The Economic History of Byzantium From

216 MORRISSON AND SODINI

Table 2

Vandal Coinage ca. 450–533 (probable dates of minting)

Table 3

Byzantine Coinage in Carthage, 533–608

Table 4

Ostrogoth Coinage, 489–552

Table 5

Byzantine Currency in Italy, 540–602

seventh century, this twofold differential drifted upward to 20 nummi, as opposed to 40 at Athens or Antioch under Constans II.261 These specific patterns on occasion implied a different relation with gold coinage (probably 12,000 nummi to the solidus in Italy in the mid-6th century, as opposed to 7,200 at Constantinople; 360 folles to the solidus at Carthage under Maurice; 480 at Constantinople)262 and quite plausibly reflect differences in the level of prices that the scarce sources suggest, but do not allow us to calculate precisely.

While more marked in Africa and in Italy, such regional particularities were not limited to the West. In Thessalonike from 538 to 562 and in Alexandria during the entire sixth century and even thereafter, small denominations did not follow the general pattern. Thessalonike in fact struck bronze coins inscribed I"(16), I(10), H(8), D(4), B(2), and A(1), all with the marking AR which has long intrigued scholars, but is simply an abbreviation of “argyrion,” the Greek equivalent of nummus. During a brief period under Justinian, Alexandria struck a heavy piece marked LG(33) and, especially, pieces of 12 nummi (IB), as well as other coins, more rare, of 6 and 3 nummi. These differences among them are probably related to their specific gold-copper ratios.263

These specificities go hand in hand with a marked regional character in the circulation of small pieces, given that each province was for the most part, although not exclusively, supplied by its local mint. Such was the case for Africa and Egypt in particular, much less so for other regions of the empire. At Antioch, for example, while plentiful local issues represented 62% of the coin in circulation, Constantinople and the neighboring mints contributed more than a quarter of the currency supply; at Apameia and Dehes the proportions were reversed: 25% and 57%. The integration and mixing of the coinage undoubtedly took place, but to a lesser degree than during the Roman period, the second or the fourth century, for example; the noticeable similarities between diverse areas of the empire (p. 933, Fig. 6.1–15) nonetheless testify to a high degree of interregional relations.

The ubiquity of money and its indispensable character warrant to this day the celebratory terms of John Chrysostom: “The use of coin welds together our whole life, and is the basis of all our transactions. Whenever anything is to be bought or sold, we do it all through coins.”264 Cities and smaller towns such as Pernik (Dacia Mediterranea) or Sagalassos (Phrygia) yield sixth-century coins in numbers proportional to their relative importance, but finds do not emanate exclusively from urban centers. At the rural site of Dehes in northern Syria, for example, occupied levels of Phase 4 (last third of the

261C. Morrisson, “Carthage, production et circulation du bronze `a l’e´poque byzantine d’apre`s les trouvailles et les fouilles,” Bulletin de la Socie´te´ nationale des antiquaires de France (1988): 239–53.

262Hendy, Studies, 484–85; Durliat, “Taxes sur l’entre´e des marchandises.”

263Hendy, Studies, 497–98; W. Hahn, Moneta Imperii Byzantini, 3 vols. (Vienna, 1973–), passim, whose hypotheses are based on the metrology rather than on the texts.

264John Chrysostom, PG 51:99, translated and cited by S. J. B. Barnish, “The Wealth of Julianus Argentarius: Late Antique Banking and the Mediterranean Economy,” Byzantion 55 (1985): 37. On this ubiquity during the Roman period, see C. Howgego, “The Supply and Use of Money in the Roman World, 200 B.C. to 300 A.D.,” JRS 82 (1992): 30: “the normal use of coin as a means of exchange was ubiquitous in the Roman world.”

218 MORRISSON AND SODINI

6th century), excavated from 1979 to 1991, have yielded first-century Hellenic and Roman pieces that had been put back into circulation, six pieces from the fifth century, and five from the sixth. The small “hoards” of minimi or isolated finds of Byzantine bronze coins in Italy similarly testify to a vast distribution, from Calabria (Scolaccio and Massafra, for example), Campania (Castro dei Volsci, Fontana Liri, Minturnae, Sessa Aurunca, Cumae, etc.), and Latium, as well as the plain of the Po valley (the villa Clelia at Imola, Monselice, Salagareda) and the Veneto.265 Written texts—saints’ lives in particular266 but inscriptions as well—are both reminder and proof of the basic role of money in exchange and taxation: the decree of Abydos (late 5th century) assigns sportulae and tax rates in keratia and in folles: the 2 xestai to be paid by wine shippers (a little more than 1 liter) constitute a pourboire in the literal sense.267 Along the less traveled axes and even at town gates of cities of moderate size, the tariffs of Anazarbos and of Cagliari record taxes that were calculated in keratia and argyra (nummi) in the case of the former, and in nummi alone in the case of the latter, which deals mostly in payments in kind, unsurprising evidence of less active monetary circulation in Sardinia at the end of the sixth century.268

The solidus remained the unit essential to the stability of the system. Its weight consistently respected the standard of 1⁄72 of a pound fixed at its creation by Constantine; at the close of the fifth century it retained the high level of fineness (in excess of 99%) that had been restored by Valentinian’s novel of 367. The moderate debasement in its alloy (1.4% silver after Justinian, 98.2% gold on average from 527 to 685), while permitting a savings in precious metal (albeit on the very small scale of 0.5%), did not undermine confidence in the gold currency, which was the instrument of imperial spending and largesses, as well as the currency of both large-scale commerce and private transactions of a modest scale. Although its export was prohibited, coined gold nonetheless appears in finds outside the borders of the empire. We need not look to gifts, imperial tribute, or payments to mercenaries as the sole explanations; in certain cases it was trade, whether through formal dispensation or contraband, that determined the form of payment for merchandise. The issuance of a series of lightweight solidi (of 20 keratia) began under Justinian. These have been interpreted by some as currency specifically intended for trade with the barbarian West on the evidence of their frequent discovery in these regions; it is more likely, however, that the lightweight solidi represent a currency of forced exchange used by the state to effect expenditures during a period of crisis.

265E. A. Arslan, “La circolazione monetaria (secoli V–VIII),” La storia dell’alto medioevo italiano (VI–X secolo) alla luce dell’ archeologia (Florence, 1994), 497–519, and “Italia medievale,” in Survey of Numismatic Research, 1991–1995, ed. C. Morrisson and B. Kluge (Berlin, 1997), 447–68. S. J. B. Barnish, “Pigs, Plebeians and Potentes: Rome’s Economic Hinterland, c. 350–600 A.D.,” PBSR 55 (1987): 170, 175.

266See the list of sources assembled in Patlagean, Pauvrete´ ´economique.

267Text, translation, and commentary by Dagron, in Dagron and Feissel, “Inscriptions ine´dites du Muse´e d’Antioche.”

268G. Dagron, in Dagron and Feissel, Inscriptions de Cilicie, 170–85; Durliat, “Taxes sur l’entre´e des marchandises.”

The stability of intrinsic value was accompanied by a stability of prices expressed in gold. The important role played by the more readily available fractional denomina- tions—the semissis and tremissis—is illustrative of this “vertical” diffusion in a large part of the society.269 The distribution of coin finds both inside and outside the empire is testimony to a level of wealth and economic vitality that is undeniable. The vast geographic distribution of Byzantine gold coins, their penetration, and their widespread imitation in the barbarian kingdoms of the West, as well as in India and China, are measures of the influence of not only the imperial model, but also the underlying economy, which, in many respects, remained “Roman.”

Conclusion

By the first half of the sixth century, the empire had reached a fairly high level of prosperity as the result of a state of relative peace that had lasted at least several decades in the East. Over a territory that had been extended by the reconquest and fairly well defended, there prevailed a ranked and robust organization of space, with metropoleis, villages populated by farmers or small proprietors, and a growing network of large towns or secondary cities. The state (or its representation) was ubiquitous, and the same administrative and juridical principles held true for Petra, Hadrumetum, and Constantinople. A complex system of organization inherited from the Roman Empire governed both social life and the economic system. Roman tradition and Roman culture framed an output that was varied, well known, and widely distributed, whether in marble, ceramics, textiles, metalwork, or foodstuffs. Construction and planning techniques were of high quality, as were artisanal techniques, but represented merely the application or the development of principles that had been known since the end of the Hellenistic period or the late Roman Empire (glassblowing, hydraulic mills, screwpresses). A network of exchanges and of complex relations, in which the state played a role that partook more of incentive than dominance—contrary to what is too often argued—stimulated a diversified and monetized economy. Stabilized by Anastasios, the multimetal currency—the inheritance of Rome—provided a hierarchized and flexible instrument of exchange that was quite widely distributed. All things being equal, this picture might thus illustrate the formula of “development through trade.”

To be sure, significant changes took place, with important consequences for economic and social life, in particular, the creation of Constantinople and the expansion of Christianity. The first entailed the diversion of Egyptian wheat from Rome to the new capital. The second contributed to the gradual replacement of the curiae (which had often become inefficient in the management of the cities) with bishops, seconded by rich landowners, financiers, goldsmiths-bankers, and the representatives of imperial power. At the same time, the decline of certain regions that had come under barbarian control, or had fallen victim to the uncertainty of the times—particularly in the West

269 See in particular J.-P. Callu, “Le ‘centenarium’ et l’enrichissement mone´taire au Bas-Empire,” Ktema 3 (1978): 301–16.

220 MORRISSON AND SODINI

(the Balkans, the Danubian region, central Italy)—was counterbalanced by the development of others, such as Palestine, Arabia, Syria, and the coastal regions of the Aegean and the Adriatic.

Beginning in the second half of the sixth century, this ancient order began to fall apart. Demographic setbacks resulting from the plague weakened the imperial organization’s ability to withstand the invasions of Slavs, Sasanians, and Arabs. The Roman formulas no longer worked. Solutions that had been used in some regions until the end of the reign of Herakleios were now too limited in space and volume to reverse the course of events. It was at this point that the withdrawal into limited regional areas, the decline in exchange, the transformation of the urban network, and the ruralization of cities became manifest; these phenomena are analyzed in other chapters in this book.

Bibliography

Bagnall, R. S. Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton, N.J., 1993.

Barnish, S. J. B. “Pigs, Plebeians and Potentes: Rome’s Economic Hinterland, c. 350– 600 A.D.” PBSR 55 (1987): 157–85.

Callu, J.-P. “I commerci oltre i confini dell’impero.” In Storia di Roma, ed. A. Schiavone. Vol. 3.1 Turin, 1992.

Cracco Ruggini, L. Economia e societa` nell’ Italia annonaria: Rapporti fra agricoltura e commercio dal IV al VI secolo d. C. Milan, 1961. Reprint Bari, 1995.

Durliat, J. De la ville antique `a la ville byzantine: Le proble`me des subsistances. Rome, 1990. Foss, C. Cities, Fortresses and Villages of Byzantine Asia Minor. Aldershot, 1996.

Giardina, A., ed. Societa` romana e impero tardoantico. Vol. 3, Le merci, e gli insediamenti.

Rome, 1986.

Hodges, R., and W. Bowden, eds. The Sixth Century. Production, Distribution, and Demand.

Leiden, 1998.

Jacoby, D. Trade, Commodities and Shipping in the Medieval Mediterranean. Aldershot, 1997. King, G. R. D., and A. Cameron, eds. The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East. Vol. 2,

Land Use and Settlement Patterns. Princeton, N.J., 1994.

De Ligt, L. Fairs and Markets in the Roman Empire: Economic and Social Aspects of Periodic Trade in a Pre-industrial Society. Amsterdam, 1993.

Panella, C. “Merci e scambi nel Mediterraneo tardoantico.” In Storia di Roma, ed. A. Schiavone. Vol. 3. 2. Turin, 1993.

Paroli, L., and P. Delogu, eds. La storia economica di Roma nell’alto medioevo alla luce dei recenti scavi archeologici. Florence, 1993.

Patlagean, E. Pauvrete´ ´economique et pauvrete´ sociale `a Byzance, 4e–7e sie`cles. Paris, 1977. Sodini, J.-P. “Habitat de l’Antiquite´ tardive (1).” Topoi 5.1 (1995): 151–218.

———. “Habitat de l’Antiquite´ tardive (2).” Topoi 7.2 (1995): 435–577.

Anemourion

James Russell

The city of Anemourion, located on the east flank of Cape Anamur, the southernmost promontory of Asia Minor, has been the subject of investigation by Canadian archaeologists since 1965. Because of the dearth of written sources, most of what we know about the city and its history is based on the results of these excavations. The picture that emerges is consistent with cities in other parts of southern Asia Minor during the Roman and early Byzantine periods.1 From the first to the middle of the third century, Anemourion shared in the general prosperity of the eastern Roman Empire and, like many other cities of the region, issued its own copper coinage. To this period belong the most striking ruins still visible on the site, especially the extensive necropolis outside the walls and a cluster of public buildings at the southern end of the site. The most conspicuous of these is a spacious baths-palaestra complex more than 100 m in length dating from the mid-third century. Though never quite finished, it represents the most ambitious expression of the prosperity the city enjoyed during the second and early third century. This prosperity came to a decisive end with the city’s capture by the Persian forces of the Sassanid Shapur I around 260.2 This was followed by a long period of unrest throughout the region, culminating in a succession of Isaurian rebellions during the fourth century. Anemourion was especially exposed, and for a time at the end of that century it was occupied by a military garrison responsible for renewing its defenses.3

The revival of the city’s fortunes in the fifth century is evident in the building of at least four churches and two small baths (Fig. 1). Some of these buildings too have

1For summaries of the history and antiquities of the site on the basis of fieldwork, see J. Russell, “Anemurium: The Changing Face of a Roman City,” Archaeology 33.5 (1980): 31–40; The Mosaic Inscriptions of Anemurium, Erga¨nzungsba¨nde zu den Tituli Asiae Minoris 13 ( DenkWien 190) (Vienna, 1987), 15–23. Interim reports of field work in progress have appeared regularly since 1966 in Tu¨rkArkDerg and in “Recent Archaeological Research in Turkey” in AnatSt. All of the objects discussed here are housed in the Anamur Museum.

2E. Honigmann and A. Maricq, Recherches sur les Res Gestae divi Saporis (1953), 2.21, pp. 14, 149, 153.

3E. Alfo¨ldi-Rosenbaum, “Matronianus, Comes Isauriae,” Phoenix 26 (1972): 183–86; C. P. Jones, “The Inscriptions from the Sea-Wall at Anemurium,” Phoenix 26 (1972): 396–99; J. Russell, “The Military Garrison of Anemurium during the Reign of Arcadius,” in Atti del XI Congresso Internazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina, Settembre 1997 (Rome, 1999), 721–28.

222 JAMES RUSSELL

been explored, revealing well-preserved mosaic floors, some of which were donated by private individuals whose names are recorded in inscribed panels.4 Anemourion, in common with other communities of the region, probably benefited from the favor that the Isaurian emperor Zeno I (474–491) bestowed on his native land, and the city seems to have prospered well into the following century. There is ample evidence for a sharp decline in the city’s fortunes sometime before the end of the sixth century, however, probably accelerated by an earthquake that caused widespread damage around 580. The effects are evident in the collapse of the roofs of at least two of the churches and in the breakdown of the aqueduct system, which accounts for the construction of wells as an alternative source of water and the transformation of whatever baths were still functioning to other uses.5 The failure of the inhabitants to repair or rebuild structures affected by the earthquake, however, clearly reflects the city’s impoverished state. This condition was perhaps exacerbated by a serious loss of population and by the increasingly turbulent conditions that attended the long Persian War (611–628) and the subsequent depredations of marauders that plagued the Anatolian coast in the aftermath of the Arab invasions of Cyprus in 649 and 653/654. The marked break in the series of coin finds that occurs around 660, especially when associated with evidence for the abandonment of the various seventh-century houses explored, indicates that human activity on the site during the last decades of the seventh century was much reduced and had probably ceased completely by the early eighth century.6

Compared to the flourishing city of the early Roman Empire or the Christian city of the fifth and early sixth centuries, the community of Anemourion in the final decades of its existence (ca. 580–660) was a sadly diminished shadow of its predecessors. It is an interesting irony, however, that the circumstances of its abandonment have made it possible to present a far more detailed account of the daily lives and occupations of the city’s residents and the commerce and industry that they practiced in this final phase of its history than in any earlier phase. A great deal of the evidence comes from the vast baths-palaestra complex of the mid-third century, which had long ceased to fulfill its original function. Indeed, the process of dismantling the architectural decoration of the palaestra seems to have begun within less than a century of its construction. By the late sixth century the colonnaded porticoes of the palaestra had disappeared completely, its mosaic floor lay concealed beneath 25 cm of earth fill, and much of its open space was occupied by modest houses forming virtually a small village community. Especially noteworthy was a sequence of three houses standing more or less in line from west to east overlying the mosaic of the long dismantled north portico of the palaestra (Fig. 2). The most informative feature of these buildings was the wellstratified context of the many objects rejected or overlooked by the last occupants when

4Russell, Mosaic Inscriptions, 61–69, 76–89.

5For a detailed account of a well in the palaestra area, see C. Williams, “A Byzantine Well-Deposit from Anemurium (Rough Cilicia),” AnatSt 27 (1977): 175–90.

6For a summary of coin finds at Anemourion for the years 641 to 705, see J. Russell, “Transformations in Early Byzantine Urban Life: The Contribution and Limitations of Archaeological Evidence,”

The 17th International Byzantine Congress: Major Papers (New York, 1986), 137–54, esp. 154 n. 37.

5. Anemourion, seventh-century pottery kiln in the service area of the small Byzantine baths (photo: Hector Williams)