LOSEBY, “The Ceramic Data…” (see n. 121), p. 5. 106 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE As Chris Wickham said “luxury exchange and local exchange always exist; not so bulk exchange. I mean by this the movement of goods on a large scale from one region to another (or sub–region, or even microregion), whether foodstuffs or artisanal goods”281. The problem is how the wares were paid (keeping safe the possibility of an increasing quantity of non–monetary exchanges)282, and the difference is not trivial283: the kings who chose to give life to their “national” coinages knew perfectly well that they would not have freely circulated in the Byzantine Empire, and maybe even in some other Roman–Germanic kingdoms. Apparently, this did not worry them enough to stop such new coin productions. Since we cannot presume that Byzantine coins stopped arriving in this part of Europe, it means, rather, that they were melted down and reminted in the form of new national ones284. At this moment, as Arslan wrote, the monetary areas become more closed and more rigid285. And to stay only in the Byzantine territories, “the fact that the gold coinages from different mints evolved along divergent lines between the seventh and ninth centuries merely reflected the process by which the empire’s western provinces were becoming increasingly distanced from its eastern core”286. As Marc Bloch wrote, monetary history is, in the broader context of economic history, a particular branch, since coinage acts like a weird seismograph, registering the trembling of general commercial and production life, but at the same time causing new trembling287. It is extremely difficult to define if a particular evolution in the monetary C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), p. 699. On “luxury exchange” and “cabotage” in the Mediterranean see also N. HORDEN – P. PURCELL, The Corrupting Sea… (see n. 1), pp. 143–160. 282 So N. HORDEN – P. PURCELL, The Corrupting Sea… (see n. 1), p. 160. 283 A. RIISING, “The Fate…” (see n. 6), p. 103, speaks for the 8th to 10th centuries of payments “in the shape of Oriental goods or Arabian gold”. 284 J. LAFAURIE – C. MORRISSON, “La pénétration…” (see n. 101), p. 44. See also C. MORRISSON, “Byzantine Money…” (see n. 31), pp. 962–963. 285 E.A. ARSLAN, “Mutamenti di funzione…” (see n. 75), pp. 419–420. See also E.A. ARSLAN, “L’oro rifiutato…” (see n. 16), pp. 120–121. 286 C. MORRISSON, “Byzantine Money…” (see n. 31), p. 936. See also pp. 954–955. 287 M. BLOCH, “Le problème de l’or…” (see n. 3), p. 1. 281 107 FILIPPO CARLÀ system, as the one I described here, can be intended as symptom or as cause of the “regionalization” of Late Antique economic life. It is clear that a decision such as the one of starting a “national” coin production can be made when its consequences can be accepted – and then at a moment when the division of the Mediterranean world in always less communicating economic regions was already in a mature phase, after a process which can be traced from the 4th into the 7th century in the West288, some one hundred years longer in the East, and which probably had a huge variety of causes, even regionally differentiated289. But it is M. MCCORMICK, “Bateaux de vie…” (see n. 13), pp. 107–108; M. MCCORMICK, Origins… (see n. 190), p. 29. See also C. PANELLA, “Merci e scambi…” (see n. 188), pp. 679–680; B. WARD PERKINS, “Specialized Production…” (see n. 189), p. 361; B. WARD PERKINS, The Fall of Rome… (see n. 73), pp. 123–126; C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), pp. 708–720; C. WICKHAM, The Inheritance… (see n. 103), p. 104 (“archaeology shows a steady simplification of economic structure in most of the West by 550”). Previously D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), p. 306, had written about a progressive decline in the 5th–8th centuries, but shifting the moment of major disrupture to the second half of the 7th century. 289 C. WICKHAM, “Studying Long–Term Change...” (see n. 189), pp. 396–399 provides some possible parameters and argues, e.g., for a great importance of war as a factor of economic change only in Italy. See also C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), pp. 718–720, where four factors of socio–economic change are presented, operating differently in the different areas of the former Roman Empire; C. WICKHAM, The Inheritance… (see n. 103), p. 41. The question of a possible influence on this evolution of the Justinianic plague must remain out of this paper: see, among many other publications, e.g. P. ALLEN, “The ‘Justinianic’ Plague”, in Byzantion, 49 (1979), pp. 5–20, in particular pp. 16–19; D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), pp. 286–290; J. DURLIAT, “La peste du VIe siècle. Pour un nouvel examen des sources byzantines”, in Hommes et richesses dans l’Empire byzantin, tome I: IV–VIIe siècle, Paris 1989, pp. 107–119; M. MCCORMICK, Origins… (see n. 190), pp. 109–110; P. SARRIS, “The Justinianic Plague: Origins and Effects”, in Continuity and Change, 17 (2002), pp. 169–182, in particular pp. 173–179 (even connecting to the plague the emission of the so–called “light–weight solidi”, a thesis repeated in P. SARRIS, Economy and Society in the Age of Justinian, Cambridge 2006, pp. 217–219: see F. CARLÀ, L’oro… (see n. 18), p. 387); P. HORDEN, “Mediterranean Plague in the Age of Justinian”, in M. MAAS (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, Cambridge 2005, pp. 134–160, in particular pp. 153–156; B. WARD PERKINS, The Fall of Rome… (see n. 73), pp. 133–134; J. HALDON, “Greater Syria…” (see n. 49), pp. 9–10. On the Justinianic plague and the “social response” to it in general see now also M. MCCORMICK, “Rats, Communications and Plague: Toward an Ecological History”, in Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 34 (2003), pp. 1–25, and D. STATHAKOPOULOS, Famine and Pestilence in the Late Roman 288 108 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE impossible to define if its consequence was an acceleration of these processes290. And once again, there is a chronological coincidence: in 618 the annona distributions in Constantinople were interrupted, and a major part of the ships crossing the Mediterranean probably lost thus their most important function291. Between 550 and 650 the land routes connecting Italy and Constantinople went out of use292. Carthage was still a city throbbing with merchants and commercial activity around the mid–6th century; then the commercial activity (and even the building programme) seems to decline steeply through the passage between 6th and 7th century293. The situation in Italy was not very different in the and Early Byzantine Empire, Aldershot 2004, in particular pp. 110–154. These problems are in any case too wide to be analyzed here and would require a separate and more thorough treatment. 290 From his point of view D. CLAUDE, Der Handel… (see n. 2), p. 112, asked more or less the same question, when he wondered if the stylistic changes in Germanic coinage were cause or consequence of a scarce “international” circulation. 291 M. MCCORMICK, “Bateaux de vie…” (see n. 13), pp. 115–116; M. MCCORMICK, Origins… (see n. 190), pp. 110–111; C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), p. 125. 292 M. MCCORMICK, Origins… (see n. 190), p. 69. 293 M. FULFORD, “Carthage: Overseas Trade and the Political Economy, c. AD 400–700”, in Reading Medieval Studies, 6 (1980), pp. 68–80, in particular pp. 71–73; M.G. FULFORD, “Pottery and the Economy of Carthage and Its Hinterland”, in Opus, 2 (1983), pp. 5–14, on p. 5; C. PANELLA, “Le anfore di Cartagine: nuovi elementi per la ricostruzione dei flussi commerciali del Mediterraneo in età imperiale romana”, in Opus, 2 (1983), pp. 53–73, in particular pp. 58–59; S. TORTORELLA, “Produzione e circolazione della ceramica africana di Cartagine (V–VII sec.)”, in Opus, 2 (1983), pp. 15–30, in particular pp. 20–21; C. WICKHAM, “L’Italia…” (see n. 188), p. 114; C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), pp. 640–642 and 723–724. C. PANELLA, “Merci e scambi…” (see n. 188), pp. 652–653 rather anticipates the first traces of this Carthaginian decline to the beginning of the 6th century, even if underlining that at the end of the 6th and in the 7th century we can trace the definitive decline of transmarine commerce (pp. 656–657; 676–677). Additionally, it is important to underline that direct exchanges between Carthage and Constantinople are attested till the Arab conquest (pp. 658–660; 675), and are clearly dependent on the common belonging to the same political reality. The hoard of Rougga, buried probably in 647, shows a clear diminution of the coins originating from Constantinople and a rise of the locally minted ones in the years from Heraclius to Constant II (shown in other African findings in even clearer way already since Maurice), but nonetheless a still existing connection with the imperial capital: C. MORRISSON, “Étude numismatique”, in R. GUÉRY – C. MORRISSON – H. SLIM, Recherches archéologiques franco–tunisiennes à Rougga III. Le trésor de monnaies 109 FILIPPO CARLÀ period following the Lombard conquest: at the beginning of the 7th century evidence of imports “is restricted to a few privileged centres such as Rome and Naples, and to military sites such as S. Antonino di Perti”294. “Privileged” seems therefore to mean still in Byzantine hands: the same expression recurs in Loseby, who mentions, as “privileged western sites”, those where “the late antique exchange–network persisted in an etiolated form through to the close of the seventh century”, i.e. Marseille, Rome, Carthage and Naples295. He does not, however, underline that three of them are cities included in Imperial territory, one an important harbor where, not by chance, as we said, “quasi–imperial” coins were produced, confirming once more the bound commerce–coinage that we are trying to delineate296. It is therefore no surprise to find gold hoards comprising only Constantinopolitan coins in Sicily, as in Pantalica (after 680) or Milazzo (around 683), certifying once more the still active contacts between the island and the capital297, or in Rome, where the complete disappearance, e.g., of African ceramics is clearly to be dated to 690–720 CE, but in the previous period wares were coming from other Imperial territories rather than from northern Italy or Germanic kingdoms298. d’or byzantines, Roma 1982, pp. 59–74, on pp. 62; 73; C. MORRISSON, “L’atelier de Carthage…” (see n. 78), pp. 77–79. On the reinsertion of Carthage in the “East Mediterranean coin system” as a consequence of the Byzantine conquest, see R. REECE, “Coins…” (see n. 76), pp. 163–164. 294 C. WICKHAM, “Studying Long–Term Change...” (see n. 189), p. 391; C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), p. 712. See also C. PANELLA, “Merci e scambi…” (see n. 188), pp. 669–670; B. WARD PERKINS, The Fall of Rome… (see n. 73), pp. 106–107. 295 S.T. LOSEBY, “The Mediterranean Economy” (see n. 189), p. 637. 296 On the internal exchanges in the Byzantine Empire between 6th and 7th century see C. PANELLA, “Merci e scambi…” (see n. 188), pp. 657–673; M. MUNDELL MANGO, “Byzantine Maritime Trade…” (see n. 41), pp. 141–143. 297 C. MORRISSON, “La Sicile…” (n. 174), p. 309. See also C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), pp. 125–126. 298 S.T. LOSEBY, “The Mediterranean Economy” (see n. 189), pp. 634–635. See also C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), pp. 735–736. On the other side it has been underlined that African ceramics, even if generally diminishing and disappearing then around 650, are present in Italy in the 7th century mostly in Imperial territories, while their presence in Lombard areas is scarce: S. TORTORELLA, “La sigillata africana in Italia nel VI e nel VII secolo d. C.: problemi di cronologia e di distribuzione”, in L. SAGUÌ (ed.), Ceramica in Italia: VI–VII secolo, Firenze 1998, vol. I, pp. 41–69. It can be 110 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE The internal exchange in the Byzantine Empire will also come to a decline, and the imperial economy (the “solidus area”), which was monetarily still coherent, will break down into many different regional economies in a later moment, towards the end of the 7th and the beginning of the 8th century299. The minting and distribution of coinage itself is reduced to a minimum since the second half of the 7th century, probably in connection with deep changes in the fiscal structure and the institution of the system of the apotheke300. The years 575–625 therefore show the complete collapse of the previous inter–Mediterranean economic structures, i.e. the end of integration and interdependency. This does not mean that commerce stopped or production in the Byzantine Empire necessarily declined steeply: it means that production, distribution and circulation of wares had assumed an always more defined local/regional character. As Loseby explained it, the “local” and “regional” commerce continued to underlined that the numismatic evidence indicated already since the second half of the 5th century in Rome an always bigger presence of Eastern (Constantinopolitan) coins and an always narrower presence of even north Italian ones: E.A. ARSLAN – C. MORRISSON, “Monete e moneta…” (see n. 77), p. 1271. 299 M.F. HENDY, Studies… (see n. 35), pp. 619–626; M. MUNDELL MANGO, “Byzantine Maritime Trade…” (see n. 41), pp. 141–143; J. HALDON, “Production, Distribution and Demand in the Byzantine World, c. 660–840”, in I.L. HANSEN – C. WICKHAM (eds.), The Long Eighth Century... (see n. 103), pp. 225–264, at the pp. 249–253; C. WICKHAM, “Overview…” (see n. 103), pp. 367–368; M. WHITTOW, “Recent Research of the Late–Antique City in Asia Minor: the Second Half of the 6th Century Revisited”, in L. LAVAN (ed.), Recent Research in Late–Antique Urbanism, Portsmouth 2001, pp. 137–153, in particular pp. 137–138; A.E. LAIOU, “Exchange and Trade, Seventh–Twelfth Centuries”, in EAD. (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, Washington D.C. 2002, pp. 697–770, in particular pp. 697–713; S.T. LOSEBY, “The Mediterranean Economy” (see n. 189), p. 633; C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), pp. 713–717 (“by 700, that is to say, the interregional network was as weak in the East as it was in the West”); C. WICKHAM, The Inheritance… (see n. 103), p. 225. Previously, still in accordance with Pirenne, was underlined mostly the role of the Persian and Arab invasions in the disruption of European economic structures: see e.g. C. FOSS, “The Persians in Asia Minor and the End of Antiquity”, in HER, 90 (1975), pp. 721–724; C. FOSS, “Archaeology and the ‘Twenty Cities’ of Byzantine Asia”, in AJA, 81 (1977), pp. 469–486 (p. 486: “the cities reached their lowest point in the seventh and eighth centuries”). 300 M.F. HENDY, Studies… (see n. 35), pp. 640–645; C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), p. 127. 111 FILIPPO CARLÀ flourish, while the “international” declined intensely: “the early medieval Mediterranean thus sustained a series of regional economies, some of which appear to have been more developed, or more dynamic, than others”301. The 7th century is the moment in which the Frisians arise as the most prominent traders, substantially controlling the trade from the Austrasian court, followed by the Anglo–Saxons (meanwhile, both begin to mint coins imitating Frankish “national” ones), Dorestad is the main emporium of the Carolingians and trade appears completely reconstructed on new routes and new harbors: even if many Byzantine objects of the 7th century have been found there302, in general we still must recognize that “north–west Europe was a closed system, exotica are rare”303. Pepin’s coin reform was adopted also in Frisia and in Kent304. And, while silver was acquiring an always greater importance in the Western world, the minting of hexagrams was interrupted by Justinian II in the East, showing once again that these two monetary realities were 301 S.T. LOSEBY, “The Mediterranean Economy” (see n. 189), pp. 619–621. But Loseby dates the end of the economic interdependence in the Mediterranean to about half a century later (p. 632), while I would still recognize, as I stated, that a general progress of breaking down of such ties took place from ca. 550 to ca. 625. If Loseby’s dating should be correct, nothing would change in this reconstruction, and it would only imply a bigger role of the birth of national coinages in accelerating this economical phenomenon. See also Loseby 2007, pp. 9–10: “This remarkable, if superficial, integration was the cultural as much as economic legacy of the Roman world–system, but in the western Mediterranean the ability to share in it was becoming increasingly restricted in the 6th and 7th centuries”. Here Loseby restates that the end of the interdependence should be dated to the end of the 7th century, but arrived quickly for the Eastern Mediterranean, while in the West it only brought to end a process which lasted about two centuries. 302 M. MUNDELL MANGO, “Byzantine Maritime Trade…” (see n. 41), p. 143. 303 D. HODGES, Dark Age Economics... (n. 127), p. 122; S. LEBECQ, “Routes of Change…” (see n. 103), pp. 73–78. Now see the synthesis provided by S. LEBECQ, “The Northern Seas...” (see n. 253), in particular pp. 645–653. Meanwhile the céramiques biconiques, developed since the late 5th century, acquired an always bigger distribution network, centered on northern Gaul: C. WICKHAM, “Studying Long–Term Change...” (see n. 189), pp. 394–395. 304 D. HODGES, Dark Age Economics... (n. 127), p. 88; P. SPUFFORD, “Coinage and Currency” (see n. 68), pp. 796–797; S. LEBECQ, “The Northern Seas...” (see n. 253), pp. 652–653. 112 THE END OF ROMAN GOLD COINAGE no longer “talking” to each other. This is not a consequence of a supposed closure of the Mediterranean by the Arabs, as Pirenne proposed, but is still clearly the development in another area of a maritime economy with particular characters and consequent monetary exigencies305. We can just share Wickham’s idea, that “the sixth century can fairly be regarded as the last of the Roman centuries”306, or the opinion, expressed by Hodges, that “the sixth century marks the moment of utmost confusion amongst the polyethnic cultures of Europe before the emergence of a new geopolitical order in which the Franks, Lombards and Visigoths play a pre–eminent part”307. The new order is the one of the 7th century, a multipolar order, which also brings to completion the process of regionalization of currencies and creation of closed monetary areas308, leading thus to the 8th century, “the period of greatest economic localization”309. This new order will also be overcome with the Carolingian expansion in central Europe. A new imperial institution will try to bring forward a new C. WICKHAM, “Overview…” (see n. 103), p. 371; S. LEBECQ, “The Northern Seas...” (see n. 253), pp. 658–659. 306 C. WICKHAM, “Overview: Production, Distribution and Demand”, in R. HODGES – W. BOWDEN (eds.), The Sixth Century. Production... (see n. 103), pp. 279–292, on p. 279; C. WICKHAM, “Overview…” (see n. 103), p. 345. 307 R. HODGES, “Henri Pirenne and the Question of Demand in the Sixth Century”, in R. HODGES – W. BOWDEN (eds.), The Sixth Century. Production... (see n. 103), pp. 3–14, on p. 13. See also P. SPUFFORD, Money and Its Use... (see n. 101), p. 12: “this third quarter of the sixth century in many respects marks a distinct step away from the economic and political structure of the ancient world, and coinage too fits in this pattern”; R. HODGES – D. WHITEHOUSE, Mohammed, Charlemagne… (see n. 188), pp. 169–170; S.T. LOSEBY, “The Mediterranean Economy” (see n. 189), p. 635. 308 This is not necessarily in contradiction with Wickham’s formulation that “the th 8 century was the first in which there was no bulk Mediterranean exchange network to confuse observers (at least, the observers of today), and the economic histories of individual regions were for the first time clearly separate” (C. WICKHAM, “Studying Long–Term Change...” (see n. 189), p. 401). The 8th century shows of course the “radicalization” and full operation of what we called the “new order” of the 7th. This process had already been identified by C.F. KEARY, “The Coinage of Western Europe...” (see n. 25), pp. 222–223. 309 C. WICKHAM, Framing… (see n. 11), p. 794. 305 113 FILIPPO CARLÀ process of monetary homologation, in the name of, this time, the silver denarius, extended to the territories gradually conquered by Charlemagne310. When the Franks arrived in Italy they decided to integrate this area, which had kept a different monetary structure, into their monetary area, and move the “border” further between “denarius area” and “solidus area”311. In the 10th century this integrated system also collapsed, bringing to the birth of differentiated monetary areas (much smaller than those here analyzed) with different accounting units, a process much better known thanks to the archive documentation which is available for this period312. But that is another story – which by the way, in completely different manner from the previous, was not centered on the Mediterranean313. FILIPPO CARLÀ M. BLOCH, “Le problème de l’or…” (see n. 3), p. 3; P. GRIERSON – M. BLACKBURN, Medieval European Coinage (see n. 22), pp. 194–199; R.S. LOPEZ, “The Trade…” (see n. 32), p. 311; P. SPUFFORD, “Coinage and Currency” (see n. 68), pp. 798–799; P. GRIERSON, The Coins… (see n. 67), p. 29; M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage” (see n. 10), pp. 548–550. 311 E.A. ARSLAN, “Mutamenti di funzione…” (see n. 75), p. 434. 312 A. SACCOCCI, “Moneta locale e moneta internazionale nelle fonti scritte medioevali: problemi di interpretazione”, in G. GORINI (ed.), Forme di contatto tra moneta locale e moneta straniera nel mondo antico, Padova 1998, pp. 137–148, on p. 137; A. SACCOCCI, “Billon and Bullion…” (see n. 23); M. BLACKBURN, “Money and Coinage” (see n. 10), p. 559. 313 T. LOSEBY, “Marseille and the Pirenne Thesis II…” (see n. 242), p. 193. 310 114