¹ See I. Glodariu, Acta Mus. Nap. 1971, 71, ‘Consideraţii asupra circulaţiei monedei strǎine’.

² Nudelman, A. A., Topographie des trésors et des trouvailles des monnaies isolées (in Russian), Kishchinev, 1976, 156–7Google Scholar.

³ Poland: Połaniec 1968—Rocznika Museum Swietokrzyskiego 1970, 103; 1975, 327. Czechoslovakia: Kysice 1917—Nohejlova-Pratova, E., Nalezy I, no. 225aGoogle Scholar; Libčeves 1908—R(oman) R(epublican) C(oin) H(oards), no. 328; Sillein 1871—RRCH, no. 330 (with NZ 1903, 147—down to Augustus); Podivin about 1930—Nohejlova-Pratova, E., Nalezy I, no. 853Google Scholar; Göding = Hodonin—Nohejlova-Pratova, E., Nalezy I, no. 859Google Scholar (down to issue with IMP.CAESAR); Rzehak, A., Zeitschrift des deutschen Vereins fur die Geschichte Mährens und Schlesiens, Brunn (Brno), XXII, 1918, 197Google Scholar, ‘Die römische Eisenzeit in Mähren’, at 268 (down to 15 B.C.). Hungary: Körösszakall 1965—Különlenyomat a Debreceni Déri Muzeum 1967, 67; Bia 1846—RRCH 370; Erd 1957—RRCH 373; Nagykagya = Cadea 1941—RRCH 411; Lagymanyos 1902—RRCH 510.

⁴ Recent discoveries do not significantly alter the pattern for Jugoslavia and Greece which emerges from the hoards listed in RRCH; a recently-published group of three hoards from Albania is to be associated with the civil war between Caesar and Pompeius, Ceka, H., Dy thesare drahmesh ilire e denarësh romakë të zbuluem në Tiranë (Studime Historike I, 1966, 3–40)Google Scholar.

⁵ Four hoards are listed in RRCH, four (as far as I know) have been published since (see Table 2); I know of a further 26, deliberately omitted from RRCH as being insufficiently documented.

⁶ There is a brief survey of recent views on cultural inks across the lower Danube in Mihailescu-Birliba, V., Thracia III, 1974, 261–5Google Scholar; but the evidence here adduced for coins struck south of the Danube being found north of it is of little significance.

⁷ Studii ṣi Cercetčri de Numismatica VII (forthcoming).

⁸ Polybius IV, 46, 3. Note the large revenues from customs-dues of the Thracian kings of the fourth century B.C.

⁹ Lambrino, S., Rev. ét. roum V–VI, 1960, 180Google Scholar = Historia XI, 1962, 21Google Scholar; see also Pippidi, D. M., I Greci sul basso Danubio, 104–6Google Scholar.

¹⁰ No longer struck in the first century B.C., contra Preda, C., Monedele Geto-Dacilor, Bucharest, 1973Google Scholar; there are few Thracian issues of the third/second or of the first centuries B.C., Youroukova, Y., Coins of the Ancient Thracians, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, Supp. 4, 1976, 26 and 40Google Scholar.

¹¹ The material is catalogued by Horedt, K., Dacia XVII, 1973, 127Google Scholar; E. and F. Stoicovici, Acta Mus. Nap. 1973. 541; 1974, 19, analyse the (small) gold content of selected pieces. For jewellery manufactured from Republican denarii see the Stǎncuţa hoard (RRCH 331).

¹² Isolated indications of weight on a few pieces of plate, no doubt put there by Greek craftsmen, tell us little (Thracian Treasures from Bulgaria, British Museum, 1976, nos. 311, 360, 361).

¹³ Athenaeus IV, 152d = Posidonius fr. 67 Edelstein-Kidd; Strabo IV, 2, 3 (191); see the important remarks of D. Nash, Num. Chron. 1975, 214–215.

¹⁴ My view of Dacian society and economy is thus radically different from that of Preda, C., Monedele Geto-Dacilor, 22–3 = 440Google Scholar, who sees the development of ‘Warenaustausch’ as leading to the emergence of Geto-Dacian coinage. I should not of course wish to deny that some ‘Warenaustausch’ for coinage took place.

The fascination exercized by the typology of the Roman Republican coinage is documented by the terracotta medallion from Gradiştea copying the head of Diana on the obverse of a denarius of Ti. Claudius Ti.f.Ap.n. (Mat. arch. 1959, 396; Illiri şi Daci, Cluj and Bucharest, 1972, pl. xxxi; I see no reason to suppose that the medallion portrays Bendis).

¹⁵ Contra B. Mitrea and I. Glodariu, cited in n. 20 below; for the absence of small change see C. Rodewald, cited in n. 42 below, 41–2.

¹⁶ Early imperial hoards from Pannonia and Illyria do not show a particularly large proportion of Republican pieces. It has also been argued that Roman Republican denarii in Romania were in large part the booty of Burebista (L. Ruzicka, Bul. Soc. Num. Rom. 1922, 5, ‘Die Frage der dacischen Münzen’, esp. 10); but the areas he plundered were not characterized by extensive circulation of Republican denarii.

¹⁷ B. Mitrea, SCIV 1970, 434, wrongly supposes that the presence in Romania of many examples of issues of the late second century and of the 80s B.C. shows that the coins must have come in during those periods; both periods were characterized by massive issues which remained in circulation in enormous quantities in the first century and were indeed the major component of Italian hoards of the mid-first century.

¹⁸ See in any case the fundamental cautionary remarks of P. Grierson, Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc. 1959, 123, ‘Commerce in the Dark Ages: a critique of the evidence’.

¹⁹ Polybius IV, 38, 4–5.

²⁰ I. Glodariu, Relaţii comerciale ale Daciei cu lumea elenisticǎ şi romanǎ, Cluj, 1974 = Dacian trade with the Hellenistic and Roman World, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, Supp. 8, 1976. Isolated objects, such as the tools of Aquileian origin at Gradiştea, prove nothing of importance (Relaţii comerciale, 248 = Dacian trade, 211, where note also a few objects of adornment and toilet and pieces of marble, alabaster and terracotta).

B. Mitrea, Eph. Dac. 1945, 1, ‘Penetrazione commerciale e circolazione monetaria nella Dacia prima della conquista’ (concentrating mainly on Transylvania), esp. 113, sees the import of Republican coinage into Dacia purely as a result of general commercial activity, without undertaking any analysis of this concept. Gold, salt and corn are seen (151) as the major exports from Dacia; to suggest corn goes against the evidence of Polybius and Strabo (n. 32); salt seems quite implausible as a major export from Dacia to Italy; likewise gold, of which Rome had more than she knew what to do with after the victory of Cn. Pompeius. There is no new conceptual framework in Dacia IX–X, 1941–1944, 359Google Scholar (on Oltenia) or in Stud. Cerc. Num. II, 1958, 123 (on Muntenia).

I. Glodariu operates with a similarly modernizing framework; his Ch. v, on trading personnel, supposes that the evidence of other provinces is relevant to Dacia before the conquest and makes the astonishing assumption that places of origin of objects of trade are the same as places of origin of traders.

²¹ Carpica 1971, 159.

²² See Griffith, G. T., Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World, Cambridge, 1935, 234–5Google Scholar, for the limited use by Rome of mercenaries.

²³ See n. 17 above.

²⁴ Dacia XVIII, 1974, 147, esp. nn. 52–5 for earlier bibliography.

²⁵ The attempt to refute the argument that worn legionary coins found in Dacia perhaps arrived long after 31 B.C. by asserting that worn dies gave the coins a worn appearance from the outset betrays unfamiliarity with the non-Dacian material.

²⁶ The general methodological point is made quite correctly by Babeş, M., Dacia XIX, 1975, 132–3 and 139Google Scholar n. 61, against the argument of M. Chiţescu, ibid., 249, linking the burial of the hoards with the growth of the state of Burebista.

²⁷ Assertions to the contrary without supporting evidence are valueless, as by Chiţescu, M., Dacia XVIII, 1974, 153Google Scholar; Stud. Cerc. Num. VI, 1975, 55; note the Stobi hoard, closing in the mid-120s B.C., probably buried in 119 B.C. (Stobi Studies I, 1).

²⁸ Strabo XIV, 5, 2 (668); note slaves of Asian origin coming to Sicily in the 70s B.C., Cicero, II Verr. V, 146. Roman involvement in the slave trade through Delos did not lead to any large-scale appearance of Republican coins on Delos, because that island formed part of a functioning monetary area, to which Roman coins were alien and from which they were in practice largely excluded; the Greek cities still had their own coinages, of which Romans in the east made use, and presumably normally melted down such Roman coins as came their way; Republican denarii were, however, gradually hoarded more and more in Greece after Sulla.

There is a casual mention of slaves at Glodariu, I., Relaţii comerciale, 106Google Scholar = Dacian trade, 56.

²⁹ Diodorus V, 26; see Cicero, pro Quinctio 24 for a slave-trader from Gaul in 83 B.C.

³⁰ Endemic raiding might help to explain the non-recovery of the hoards which now form the material for study; the retainers who helped carry it out no doubt received Republican denarii as a status-enhancing reward.

³¹ I note in passing that, grosso modo, amphoras and pots (and their imitations) predominate outside the mountains which surround Transylvania, silverware, bronze-ware and coins (and their imitations) predominate within; there is not enough evidence for glass-ware and other assorted objects to detect a pattern; see I. Glodariu, Relaţii comerciale = Dacian trade, summarized in Crisia (Oradea) I, 1972, 45, ‘Importuri Elenistice-Italice (200 B.C.–100 A.D.)’. I suppose the difference to correspond to a difference of fashion; within the mountains one threw silver around, without them one got drunk. Burebista eventually attempted to ban wine, Strabo VII, 3, 1 (303–4).

³² Polybius IV, 38, 4; 50, 2–4; see Strabo XI, 2, 3 (493) for the Crimea, with slaves and skins going one way, clothing and wine the other way. Polybius, locc. cit., with Strabo VII, 4, 6 (311), shows that corn was no longer in the Hellenistic period a major export of the Black Sea area.

³³ M. I. Finley, Klio 1962, 51; see also D. M. Pippidi, St. Clas. 1966, 232 = Contribuţii la istoria veche a României, Bucharest, 1967, 523, on G. Klaffenbach, Die Grabstelen der einstigen Sammlung Roma in Zakynthos (Abh. Ak. Berlin, Kl. f. Lit. u. Kunst, 1964, 2), no. 28, two Istrian slaves, perhaps so designated because bought at Istria (compare Varro, LL VII, 21 on slaves named after their place of purchase). I know of no other evidence for the likely involvement of the Greek cities near the mouth of the Danube in the slave trade.

See Strabo VII, 3, 12 (304) for Getic and Dacian slaves in Athens; whence Eustathius, Comm. on Dionys. Perieg. 305 (Geogr. Gr. Min. II, pp. 270–1). N. Lascu, Acta Mus. Nap. 1970, 79, argues that Daos is a name appropriate to a slave from Asia Minor, not to a Dacian slave; but that does not affect Strabo's belief that there were Dacian slaves in Athens. See Rostovtzeff, M. I., Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Oxford, 1941, 675Google Scholar n. 87, for Scythian, Sarmatian and Maeotian slaves on Rhodes (a bare list of references to slaves in inscriptions of Rhodes in Fraser, P. M. and Rönne, T., Boeotian and West Greek Tombstones, Lund, 1957, 96, n. 37.Google Scholar) See Velkov, V., Etudes Balkaniques I, 1964, 1, 125Google Scholar, ‘Zur Frage der Sklaverei auf der Balkanhalbinsel während der Antike’, for slaves from Thrace in the Mediterranean world.

³⁴ Contact between Italy and the lower Danube basin seems to have been relatively direct, presumably by sea; the maps published by I. Glodariu as pls. xii, xiii, xiv show the coins of Macedonia Prima and Thasos on the one hand and of the Republic on the other hand spreading out from the lower Danube; by way of contrast, the coins of Dyrrhachium and Apollonia seem to come overland from the west.

The presence of Romans, perhaps men of business, at Narona, Issa and Corcyra Nigra in the late Republic is clearly irrelevant to the arrival of Republican coins in Dacia.

³⁵ See M. Bang, MDAI(R) 1910, 223, ‘Die Herkunft der römischen Sklaven’, esp. 226; G. G. Mateescu, Eph. Dac. 1923, 57, ‘I Traci nelle epigrafi di Roma’, esp. 77 ff. for freedmen; Gordon, M. L., JRS 1924, 93Google Scholar, ‘The nationality of slaves under the early Roman Empire’, is a—for our purposes—inconclusive study of nomenclature.

³⁶ See M. Bang, 237 and 230 (CIL VI, 7407). The evidence of slave nationality at Laurium is trivial in bulk for this period.

³⁷ See M. H. Crawford, Ec. Hist. Rev. 1977, 42, ‘Rome and the Greek world: economic relationships.’

³⁸ Westermann, W. L., The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity, Philadelphia, 1955, 33Google Scholar; verbal information from Keith Hopkins.

³⁹ Verbal information from Keith Hopkins.

⁴⁰ See Brunt, P. A., Italian Manpower, Oxford, 1971, 301–5Google Scholar; Latomus 1975, 619, ‘Two great Roman landowners’.

⁴¹ W. L. Westermann, 63, playing down the numbers involved. Precise calculations are speculative.

⁴² Rodewald, C., Money in the Age of Tiberius, Manchester, 1976, 45–24Google Scholar hoards altogether, closing with Augustus, 3 between Tiberius and Nero, 13 between Vespasian and the conquest. These hoards of course contain some Republican denarii; there is no way of knowing whether any of these came in with the Imperial denarii or not.

⁴³ C. Rodewald, 32–4, for coins crossing the Rhine probably under the Julio-Claudians; 34–7, for coins crossing the Upper Danube under the Flavians.

⁴⁴ Strabo V, 1, 8 (214); there is no further information in Panciera, S., Vita economica di Aquileia in età romana, Aquileia, 1957, 82Google Scholar. Note that Corsica was still a source of (bad) slaves in Strabo's day, V, 2, 7 (224).

⁴⁵ Contra Brockmeyer, N., Arbeitsorganisation und ökonomisches Denken in der Gutswirtschaft des römischen Reiches, Diss. Bochum, 1968, 152–3Google Scholar.