[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
The volume opens with the editors, Arkadiusz Dymowski and Kyrylo Myzgin, setting the scene by providing a brief introduction to the volume’s research remit and defining denarii subaerati (plated denarii, fourrées) and denarii flati (cast denarii made of base metal and silver-like alloys). For readers unfamiliar with numismatic terminology, it is worth noting that denarius flatus is a term used throughout the volume although the term itself is coined by Myzgin in Chapter 10, where he explains why the term is appropriate and needed. Space limitations here do not permit a fuller description of the volume’s individual contributions, but brief accounts are provided to highlight the salient themes and evidence. Fortunately, the book is open access.
The first two chapters present material from within the empire. Brickstock provides a brief summary of counterfeit Roman coin moulds from the territory corresponding to Britannia Inferior, explaining that moulds were used to produce two types of counterfeits: (1) a coin with a base metal and copper core plated by silver or something silvery, which would deceive most in antiquity, but are now given away by the corrosion or abrasion of the outer layer (which, he observes, date mostly to AD 193-238) and (2) a coin made of a debased silver content (generally dating to AD 238-260/70s). Brickstock argues that counterfeits were produced for personal profit but also could have been officially sanctioned to respond to a shortage of silver coinage in an attempt to preserve the Augustan system of coinage rather than move on to the debased ‘antoninianus’ system of the mid-third century. He usefully reminds the reader that the apparent date of a counterfeit coin does not necessarily correspond to the date of its production since many second-century counterfeits were made in the third century. In the second chapter, Pilon focuses on the production of struck and cast denarii in Châteaubleau (France) during the second half of the third century, where three different officinae for making counterfeits have been identified; Châteaubleau is a site at which some of the most remarkable and extensive evidence for counterfeiting has been unearthed, and it has been extensively published.
Fraser Hunter’s chapter on counterfeit denarii north of Hadrian’s wall is a wonderful complement to Brickstock’s earlier chapter. One remarkable find (of several) was in the excavations of the fort at Bar Hill, on the Antonine Wall, where a hoard of thirteen denarii was discovered with ten copies in tin, rather than silver. This assemblage has been interpreted as a foundation votive offering. Counterfeit manufacturing evidence also survives at the fort and elsewhere, suggesting deliberate production of counterfeit coins for votive offerings. The fourth chapter considers finds from the Germanic settlement of Frienstedt in Thuringia, where official and counterfeit coins circulated together. This leads Schlapke to postulate that some were made locally, but the majority of evidence comes from further east, especially Ukraine.
Dymowski’s chapter on a group of die-linked counterfeits—i.e. struck from the same series of dies—is of great importance and offers insight into counterfeiting in eastern Europe associated with the Chernyakhiv culture. This is not the first group of die-linked counterfeits, but the scale and complexity is immense. The material—designated the ONAV group after a punch bearing that inscription—includes copies of imperial denarii (struck from silver and subaerati) and aurei (struck from gold or gilded), imitating primarily those of the second-century rulers Nerva to Commodus, but also tetrarchic silver issues. More than 183 coin types are represented, struck from seventy-one obverse and fifty-eight reverse dies, with variants that may reflect some die reworking (e.g. touch-ups). This study therefore elucidates connections not only between dies but also punches (part of designs used to make dies). Crucially, it demonstrates that counterfeiters beyond the empire knew how to make high-quality counterfeits and avoid the typically barbarized style of such unofficial issues. More work remains to be done on this material, and it will be fascinating to learn more about it in due course.
In the following two chapters counterfeit coin finds from several sites of the Przeworsk culture in Western Lesser Poland (Bodzek, Jellonek, Zając) and across the Wielbark culture in Belarus (Sidarovich) are presented with color photography and analyses of their metal content, which demonstrate the variability of the alloys used in their creation. Sidarovich argues that many of the counterfeit coins used by the people of the Wielbark culture were produced by Chernyakhiv manufacturers but he leaves the door open to local production as well.
Chapter 8 (Nadvirnyak and Pohorilets) and Chapter 9 (Buhay, Myzgin, Nadvirnyak, Pohorilets) present metallographic studies, that is, analyses examining and determining the physical structure and micro-constituents of metals and alloys. The study by Nadvirnyak and Pohorilets includes non-ferrous metal ingots, which help them identify centers of bronze production associated with the manufacture of cast copies of Roman denarii. While Chapters 6 and 7 provide data to demonstrate variable metal content, Chapter 9 emphasizes the homogeneity in the sample group of cast copies of denarii and other objects (albeit a small sample, but gathered across a large region in Ukraine). This leads to the conclusion that a group of craftsmen probably shared access to materials (or possibly produced them together) to conform closely to one another and ensure the close mimicking of the color of original denarii. This chapter also points to a connection between counterfeiting and other metalwork activities, which has not been thoroughly studied but may expand our understanding in the future.
Myzgin’s chapter on denarii flati is perhaps the most important in the volume. It synthesizes most of the known evidence (beyond that covered in the volume) and presents the term and concept of denarii flati, on both sides of the limes. The chapter would have been appropriate as an opening to the volume, together with the subsequent chapter by Awianowicz on the use of the term pecunia flata/denarii flati in ancient texts. As it stands, they function as a conclusion to the volume. This reviewer is mostly swayed by the term, not primarily because of its near-contemporary Latin use (most notably by Aulus Gellius in Noctes Atticae 2.10.3: ‘flata signataque pecunia’), but because it avoids any designation or connotation regarding a coin’s origin: official, semi-official, or counterfeit, which is a reoccurring theme and question throughout the book. It also facilitates the use of a single term to describe similar phenomena both within and beyond the empire. Whether the term will gain traction, I cannot say.
Although Myzgin states repeatedly in the introduction and in his chapter that more attention has been devoted to this material within the empire than beyond it, it seems unlikely to remain true for long as the body of evidence from central and eastern Europe continues to grow. This development is hugely significant as it enriches our understanding of the European barbaricum while simultaneously shedding light on technological knowledge and innovation. It is all the more impressive because it is unfolding under wartime conditions, as scholars on the ground continue to advance the field.
In this reviewer’s opinion, the data and findings are of exceptional importance, indicating highly complex local and regional systems of counterfeiting that improve our understanding of social, economic, and political relations. One aspect that I have not yet emphasized in this review is the scale of the counterfeiting: sites have produced anywhere from 20-50% counterfeit coinage, including those within the empire. While this does not mean that up to 50% of the coin pool was counterfeit, it does encourage a close re-examination of past reports where such coinage may have been underreported, and it prompts a re-consideration of the concepts of authenticity and authority, and how different coinages (official or not) may have functioned together and/or separately.
Authors and titles
Introduction: Arkadiusz Dymowski and Kyrylo Myzgin
- Richard Brickstock, ‘Counterfeit Coin Moulds from Britannia Inferior. A Summary and Brief Discussion’
- Fabien Pilon, ‘The Production of Struck and Cast Denarii in Châteaubleau (France) during the Second Half of the Third Century AD’
- Fraser Hunter, ‘Counterfeit Denarii North of Hadrian’s Wall: Roman or “Barbarian”?’
- Mario Schlapke, ‘Non-official Roman Denarii in Thuringia. The Finds from the Germanic Settlement of Frienstedt’
- Arkadiusz Dymowski, ‘The ONAV Group of Barbarian Imitations and Copies of Roman Imperial Coins. Manufacturing of denarii subaerati in Eastern Europe in Antiquity’
- Jarosław Bodzek, Szymon Jellonek, and Barbara Zając, ‘Finds of Counterfeit Roman Denarii at Selected Roman-Period Settlement Sites in Western Lesser Poland. The State of Research and Prospects’
- Vitaľ Sidarovich, ‘Cast Copies of Roman Imperial Denarii from Belarus’
- Oleksandr Nadvirniak and Oleh Pohorilets, ‘Technological Variety of Methods Used in the Production of Cast Copies of Roman Denarii on the Territory of the Chernyakhiv Culture between the Middle Dniester and Southern Bug’
- Oleksandr Buhay, Kyrylo Myzgin, Oleksandr Nadvirnyak, and Oleh Pohorilets, ‘Elemental Composition of Cast Copies of Denarii and Related Production Waste from Ukraine Determined Using PIXE and XRF Methods’
- Kyrylo Myzgin, ‘Denarii flati’
- Bartosz Awianowicz, ‘Cast Counterfeit Coins or pecunia flata? Ancient Latin Sources and the Term denarii flati’