New Remarks on the Flow of Byzantine Coins in Avaria and Walachia During the Second Half of the Seventh Century
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NEW REMARKS ON THE FLOW OF BYZANTINE COINS IN AVARIA AND WALACHIA DURING THE SECOND HALF OF THE SEVENTH CENTURY Péter Somogyi History of research In Avar archaeology, associating minting dates of coins found in burial assemblages with the ruling years of the issuing emperors was for a long time an established practice. Such a rough dating of coins found in burial assemblages led to the conclusion that the fl ow of Byzantine gold coins in Avaria was uninterrupted until ca. 680 (the date of the most recent coins of Byzantine origin found in burial assemblages, which is in fact to be placed at some point between 674 and 681), aft er which it died out abruptly. A historical interpretation was quickly found to fi t the model: direct links between Constantinople and Avaria were interrupted by the Bulgar conquest of the Balkans in 680/1. Th is interpretation was shortly aft erwards abandoned in favor of the idea that the absence of Byzantine coins dated aft er 681 has much more to do with the decline of Byzantine coinage beginning with the reign of Constantine IV.1 As early as the 1970s, István Bóna has dealt with the catalogue and precise identifi cation of the Byzantine coins found in Avaria.2 He noticed that the last gold coins struck for Heraclius that have been found in burial assemblages were those issued between 616 and 625, while the earliest coins struck for Constans II and found in Avaria are those of 654–659. He interpreted this phenomenon as indicating that follow- ing the failed siege of Constantinople in 626, the Avars stopped receiv- ing stipends from Constantinople. By contrast, the presence of gold and silver coins of Constans II and Constantine IV, all dated aft er 650, was to be explained by means of the migration of the Onogur Bulgars. 1 For the history of research, see Somogyi 1997, 7–9 and Winter 2000, 46–47. See also Bálint 2004a, 52. 2 Bóna 2002, 477; Bóna 2003, 294. 84 péter somogyi In contrast to other opinions,3 Bóna did not believe it possible that the Avars could have been again paid stipends and gift s aft er 650. His major argument was that the gold coins of Constans II and Constantine IV appear in those burial assemblages, which, on the basis of the associated grave goods, he had attributed to the Bulgar newcomers. Previously set- tlers of the Black Sea area, the Onogur Bulgars had been paid betwen 626 and 670 large amounts of Byzantine gold, which they carried with them into Avaria when fl eeing the invading Khazars. Since in Avaria, no other coins have been in circulation since 626, the coins found in the Bulgar graves must have been brought from the homeland north of the Black Sea.4 Th is interpretation forces one to accept a single, mediated fl ow of Byz- antine gold and silver coins, but provides an apparently easy explanation for the lack of any coins minted aft er 681. As in 1970, Bóna interpreted this negative evidence as indicating economic and monetary troubles in the Byzantine Empire.5 Th is was the state of research when in 1992 I began a new study of the Byzantine coins found in assemblages dated to the Avar period. My investigations were directly linked to Bóna’s work, if only because I had from him the entire gazeteer that he had not managed to publish, together with DOC-based attributions for every coin. Th is, however, did not at all imply that I also inherited his interpretation of the fl ow of Byzantine coins into Avaria. My conclusions at that time were based primarily on coins known to have been found in Avaria, as knowing that another extensive investigation was in preparation, I had left aside all stray finds from Austria.6 In hindsight, that turned out to be a poor choice. But the idea that I deliberately limited my approach to the material must equally be rejected. On the other hand, it is true that I refused to incorporate the seventh- and eighth-century coins of unknown or uncertain origin, which are now in the numismatic collection of the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest. But I did not ignore their existence, for there are several references to them in my book’s appendices, which spell out the reasons for my decision to leave them out of the fi nal gazeteer.7 I dealt in 3 Somogyi 1997, 119 with n. 29 and 127 with n. 117 summarizes the earlier positions on this issue. 4 Bóna 1993, 531 and 536. 5 Bóna 1993, 536. Th is position has been refuted by Somogyi 1997, 120 with n. 30. 6 Somogyi 1997, 20 with n. 23. In the meantime, the Austrian fi nds have been pub- lished and discussed by Winter 2000. 7 Somogyi 1997, 112 with n. 9; 113–114, 115 with n. 17; 119 and 128 with n. 22. .