The archaeological study of Chaghadaid material culture began in the second half of the nineteenth century, after the annexation of Central Asia to the Russian Empire. The main archaeological sites on the territory of the Chaghadaid Ulus consisted of settlements. Judging by the numismatic data, the largest cities of the ulus were Almaliq (China), Pulad (China), Samarqand (Uzbekistan), Bukhara (Uzbekistan), Otrar (Kazakhstan), Shash (Uzbekistan), Taraz or Talas (Kazakhstan), Khujand (Tajikistan), Andijan (Uzbekistan), and Tirmidh or Termez (Uzbekistan). Archaeologists have studied the nomadic burials of the Chaghadaid period in Kazakhstan. Features of the funeral rites indicate the preservation of pagan traditions in the nomadic environment (for instance the ritual of burning corpses, sepulchral mounds, the remains of funeral food, horse harnesses). The erection of mausoleums reflects the Islamization process of the Chaghadaid Ulus. Among the Chaghadaid-period epigraphic monuments, Christian tombstones are the most apparent.

In 211 BC, the Romans were embroiled in a multi-front war with the great Carthaginian general Hannibal, and despite surviving the disastrous battles of the early years of the war, the Romans continued to face significant setbacks. In the Iberian Peninsula that year, the last-minute defection of Rome’s Celtiberian allies led to the deaths in battle of Publius and Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio, along with many of their soldiers. This was a disastrous blow to Rome’s war with Carthage, since the campaign in Iberia had been the only successful front in recent years.1 It is perhaps surprising, then, that the Romans minted a coin in Iberia that year that was stamped with symbols of Roman victory (Figure 19.1). The coin shows the Roman god Jupiter on the obverse (front) wearing a laurel wreath on his head, and the goddess Victory standing before a Roman trophy on the reverse (back).

This chapter presents a new estimate of the value of coinage in circulation in the mid-second century CE Roman empire. More than 25 years ago, Richard Duncan-Jones revolutionized ancient economic history by offering a first projection through numismatic and statistical methods. At more than 20 bn sesterces, his estimate implied an anomalously high monetization ratio given past and current estimates of Roman GDP, an issue that economic historians have had to deal with ever since. In the first half, a review of the numismatic evidence points to a much smaller role for gold than posited by Duncan-Jones. The second half presents a new model of the money supply. It uses Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the value of centrally-minted precious metal coins produced annually under Hadrian, and then the total coinage in circulation ca 160 CE. Allowance for various uncertainties and other, minor components of the coinage suggests a money supply of around 16 bn sesterces, with less gold and more silver than expected. However, this is not quite low enough to explain away the monetization ratio, implying a higher GDP and more trade-oriented economy than currently thought. Two appendices contain lengthy but essential technical discussions of the assumptions in the estimate.