Commentaria archaeologica et historica (III). Chronology of the Dacian Silver Hoards

Abstract

These comments stem from the recent publication of a number of studies regarding the silver artefacts of pre-Roman Dacia, with important implications for the relative and absolute chronology of the late La Tène period in the region in question, and also for some cultural and historical transformations that happened in the same area. Some of the conclusions presented in these studies are insufficiently supported by arguments. Their publication requires a detailed analysis, which is meant to clarify a number of controversial aspects. For example, D. Spânu has recently divided the evolution of the Dacian silver hoards into two phases dated to the La Tène D2a and D2b (the period between ca. 75 – 65 BC and the Augustan age). To support this chronology, he chose to ignore a series of hoards, or only certain artefacts from other hoards, which did not fit into the suggested model. These efforts to push the chronology of the Dacian silver hoards within a particular time frame stem from his aim to use these discoveries as arguments for a series of a priori historical interpretations for which archaeological evidence is scant. This includes the idea that the local silver ornaments were all made exclusively of melted Mediterranean coins which supposedly reached pre-Roman Dacia massively only after the defeating of Mithridates VI Eupator and the fall of the Kingdom of Pontus. However, the analysis of the silver jewellery from pre-Roman Dacia is demonstrating that the artefacts in question were made using both locally-sourced silver and melted Mediterranean coins. Chronologically, these hoards can be divided into three phases: first group dated to the La Tène D1, 150/125 – 75/50 BC; second group belongs to the La Tène D2, 75/50 – 30/25 BC; third group dated to the Augustan – Tiberian period, 30/25 BC – AD 25/30. It can be therefore concluded that the scenario proposed by D. Spânu for the chronology of the end of the Late Iron Age in the lower Danube region and Transylvania, based on an erroneous dating of the silver hoards, is not credible. This kind of analysis requires the incorporation of different categories of archaeological evidence belonging to the last three centuries before the Roman conquest. Their contextual interpretation could provide a more reliable and detailed chronology of the evolution of the communities from each of the two territories in question. Lastly, this evolution was not uniformly equal across wide areas, as suggested by the typo-chronological tables and schemes drawn in the office by some researchers, since each community had its own history and evolution governed by a multitude of different social, economic, demographic or ecological factors.