JAN 11, 2021, p.

XX-YY

Augustan coins from Sisak and coin circulation

in the Augustan period in Siscia

Tomislav BILIĆ*

Abstract ‒ The important Iron Age settlement of numismatic record should not be treated as identical,
Segest(ic)a (southwestern Pannonia, now Sisak, to the point that it remains an open question to
Rep. of Croatia) was captured by Octavian in 35 BC. what extent, if any, were the former involved in the
Sometime during the late 1st c. BC and/or the early latter. The answer to this question was sought for in
1st c. AD a Roman legionary camp was established in stratified deposits recently documented in controlled
the now Roman Siscia, which remained an important archaeological excavations in the area occupied
military centre up to the early Claudian period. by the modern Sisak, even though these are not
At the same time, a civilian settlement gradually particularly numerous and are often inconclusive.
developed on the same site, but its relation to the This has conditioned the provisional nature of the
legionary camp remains largely undocumented in interpretations and conclusions reached in this essay
the archaeological record. The present paper analyses (including the important question of the precise
the coin finds from Sisak issued during Augustus’s localisation of the legionary camp), which is thus
reign and attempts to reconstruct the coin supply and meant to be a modest contribution constrained, as
coin loss during the Augustan period in Siscia. It is always, by the present state of research.
immediately recognized that these two categories of

Keywords:

Résumé – L’important établissement de l’Âge du Fer devaient pas être traitées de la même façon, au point
de Segest(ic)a (sud-ouest de la Pannonie, act. Sisak, que la question du rapport de la première avec la
Rép. de Croatie) a été occupé par Octave en 35 av. J.‑C. seconde reste ouverte. La réponse à cette question a été
À un moment indéterminé à la fin du Ier s av. ou au demandée aux dépôts stratifiés récemment documentés
début du Ier s. apr. J.-C., un camp militaire romain fut au cours de fouilles archéologiques menées dans la
installé dans la nouvelle Siscia romaine, qui restera un zone occupée par la Sisak moderne, même si elles ne
centre militaire important jusqu’au début de la période sont pas très nombreuses et demeurent souvent peu
claudienne. Simultanément, un établissement civil concluantes. Ces éléments ont conditionné le caractère
s’est progressivement développé sur le même site, mais provisoire des interprétations et conclusions avancées
ses relations avec le camp légionnaire demeurent mal dans cet essai (y compris l’importante question de
documentées par les données archéologiques. Le présent la localisation précise du camp légionnaire), qui se
article analyse les découvertes de monnaies frappées veut donc une modeste contribution, limitée, comme
par Auguste et tente de reconstruire l’alimentation toujours, par l’état actuel de la recherche.
en numéraire et les pertes de monnaies au cours de
cette période à Siscia. Il a été immédiatement reconnu
que ces deux catégories de données numismatiques ne

Mots clés :

* Viši kustos, viši znanstveni suradnik / senior curator, senior research assistant ‒ Voditelj Numizmatičkog
odjela / Head of the Numismatic department ‒ Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu / Archaeological museum in
Zagreb ‒ Trg Nikole Šubića Zrinskog 19, HR-10000 Zagreb. Contact: [email protected]

– 27 –
Tomislav Bilić

Table of contents

1. Coins in the archaeological record

1.1. Isolated coins
1.2. The ‘hoard’ from the dredging of the Kupa
2. Analysis of Augustan coins
2.1. The silver coins
2.2. The bronze coins
2.3. Halved coins
2.4. Countermarks
3. Conclusions
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fig. 1 ‒ Map of the Pannonian region with the location of the city of Siscia

– 28 –
 augustan coins from Sisak and coin circulation in the Augustan period in Siscia

D uring the first two decades of the 21st c. a number of controlled archaeological
excavations were conducted in the area occupied by the modern Sisak, erected upon
the remains of ancient Segesta/Segestica/Siscia (map fig. 1). Almost all of these excavations
yielded at least some Roman coins, several of them in significant quantities. In particular,
Augustan coins (i.e. the coins issued roughly after the Battle of Actium, the vast majority of
which were issued in the wake of the monetary reform of 23 BC) were found at the following
positions, all located on the left bank of the Kupa: Kolodvor (which yielded by far the
largest quantity of Augustan coins), Lučka kapetanija, Dunavski Lloyd (another important
position for the study of the Augustan coins in Sisak, but whose significance is marred by the
discrepancy between the published material and excavation record), Holandska kuća, Rimska
25, Starčevićeva 40, Euroagram, Povijesni arhiv, Zagrebačka and Odra (these positions can
be rendered in English as Railway station, Port captaincy, The Danube Lloyd, The Dutch
House, 25 Roman Street, 40 Starčevićeva Street, The Euroagram building, State Archives,
Zagrebačka Street and Odra, respectively) [1]. These finds represent the first stratified deposits
of Augustan coins in Sisak and allow a reappraisal of the hitherto established conclusions
on this phenomenon. Unfortunately, both ‘stratified deposits’ and ‘hitherto established
conclusions’ are somewhat misleading formulations. The coins recovered in archaeological
excavations largely remain unpublished and, when published, are rarely contextualised in a
meaningful way from an archaeological perspective. It is thus very hard to assess the precise
stratigraphic context of the finds, including the more or less basic chronological information
on the deposits. At the same time, the Augustan coins from Sisak were hitherto discussed
infrequently and in passing (Kos 1986, p. 32-53; Bilić 2012a, p. 375-378, 380) and there is
nothing like the comprehensive study of Augustan coins offered by Alenka Miškec for the
region adjacent to Siscia in the west (Miškec 2009), so one cannot properly speak of a current
state of research at all. Somewhat ironically, while the archaeologists primarily focused on the
earliest periods of Roman interaction with Segesta/Segestica/Siscia, including the Augustan
period [2], the numismatists were much more interested in the functioning of the Siscian mint,
established during Gallienus’s reign (one does not have to go any further than to mention
Andreas Alföldi’s studies on the mint of Siscia). Thus the early Imperial coinage seems to
have remained in something of a blind spot for both archaeologists (who, as a rule, bypassed
the numismatic evidence) and numismatists.
At the outset, it must be made clear that one should distinguish between the Augustan
coins from Sisak and coin circulation in the Augustan period in Siscia (this distinction
is often unrecognized by archaeologists with little or no experience in numismatics). It
remains an open question to what extent, if any, were the former involved in the latter. The
answer to this question can only be provided by stratified deposits, which are few and often
inconclusive [3]. This situation is, regrettably, not exclusive for Sisak, but Sisak offers a rare
example of a relatively large number of coin finds that allow a comparison with a narrative
formulated by the analysis of literary sources testifying to potentially contemporary historical
events. One instance of such a comparison, or rather an attempt at one made in passing,
offers a straightforward assimilation of the numismatic record to the reconstructed narrative:

[1]
The last-named position (‘Odra’) is outside the area of the ancient settlement; the single Augustan coin
found at this site comes from a position on the right bank of the Odra (excavated in 2010), beyond the north-
western necropolis of Siscia (itself partially excavated as ‘Odra 2009’).
[2]
See, for example, the essays collected in Drnić 2018.
[3]
For a discussion of a similar methodological approach see Kemmers 2006, p. 24-25. The more modest results
of the present study are the result ‒ besides the respective competences of the researchers involved ‒ of
poorly published excavations conducted at Sisak.

– 29 –
Tomislav Bilić

the presence of Augustan to Claudian coins at various sites on the left bank of the Kupa is
taken as no less than evidence for the location of the Augustan-period legionary camp, the
existence of which has been assumed from the accounts in literary sources and endlessly
discussed in scholarly literature ever since [4]. While these coins do not in principle contradict
this hypothesis (even though those that are properly stratified partially do contradict it, as
will be shown below), they certainly do not unconditionally support it either.
The precise localisation of a legionary camp ‒ or camps ‒ in Siscia is a vexed and complex
question (fig. 2). The town’s substantial involvement (as Segesta/Segestica/Siscia) in Roman
military operations, especially in the period 35 BC ‒ AD 9, as well as its role as a military base
up to the early Claudian period, are the primary cause of this complexity. Another reason
is the hitherto unresolved issue of the precise relation between Segest(ic)a and Siscia, most
prominently, the hypothesized localisations of both the Late Iron Age and early Roman
settlement(s) with respect to the Kupa. The standard narrative ‒ upheld until quite recently ‒
postulated the existence of a prehistoric settlement bearing the name Segest(ic)a on the right
bank of the Kupa, occupying the Pogorelac elevation almost surrounded by a meandering
river bend, which was captured by Octavian after a siege in 35 BC. At some unspecified point,
a legionary camp was believed to have been constructed on the left bank of the Kupa opposite

Fig. 2. ‒ The Dunavski Lloyd (red circle) and Kolodvor (red ellipse) positions within a hypothetical legionary camp
of the Augustan-Tiberian period as reconstructed by I. Drnić (yellow dashed line) (Drnić 2018, p. 11, fig.1).
Map data: Google Earth, Maxar Technologies (adapted by the author)

[4]
Škrgulja 2018, p. 125. The assumed date of the camp is implicit in the formulation ‘immediately after the
occupation’ used to account for the presence of coins in a presumed military context at the positions on the
left bank of the Kupa.

– 30 –
 augustan coins from Sisak and coin circulation in the Augustan period in Siscia

Pogorelac, out of which the Roman town of Siscia eventually developed. This simplistic
picture has been challenged by recent archaeological excavations, which have undoubtedly
established the existence of a Late Iron Age settlement on the left bank of the Kupa, alongside
the settlement on Pogorelac. Additional complications appeared in close readings of several
ancient sources (Strabo, Pliny, Appian, Cassius Dio) that describe the topography and
historical events involving Segesta/Segestica/Siscia but are often obscure and sometimes even
downright contradictory. The results of these new considerations are at the moment rather
tentative and still in development, which prevents the formulation of a final word on the
subject. But a short overview of the current state of research on the legions stationed at one
point in Segesta/Segestica/Siscia, as well as on the possible locations of the legionary camp ‒
or camps ‒ is possible even at this rather sensitive juncture in the study of topography and
history of Segesta/Segestica/Siscia at the turn of the 1st c. BC/1st c. AD.
It appears that already in 35 BC there might have existed some form of military infrastructure
on the left bank of the Kupa opposite Pogorelac, perhaps initially as part of the circumvallation
of Segest(ic)a. It is possible that at this time a legionary camp was located on this bank of the
river, although there is no archaeological confirmation for this claim [5]. In any case, a strong
garrison ‒ probably composed of legionaries ‒ was left in the town following its capture
(Radman-Livaja 2018, p. 152-153 and 158). Furthermore, the VIth and XXth legions might
have been stationed in Siscia prior to AD 6, perhaps even prior to 13 BC (Radman-Livaja
2012, p. 164; 2015, p. 35-36; 2018, p. 155-158), while Tiberius’s mighty army was gathered
at the town in AD 6 (Radman-Livaja 2012, p. 165-166; 2015, p. 37-38; 2018, p. 159). It was
argued ‒ once again recognizing the nonexistence of solid archaeological confirmation ‒ that
Tiberius’s camp, or one of his camps, erected at the beginning of the Pannonian War in 12
BC, might have been situated on the right bank of the Kupa, i.e. on Pogorelac (Radman-Livaja
2007, p. 164-166; Radman-Livaja and Vukelić 2018). In the wake of the Great Illyrian Revolt,
after AD 9, the XVth legion was stationed at Siscia, leaving the camp in c. AD 14/15, while the
IXth legion left the Siscia camp in c. AD 43 (Radman-Livaja 2012, p. 169; 2015, p. 41-42; 2018,
p. 160-161). After AD 42-45 the legionary camp at Siscia was vacated (Radman-Livaja 2012,
p. 169-170; 2015, p. 42; 2018, p. 161), but some troops were garrisoned there after the departure
of the legions (Radman-Livaja 2012, p. 171; Radman-Livaja 2015, p. 43). Even though it was
upheld as recently as a decade back that the (or a) legionary camp could have been situated on
the right bank of the Kupa from 12BC/AD 9 onwards, the recent archaeological excavations
have significantly modified this otherwise archaeologically unsubstantiated presupposition
(Radman-Livaja 2007, p. 167; cf. 2018, p. 167-168). Thus the remains of timber structures, the
evidence for large-scale terrain levelling and several categories of small finds (characteristic
pottery and glass objects, fragments of ‒ probably ‒ parts of military equipment, luxury items)
discovered at various positions on the left bank of the Kupa (such as those enumerated at the
beginning of this paper) seem to suggest the existence of an early 1st c. (mid to late Augustan
‒ Tiberian period) camp at the location of the later civilian settlement of Siscia opposite
Pogorelac [6].
This short overview of the current state of research reveals both general certainties (a
permanent legionary camp must have existed in Segesta/Segestica/Siscia at least after 12BC/
AD 9) and uncertainties in particular details (the precise location of the legionary camp, its

[5]
Radman-Livaja 2007, p. 167; Radman-Livaja and Vukelić 2018, p. 408-409; Radman-Livaja 2018, p. 167 with
n. 59.
[6]
Radman-Livaja 2007, p. 167; Drnić 2018, p. 11 fig. 1, 12, 14-15 and 20; Jerončić, Paro & Mesarić 2018, p. 174,
178, 190 and 194; Miletić Čakširan 2018, p. 199-200 and 215 (cautiously); Radman-Livaja 2018, p. 167-168;
Radman-Livaja and Vukelić 2018, p. 409; Škrgulja 2018, p. 125.

– 31 –
Tomislav Bilić

occupation history), mediated by an uncertainty that is fast becoming an established fact: that
the camp was situated on the left bank of the Kupa, where later the civilian settlement of Siscia
developed, opposite Pogorelac and its Late Iron Age settlement presumably called Segest(ic)
a. Literary sources notwithstanding, the archaeological evidence seems unequivocal: if there
was a legionary camp anywhere in the area of modern Sisak, it was situated on the left bank
of the Kupa. But do the coin finds support this conclusion and, more specifically, do the coin
finds suggest the existence of a legionary camp on the left bank of the Kupa in the Augustan
period? The answer to these questions revolves upon the precise relation between the actual
finds of the Augustan coins from Sisak and coin circulation in the Augustan and successive
periods in Siscia.

1. Coins in the archaeological record

1.1. Isolated coins
The first facet of the problem consists of the estimation of the role of pre-Augustan coins
in the circulation in the Augustan and successive periods in Siscia. Several stratified pre-
Augustan coins found in an Imperial context were published recently: two Celtic/Iron Age
tetradrachms of the Samobor A and late Đurđevac types were respectively found in Early
Imperial layers at the Povijesni arhiv and Frankopanska ulica b.b. positions (Bilić 2018,
p. 268-269 cat. 1, 3), while a small Celtic/Iron Age silver coin of the Magdalensberg type was
found in a ‒ presumably ‒ Early Imperial context at the Railway station, together with another
late debased Đurđevac tetradrachm [7]. All three positions are situated on the left bank of the
Kupa. Even though there is no additional information on the stratigraphic context of these
finds, they prove that Celtic/Iron Age coins were in use during the Julio-Claudian period in
Siscia, even if their precise function cannot be established on present evidence [8]. In addition,
Republican denarii were found in Early Imperial layers at several positions on the left bank
of the Kupa [9], one apparently in a Claudian/Neronian or perhaps early Flavian layer [10],
with several more Republican coins from the Railway station probably also belonging to an
Imperial context [11]. Furthermore, as much as five halved Republican asses most probably also
belonged to the Early Imperial circulation, [12] as elsewhere in the region. [13] This is supported
by two stratified halved asses (PN 374 and 398) from the Railway station, which were found
in SU 535 together with a Claudian as (PN 378, AD 50-54). This stratigraphic unit represents
a Claudian-period structure with monumental walls [14]. Another halved as (PN 1922), was
found in SU 1067 ‒ also at the Railway station ‒ together with a Republican denarius RRC

[7]
Bilić 2018, p. 269 cat. 5; Bilić, Nađ, forthcoming. This is not completely certain, since these coins were found
in the excavations of a pedestrian underpass (unpublished), which might conceivably reveal a LIA layer.
[8]
For the use of the Celtic/Iron Age coins during the Julio-Claudian period at Magdalensberg see Krmnicek
2010, p. 96-98 and 127-139.
[9]
Bilić 2018, p. 270 cat. 7 (Ivana Kukuljevića Sakcinskog b.b.) and other coins discussed immediately below.
[10]
Bilić 2018, p. 270 cat. 11 (Railway station). On this coin see immediately below.
[11]
Bilić 2018, p. 270 cat. 6, 10 and 12. For the use of Roman Republican denarii in Pannonia up to the 2nd c. AD
see Bilić 2012a, p. 374-375.
[12]
Bilić 2018, p. 269 cat. 1-4 (Railway station); PN 36 = GMS 21492 (Holandska kuća, unpublished).
[13]
Kos 1986, p. 30; 2006, p. 72-3; cf. Miškec 2009, p. 288. For an overview of a parallel situation in the Upper
Rhine area see Frey-Kupper & Stannard 2018, p. 309-317.
[14]
Jerončić, Paro & Mesarić 2018, p. 183-184. The authors add that a coin of Vespasian was also found in
SU 535, but this is not corroborated by the excavation records. In any case, this would not change the fact
that the asses were in use in the Early Imperial period.

– 32 –
 augustan coins from Sisak and coin circulation in the Augustan period in Siscia

448/3 and two Augustan coins (a moneyers’ quadrans of 8 BC and an as of AD 10/11), three
Claudian asses, one indeterminable Julio-Claudian as and a Vespasian dupondius RIC 887
(from AD 76) [15]. One more halved Republican as was found at the Railway station (PN 1261)
in SU 526 together with two Augustan coins (one halved moneyers’ as and one quadrans),
one indeterminable Julio-Claudian as and an as of Nerva of 96-97. A heavily worn legionary
denarius was found in SU 4 with an as of Nerva of 97 (PN 6, non vidi) at the Starčevićeva
40 position, but certainly in a compromised context [16]. Finally, a Republican denarius (RRC
467/1a) was found in SU 280 at the Railway station together with three Augustan coins (one
imitation), Tiberius RIC 83? (MIR: AD 36-37) and Claudius RIC 113 (AD 50-54), all bronze
coins. This SU represents the layer of filling of the abovementioned Claudian-period structure
with monumental walls and is not later than the late 1st c. AD (Jerončić, Paro & Mesarić 2018,
p. 184). Further unambiguous proof of the use of Republican coins in the Imperial period at
Sisak is provided by a punch-marked legionary denarius (illegible legion number, most likely
to be RRC 544/20 or 26) fused with an as of Domitianus (RIC 492-493, AD 86) found at the
Pogorelac position in 2018 (PN 731) [17]. This position is located on the right bank of the Kupa,
opposite the Roman Siscia, which may have functioned as its industrial quarter, but also
where a necropolis and other sepulchral facilities were located (Radman-Livaja 2007, p. 168-
169). Thus Republican coins (both halved asses and denarii) were certainly involved in the
circulation of the Julio-Claudian and later periods in Siscia, but the extent of this involvement
cannot be established on present evidence. It can be presumed that halved Republican asses
were used as small change already in the Augustan period, although this cannot be supported
at the moment with stratified coins, but they were certainly used as such in the Julio-Claudian
Siscia, whether in the context of a legionary camp or a civilian settlement.
The Iron Age/Celtic and Republican coins found in the archaeological excavations at
the Dunavski Lloyd position pose a special challenge to one attempting to interpret their
stratigraphic context. They were published as coming from ‘pre-Roman layers’, underneath
a layer of burning marking the destruction of Segestica in 35 BC (Koprivnjak 2010a, p. 29-
31; Škrgulja 2018, p. 114), and I have in my earlier papers accepted this information as
reliable, not having the excavation records at my disposal (Bilić 2017; 2018). Having obtained
those, as well as some of the actual finds [18], I now believe that a reappraisal of the published
information and their interpretation is necessary. At the outset, I must emphasize that the
excavation records are incomplete and sometimes contradictory, which makes the discussion
on stratigraphic positioning that much harder. Nevertheless, the records show that previous
interpretation was incorrect and somewhat misleading. Two Iron Age/Celtic coins were
reportedly found in the excavations: a Syrmian type C bronze tetradrachm and a bronze coin
also published as a tetradrachm, but the diameter (9 mm) and weight (0,65 g) of which are
rather consistent with that of the Scordiscan minimi issued in the final phase of their minting
activity (type D) (Koprivnjak 2010a, p. 28-29, 48 nos. 1-2; Bilić 2018, p. 269 nos. 4, Add. 2).
The latter is heavily worn and cannot be precisely identified, but it certainly does not belong

[15]
In Bilić 2018, p. 270 n. 11 (ad RRC 448/3) the SU was defined as ‘Claudian/Neronian layer, perhaps early
Flavian’, on the strength of information obtained from the excavators. In Jerončić, Paro & Mesarić 2018,
p. 190 they date the layer ‒ without offering any further information on its character ‒ to Claudian to Flavian
period.
[16]
SU 4 seems to be an extremely heterogeneous unit, since a number of late-antiquity coins were also found
in it.
[17]
I would like to thank Ivan Drnić, who excavated these coins, for allowing me to study and discuss them here.
[18]
For which I would like to express my gratitude to Rosana Škrgulja and Iskra Baćani of the City Museum
Sisak.

– 33 –
Tomislav Bilić

to the Scordiscan coinage; it could represent a Tauriscan fractional coin. Nevertheless, both
coins were purportedly found in ‘pre-Roman layers’ (Koprivnjak 2010a, p. 29). But, according
to the excavation records, the type-C Scordiscan tetradrachm was actually found in SU 288,
together with a coin of Valentinianus I (PN 167). This cannot be right but suggests that its
value as a chronological indicator is seriously compromised. The small bronze coin was
found, according to the excavation records, in SU 305, where no other coins were discovered.
However, Koprivnjak assigns this coin to SU 307, a ‘layer of burning’ (Koprivnjak 2010a,
p. 30 and 48 no. 1). Another coin is assigned to this SU by Koprivnjak, a quinarius of 98 BC [19].
But the excavation records assign this coin to SU 298, which also contained a denarius of 157-
156 BC (Koprivnjak 2010a, p. 49 no. 3 = Bilić 2018, p. 269 no. 5), three Augustan moneyers’
coins (PN 207, 238, 253) and one Augustan ‘Altar’ I/II coin (PN 237). This firmly assigns the
Republican quinarius to the Augustan circulation, rather than a pre-Imperial one. However,
there is more complication: even though both the excavation records and Koprivnjak in his
catalogue (Koprivnjak 2010a, p. 49 no. 3) assign the denarius of 157-156 BC to SU 298, in his
text Koprivnjak assigns it to SU 289 (ibid., p. 30), which might be a slip of the pen; otherwise,
this SU contained three Augustan moneyers’ coins (PN 203 ‒ according to the paper note
next to the coin, but not the list of PN’s, 207 ‒ according to Koprivnjak (ibid., p. 53 no. 11),
but not the list of PN’s, 253 ‒ according to Koprivnjak (ibid., p. 53, no. 12) [20], but not the
list of PN’s) and a 4th-c. vota coin (PN 180). Except for the odd vota, SU 289 seems to reflect
an Augustan-period circulation. This leaves a denarius of 108-107 BC, assigned to SU 291
by both Koprivnjak and the list of PN’s, as the sole possible stratified pre-Imperial find of
a Republican coin [21]. What about the others? First of all, it seems that SU 289 and 298 were
regularly misread (probably by different persons at different times), which is unfortunate, but
only natural. When compared with the excavation records, Koprivnjak’s information appears
rather unreliable, and it seems only reasonable to follow the former, which would suggest the
following stratification of pre-Imperial coins found at Dunavski Lloyd: the type-C Scordiscan
tetradrachm was found in an unreliable context, while the small bronze coin, possibly Iron-
Age, was found in a further unresolved context (in contrast, if we were to believe Koprivnjak
here, both coins were found in a layer of burning atop of the Late Iron-Age layers, and would
thus belong to a pre-conquest circulation). Of the Republican coins, one was found in a
further unresolved context (but possibly pre-conquest), while the remaining two were both
found in SU 298, possibly reflecting the Augustan-period circulation. This conforms to the
situation attested elsewhere in the region, where the Republican denarii circulated widely in
the Imperial period. The interpretation of coin finds from the Dunavski Lloyd site offered
here differs significantly from earlier discussions but should not be considered conclusive. It
is, however, erected upon firmer evidence than its predecessors.
The second ‒ and central ‒ facet of the problem regarding the numismatic evidence for the
existence of a legionary camp on the left bank of the Kupa in the Augustan period is the role
of Augustan coins in the circulation in the Augustan period in Siscia. The subsequent analysis
will follow in the main Miškec’s study of Augustan coins from the southeastern Alpine and
western Pannonian regions, which did not include Siscia, for a simple reason that little or no
data were available at the time (Miškec 2009). In her study, Miškec has thoroughly analysed
previous research on the subject and I will fully utilize her results, without the need to retrace

[19]
For the correct attribution see Bilić 2018, p. 270 no. 9.
[20]
Actually, SU 289/298.
[21]
Koprivnjak 2010a, p. 49 no. 4 = Bilić 2018, p. 270 no. 8. Koprivnjak describes the context of the find in the
following words: ‘The second denarius was found in SU 291, also at the level of a semi-recessed dugout’s
floor…’ (Koprivnjak 2010a, p. 30, my translation).

– 34 –
 augustan coins from Sisak and coin circulation in the Augustan period in Siscia

her steps in formulating them. At the same time, I will try to bring into sharper focus the
stratified coins, since in the case of Siscia there is some, however scanty and often unreliable,
evidence of this type (indeed, more than a third of all Augustan coins from Sisak that I am
aware of come from archaeological excavations).
The role of Augustan coinage in coin circulation in Siscia must primarily be evaluated by a
study of the archaeological record. This study faces at the outset certain limitations, since the
archaeological excavations discussed here largely remain unpublished, at least in the form
that would allow a comprehensive and definitive study of Augustan coins found in controlled
excavations. Nevertheless, it is possible to offer a preliminary assessment of these finds and to
reach certain conclusions that have no ambition to be the final say on the matter.
A number of Augustan coins were found at various positions in Sisak together with other
coinage, i.e. within the same stratigraphic unit (SU). These other coins can thus contextualise
the Augustan coins, at least with respect to the latter’s chronological position. This coinage,
when later than the Augustan period, cannot date the arrival of Augustan coins in Siscia, but
can define the period in which they were in use and in which they were lost or discarded, i.e.
the moment they entered the archaeological record. I have already applied this same method
above in the analysis of pre-Augustan coins from Sisak (mainly Roman Republican coins),
which has yielded some interesting and more or less definite results. In the first place, we can
now be certain that Republican coins (both halved asses and denarii) were involved in the
circulation of the Julio-Claudian and later periods in Siscia. What about the Augustan coins?
Two of the most important positions for the study of Augustan coins in Sisak ‒ the ones that
yielded by far the largest number of Augustan coins ‒ are the Railway station and Dunavski
Lloyd. I have already outlined the problems with the use of the evidence from the latter,
which also appear in this context. At the Railway station the Augustan coins appear together
with other coinage in five different stratigraphic units:
• in SU 280 a countermarked imitation of a moneyers’ sestertius and two moneyers’ asses
were found together with a Republican denarius (RRC 467/1a), Tiberius RIC 83? (MIR: AD
36-37) and Claudius RIC 113 (AD 50-54). As we have seen, this SU represents the layer of
filling of the Claudian-period structure with monumental walls and is not later than the late
1st c. AD (Jerončić, Paro & Mesarić 2018, p. 184);
• in SU 378 a moneyers’ dupondius was found together with Claudius RIC 116 (AD 50-54);
• in SU 1067 a moneyers’ quadrans and a moneyers’ as (type II) were found together with
a halved Republican as, a Republican denarius RRC 448/3, three Claudian asses (RIC 95,
100/116, 106) and Vespasianus RIC 887 (AD 76);
• in SU 1308 a moneyers’ as was found together with Tiberius RIC 45 (RIC, MIR: AD 22-23)
and Claudius RIC 116 (AD 50-54). As already mentioned, the excavators date the layer ‒
without offering any further information on its character ‒ to Claudian to Flavian period
(Jerončić, Paro & Mesarić 2018, p. 190);
• in SU 526 a halved moneyers’ as and a moneyers’ quadrans were found together with a
halved Republican as and an as of Nerva of 96-97.
These circumstances strongly suggest that the Augustan coins were in use ‒ and were either
lost or discarded ‒ in the Claudian period (SU 280, 378, 1308?), as well as in the Flavian
(SU 1067, 1308?) and even during Nerva’s reign (SU 526), thus during the entire 1st c. This
naturally does not mean that these particular coins did not arrive earlier and were kept in
circulation by the end of the century; neither does it mean that other Augustan coins found
at the Railway station unaccompanied by other coins were not both used and deposited in
the Augustan period. For instance, in SU 589 a halved moneyers’ as was found together with

– 35 –
Tomislav Bilić

fragments of thin-walled pottery, cups of Aco type, cups of Sarius type and terra sigillata with
stamps of Saturninus and M. Serius Homullus (15 BC-AD 15) (Jerončić, Paro & Mesarić
2018, p. 174-175). This material might suggest an Augustan-period assemblage, but one
cannot exclude a somewhat later date.
The evidence from the Dunavski Lloyd ‒ even when the difficulties in the interpretation
of the finds from this position are taken into consideration ‒ in the main supports these
considerations. At this position the Augustan coins appear together with other coinage in
several different stratigraphic units:
• in SU 352 a moneyers’ as appears together with a halved Julio-Claudian as (perhaps an
imitation) and a medieval scodellato of Verona or Venezia, in a clearly compromised context;
• in SU 289 (according to Koprivnjak) two moneyers’ asses (one alternatively SU 298) and
a moneyers’ dupondius were found together with a Republican denarius (in Koprivnjak’s
text, alternatively SU 298 in his catalogue) and a 4th-c. vota (according to the paper note next
to the coin, the list of PN’s has SU 296);
• in SU 289 (according to the list of PN’s) a moneyers’ as was found together with a 4th-c. vota
(according to the paper note next to the coin, the list of PN’s has SU 296);
• in SU 296 a moneyers’ as appears together with a 4th-c. vota (according to the list of PN’s,
the paper notes next to the coins assign both to SU 289);
• in SU 298 two halved moneyers’ asses, a moneyers’ dupondius, a halved ‘Altar’ I/II as and a
halved Julio-Claudian as were found together with two Republican silver coins;
• in SU 293 a halved Nemausus bronze coin and a moneyers’ dupondius were found together
with Claudius RIC 97 (PN 183).
Thus SU 289, 296 and 352 seem clearly compromised, as does Koprivnjak’s SU 289 (otherwise,
if the clearly odd vota is discarded, this SU might represent an Augustan context). SU 293
represents a Claudian context, while SU 298 seems like an authentic Augustan assemblage.
Hence the importance of this position in the study of Augustan-period coin circulation in
Sisak, which might actually represent the only confirmed example of the evidence for the
Augustan-period circulation in ancient Siscia (once again, this does not mean that these
particular Augustan coins from post-Augustan contexts did not arrive earlier and were kept
in circulation for a certain period; neither does it mean that other Augustan coins found at
the Dunavski Lloyd unaccompanied by other coins were not both used and deposited in the
Augustan period).
The Augustan coins from SU 298 are represented by two halved moneyers’ asses, a
moneyers’ dupondius and a halved ‘Altar’ I/II coin. Unfortunately, the lattermost cannot be
precisely attributed to a series (I is dated to 15-10 BC, II to 9-14 AD, alternatively to 10-14
or 10-12) (Miškec 2009, p. 285-286). These coins (more precisely, the coins of the ‘Altar’ I
type) are very rare in the southeastern Alps and western Pannonia, except in Emona, where
they do appear in small numbers [22]. Miškec associates these coins with the military activities
in the region between 14 and 8 BC (Miškec 2009, 290) [23], but since the Sisak specimen
cannot be securely attributed to the first series, its potential association with this period
remains tentative (both series were otherwise present in the numismatic record in Siscia).
The moneyers’ asses also cannot be attributed to a particular moneyer (and thus can only be

[22]
Miškec 2009, p. 286 and 290; in Emona their share is 4% (Miškec 2017, p. 117, fig. 5, only the positions on
the left bank of the Ljubljanica).
[23]
See also Kos 1986, p. 37, who discards the association of Lugdunum and Nemausus coins in Pannonia with
troop movements in AD 6-9.

– 36 –
 augustan coins from Sisak and coin circulation in the Augustan period in Siscia

dated to 23-22 or 7-6 BC, series 1-2 or 7-8 Mattingly/von Kaenel, with series 7-8 dated to 3/2
BC by Kraft) [24], while the dupondius is dated to 23-17 BC (series 1-4 Mattingly/von Kaenel).
Even though moneyers’ bronzes reached the Rhine limes as late as 15 to 25 years after they
were minted, achieving their peak in the 20s, these coins appear to have been involved in coin
circulation in the Augustan period in the southeastern Alps and western Pannonia [25]. The
moneyers’ coins in general are rather imprecise chronological indicators, since from 4 BC to
AD 10 no bronze coins were minted in either Rome or Lugdunum, which necessitated their
persistence in circulation, alongside earlier coins of the Augustan and Republican period
(Miškec 2009, p. 284 and 289-290). At the same time, all three asses have been halved, which
is a phenomenon characteristic of ‒ but not confined to ‒ precisely the Augustan period (Kos
1986, p. 39; Miškec 2009, p. 288). With all this taken into consideration, it appears that the
coin assemblage of SU 298 might date to the Augustan period, although a somewhat later
date cannot be excluded [26].
Other positions on the left bank of the Kupa present a similar picture. At the Holandska
kuća position an as of CA coinage was found together with two Tiberian asses (RIC 45 and
81, dated to 22-23 and 16/17-22? in MIR, with the latter dated to c. 22/23-30 (?) in RIC), at
the Odra position a moneyers’ as was found together with a Vespasian as of AD 74, while at
the Zagrebačka position a moneyers’ dupondius was found together with a Tiberian as (RIC
53/59/65) [27]. These finds confirm the circulation of Augustan coinage in the post-Augustan
Julio-Claudian and Flavian period. At the same time, at Starčevićeva 40 an Augustan sestertius
(moneyers’?, non vidi) was found in an SU together with a 4th-c. (Constantius II) coin, in
a clearly compromised context. Thus, when an Augustan coin appears with non-Augustan
coinage, which defines the period in which it was in use and in which it was lost or discarded,
it is almost invariably contextualised in a later Julio-Claudian or Flavian period.

1.2. The ‘hoard’ from the dredging of the Kupa

In May of 1912 a group of 29 coins were allegedly found together in the dredging of the Kupa
at Sisak. These coins were recorded as a hoard by Mirnik under a general heading ‘the hoards
of the 1st c. BC’ (Mirnik 1981, p. 47 no. 85), dated to tpq 31 BC by Crawford and associated
with a group of hoards concluding with denarii of C. L. Caesares with a tpq of 2/1 BC by Kos
(Crawford 1985, p. 236; Kos 1986, p. 30). But it is completely unclear why this eclectic group
of coins (Roman Republican, Iron Age/Celtic, Epirote, Thracian, both silver and bronze,
various denominations) should constitute a hoard, since a large number of Roman coins
of the 1st and 2nd c. were also found in this same dredging of May of 1912 (all duly recorded
in the inventory books of the Numismatic Department of the Archaeological Museum in
Zagreb); Crawford’s tpq ignores the presence of coins of Rhoemetalces I and Augustus in this
group noted by Mirnik; Kos’s association with the C. L. Caesares-terminating hoards is also
inexplicable [28]. Thus the ‘hoard’ appears only a mirage, and the coins should rather be treated
as part of the coin supply of Siscia in the Imperial period (perhaps also earlier). The Augustan
coins from this group will thus be treated as single finds from a specific (riverine) context.

[24]
See van Heesch 1999, p. 349 and Kemmers 2006, p. 42 for Kraft’s dates. For von Kaenel’s series see von
Kaenel 1999, p. 367-368.
[25]
Wolters 2000-2001, p. 583; Kemmers 2006, p. 42; Miškec 2009, p. 287-288 and 290; Krmnicek 2010, p. 99,
tab. 46, p. 102-105, 108 and 127-131 (already in the early Augustan period at Magdalensberg).
[26]
This conclusion also applies to Koprivnjak’s SU 289.
[27]
Non vidi, the information comes from the list of PN’s (the Zagrebačka position).
[28]
The study of this ‘hoard’ in Bilić 2012, p. 131 and Bilić 2012c is also incomplete.

– 37 –
Tomislav Bilić

2. Analysis of Augustan coins

The total number of Augustan coins at my disposal found in Sisak ‒ 140 ‒ is a rather modest
corpus, especially in the light of numerous recent archaeological excavations conducted
at various positions throughout the town. But it is enough to provide the base for a first
comprehensive study of Augustan coinage in Sisak. The results of this study must necessarily
remain preliminary, dependent as they must be in the first place on future excavations, but
I do not believe that new finds will alter the picture presented here in any significant way
(mainly on the basis of comparison with similar ‒ and more comprehensively published ‒
sites in the region, primarily Emona and Celeia).

2.1. The silver coins

The proportion of bronze coins in the total number of Augustan coins from Sisak amounts to
a round 90%, with the remaining 10% consisting of gold (one specimen) and silver coins [29].
The small sample of silver coins prevents any meaningful statistical analysis, but the scarcity
of Augustan silver coins in Sisak can be related to a large share of silver coins ‒ primarily in
comparison to Ljubljana, but also Celje ‒ in the corpus of Republican coins from Sisak (fig. 3).
Thus the percentages of Republican silver coins for these respective sites are 97,98 % (Siscia,
with a single bronze coin), 58,87 % (Emona, with 51 bronze coins) and 80,28 % (Celeia, with
56 bronze coins) (Bilić 2017, p. 458-459). In addition, the share of Republican silver coins in
Carnuntum is 96,32 % (with the total of 15 bronze coins), which is very near to the values
for Sisak [30]. Previously this discrepancy was interpreted in terms of different chronological
contexts of the respective numismatic records, the one from Emona reflecting the circulation
of the 1st c. AD and the ones from Siscia and Celeia reflecting the circulation of the 1st c. BC [31].
But this interpretation, although partially correct, seems somewhat simplistic, especially
in the light of new archaeological excavations, which have unambiguously proved that
Republican denarii and (in a lesser measure) quinarii were involved in the coin circulation in
the Augustan period in Siscia, but also in post-Augustan Julio-Claudian and Flavian periods.

Republican coins
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% AE
40% AR
30%
Fig. 3 ‒ Bronze to silver ratio at 20%
various sites (Republican coinage) 10%
0%
Siscia Emona Celeia Carnuntum

[29]
I am not taking into consideration here an aureus from a Spanish mint documented in the AMZ inventories,
but no longer present in the collection (see below).
[30]
Vondrovec 2007, p. 106, tab. 2.12 for the number of silver coins as 393, without imitations, but including
Augustus’ pre-27 coins (Vondrovec 2007, p. 79 has 369 denarii and 394 silver coins in total, p. 82, tab. 2.1
has 394 Republican silver coins, p. 98, tab. 2.8 has 408 Republican denarii; Vondrovec 2007, p. 79 and 91,
tab. 2.3, p. 106, tab. 2.12 are consistent in the number of Republican bronzes). This number correlates with
the catalogue entries in the CD attached to FMRÖ III/2.
[31]
Kos 1986, p. 25 and 53-56 on Emona and Celeia and Bilić 2017, p. 459 (following Kos) on all three sites.

– 38 –
 augustan coins from Sisak and coin circulation in the Augustan period in Siscia

2.2. The bronze coins

At the same time, the proportion of bronze to silver Augustan coins in Celje and Ljubljana
is similar to that in Sisak (fig. 4): in Celje, 98 bronze (87.5 %) coins vs. 14 silver (12.5 %)
(Šemrov 2011, p. 27, tab. 7), in Ljubljana 309 bronze (96.56 %) vs. 11 silver coins (3.44 %) [32].
Almost identical ratios appear at Carnuntum, with 225 bronze (88,58 %) and 29 silver coins
(11,42 %) [33]. These ratios show that the numbers for Sisak should be interpreted in terms of a
general tendency, rather than a local specificity.
Augustan coins
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% AE
40% AR
30%
20% Fig. 4 ‒ Bronze to silver ratio at
10% various sites (Augustan coinage)
0%
Siscia Emona Celeia Carnuntum

The vast majority of bronze coins comprise moneyers’ emissions of 23/18 to 4 (alternatively,
3/2) BC. They comprise 69,42 % of all bronze Augustan coins from Sisak (without taking into
account five incerta coins in the total number of bronze coins and without including in the
number of moneyers’ coins the six heavily worn asses that could equally represent the series
of AD 10-12, i.e. RIC 469-471, but including the three imitations of moneyers’ coins) (fig. 5).
Compared to their share in the southeastern Alps and western Pannonia (82 %) [34], this is a
somewhat lower percentage, but is somewhat nearer to their share at Carnuntum (76,89 %)
(Vondrovec 2007, p. 91, tab. 2.4). However, if only the coins found in proper archaeological
excavations are taken into account (fig. 6) [35], the share of moneyers’ coins (79,17 %, without
taking into account two uncertain coins in the total number of bronze coins but including
the one imitation of moneyers’ coins) approaches their share in the southeastern Alps and
western Pannonia and even surpasses the Carnuntine percentage. The largest number of
moneyers’ coins belong to the second (22 BC) and seventh (7 BC) series (fig. 7), while other

[32]
FMRSl I 155/6, 8, 10, 13-14, 17, 21, 23-25, 27, 29-30, 32-34, 36-37, 40-42, 44, 47, 53, 56; III 83/2-3, 15, 17,
20-22; IV 85/2, 4-6, 10-11, 13-14; V 62/4, 6-7, 9-12, 14-15, 17, 19; VI 79/2, 5-7, 16.
[33]
Vondrovec 2007, p. 87, tab. 2.2, p. 98, tab. 2.8 and p. 106, tab. 2.12 for the consistent number of silver coins;
the number of bronze coins given in the text is from Vondrovec 2007, p. 91, tab. 2.3, 2.4 and p. 106, tab.
2.12, while at Vondrovec 2007, p. 98, tab. 2.8 the number of Augustan bronzes is 295 (a slip of the pen?).
According to the caption under Tab. 2.12 the total sum does not include imitations (18 coins) and non-RIC
provincial coins, but my tally of catalogue entries in the CD attached to FMRÖ III/2 suggests that the latter
are indeed included.
[34]
Miškec 2009, p. 286, fig. 3. At Ljubljana their share amounts to staggering 91% (Miškec 2017, p. 117, fig. 5,
only the positions on the left bank of the Ljubljanica).
[35]
In differentiating between a site coin series and feature-related coin record I am following von Kaenel 2009,
p. 9-15. Unfortunately, as noted in the above discussion, with several exceptions the vast majority of features
that actually yielded coins cannot (as yet) be precisely attributed to a specific period. Thus the ‘feature-
related coin record’ for the site of Sisak can be described as such only in the widest possible meaning of the
phrase.

– 39 –
 Tomislav Bilić

0,79% 0,79% 3,97%

3,17%
1,59%
4,76%
4,76%

4,76%

3,17%

7,94%

76,25%

Roma - moneyers' Roma - moneyers' II Roma - moneyers' I/II Lugdunum

Nemausus CA Thrace imitations Fig. 5 ‒ Augustan bronze coins from Sisak
Caesaraugusta Colonia Patricia incerta

4%
4%
6% 2% 2%

4%

2%

4%

72%

Roma - moneyers' Roma - moneyers' II Lugdunum Nemausus CA Fig. 6 ‒ Augustan bronze coins from Sisak
imitations Caesaraugusta Colonia Patricia incerta
from archaeological excavations

20

Imitations
18
Emissions 1-10

16

14

12

10

Fig. 7 ‒ Moneyers’ coins by series

2

0
1 2 1-2 3 4 1-4 5 6 5-6 7 8 7-8 9 10
emissions

– 40 –
 augustan coins from Sisak and coin circulation in the Augustan period in Siscia

series are represented rather equally. The share of the second series (21,54 %) is ca. four
times larger than its share at Emona and Carnuntum (with very similar respective shares of
this series, 5,91 % at Emona and 4,44 % at Carnuntum), while the seventh series is a third
less (29,23 %) in comparison with its share at Emona and Carnuntum (which are again very
similar in this respect with 47,85 % at Emona and 44,44 % at Carnuntum). At the same time,
the share of the first four moneyers’ emissions (23-17 BC) in the total number of moneyers’
coins at Emona and Siscia is very similar (38,17 % at Emona vs. 44,29 % at Siscia), while at
Carnuntum this percentage is significantly lower (23,69 %). However, if only the coins found
in proper archaeological excavations are taken into account (fig. 8), while the share of the
first four moneyers’ emissions in Siscia remains roughly the same (42,31 %), the share of the
second series drops dramatically to 9,09 % (which is still twice the percentage of the share
of this emission at Emona and Carnuntum), while the share of the seventh series rises to
42,31 %, thus approaching the levels at Carnuntum and Emona (fig. 9). It appears that the
coins of the moneyers’ emissions arrived earlier to Emona and Siscia than to Carnuntum,
which is only reasonable owing to the latter’s late Tiberian-early Claudian origin [36]. Twelve
10

5
Imitations
Emissions 1-10
4

2
Fig. 8 ‒ Moneyers’ coins from
1 archaeological excavations by series
0
1 2 1-2 3 4 1-4 5 6 5-6 7 8 7-8 9 10
60% emissions

50%

40%

30% Emona
Siscia
Carnuntum

20%

10%
Fig. 9 ‒ Moneyers’ coins by series -
comparison of Siscia, Emona and
0% Carnuntum
1 2 3 4 1-4 5 6 7 8 9 10
emissions

[36]
For the date of the earliest permanent legionary camp at Carnuntum see Mráv 2010-2013, p. 49 and 87 n. 5.

– 41 –
Tomislav Bilić

moneyers’ coins were halved (14,29 %), eleven asses and one dupondius, while ten original
and three (perhaps four, but I will leave this coin out of further consideration) imitations of
moneyers’ coins were countermarked (15,48 %), six asses, three dupondii (one imitation) and
four sestertii (two imitations).
Other bronze coins were represented in smaller numbers. Western mints of Nemausus and
Lugdunum are represented by six (4.96 %, without uncertain ones taken into account) and
seven coins (5.76 %, without uncertain ones taken into account), respectively. Of the former,
five belong to the second group of the first series (RPC 523) of 16-10 BC and the last one to
the second (RPC 524, 9-3 BC). Of the latter, two coins belong to the ‘Altar’ I series (15-10 BC),
four to the later ‘Altar’ II (9-14 AD), while the lattermost cannot be precisely attributed to a
series due to heavy wear. Both were halved in one case each, one Nemausus as or dupondius
RPC 523 and the heavily worn ‘Altar’ I/II as. The proportion of the issues of these two mints
in the numismatic record of Augustan coins from Sisak can be compared to their proportion
in the southeastern Alps and western Pannonia: Nemausus’ 4,96 % for Siscia is half of its
proportion in the latter (10 %) (Miškec 2009, p. 286, fig. 3), but significantly more than its
proportion at Carnuntum (1,33 %) (Vondrovec 2007, p. 91, tab. 2.4), while Lugdunum’s 5,76
% is somewhat more than its proportion in the southeastern Alps and western Pannonia (4
%) (Miškec 2009, p. 286, fig. 3), but somewhat less that its proportion at Carnuntum (8,89
%) (Vondrovec 2007, p. 91, tab. 2.4). Another group of bronze coins ‒ the so-called CA
coinage [37] ‒ is represented by six coins (4,96 %, without uncertain ones taken into account),
one of which is halved, and two countermarked (one of the two countermarked coins is an
imitation). The location of the mint or mints that issued these coins is at present uncertain,
but it was certainly in the eastern part of the Empire. The types found at Sisak, mainly RIC 486
(= RPC 2235 = Howgego 2c), with one specimen possibly RIC 501 (= RPC 2233 = Howgego
2a), were most probably minted in Asia [38]. Two bronze coins were issued by Spanish mints:
one halved as of Caesaraugusta and ‒ tentatively ‒ one as of Colonia Patricia. The latter
coins were occasionally found on the German frontier, namely at Haltern, Asciburgium and
Heftrich-Idstein (Knapp 1982, p. 200; Garcia-Bellido 2004, p. 137, 150 and 179), as were the
former (finds at Nijmegen, Oberaden, Neuss, Augst) (Garcia-Bellido 2004, p. 127, 146, 153
and 210). Finally, two Thracian bronzes of Rhoemetalces I ‒ an ally of the Romans who took
an active part in the Great Illyrian Revolt ‒ were also found at Sisak. [39]
As already noted, the modest number of silver coins found at Sisak makes for a sample
too small to be compared with the southeastern Alps and western Pannonia. Remarkably,
no silver coins of Lugdunum have so far been found at Sisak, even though they account for
72 % of all AR coins in the territory occupied by the adjacent modern Slovenia [40]. At the
same time, the silver coins from two mints in Hispania (perhaps Caesaraugusta and Colonia
Patricia) (RIC I, no. 25-26) make up 15.38 % of all silver coins at Sisak ‒ compared to 16 %
for the territory of modern Slovenia (Miškec 2009, p. 287, fig. 6) ‒ but their total number

[37]
On CA coinage see especially Howgego 1982 and RPC I, no. 380-381.
[38]
Howgego 1982, p. 6. The remaining coin of the CA series, a heavily worn imitation of RIC 485 or 486, most
likely imitated the latter.
[39]
Cass. Dio 55, 30; Youroukova 1976, p. 54. One RPC 1711 was also found at Carnuntum, FMRÖ III/2 33879.
[40]
Miškec 2009, p. 286 and 287, fig. 6. The only precious-metal coin issued by this mint found at Sisak is a C.
L. Caesares aureus RIC 206. It is certainly unusual that no C. L. Caesares denarii were found at Sisak, since
they were apparently produced to meet the demands of soldiers’ payments in the time of the Great Illyrian
Revolt and wars with Germanic tribes (Berger 2007: p. 115; Gaspari 2010, p. 87) and since no other denarii
were minted between 8 BC and AD 13/14 (Wolters 2002, p. 312; Berger 2007, p. 115; 2011, p. 530; Gaspari
2010, p. 87).

– 42 –
 augustan coins from Sisak and coin circulation in the Augustan period in Siscia

is just two coins. In addition, another 15.38 % ‒ i.e., another two coins ‒ of all silver coins
at Sisak come from another Spanish mint, Emerita (compared to 4 % for the territory of
modern Slovenia) [41], which means that almost a third of all silver coins of the Augustan
period arrived in Sisak from Hispania. Yet the numbers are too small to allow for any wide-
reaching conclusions to be drawn from them. If one would wish to speculate, these silver
coins could be associated with the two bronze coins from Spanish mints noted above [42], and
the presence of this coinage as a whole could be brought into connection with the legions
IX Hispana, XV Apollinaris and XX Valeria Victrix (which were all stationed in Iberia prior
to being transferred to Pannonia ‒ and perhaps Siscia ‒ in the Augustan period during the
Pannonian War and/or the Great Illyrian Revolt) and the relatively large number of Iberian
names on the tesserae from Siscia [43]. Perhaps further research will find some support for these
tentative combinations, but the intermittent presence of Hispanic silver and bronze coins
attested in Sisak on the northwestern border of the Empire suggests that this phenomenon is
not of local origin and should not be associated with local circumstances, but should rather
be understood in terms of a general tendency [44].

2.3. Halved coins

Of 16 halved coins 14 are asses (11 moneyers’, 1 CA, 1 of Caesaraugusta, 1 of Lugdunum), one
dupondius (moneyers’), and one as or dupondius (Nemausus). Twelve coins are moneyers’
emissions of Rome (series 1 (1), series 1-2 (1), series 1-4 (1), series 7 (2), series 1-2, 7-8 (6),
series 7-8 (1)). It is thus clear that it was almost exclusively asses that were halved, mostly
those issued by the moneyers (the latter perhaps due to their predominance in the coin
supply of the period). 14,29 % of moneyers’ asses were halved ‒ 17,05 % of the total number
of asses ‒ which is somewhat more than the previously reported percentage (10,34 %; 11,11
%), but still relatively far from the percentage of halved moneyers’ asses on the south-eastern
Alpine sites (22,22-58 %) (Kos 1986, p. 38; Bilić 2012a, p. 375). P. Kos’ claim that the halved
Augustan moneyers’ asses ‘performed the major role in circulation of the Augustan aes in
the area of the southeastern Alps and Illyricum’, including southern Pannonia, owing to a
shortage of low-value coins (Kos 1986, p. 38), is thus to some extent supported by the coin
record at Siscia (pace Bilić 2012a, p. 375). Kos dates the phenomenon of halving, including
that of Augustan moneyers’ asses, to the late Augustan and early Tiberian period (Kos 1986,

[41]
Miškec 2009, p. 287 fig. 6. The coins from Emerita were frequently found in small numbers on the Rhine
/ Upper Danube limes, i.e. at Onna, Niemegk, Vetera, Haltern, Kalkreise, Neuss, Titelberg, Dalheim,
Bastendorf, Colonia, Alflen, Ludwigshafen, Mannheim, Augst, Vindonissa, Dangstetten, Rottweil, Kempten,
Oberhausen and Burghöfe (Garcia-Bellido 2004, p. 121, 123, 131, 136, 139-140, 153-154, 158-160, 164, 192-
193, 195, 209, 213, 218-219, 221, 224 and 229, with fig. 70 on p. 204), as were the coins from two Hispanic
mints (Caesaraugusta and Colonia Patricia?), see Garcia-Bellido 2004,p. 121-122, 126-127, 129, 131-132,
136, 140, 145, 149, 154-155, 158-160, 164, 167, 178, 180, 184-185, 189-193, 214, 218, 222, 224-225 and 229
for the sites Onna, Gehrden, Nijmegen, Kalkar, Vetera, Haltern, Kalkriese, Oberaden, Beckinghausen,
Neuss, Titelberg, Dalheim, Bastendorf, Colonia, Bonn, Orlen, Bingen, Mainz, Hofheim, Höchst, Rödgen,
Alflen, Vindonissa, Dangstetten, Auerberg, Oberhausen and Burghöfe.
[42]
Perhaps also with the aureus issued at Colonia Patricia? (RIC 125), documented in the AMZ inventory
books (C31819), but no longer in the collection.
[43]
Radman-Livaja 2018, p. 165-166. For the civic coins from Hispania present in the Lower Rhine region
indicating troop movements see Kemmers 2019, p. 60.
[44]
Cf. Kos 1986, p. 37, who issued a prudent warning in the context of a similar situation (the presence of the
coins of Gallic mints of Nemaesus and Lugdunum should not be associated with the transfer of Germanian
and Raetian legions to Illyricum for the pacification of the Great Illyrian Revolt in AD 6-9).

– 43 –
Tomislav Bilić

p. 39), but it appears that the halving of these particular asses had already begun in the mid-
Augustan period [45].
P. Kos further argued for the causal relation between the higher percentage of quadrantes ‒
a significant presence of quadrantes in itself being a characteristic feature of the south-eastern
Alpine region ‒ and a comparatively smaller percentage of halved Augustan (or moneyers’)
asses [46]. At Siscia, 8,57 % (their share of the total number of Augustan coins) of quadrantes
stands against 17,05 % of halved asses (14,29 % of moneyers’ asses) [47]. Compared with the
ratio for quadrantes and halved asses presented by Kos for Emona and Celeia (1:9-20) on one
side, and Poetovio, Magdalensberg and Carnuntum (1:0,5-2) on the other (Kos 1986, p. 35),
the value for Siscia (1:1,67 or 1:2) firmly sets this site in the second group, i.e. the group of
sites with a significant number of quadrantes that presumably had less need for halved asses.

2.4. Countermarks
The repertoire of countermarks mostly conforms to the inventory of countermarks
characteristic for the region (table 1) [48]. Similarly, the countermarks appear mostly on
moneyers’ coins (ten out of fifteen, with three ‒ perhaps even four ‒ appearing on moneyers’
imitations, thus a total of thirteen out of fifteen; the remaining coin is a CA as, the same as the
alternative attribution of the abovementioned imitation). The most frequent countermark
Number
Countermark Coin type
of coins
retrograde AVC + swastika (Howgego 468) RIC 385 (moneyers’ series 3) 1

AVG RIC 378 (moneyers’ series 2) 1

AVG RIC 431 (moneyers’ series 7) 2
A (= A[VG]) RIC 379 (moneyers’ series 2) 1 + (?)1
+ (?)
RIC 432
(moneyers’ series 7)
CAE RIC 486 (CA) 1
RIC 370 (moneyers’ series 2) (thus in the AMZ
CAE 1
inventory, today (no longer?) visible)
imitation moneyers’ (series 1-4) (one countermark
CAE 3
an imitation itself, (C)A(E))
IMP RIC 341 (moneyers’ series 4) 1
MP (=[I]MP) imitation of RIC 485-486 (CA) or moneyers’ 1
APOL RIC 427 (moneyers’ series 7) 1
AL·AR + VI or VV RIC 441 (moneyers’ series 7) 1
Table 1 ‒ Countermarks on the Augustan coinage from Sisak

[45]
Krmnicek 2010, p. 107-108 (the halved moneyers’ asses are present at Magdalensberg up to, and including,
the Claudian period).
[46]
Kos 1986, p. 34-36. I am not completely sure whether Kos compared the percentages of quadrantes with
halved moneyers’ asses or halved Augustan asses in total, since the percentages he adduced in the text do
not fully correspond to the numbers in the table on p. 35-36 (on p. 38 he associates these percentages to
moneyers’ asses only).
[47]
Kos 1986, p. 34 was working with a misleading set of values for Siscia; Bilić 2012a, p. 375-376 is closer to the
percentages available at this moment, but still inadequate.
[48]
Kos 1986, p. 39-53; Kos & Šemrov 1995, p. 23-30 and 50-57; Martini 2003, p. 137-148; Miškec 2005.

– 44 –
 augustan coins from Sisak and coin circulation in the Augustan period in Siscia

in the region, AVG [49], appears on three moneyers’ coins, with a variant A[VG] on another
moneyers’ coin; one more moneyers’ coin has most probably either the AVG or A[VG]
countermark but owing to corrosion and the fact that the coin is halved precisely through the
countermark, one cannot be certain. It is manifestly of local, Pannonian, origin, and it is most
probably of a late Augustan and/or early Tiberian date [50]. Another similarly countermarked
coin, a moneyers’ dupondius RIC 324, requires a more nuanced interpretation. One can
distinguish two successive countermarks here: an earlier retrograde AVC [51], overstruck
by what is probably a swastika (cf. Howgego 468) [52]. This reading causes serious problems
in interpretation; Howgego 468 appears on Augustan and Tiberian bronzes (SC series
of Antioch) and was perhaps applied at Gaza or Antioch, but certainly in Syro-Palestine
(Howgego 1985, p. 194 no. 468). Thus this coin, struck in Rome in 18 BC, would have had to
travel to Pannonia, where it would have been countermarked with the AVC countermark in
the late Augustan / early Tiberian period [53], and would then travel to Syro-Palestine where
it would be overstruck with the swastika, presumably also in the Augustan/Tiberian period,
and would eventually end up in Siscia, presumably during the Julio-Claudian or Flavian
period. This scenario sounds too complicated, and it seems more likely that the overlying
countermark was also applied in Pannonia. Alternatively, R. Martini proposed to read the
countermark as PO[NT] [54]. This rare countermark was associated with Pannonia and dated
to the Augustan-Tiberian period (Kos & Šemrov 1995, p. 27 and 54). Unfortunately, Martini’s
reading is difficult to support, so the above proposed scenario seems the most likely.
Another frequent Pannonian countermark is CAE, perhaps dating from the late Augustan
period [55]. Three out of four or five occurrences of this countermark on the coins from
Sisak appear on imitations of moneyers’ sestertii (2) and dupondii (1) [56]. In fact, one of the
countermarks on a sestertius ((C)A(E)) appears itself to be an imitation [57]. Similarly, the
retrograde countermark CAE appearing on an imitation of a moneyers’ sestertius, as well as
another imitative countermark CAE appearing on an imitation of a moneyers’ dupondius,
are likely also to be imitations, and the same could be claimed for all retrograde AVG and
CAE countermarks [58]. The next countermark appearing on the coins from Sisak, IMP, is most

[49]
Kos 1986, p. 47; Kos & Šemrov 1995, p. 25 and 51; Martini 2003, p. 137-148; Miškec 2005, p. 1005.
[50]
Kos 1986, p. 47-49; Kos & Šemrov 1995, p. 25-26 and 51-52; Martini 2003, p. 142-143, cf. p. 213-215 [dating
it to the reign of Caligula, or even later (Claudius, Nero, the Flavians)]; Miškec 2005, p. 1005-1006 (late
Augustan); Vondrovec 2007, p. 102-105 and 108.
[51]
Cf. Miškec 2005, p. 1010, table 4.2, where a countermark AVC is noted on the reverse of RIC 324 from Siscia,
surely a reference to this coin.
[52]
P. Kos, pers. comm. 9 April 2019. I am very grateful to P. Kos for his help on the matter.
[53]
Alternatively, the countermark could have been applied in Thracia-Moesia in the reign of Vespasianus-
Titus (previously dated to Augustan/Tiberian or Claudian period) (Martini 2003, p. 154-155), but this does
not seem very likely.
[54]
R. Martini, pers. comm. 2 April 2019 (I am very grateful to R. Martini for his help on the matter); cf. cf. Kos
& Šemrov 1995, p. 117 app. no. 5 on a sestertius RIC 345.
[55]
Kos 1986, p. 49; Kos & Šemrov 1995, p. 26 and 53; Martini 2003, p. 144 (Gaius’ or Claudius’ reign, perhaps
even Nero’s).
[56]
One of these countermarks (on AMZ C26256, moneyers’ sestertius RIC 370) is noted in the AMZ inventory
books as well as on the paper note accompanying the coin, but upon close inspection I simply do not
recognise any traces of this countermark on the surface of the coin. My inference was confirmed by A.
Šemrov (pers. com., 27 May 2019), to whom I am grateful for his advice on the matter.
[57]
Confirmed by R. Martini, pers. com. 19 May 2018, for which I am again grateful to R. Martini.
[58]
Kos & Šemrov 1995, p. 26, 30 53 and 56-57 with no. 85 on p. 76 and app. no. 45 on p. 120.

– 45 –
Tomislav Bilić

likely also of local Pannonian origin, dating from the late Augustan or early Tiberian period [59].
One of the countermarks (in the form MP) appears on an imitation, most probably of RIC
485/486 (CA coinage, alternatively an imitation of a moneyers’ as), similar to a countermark
MP appearing on an imitation of RIC 485/486 kept in the Ljubljana National Museum (Kos
& Šemrov 1995, p. 75 no. 82).
The most important countermark with respect to the question of the existence of a legionary
camp in Sisak during the Augustan period appears on a moneyers’ as in the form APOL.
Occasionally the countermarks in the form of abbreviations of names of military units indeed
appear on coins; precisely such a countermark appears on this Augustan moneyers’ as of
P. Lurius Agrippa of 7 BC. This particular coin was found in the bed of the Kupa, in the
dredging of May, 1912 (cf. the ‘hoard’ discussed above). Roman coins were indeed often
found in the bed of the Kupa River (for example, almost a third of all coins issued in the Pre-
Imperial period found at Sisak were actually found in the Kupa : Bilić 2017, p. 459). It bears a
countermark APOL (with the first two letters in ligature) struck upon the obverse; besides the
Sisak specimen, the countermark appears ‒ without exception on obverses ‒ on three more
coins from Sotin, Roman Cornacum (two of these are kept at the Numismatic Department of
the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb, inv. nos. C139 and C26277, while the third is kept in a
private collection) [60] and another coin from Ljubljana [61]. This distribution certainly suggests
that the countermark originated in the region of Pannonia [62]. The abbreviation APOL most
probably signifies the legio XV Apollinaris, whose winter camp was ‒ as we have seen ‒ most
probably precisely at Siscia after the quenching of the Great Illyrian Revolt [63]. The countermark
is in general dated to the Augustan-Tiberian period, and it had to have been struck before the
legion was transferred to the Danube limes during the early reign of Tiberius (Kos 1986, p. 51;
Kos & Šemrov 1995, p. 29, and 56; Gaspari 2010, p. 143-144). More precisely, since the legion
had already in AD 14 or 15 been transferred to ‒ probably ‒ Vindobona [64], the countermark
must have been applied before AD 15 (this is thus its terminus ante quem). In this way, the
Augustan bronze moneyers’ coin of 7 BC was subsequently reused ‒ it is plausible to presume
‒ as a donativum (endowment in money) to the soldiers of the XV Apollinaris, while the
countermark itself could have been applied in the legionary camp at Siscia, the very centre of
military operations during the Illyrian-Pannonian uprising of AD 6-9, as well as those before
and after this crucial event in the history of Roman Pannonia. At the same time, it seems
reasonable to presume that in this case the countermark was applied in order to increase the
value of the coin, i.e. so that the purchase value of the countermarked as was ‘transformed’ into
the purchase value of a coin of larger denomination (Kos & Šemrov 1995, p. 19 and 45-46).
The fact that out of the total of five known asses with the APOL countermark as many as four
are reasonably well preserved supports this conclusion ‒ even though all are somewhat worn;
only the Sotin specimen kept at the AMZ (C26277) is too worn to be precisely identified, but
its countermark is equally worn, suggesting that it was worn in circulation only after it was
countermarked (the Ljubljana specimen, somewhat more heavily worn, was subsequently

[59]
Kos 1986, p. 50-51; Kos & Šemrov 1995, p. 26 and 53; Martini 2003, p. 146-147 (Claudius’ reign, perhaps
even Nero’s or the Flavian period).
[60]
For the third specimen see Ilkić 2003, cat. no. 513; 2008, p. 53 and 73 with T. II.2 on p. 60.
[61]
Kos & Šemrov 1995, cat. app. no. 31 with T. 76.31.
[62]
Cf. Kos 1986, p. 51-52; Kos & Šemrov 1995, p. 29 and 56; Miškec 2005, p. 1005. This reasoning is in line with
the guidelines outlined in Martini 2003, p. 22-25, xvi-xix.
[63]
Kos 1986, p. 51; Kos & Šemrov 1995, p. 29 and 56; Šašel & Kos 1995, p. 237; 1998, p. 328-329; Miškec 2005,
p. 1005; Gaspari 2010, p. 143-144; Radman-Livaja 2012, p. 169; Radman-Livaja & Vukelić 2015, p. 401.
[64]
Radman-Livaja 2012, p. 169 with earlier literature.

– 46 –
 augustan coins from Sisak and coin circulation in the Augustan period in Siscia

perforated, suggesting that it was in circulation for some time as currency, with its use being
additionally prolonged by this secondary ‒ or tertiary usage). Thus the theory positing the
reason for countermarking these particular asses in order to prolong their use as currency
in spite of their poor condition cannot stand, even though this particular argument cannot
prove the validity of the interpretation supported here.
The countermarked Augustan moneyers’ as is an important archaeological testimony for
the localisation of the winter camp of the Roman XVth legion in Sisak. In fact, it is probably
one of the most important testimonies for the existence of the legionary camp in Sisak during
the Augustan period, since the countermark was almost certainly applied prior to AD 15.
Unfortunately, its precise find spot, the bed of the Kupa, does not help in determining either
the date of its deposition or the precise localisation of the camp.
Finally, another countermark from the repertoire of countermarks on the coins found at
Sisak can be securely associated with a military unit. The abbreviation AL·AR struck on a
moneyers’ as thus most probably refers to Ala II Hispanorum Arvacorum, stationed in Mursa
in a pre-Claudian period and in Teutoburgium during the reigns of Claudius and Nero (Kos
1984, p. 49; cf. Radman-Livaja 2012, p. 171 and 175, tab. 1, 176). Indeed, two moneyers’ asses
from Teutoburgium kept at the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb bear this countermark
(Kos 1984, p. 50-51, 54 no. 34; Kos 1986, p. 21). This countermark can plausibly be dated
to a late Tiberian or early Claudian period [65]. In addition to AL·AR, the moneyers’ as from
Sisak also bears another countermark: VI. This sign represents either the Roman numeral VI
or retrograde AV, and the countermark is dated to a post-Tiberian period (?), originating in
Moesia-Thracia [66]. Alternatively, it can be associated with a countermark VV on a moneyers’
as found in a hoard at Ljubljana, dated to the Augustan-Tiberian period (Kos & Šemrov 1995,
p. 74 no. 57) and most probably an imitation (Miškec 2017, p. 118), or with a countermark
IVI on a CA as RIC 486 found at Carnuntum, which also has the countermark AVG on the
reverse (FMRÖ III/2, 33997). The latter countermark could well represent IMP [67], which, as
we have seen, also dates from the late Augustan or early Tiberian period.

3. Conclusions
The phenomena of halving, countermarking and imitations of Augustan bronze coins all
testify to a demand for small change, conditioned by economic activities conducted in Siscia,
as well as to a lack of ‒ or deficiencies in ‒ an adequate coin supply. At the same time, the
presence of Republican silver coins testifies to the lack of contemporary denarii and quinarii
(including the otherwise omnipresent C. L. Caesares issues) (fig. 10), which was alleviated
by a supply (organised or spontaneous) of earlier coinage. It is notable that no pre-Neronian
reform denarii were found in three large Pannonian hoards rich in Republican denarii closing
with AD 122/123, 165 and 166, respectively, which suggests that they ‒ but not the Republican
denarii ‒ were removed from circulation prior to these dates [68]. This can be explained by the
higher intrinsic value of the pre-Neronian reform Julio-Claudian denarii in relation to post-
reform coinage on the one hand, but also in relation to Republican and legionary denarii

[65]
Kos 1984, p. 51-52; 1986, p. 52; Martini 2003, p. 141 (Tiberian period and later); Miškec 2005, p. 1005.
[66]
R. Martini, pers. comm. 2 April 2019; Martini 2003, p. 161.
[67]
Vondrovec 2007, p. 102. One could compare Kemmers 2006, p. 80, fig. 3.1 no. 31 on an ‘Altar’ I/II as, which
she interprets as AVC (Kemmers 2006, p. 82) and Peter 2001, p. 232 and 233, tab. 54, p. 235, Abb. 60 no. 11
on a Caligulan as, which he apparently interprets as IMP.
[68]
Bilić 2012a, p. 381-383 nos. 6, 15-16. For the withdrawal of Julio-Claudian denarii from circulation, probably
effected during the reign of Domitian, see Duncan-Jones 1994, p. 195-196 and 198-200.

– 47 –
Tomislav Bilić

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%
AE
30% AR
20%

10%

0%

Fig. 10 ‒ Bronze to silver ratio

at various sites (Republican
and Augustan coinage)

on the other. This model works fine with respect to all but the Republican denarii, whose
intrinsic value was only slightly lower than their pre-reform Julio-Claudian counterparts
(Duncan-Jones 1994, p. 198-199 with n. 24). Indeed, it seems they were only removed from
circulation en masse during Trajan’s reign, but the process was not as straightforward as
that, since Republican coins appear especially in the Danube provinces in Marcus Aurelius’s
reign (ibid., p. 196). This analysis does not include legionary denarii, which were kept in
circulation even longer, mainly because of their lower intrinsic value combined with their
increasing degree of wear (ibid., p. 196 and 200). Thus Republican silver coins were on this
evidence in use at least until Trajan’s reign ‒ probably also later ‒ which is corroborated by the
stratified finds at Sisak. The small number of Augustan silver coins at Sisak perhaps suggests
their Flavian-period withdrawal, but the lack of almost any evidence for their presence in
the Augustan-period archaeological contexts (just two Augustan silver coins were found in
controlled excavations, neither of which can be further contextualised), suggests that another
phenomenon was also at work, i.e. that the Republican denarii might have fulfilled the role of
silver coins in the coin supply at Sisak during the Augustan and perhaps later Julio-Claudian
period.
The archaeological contexts of Republican and Augustan coin finds strongly suggest ‒ not
without exceptions ‒ a certain drift between their issuing date and circulation date. Stratified
Republican coins ‒ both denarii and halved asses ‒ are as a rule found in post-Augustan
contexts, i.e. later Julio-Claudian, Flavian and even later, with two exceptions: one denarius
was found in a possibly pre-conquest layer, with two more coins (a denarius and a quinarius)
found in an SU possibly reflecting an Augustan-period circulation. Thus, according to the
archaeological record Republican silver coins were perhaps present in the pre-conquest
Sisak (prior to 35 BC) (SU 291 at the Dunavski Lloyd position), were probably present in the
Augustan-period town or legionary camp (SU 298 at the Dunavski Lloyd position) and were
certainly present ‒ together with halved asses ‒ in the post-Augustan Julio-Claudian and later
1st c. circulation. Also according to the archaeological record, Augustan coins were perhaps
present in the Augustan-period town or legionary camp (SU 298 at the Dunavski Lloyd
position and SU 589 at the Railway station) and were certainly present in the post-Augustan

– 48 –
 augustan coins from Sisak and coin circulation in the Augustan period in Siscia

Julio-Claudian and later 1st c. circulation. Whether the Republican and/or Augustan coins
present in the post-Augustan Julio-Claudian and later 1st c. circulation arrived in Sisak prior
to the chronological context of their deposition cannot be ascertained from the available data.
We are thus left with two archaeological features that might reflect the Augustan-period town
or legionary camp: SU 298 at the Dunavski Lloyd position and SU 589 at the Railway station,
both at the northwestern corner of the hypothetical legionary camp of the Augustan-Tiberian
period as reconstructed by I. Drnić (the distance between the positions is less than 100 m as
the crow flies) (Drnić 2018, p. 11, fig. 1). In addition, the Augustan moneyers’ as bearing the
countermark APOL appears to be an important testimony for the localisation of the winter
camp of the Roman XVth legion in Sisak after the quashing of the Great Illyrian Revolt in AD
9, since the countermark most probably designating this legion was almost certainly applied
prior to AD 15, when the legion was transferred to the Danube. This naturally does not mean
that the coin was deposited prior to AD 15 and that it reflects only the late Augustan-period
circulation, but it does mean that it actually reflects both the Augustan-period circulation and
most probably the presence of legionaries of the XVth legion at the site.
The archaeologists and researchers in ancient history in general are relatively certain that a
legionary camp was constructed in Sisak during the Augustan period, at least after AD 9, but
most probably even earlier. Most researchers would accept the localisation of the camp on
the left bank of the Kupa, even though some still argue for a(nother) camp on the right bank,
despite the complete lack of archaeological confirmation for such a claim. The localisation
on the left bank is supported by some archaeological evidence, such as the remains of timber
structures (in itself hardly compelling evidence), the evidence for large-scale terrain levelling
(also inconclusive) and, most prominently, several categories of small finds: characteristic
pottery, such as the cups of the Aco and Sarius types, Soldatenbecher, thin-walled pottery,
black-slip pottery, characteristic plates and various terra sigillata, glass gaming tokens,
characteristic fibulae and fragments of ‒ probably ‒ parts of military equipment, such as chain
mail rings, scabbard fittings, tent pegs. As far as numismatic finds are concerned, they are
at present not nearly as impressive; numismatic evidence for the presence of legionaries in
Siscia in the Augustan period is meagre, while nothing points specifically to the localisation
of their camp, either in the Augustan period or later. Perhaps some properly documented
and published future excavations, or ‒ preferably ‒ properly published hitherto conducted
excavations (most notably at the Dunavski Lloyd and Railway station locations, perhaps
also the Sv Kvirin location, which hitherto did not yield any Augustan coins among its rich
numismatic record), will enable more positive conclusions with respect to the Augustan-
period Siscia and its legionary camp from numismatic perspective.
A comparable situation with respect to both numismatic and other finds on the one hand
and the interpretative issues on the other appears to obtain ‒ or to have obtained ‒ with the
situation at Emona. This example of a relatively nearby site can offer some useful guidance to
the students of the history of ancient Siscia; in the first place, that one should be cautious and
not jump to conclusions before any truly compelling and unambiguous evidence is provided.
I will only summarily discuss this subject, only in order to provide some support for this
claim. Previously Emona (the Roman colony on the left bank of the Ljubljanica) was regarded
as the seat of a legionary camp, following a reasoning similar to that which now seems to be
dominant in the discussions on the nature of the Roman site on the left bank of the Kupa:
‘The publications of earlier excavations of Emona mention wooden and stone-built
structures that the authors connected with the camp or soldiers’ quarters, all stratigraphically
tied to the levelling of the terrain intra muros... The gathered archaeological data refute the
existence of a large fortress on the site of the later town, since both evidence for a uniform
fortification system with trenches, palisade, remains of command and logistic architecture as

– 49 –
Tomislav Bilić

well as barracks or tents for the troops are missing. The perforated iron peg with a ring, found
in the “first phase” layer in the forum area of Emona, is indeed a characteristic part of military
equipment, but does not necessarily point to tents being set up there’ (Gaspari 2010, p. 121,
123; cf. Gaspari et al. 2014, p. 165).
With respect to the numismatic record, a similar conclusion was drawn already in the
1980s: ‘The share of Augustus’ aes coins from Emona, Celeia and Magdalensberg shows
proportionally the same intensity. On the basis of this evidence, we assume that all three
settlements had the same character from the beginning of the first century AD… All three
settlements can therefore be regarded as having a predominantly civil character’ (Kos 1986,
p. 55-56). This statement was recently challenged with respect to Emona in the light of the
new findings on the positions situated on the left bank of the Ljubljanica (NUK II and Šumi)
(Miškec 2017, p. 119 with n. 32). However, my comparative analysis presented in this paper
still supports Kos’s inferences, and Miškec’s numismatic data do not seem significantly
enough different from Kos’s to warrant such a deduction. In any case, Kos’s conclusions do
not preclude some involvement of the army in the formation of the early Julio-Claudian coin
record at Emona (neither do my conclusions prevent the involvement of the military in the
formation of the comparable coin record at Siscia), which is what Miškec is actually arguing
for, if I understand her correctly [69]. In this context, one should bear in mind the comparison
of the numismatic record of Siscia with that of Emona and Celeia expounded in this essay.
In any event, the solution to the problems recognised in this paper should be searched
for in close cooperation of numismatists and other archaeologists studying different types
of material, such as ceramics and metal finds (with further subspecialisations), in order to
interpret individual SU’s and/or chronological horizons, and in the end the stratigraphic
relations on an excavated location in its entirety. Once this data is available ‒ at least for a
single but significant position within Siscia ‒ the tools for tackling the questions unsolved
from the very start of the study of antiquity in Pannonia will be at the disposal of researchers
interested in the field [70]. Until then, numismatics can offer only so much; this essay is thus
meant to be a modest contribution constrained by the present unenviable state of research.

[69]
Incidentally, a Roman camp of the mid-Augustan to early Tiberian period was recently found at Emona
extra muros on the right bank of the Ljubljanica (Gaspari et al. 2014, p. 137-147 and 157-163; Novšek et al.
2017, p. 11-12, 14, 16-17 and 26-29).
[70]
A comparison with the coin record from the site of Prule on the right bank of the Ljubljanica, the location
of a military camp at Emona, which remains unpublished at a detailed level, will also provide a valuable
comparable material once it is made available to researchers. At this point, we know that the excavations of
the first phase of the camp (c. 10 BC to AD 5-10, Gaspari et al. 2014, p. 146; Novšek et al. 2017, p. 28) yielded
11 silver coins (36,67 %: five Republican denarii and four quinarii with two Augustan denarii) and 19 bronze
coins (63,33 %), fourteen of which were asses (12 moneyers’, of which eight were halved, and two halved
CA asses) (Novšek et al. 2017, p. 28). With this one can compare the finds from a military camp at Obrežje
on the Slovenia-Croatia border, dated to the period of the Great Illyrian Revolt of AD 6-9, which yielded 7
% silver coins (all Republican denarii), with the remaining 93 % bronze coins divided among the moneyers’
issues (70 %, half of which were halved), Republican asses (13 %, all halved), Lugdunum ‘Altar’ 1 asses (7 %,
all halved) and CA asses (3 %). These values derive from Miškec 2009, p. 288, fig. 7, but appear to be rounded.
From her text on p. 288-289 and fig. 8 it is clear that 33 coins were found in total, two of which were of the
‘Altar’ 1 type and 24 were moneyers’ coins. Something seems to have gone wrong here, but the discrepancies
are irrelevant.

– 50 –
 augustan coins from Sisak and coin circulation in the Augustan period in Siscia

Drnić (ed.) 2018

Bibliography I. Drnić (ed.), Segestika i Siscija ‒ od ruba imperija
do provincijskog središta / Segestica and Siscia ‒ from
the Periphery of the Empire to a Provincial Center.
Alfaro, Marcos & Otero (ed.) 2005 Zagreb, 2018.
C. Alfaro, C. Marcos & P. Otero (ed.),
Pannonia, XIII Congreso Internacional de Drnić 2018
Numismática, Madrid, 2003 : actas = proceedings = I. Drnić, Segestika i Siscija - od ruba imperija do
actes, I. Madrid, 2005. provincijskog središta / Segestica and Siscia - from
the periphery of the Empire to a provincial center. In
Alram & Schmidt-Dick (ed.) 2007 : Drnić (ed.) 2018, p. 7-21.
M. Alram & F. Schmidt-Dick (ed.), Numismata Duncan-Jones 2007
Carnuntina. Forschungen und Material, Die R. Duncan-Jones, Money and Government in the
Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Österreich, Roman Empire. Cambridge, 1994.
Abteilung III, Band 2. Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Wien, 2007. FMRÖ III/2
M. Alram & F. Schmidt-Dick (ed.), Numismata
Berger 2007 Carnuntina. Forschungen und Material, Die
F. Berger, Unverändert: Die Datierung der Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Österreich,
Varusschlacht. In : Lehmann & Wiegels (ed.) 2007, Abteilung III, Band 2. Österreichischen Akademie
p. 113-117. der Wissenschaften, Wien, 2007.
Bilić 2012a FMRS1
T. Bilić, Coin Circulation 3rd Century BC - AD P. Kos, Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in
193. In : B. Migotti (ed.), The Archaeology of Roman Slowenien. Teil I-II. Berlin 1988 ; P. Kos & A. Šemrov,
Southern Pannonia. Oxford, 2012, p. 359-388. Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Slowenien.
Bilić 2012b Teil III. Berlin, 1995 ; A. Šemrov, Die Fundmünzen
T. Bilić, Late Roman republican hoards terminating der römischen Zeit in Slowenien. Teil IV. Berlin, 1998.
with the denarii of C. L. Caesares. VAMZ 45, Zagreb, A. Šemrov, Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit
2012, p. 115-138. in Slowenien. Teil V. Mainz, 2004. A. Šemrov, Die
Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Slowenien. Teil
Bilić 2012c VI. Wetteren, 2010.
T. Bilić, Numismatic finds cat. nos. 5, 19. In :
Vukelić & Radman Livaja (ed.) 2012 (CD-ROM). Frey-Kupper & Stannard 2018
S. Frey-Kupper & C. Stannard, Evidence for the
Bilić 2017 importation and monetary use of blocks of foreign
T. Bilić, Pre-Imperial coinage from Sisak. In : and obsolete bronze coins in the ancient world. In :
Demicheli (ed.) 2017, p. 457-478. Woytek (ed) 2018, p. 283-354.
Bilić 2018 García-Bellido 2004
T. Bilić, Predcarski novac iz Siska / Pre-Imperial M. P. García-Bellido, Las Legiones Hispánicas en
coinage from Sisak. In : Drnić (ed.) 2018, p. 267-277. Germania: Monedas y Ejército. Gladius supplement
6, Madrid, 2004.
Bilić forthcoming
T. Bilić & M. Nađ, Numizmatički nalazi s Gaspari 2010
položaja Sisak-Kolodvor. In : Arheološka istraživanja A. Gaspari, “Apud horridas gentis…” Začetki
u Sisačko-moslavačkoj županiji: znanstveni skup, rimskega mesta Colonia Iulia Emona / Beginnings of
Sisak,5.-9. listopada 2020, Izdanja Hrvatskog the Roman Town of Colonia Iulia Emona. Ljubljana,
arheološkog društva. Zagreb, forthcoming. 2010.
Crawford 1985 Gaspari et al. 2014
M. Crawford, Coinage & Money under the A. Gaspari, I. Bekljanov Zidanšek, J. Krajšek,
Roman Republic. London, 1985. R. Masaryk, A. Miškec & M. Novšak, Novejša
arheološka spoznanja o Emoni med zatonom
Demicheli (ed.) 2017
prazgodovinske skupnosti in gradnjo rimskega mesta
D. Demicheli (ed.), Illyrica antiqua - in honorem
(druga polovica 1. stol. pr. n. št. in začetek 1. stol.
Duje Rendić-Miočević, Procedings of the International
n. št.) / New Archaeological Insights about Emona
Conference Šibenik, 12th-15th September 2013. Zagreb,
between the Decline of the Prehistoric Community
2017.
and the Construction of the Roman Town (second

– 51 –
Tomislav Bilić

half of the 1st century BC and early 1st century AD). Koprivnjak 2010b
In : Emona: mesto v imperiju / Emona: A City of the V. Koprivnjak, Dio nalaza rimskog novca s
Empire. Ljubljana, 2014, p. 135-165. lokaliteta Sisak - Lučka kapetanija. Godišnjak
Gradskog muzeja Sisak 10, 2010, p. 63-94
Howgego 1982
C. Howgego, Coinage and military finance: the Kos 1986
Imperial bronze coinage of the Augustan East. NC P. Kos, The monetary circulation in the southeastern
142, 1982, p. 1-20. Alpine region ca. 300 BC - AD 1000. Situla 24,
Ljubljana, 1986.
Howgego 1985
C. Howgego, Greek Imperial Countermarks: Kos & Šemrov 1995
Studies in the Provincial Coinage of the Roman Empire. P. Kos & A. Šemrov, Rimski novci in kontramarke
Royal Numismatic Society, special publication XVII, iz 1. stoletja. Roman imperial coins and countermarks
London, 1985. of the 1st century. Situla 33, Ljubljana, 1995.
Ilkić 2003 Krmnicek 2010
M. Ilkić, Cornacum: sotinski prostor i njegovo S. Krmnicek, Münze und Geld im frührömischen
mjesto u organizaciji južnog dijela provincije Panonije, Ostalpenraum. Studien zum Münzumlauf und zur
neobjavljena doktorska disertacija. Sveučilište u Funktion von Münzgeld anhand der Funde und
Zadru, 2003. Befunde vom Magdalensberg. Klagenfurt, 2010.
Ilkić 2008 Lehmann & Wiegels (ed.) 2007
M. Ilkić, Rimski Cornacum u svijetlu G. A. Lehmann & R. Wiegels (ed.), Römische
numizmatičkih nalaza / Roman Cornacum in Präsenz und Herrschaft im Germanien der augus-
the Light of the Numismatic Evidence. In : J. teischen Zeit. Der Fundplatz von Kalkreise im Kontext
Dobrinić (ed.), Zbornik radova 5. Međunarodnog neueren Forschungen und Ausgrabungsbefunde.
numizmatičkog kongresa u Hrvatskoj / Proceedings of Göttingen, 2007.
the 5th International Numismatic Congress in Croatia.
Rijeka, 2008, p. 51-75. Martini 2003
R. Martini, Collezione Pangerl. Contromarche
Jerončić, Paro & Mesarić 2018 imperiali romane (Augustus-Vespasianus) / The
T. Jerončić, A. Paro & M. Mesarić, Zaštitna Pangerl Collection Catalog and Commentary on the
arheološka istraživanja na poziciji Sisak- Countermarked Roman Imperial Coins. Nomismata
Željeznički kolodvor u 2013. i 2014. godini / Rescue 6. Milano, 2003.
archaeological excavations conducted at the Sisak-
Railway station position in 2013 and 2014. In : Drnić Miletić Čakširan 2018
(ed.) 2018, p. 173-197. I. Miletić Čakširan, Ranorimska fina keramika
augustovskog horizonta Siscije s položaja Željeznički
Kemmers 2006 kolodvor / Early Roman pottery of the Augustan
F. Kemmers, Coins for a Legion. An analysis of period in Siscia from the Railway station position. In
the coin finds from the Augustan legionary fortress : Drnić (ed.) 2018, p. 199-222.
and Flavian canabae legionis at Nijmegen. SFMA 21,
Mainz, 2006. Miškec 2005
A. Miškec, Some aspects of countermarked coins
Kemmers 2019 from the time of the Juio-Claudian dynasty. In :
F. Kemmers, The Functions and Use of Alfaro, Marcos & Otero (ed.) 2005, p. 1005-1012.
Roman Coinage. An Overview of 21st Century
Scholarship. Ancient History 2.3, 2019, p. 1-83. Miškec 2009
A. Miškec, The Augustan conquest of southeastern
Knapp 1982 Alpine and western Pannonian areas: coins and
R. C. Knapp, The coinage of Corduba, Colonia hoards. Arheološki Vestnik 60, 2009, p. 283-296.
Patricia. Annali dell’Istituto italiano di numismatica
29, 1982, p. 183-202. Miškec 2017
A. Miškec, O začetkih poslitve Emone z vidika
Koprivnjak 2010a novčanih najdb / The beginnings of the settlement
V. Koprivnjak, Antički numizmatički nalazi of Emona in light of the coin finds. In : Vičič &
s lokaliteta Sisak - Dunavski Lloyd. Godišnjak Županek (ed.) 2017, p. 111-120.
Gradskog muzeja Sisak 10, 2010, p. 25-61.

– 52 –
 augustan coins from Sisak and coin circulation in the Augustan period in Siscia

Mráv 2010-2013 RPC

Z. Mráv, The Roman army along the Amber Road A. Burnett, M. Amandry & P.P. Ripollés, Roman
between Poetovio and Carnuntum in the 1st century provincial coinage, I : From the death of Caesar to
A.D. ‒ archaeological evidence. Communicationes the death of Vitellius (44 BC-AD 69). London-Paris,
archaeologicae Hungariae 2010-2013, p. 49-100. 1992, 2 vol.
Novšak et al. 2017 Šašel Kos 1995
M. Novšak, I. Bekljanov Zidanšek & M. Šašel Kos, The 15th Legion at Emona - Some
P. Vojaković, The decline of the pre-Roman Thoughts. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
settlement at Tribuna. Deliberations on the possibility 109, 1995, p. 227-244.
of settlement discontinuity between the final phase
of the La Tène settlement and the Roman military
Šašel Kos 1998
M. Šašel Kos, Je bila Emona nekdanji tabor 15.
camp. In : Vičič & Županek (ed.) 2017, p. 9-52.
legije in veteranska kolonija? Zgodovinski časopis 52,
Peter 2001 1998, p. 317-329.
M. Peter, Untersuchungen zu den Fundmünzen
aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. SFMA 17, Berlin, 2001.
Šemrov 2011
A. Šemrov, Numizmatične najdbe iz Celja in
Radman-Livaja 2007 Savinje v luči novih dognanj. Unpublished MA thesis,
I. Radman-Livaja, In Segestica… Prilozi Instituta Koper 2011.
za arheologiju 24, 2007, p. 153-172.
Škrgulja 2018
Radman-Livaja 2012 R. Škrgulja, Late Iron Age and Early Imperial
I. Radman-Livaja, The Roman Army. In : B. finds from the Dunavski Lloyd and Frankopanska
Migotti (ed.): The Archaeology of Roman Southern b.b. positions in Sisak. In : Drnić (ed.) 2018, p. 109-
Pannonia. BAR IS 2393, Oxford, 2012, p. 159-189. 129.
Radman-Livaja 2015 Schlüter & Wiegels (éd.) 1999
I. Radman-Livaja, Rimska vojska u Sisciji od W. Schluter & R. Wiegels (ed.), Rom, Germanien
Augusta do Klaudija. In : R. Škrgulja & T. Tomaš und die Ausgrabungen von Kalkriese. Internationaler
Barišić (ed.), 35. prije Krista / 35 years before Christ. Kongress der Universitat Osnabruck und des
Katalog izložbe, Sisak, Gradski muzej. Sisak, 2015, Landschaftsverbandes Osnabrucker Land e.V. vom 2.
p. 24-44. bis 5. September 1996. Osnabrucker Forschungen zu
Altertum und Antike-Rezeption 10, Osnabrück,1999.
Radman-Livaja 2018
I. Radman-Livaja, Rimske legije u Sisciji tijekom Vagalinski & Sharankov (ed.) 2015
julijevsko-klaudijevskog razdoblja / Roman legions L. Vagalinski & N. Sharankov (ed.), Limes
in Siscia during the Julio-Claudian period. In : Drnić XXII. Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress
(ed.) 2018, p. 151-171. of Roman Frontier Studies, Ruse, Bulgaria, September
2012. Bulletin of the National Institute of Archaeology
Radman-Livaja & Vukelić 2015 42, Sofia, 2015.
I. Radman-Livaja & V. Vukelić, Roman
Military Inscriptions from Siscia: An Overview. In: van Heesch 1999
Vagalinski & Sharankov (ed.) 2015, p. 399-405. J. van Heesch, Augustan bronze coins in the
north-west of Gaul. In : Schluter & Wiegels
Radman-Livaja & Vukelić 2018 (ed.),1999, p. 347-361.
I. Radman-Livaja & V. Vukelić, The whereabouts
of Tiberius’ ditch in Siscia. In : M. Milićević Vičič & Županek (ed.) 2017
Bradač & D. Demicheli (ed.), The Century of the B. Vičič & B. Županek (ed.), EMONA MM.
Brave. Roman conquest and indigenous resistance in Urbanizacija prostora - nastanek mesta / Urbanisation
Illyricum during the time of Augustus and his heirs. of space - beginning of a town. Zavod za varstvo
Zagreb, 2018, p. 407-421. kulturne dediščine Slovenije ter Muzej in galerije
mesta Ljubljane. Ljubjana, 2017.
RIC
C.H.V. Sutherland, Roman Imperial Coinage, Vondrovec 2007
Vol. I (revised edition) : From 31 BC to AD 69. K. Vondrovec, Gesamtdarstellung und
London, 1984. Auswertung der antiken Fundmünzen im Museum
Carnuntinum. In : Alram & F. Schmidt-Dick (ed.)
2007, p. 55-340.

– 53 –
Tomislav Bilić

H. M. von Kaenel 1999

H. M. von Kaenel, Zum Munzumlauf im
augusteichen Rom anhand der Funde aus dem
Tiber ‒ mit einem Nachtrag zur geldgeschichtlichen
Bedeutung der Munzfunde in Kalkriese. In :
Schlüter & Wiegels (ed.) 1999, p. 363-379.
H. M. von Kaenel 2007
H. M. von Kaenel, Coins in context - a personal
approach. In : H. M. von Kaenel & F. Kemmers
(ed.), Coins in context, I. New perspectives for the
interpretation of coin finds. Colloquium Frankfurt
a. M., October 2527, 2007. SFMA 23, Mainz, 2009,
p. 9-24.
Vukelić & Radman Livaja (ed.)
V. Vukelić & I. Radman Livaja (ed.), Thesaurus
Colapis Fluminis/ Blago rijeke Kupe. Zagreb, 2012
(CD-ROM).
Wiewegh 2003a
Z. Wiewegh, Jugoistočna nekropola Siscije. Sisak,
2003.
Wiewegh 2003b
Z. Wiewegh, Jugoistočna nekropola Siscije. Sisak,
2003.
Wolters 2000-2001
R. Wolters, Bronze, silver or gold? Coin finds
and the pay of the Roman army. Zephyrus 53-54,
2000-2001, p. 579-588.
Wolters 2002
R. Wolters, Gaius und Lucius Caesares als
designierte Konsuln und principes iuventutis. Die lex
Valeria Cornelia und RIC I² 205 ff. Chiron 32, 2002,
p. 297-323.
Woytek (ed.) 2018
B. Woytek (ed.), Infrastructure and Distribution
in Ancient Economies, Proceedings of a Conference
Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, 28-31
October 2014. Vienna, 2018.
Youroukova 1976
Y. Youroukova, Coins of the Ancient Thracians.
BAR supplementary series 4, Oxford, 1976.

– 54 –