The metallic pieces subjected to the elemental analyses at IFIN, in March 2007, are pieces having a recent archaeological origin, being the result of the archaeological excavations from the Racari fort (Racarii de Jos village, commune Bradesti, Dolj county). The inventory number presented in the list is the inventory number of the excavation documentation.

The dating of the pieces is that of the investigated objectives, in the Racari fort, and they all fall in an interval between the middle of the IInd century and the middle of the IIIrd century. If the archaeological pieces can be rarely dated, through themselves, on an interval shorter than 100 years, the archaeological context in which they have been found allows, more often, a much restrictive dating; or - the complex and well preserved stratigraphy of the Racari fort comprise four distinct levels (of which a double one; see the micro-site dedicated to the excavation site, namely the presenting of the archaeological levels from the fortification: http://www.mnir.ro/cercetare/santiere/racari/nivel/niveluri.htm).

A particular case is represented by the coins, which can be dated on much more restrictive periods of time, and in the case if the ones better preserved-even a precise year. The date of the coin is nevertheless that of its issuing, not that of it's lost, the roman coin generally having a rather consequent circulation, reason for which the dating of a level with a coins must be treated with circumspection.

The references to the dating of the objects are important, due to the fact that they divide-necessarily-flourishing epochs, military and economically (such as the second part of the IInd century) from epochs of profound military and economic crises, such as the final phase of the fort, datable around 250, in full "military anarchy" (the way that it is known from every history book). The general historical and archaeological theory has proved operational on this small lot of objects as well.

• Photo
  Inv.: 70
  Material: brass
  Description: Fragment from an object having an unidentified purpose; L = 47 mm; bar with a relative quadrate section, of 5.5 mm; the object was found in a military barrack suspected to have served for crafting activities; possible-unfinished piece; if it was lost during the fire that destroyed the 3.1 phase of the fort, the way it seems, then the piece dates from the first years of the IIIrd decades of the IIIrd century.
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 192
  Material: mix bronze-brass
  Description: Military equipment piece (belt plate) 50 x 37 x 0.8 mm; attachment holes at the corners and in the centre (diameter 2 mm) and semi-lunar holes (4 mm) on the diagonal (two by two from the corner to the centre); one of the corners has been bended from ancient times; dated to the final horizon (around 250)
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 83
  Material: bronze
  Description: Bonze plate piece, with a thickness of app. 0.7 mm, L=49 mm (measured as if it wouldn't be bent), max width of 9.7 mm; it has the generic form of a dagger (as formal analogy), but it was part of a functional assembly; at the superior part it had an orifice, indicating the pendentive function (for a belt?)
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 245
  Material: bronze
  Description: bronze chain joint; external diameter 23 (21.5) mm; internal diameter 15 mm; band of 3 x 2 mm; it dates from the finale phase of the fort
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 264
  Material: bronze
  Description: Fragmentary chain joint; rhomboidal section of app. 3.7 mm; exterior diameter 28 mm; interior diameter app. 20.6 mm; probably the middle of the IInd century
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 226
  Material: bronze
  Description: the type known as the "knuckle-fibula"
  - L. of the body = 44 mm; I of the hanger = 16,3 mm; L of the needle is of app. 40 mm; the thickness of the body (superior area = 2mm; middle area = 3.6 mm; minimum at the inferior area = 2.8); the opening of the arch = 24 mm; maximal width of the body = 11.5 mm; minimal width of the body, in the inferior part = 4.8 mm;
  - dated at the end of the IInd century
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 261
  Material: bronze
  Description: Fibula of the same type as the previous one; the piece is complete, but the arch is over-bent;
  - it has a rhomboidal body, leg with spine, hanger with a place for small agraffe
  - dimensions: L head-spin = 40 mm; portagraffe high of 12; the arch is wide of 15; body - maximal width = 11; width at the inferior part = 4;
  - dated at the middle of the IIIrd century
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 101
  Material: bronze
  Description: fragment from a bronze bracelet with widen ends, with an estimated diameter of 70 mm; approximative circular profile, with the thick diameter of 7 mm, and with the thin one of 3.8 mm; at the widen end, the section presents a round hole with the diameter of 1.7 mm (the functionality of which is probably related to the manufacturing process); dated in the first half of the IIIrd century
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 65
  Material: bronze
  Description: Bronze bracelet with a round section, with the a broaden end (6.8 mm; at the rent = 4.8 mm); it represents app. 35% from the entire piece; dated in the first half of the IIIrd century
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 2006
  Material: bronze
  Description: Thin bronze bar; the base is wide of 5 mm, narrowed towards the apex; thickness of 1 mm; length of 50 mm (the object is broken in the widen area); tweezers? Medical instrument?
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 299
  Material: cooper
  Description: Very blunted coin, belonging to a women from the imperial family, Ist or beginning of the IInd century; Roman Empire, as, AE, 5.4g
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 72
  Material: bronze
  Description: Very blunted coin, Traianus, dupondius, 9.92g (determined by E. Oberländer); diameter of 24 mm; archaeological context: in the first quarter of the IIIrd century (due to some levelment workings; it is not excluded that the piece has circulated almost one century, but more probably, its stratigraphic position is due to levelments)
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 222
  Material: bronze
  Description: Antoninus Pius
  AE; S; 6 A.M.; 31. 5 mm
  RIC, 967, Rome, years 156-157.
  This coin dates the earliest horizon, possible of the large earth fort construction (phase 2.a)
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 2001
  Material: silver
  Description: Iulia Mamaea; denarius, AR, 12 g, RIC IV, 2, 343 Rome, 222-235
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 169
  Material: bronze
  Description: S2, grid-unit 4, center, - 30 cm
  Severus Alexander [rule 222-235]
  AE; 12 A.M.; 19 mm
  Av. Laureate bust, draped towards the right side
  [M]AYPCEY[- - - ] ZANΔ[POC]
  Rv. Three standards
  [NIKAI]E - ΩN
  Colonial - Niceea
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 156
  Material: silver
  Description: Severus Alexander
  AR; D; 6 A.M.; 18.5 mm
  RIC, 139, Rome, years 222-228.
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 162
  Material: bronze
  Description: Elagabalus [218-222]
  AE; 12 A.M.; 17. 5 mm
  Av. Laureate head towards the right side
  Rv. A standing feminine personage
  Fragments from the legend: MY - N [- - - ]
  Colonial; two perforations; it has been worn as an amulet until the moment of the fort destruction from phase 3.2 (app. 248)
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 122
  Material: bronze
  Description: Philippus I (= Fillip the Arab)
  AE; S; ?; 29 mm
  F. Martin, Kolonialprägungen aus Moesia Superior und Dacia, Budapest - Bonn, 1992 (Martin), 2. 04 - 1, July / October 244 - July / October 245 (or in the following years, 245 - 246).
  V. Pick, Die antiken Münzen Nord Griechenlands, Bd. I, Dacien und Moesien , Berlin 1898, nr. 97. Moushmov, nr. 36.
  S1, C9, south, - 30 cm, on the ruins level.
  The coin is frayed and has been lost during Decius' time, when the fortification suffers the final destruction.
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 122 298 (=162)
  Material: silver
  Description: Philippus I
  Antoninian; 12; 21 mm
  RIC, 75 a, Antiochia, year 247 S1, grid unit 4, South, - 30 cm; possible worn as amulet (is seems to be a broken hole); lost in a somewhat later context
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 2004
  Material: bronz
  Description: Gordianus III, antoninianus, AE RIC III, 2, 219, Antiochia
  


• Photo
  Inv.: 237
  Material: bronz
  Description: Herennia Etruscilla
  AE; S; 6 A.M.; 25.5 mm
  Martin, 3. 61-1, Dacia Province, July/ August 250-July/ August 251;
  reverse
  

The lot of pieces chosen for measurements is a small one, more likely a conjectural one, chosen first of all due to the access easiness to the material (field inventory of the Răcari fort). It might be comprised, at the most, in a "bridge head" for ulterior thoroughness studies, for new measurements, and as well through new and necessary interpretations. The option for a small lot is also due to the agglomeration of the measurements programe for bronze objects, engaged, most of the time, in measuring the Dacian hoards, probably more profitable as scientific input.

Nevertheless, the measurements on objects of "current use" of the Roman world are of much interest, exactly because they are the final expression of the "antique world", fact entirely proved by the measured lot (see the Catalog and the Table with measurements). The Roman civilization is, on the one hand, the one that led "specialization" at the highest apex of the civilization, successfully concurring the beginning of the modern epoch; the specialization is a generic characteristic, present in all the sectors: of the army bodies and of the armament, of the handicraft and commerce, of the words and schools. It was to expect such a thing as well regarding the adapting of the metallic composition to the function of the object.

The Romans did not use "bronze". They produced alloys the proprieties of which responded to the qualities that the final pieces should have had. Thus, the best quality is found in the pieces that have a military purpose (certain or assumed), such as the belt plate (inv. 192), the bronze chain joints, but as well the no. 226 fibula, the superior quality of it being related to the prestige of a warrior. Interesting, another "bronze" piece, the no. 83 pandantive, is pure brass; such a piece, nevertheless, had a purely decorative role, without having a traction or impact "purpose". We should remind here that a fibula, for example, had to sustain the weight of the clothes, and its breaking would have led to the undressing of the wearer; thus, it was relatively important, if not vital, for a fibula to be manufactured from a material that would resist to bending.

There should be immediately remarked that some of the pieces as well, generally considered as purely decorative, as the bronze bracelet (no. 65), were manufactured from a very resistant bronze. Finally, another piece which deserves a special attention is the tweezers fragment (no. 2006); this must have been very thin (questionable whether it had a medical or cosmetic utility; in a fort? This is nevertheless not impossible, because during the excavations are discovered other typically feminine pieces of inventory, such as rings with a small diameter, or spindle whorl; it had to be at the same time elastic and resistant to breaking; the elasticity was granted by the remarkable thinness of the table (app. 0.7 mm), and the breaking resistivity by the very good quality of the alloy, with 16% tin.

Of all the measured bronze pieces, the lowest composition - practically tin - was found in the pieces with an uncertain functionality (no. 70). We have suspected from the beginning that this is not a finite piece, but moreover a tin bar (with a quadrate section, and too big to suggest a certain utility), something as an "ingot", that is a "raw-material", which, through re-combining, could have been used to manufacture better alloys. This suggests, moreover, that in the fort (in the area of the fort) there was a specialized work-shop, which could have manufactured new alloys (something that remains to be proved).

Another aspect of the analyze, together with the alloy adaptation to the product, would be the progressive degradation of the metallic alloys, together with the deepening of the military, political and economic crises from the middle of the IIIrd century, known in history as military anarchy. Such an evolution is suggested as well by the comparison between the two fibulae, belonging to similar types (generic known as "knuckle fibula"), only that one of them - the one of a better quality (no. 226; is an unusual combination, with under 50% cooper, with tin and led in proportion of over 20% each, namely with a low melting point, and as well with very good mechanic properties), coming form an stratigraphical horizon that belongs to the end of the IInd century, while the other one, having a lower quality, as crafting manufacturing and as well as metallic alloy (no. 261, of bronze as well, but more modest as the previous one), comes from the final stratigraphic horizon, datable at the end of the occupation period of the fort, namely the middle of the IIIrd century.

Finally, it must be mentioned that such an evolution should not be put on the degradation of the economical conditions. We have beneficiated, within the project, of measurements on similar pieces from Capidava, datable during the IVth-Vth centuries, and we have been able to observe that there as well, the fibulae are manufactured of low quality bronze, or of tin (cooper with a small quantity of zinc), the composition not affecting seriously the aspect of the pieces. It is true, I am not aware of the stratigraphical contexts from Capidava (the measurements have been performed in the benefice of the University, which will present its own report), or if they can be connected - or not - with periods of economical recession.

The degradation of the economical condition stays at the base of the results obtained on coins. We also have used, for comparing the metallic content degradation curve, three silver issuing; at least in principle. Only that the elemental structuring of the three pieces is extremely different (although separated by only two decades!). The best is Severus Alexander's issuing (no. 156, with 88% silver); the issuing from his consort, Iulia Mamaea, is one billon (no. 2001), and another one, surprisingly low, with only 20% silver (normal values, even for a billon, should be around 40%).

A third observation related to the measurements results refers to the comparison between coins and the other artifacts. Although one of the most usual explication of non-monetary unity of the coins is their quality as a bronze ingot (or other raw materials), this cannot be demonstrated on this lot (a relatively small one). It would be more normal to consider that the Roman society, beneficiary of the resources of a very wide-spread empire, had to appeal at the monetary material for manufacturing the bronze objects only in exceptional conditions, without becoming a rule. On a longer period of time, it would be interesting to realize this kind of tests for the Barbarian societies successors of the Empire, at the north of the Danube, named, not at all accidentally, "post-Roman" (notion, which personally I find more adequate than the one stroke by too many undemonstrated presumptions, of "migratory populations").

I would conclude with the very explicit mention of the fact that I consider this working-phase of the Roman bronzes only a timid beginning of the researches regarding the Roman bronze metallurgy. What constitutes itself in a remarkable scientifical success, in my opinion, is the "normalization" of the relationship between physicists and archaeologists, the evolution from an accidental collaboration to an institutionalized and systematized one, the only one capable to bring, on a medium period of time, a real progress to the historical knowledge.