Table 4.3. Status of publication / research of single coins.
Sites / coins Late Thracian Roman Republican Early Principate Roman Provincial Imitations TOTAL COINS
267 coins 422 coins 1.751 coins 69 coins 12 coins 2,521
Publ.: 11 Publ.: 87 Publ.: 365 Publ.: 12 Publ.: 7 Publ.: 482
Listed: 188 Listed: 32 Listed: 845 Listed: 5 Listed: 1 Listed: 1,071
215+
(252 entries)
Unpubl.: 68 Unpubl.: 303
Unpubl.: 541 Unpubl.: 52 Unpubl.: 4 Unpubl.: 968
16
On this notorious case see my notes in Paunov, in Ancient West and East 13 (2013), 281-94.
17
Compare Paunov – Prokopov – Filipova 2011, 2047.
18
Mostly thanks to the efforts of Professor Ilya Prokopov who assembled a comprehensive coin archive.
The difficulties in studying the hoards also applied to single specimens. Often stray coins are unavailable to both archaeologists and numismatists, and remain unpublished. Single coins from sites rarely appear in the publications, even in the sites main publications. Normally what appears is a brief note in the annual archaeological bulletin (called AOR reports19), a few publications of Thracian rock sanctuaries (e.g. Tonkova – Gotzev 2008), a few Roman villae (Nikolov 1984 and Dremsizova 1984), the pottery-kilns near Butovo and Pavlikeni (Tsochev 1998) and a lime-kiln near Iatrus (Vagalinski 2011), plain settlements as Koprivlen (Prokopov 2002, in Delev – Bozhkova), the rich tumuli graves near Chatalka dam (Buyukliev 1986) or other types of sites, in general archaeological or local historical editions.
The level of published museum coin collections in Bulgaria still remains very low (cf. Reece 1977, 167-169, table 1), despite the recent effort of the editors of the
CCCHBulg series.20
Since the majority of excavated Roman towns lack publication of coin collections along the Lower Danube (Butcher 1995, 304), single coins are even more rarely available. Two major exceptions are to be noted – the coins from recent digs at
Nicopolis ad Istrum (Butcher 1995, 269-314; Guest 1999, 314-29), and to a certain
extent – those from Novae.21 They represent the largest body available, but cannot complete the restricted mosaic of Roman numismatic presence along the Lower Danube. If the state of publication were different, it could well provide comparable data to other major Roman sites in Central or Western Europe, which have been properly published (for instance, Carnuntum in Austria).22 In fact, a large number of stray ancient coins in Bulgaria remain unpublished on site or in local museum holdings, in regional or national collections. It appears that they are not only
19
Published annually since 1973 by the National Archaeological Institute with Museum in Sofia.
20
Review and aims of the project in Paunov – Prokopov – Filipova 2011, 2047-57.
21
See Kunisz 1992b, 107-14; most recently – the coins from sector IV are published by R. Ciołek and P. Dyczek, Novae. Legionary Fortress and Late Antique Town, vol. II: The Coins from Sector IV (Warsaw 2011).
22
See M. Alram – F. Schmidt-Dick (eds.), Numismata Carnuntina. Forschungen und Material (Die
neglected, but often unidentified or wrongly attributed, and remain outside the catalogues and museum inventories.
For example, the coins found in the major legionary camp at Oescus on the Danube are at best grouped by emperors (i.e. restored issues are not identified), with no internal division either by denominations, or by period of issue, or type.23 Subsequently, the full publication of site finds from the Polish excavations at the camp of Novae is long overdue24, but a small portion of them was available in short lists at the time of this research.25 Occasionally, publications of coin material from smaller/ less significant sites in Thrace and Moesia, such as Jatrus26 or Carassura27 are much more comprehensive than those from the major sites (Oescus,
Durostorum, Deultum etc). Another objective disadvantage in this respect is the
physical condition of earlier Roman coins (especially aes) found in multi-strata archaeological sites. They are often very poorly preserved (heavily worn and corroded) and sometimes – very hard to identify.
Therefore, the problems are considerable, but once surmounted they support the study hypothesis based on the hoards. With determination and strong motivation, the author set a research target to study the coin evidence from three specific Roman sites in Thrace – Aquae Calidae, Cabyle and Serdica (results presented as case- studies)28, in order to investigate whether they could provide further information. It transpired that it is possible to narrow down tendencies and understand different aspects of the Roman way of life (civilian, military and votives) at the above sites.
Thus, while one can see the fragmentary status and condition of the evidence from Moesia and Thrace available for study, this may be overcome by the use of data which was not previously a matter of interest, study or observation. During the collection of the data and forming the database, in this thesis I was aware that the
23
Compare the short table listing in R. Ivanov – T. Kovacheva, in R. Ivanov 1, (Sofia 2002), 42-54.
24
Information courtesy of Professor P. Dyczek and Professor T. Sarnowski, both Warsaw University.
25
Namely those coins listed by the late Professor A. Kunisz 1992, 134-5 and 161-2.
26
See E. Schönert-Geiss, in Jatrus–Krivina band I (Berlin 1979), 174-5; Schönert-Geiss, in Jatrus–
Krivina VI (Halle 2007), 329-82.
27
M. Minkova, ‘Antike und mittelalterliche Münzen aus Karasura‘, in M. Wendel (ed.) Karasura II: Die prähistorischen Funde und die Münzen der Ausgrabungen von 1981 bis 1997 (Langenweissbach
2002), 143-231.
28
single coin evidence could count in the statistical analysis. Recently I structured the single coins according to their find-spots and distribution.
The following typological categories could be distinguished from the available evidence. They are designed and ascribed by the entry of stray coins according to the archaeological context as:
1. Military site (legionary camp, auxiliary fort, etc) – abbreviation M 2. Civil site (settlements, villae, farms) – C
3. Production centres (for pottery, bricks, lime, etc) – P 4. Roadside (along ancient roads, stations, passes) – R 5. Votives/ritual (sanctuaries, temples, baths, spa) – V 6. Funerary (burials, tombs as ’Charron’s obol’) – F 7. Extraneous (in earlier / later settlement, fills) – E
8. Uncertain/ unspecified (not identified or not clear) – abbreviation U.
Detailed consideration and analysis of the above categories in presented in
chapter 11.9: Imperial Site Finds.