Richard Reece, Coin Collection From Rome

A Collection of Coins from the Centre of Rome
Author(s): Richard Reece

Source: Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. 50 (1982), pp. 116-145
Published by: British School at Rome
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40310785 .
Accessed: 11/08/2013 06:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
British School at Rome is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Papers of the
British School at Rome.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 147.143.2.5 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 06:55:34 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A COLLECTION OF COINS FROM THE CENTRE
OF ROME
In
May 1969, during
a visit to
Italy
to collect information on Roman coins from
known
sites,
I visited the Palatine
Antiquarium
and was shown the remnants of
the coins from the
Forum,
the Palatine and associated sites
by
Dottoressa I. B.
Dondero,
who was in the
process
of
working
her
way through
the material in order
to
catalogue
it. Most of the coins were in a
highly
corroded
state,
and the
process
of
cleaning
and identification was
necessarily
slow. These coins came back to mind
during
a later
stay
in Rome in which I worked on the coins from the excavations
by
the British School in the so-called Schola Praeconum. The coins from the recent
excavations formed a
deposit belonging
to the second
quarter
of the fifth
century
(Whitehouse
et al.
1982, pp.
53-101
above)
and
they brought
back memories of the
many
similar coins from the Forum
deposits.
The Director of the
School,
Dr. David
Whitehouse,
undertook to examine the
possibility
of
joint
work on the Forum
coins,
and
approached
the
Soprintendente,
Prof. A. La
Regina,
and the custodian of the
coins,
still Dott.ssa
Dondero,
with the
very happy
result that a
programme
of work
was
agreed by
which the coins
might
be
lodged
at the British School for a full final
examination.
The work of
cleaning
and identification was done
during
three two-week
periods
after Christmas in
1979,
1980 and 1981
by myself
with two student assistants
each
time,
and the final
report
was constructed at Easter 1982. The coins came from
ten
deposits
and
they
have been
kept,
and are
published,
in these
groups.
This
report
is divided into two main
sections,
a
summary
of the coins
(I),
and a first
essay
in
interpretation (II),
in an
attempt
to
keep quite separate
the
putting
of
these coins on
record,
so that others
may
use them for
research,
and the
thoughts
of
one
person
on what
they might represent.
PART I THE COINS
A first
summary
list of the coins and the
groups
to which
they belong
was
published
by
Dott.ssa Dondero in 1952 in the rather short-lived
periodical
Antichit. As this
is
rarely
found outside Rome it will be best to include some of the details on the
groups
and their
possible find-spots.
The
groups
are referred to
throughout
this
report by
the numbers first
given
to them
by
Dott.ssa
Dondero,
shown here
always
in lower case
(deposits
i to
x)
.
Group
i 'Monete trovate sul
pavimento
della Basilica Emilia.5 The coins of this
group
were
always very badly
corroded and often fused into
lumps
which had to be
prised
off the marble
flooring
of the Basilica. These
lumps
remained as corroded blocks and could
only
be
separated
with
difficulty.
One block
proved
on first
cleaning
to be a discrete hoard
enclosed in a
layer
of mineralized fabric. This was
exposed
as far as
possible, photographed
and
recorded,
but then
cleaning
was continued.
This
group
is referred to as the
Bag
Hoard. It seems certain that the
hoard and its container must have been burned for the carbonized
A COLLECTION OF COINS FROM THE CENTRE OF ROME 117
fabric to have been so
completely
mineralized
by
the corrosion
products
of the enclosed coins. The remains of the bronze stains on the marble
flooring
make it
virtually
certain that the
provenance
of this
group
is
beyond
criticism. As would be
expected, however,
some later coins were
found in the same area in the
upper deposits
and some have been
included.
Group
ii 'Monete della Basilica Emilia di cui si conosce in massima
parte
il
punto
preciso
e la data del ritrovamento.' This
group
is
only generally
associated
with the basilica
although
it contained further corroded
lumps obviously
prised
off the floor. Some earlier
deposits
must also have been
dug
into
to account for the number of Greek and
especially republican
bronze
coins which also showed fire
damage,
and in some cases were concreted
together
in
groups
which also included charcoal.
Group
Hi 'Monete della Basilica Emilia delle
quali
non si conosce il
punto preciso
del ritrovamento.5 This third
group may probably
be
quite safely
taken
as
belonging
to the Basilica and its immediate environs.
Group
iv 'Monete di cui si
ignora
la
provinienza.'
This has
always
been
recognised
as a somewhat mixed
group,
so that
any
further information must come
direct from a
study
of the coins.
Group
v 'Monete
provenienti
dal Foro Romano.' The find
spot
cannot be further
specified
and it should be noted that a
slight
confusion over the
catalogue
numbers
published (nos. 1324-1364) might
make it difficult to be
completely
certain of the coins in the
original group.
As
preserved
in
their
trays they
form a
completely
coherent
group
with the numbers
13024 to 13264.
Group
vi 'Monete
provenienti
dalla Fonte di Giuturna.' This
group
has
always
been
regarded
as
belonging
to the latter
part
of the fourth
century
and
the
beginning
of the fifth.
Group
vii 'Monete
provenienti
dalla Cloaca Massima.' This is a
widely spread
group
which runs from the
Republic through
to the
Byzantine period
and
beyond.
Group
viii 'Monete rivenute nei vari scavi
eseguiti
al Velabro.' The
very
varied
nature of this
group suggests
that it
belongs mainly
to surface clearance
of several sites in the
dip
between the Palatine and
Capitoline
hills
rather than to the detailed
investigation
of one
particular
monument.
Group
ix 'Monete del Palatino.' This small
group
is noted as
coming
from 'localit
diverse del colle' and is
spread through
all the
periods
from the
Republic
onwards.
Group
x 'Secondo
gruppo provenienti
dal Palatino.' These coins are now in
chronological
order and
apparently belong
to the excavations of Boni
on the Domus Flavia and Domus
Augustana, although
there are other
coins included 'di cui si
ignora
la
provenienza precisa'.
The coins were stored in
trays,
in
boxes,
and some in
plastic bags.
In all cases
the
numbering
of the coins was
clear;
all such
numbering
has been
retained,
and
has been translated back into find
groups
from the
original publication
for the
118 RICHARD REECE
purposes
of this
report.
No
attempt
has been made to collate the
original publication
with those identifications
presented here,
so that
everything
in this
report
is the
direct result of first-hand
observation;
all coins listed existed in the
groups specified
at the time that the
listing
was done. Some sets of coins were
already
cleaned and
these had
only
to be
finally listed;
others needed minor
cleaning;
some
coins,
such
as the concreted
lumps
from the Basilica
Aemilia,
needed full chemical
cleaning,
and in these cases either zinc and 15
per
cent Sodium
Hydroxide
or 10
per
cent
sulphuric
acid were used. The
cleaning
and
listing
were done in the order that the
coins were
supplied by
the
Soprintendenza Archeologica,
and were
duly
returned
after
examination,
so that
parts
of different batches were seen in
varying order,
and there was never a time when
any
one
group
was to be seen
spread
out
complete.1
This involved the detailed
keeping
of records as work
proceeded,
the
originals
of
which, though perhaps illegible
to
any
other
workers,
will be
deposited
in the
library
of the British School for record
purposes.
The
original
lists were collated as
soon as
possible
after batches were
complete,
and final lists for each
deposit
were
eventually
obtained for all coins from Greek
imports
to the
Byzantine
issues of the
sixth
century.
Medieval coins have been the
subject
of a
separate study
which is
not
yet complete.
Where coins could be
fully
identified
they
have been referred to standard
texts : for the
Republic,
Crawford's Roman
Republican Coinage,
for the earlier
Empire,
Roman
Imperial Coinage,
and for the later
Empire,
Late Roman
Bronze
Coinage.
Full
details will be found in the references at the end of the
report ;
the relevant work is
cited at the
heading
of the relevant
chronological
section of the
catalogue.
A careful
decision has been taken to
print
the lists as
they
were constructed rather than to
allow a
process
of
tidying up'.
This does involve a
very
small amount of incon-
sistency,
but in no case does this lead to the
possibility
of
confusion,
and it has the
great
virtue of
truthfully representing
the
original
observations rather than the
doubtful vice of
printing
what
ought
to have been observed and recorded. Thus in
some cases the reverse
types
of coins were described in
full,
'VOT PVB
gateway'
for
an issue of 425 to
455,
whereas in other cases coins were
compared
to the works of
reference and listed as 'As Late Roman Bronze
Coinage
847'.
Coins
up
to 294 are listed
by emperors.
After 294 the coins are listed
by
mints
in short
chronological groups according
to Roman
Imperial Coinage,
volume
VI,
294 to
313,
volume
VII,
313 to
330,
and from 330 onwards
by
Late Roman
Bronze
Coinage.
With ten different
groups
within this
report
a difficult decision had to be taken
as to
providing
ten
separate
coin
lists,
one
per group,
which would have involved
considerable
duplication,
or one consolidated list which would have erased all the
information on the different
groups.
A
compromise
has been worked out which
I
hope
combines
flexibility, brevity, simplicity
and
clarity.
Thus one list has been
made,
and each
category
of
coin,
for
example
the
Neptune
As of
Agrippa,
has been
lfrhat is
why
the
catalogue
does not use references to Roman
Imperial Coinage
VIII: that volume
became available
only
after two
years'
work had
already
been done
using
Late Roman Bronze
Coinage
for coins of the
period.
Conversion of the references from LRBC to RIC VIII would
only
have been
possible
with all the relevant coins available for
inspection again.
listed once
only
-
Tiberius RIC 32. These coins occurred in several different
deposits,
and the reference number is therefore followed
by
the
group
in which the
coins occur
(in
Roman lower case
numerals)
followed
by
the number of
specimens
(in
arabic numerals in
brackets).
Thus 14 coins of
Agrippa
were
seen; they
are of
RIC Tiberius numbers 32 and
34;
of number 32 we have
ii(l) iv(8) v(3)
and of
34
v(2).
This sums
up
the information that in
deposit
ii there was one coin of Tib
32,
in
iv, eight
of those
coins,
in
v, three,
and that Tib 34
only
occurred
-
two
specimens
-
in
deposit
v. The
punctuation
of these lists is
important
: commas
separate
coin
types
such as different reference
numbers,
whereas semi-colons
separate larger
groups
such as
denominations, mints,
reverse
groups,
etc. Thus the absence of
punctuation
means that all the substance relates back to the last mentioned reference
number or
description.
Apology
must be made for the
poor
section on the Greek coins. This must be
taken as
simply
a notice that such coins do exist for further
study. My expertise
was
simply inadequate
to deal with the
coins,
and I
hope
that someone will make
good
the
deficiency
at a later date. For the fifth
century,
none of the works of
reference
comprehensively
covered the
monogram
issues of small module which
span
the
regular coinage
of the
Imperial
mints and the less well
regulated
coins
of the Vandals and the
Ostrogoths.
The
monograms
which were
legible
have
therefore been
reproduced
as seen even
though
some of these can
clearly
be related
to the lists in Late Roman Bronze
Coinage,
The coins described as Vandal are of the
module and
style
which I have come to
expect
in
great
numbers in the coins from
both the British and Italian excavations at
Carthage.
Thus a coin described as a
'Vandal
Angel'
is not
simply
the result of
failing
to
recognise
the difficult issues
from the mint of Rome in the fifth
century
which often
portray Victory,
it is a
considered
judgement
that such coins are best
paralleled
in
Carthage,
and
may
therefore be of Vandal or African
minting
in the
years
450 to 540.
With these
apologies, explanations
and directions I
present
the
Catalogue.
CATALOGUE
108 Greek Athens bronze owl
iii, Carthage early
3rd C BC horse and
palm
tree
ii,
KYE Bronze
ii,
Mamertini as BMC 25
iv,
Mars in Corinthian helmet
ix,
Naples
silver
-
head with
dolphins ii(2) iv(2),
Ptolemaic
large
bronze
v,
South
Italy
-
horse's head
iii,
Thasos
copy
of tetradrachm
-
silver
plate
on
copper
core
-
head of Bacchus r
iv,
Thunderbolt
v,
as BMC
(Italy)
Uria 6
v,
bronze
-
otherwise uncertain
ii(20),
iii
(9), iv(46), v(14), viii(4), ix(l).
892
Republic
Cesano No 1378
p
126 Aes Grave
Eagle/Octopus
iv
Sydenham
38
iv,
52
iv,
109 iv
Crawford
18/4 v(2), 26/3 ii, 38/5 vii, 38/6 vii, 38/7 vii, 41/9 v, 56/2 iv(3),
as
56/2 ii, 56/3 vii, 56/4 v(3)
vii
(1), 56/6 v, 98A/1
ii
(2), 174/1 ii(3), viii(l),
176/1 ii,
as 197
ii, 201/1 ii, 201/2 iv, 204/2 ii, 206/7 ii, 216/2a v, 219/2 ii,
232/1 ii, 232/4 ii, 240/2a ii, 244/2 ii, 256/4a viii, 257/4 viii, 261/1 ii, 266/1 ii,
266/2 v, 270/1 ii, 273/1 ii, 275/1 ii, 281/1 ii, 285/1 ii, 285/2 ii(3), 286/1 ii(2),
289/1 ii, 291/1 ii, 301/1 ii, 304/1 ix, 332/1 iii, 340/1 ii, 341/4.a.viii,
342/7.b.ii(2) iv(l), 346/3 ii(2), 346/4.b.ii, 348/1 iii, 361/l.c.ii, 363/l.a.ii,
432/1 iv, 476/l.a.iv, 476/I.b.iv, 494/23 iv, 535/1 iv(3
+ 1
halved) v(2) x(l).
Anonymous
issues : Denarius
illegible ii,
Sextans
illegible
v.
Plated denarius obverse as Crawford
500/3
reverse as
505/3
ix.
120 RICHARD REECE
Republican
coins otherwise
illegible:
Denarius
ii(7) iii(2) iv(l) v(l);
Plated core of denarius
ii(l) iii(l) iv(l);
Victoriatus
ii(l) v(l); Quinarius
ii(l) iv(l), plated quinarius iv(l),
As ii
(446) iii(7) iv(12) v(153) vii(2)
viii(I) x(5),
halved asses
iii(l) iv(13);
Semis
ii(l) iii(3) iv(l) vii(l);
Triens
ii(l) v(2) ix(l); Quadrans ii(3) iii(2) iv(l) ix(l) x(l);
Sextans
iv(2);
Uncia
iv(l) viii(l);
Uncertain fractions
ii(117) v(10).
27 B.C. to a.d. 294 Roman
Imperial Coinage
I-V
91
Augustus
18
iv,
79
vii(l) ix(l), 74(iv),
75
vii,
80 ii
(2) iv(l) vii(l),
84
iv(2) viii(l),
88-9
ii,
94
x,
98
iv,
144
x,
180
iv(4),
181
iv(2) viii(l),
182
iii(l) iv(3),
as
182
ii,
185
iv,
186
iv(l) x(l),
189
iv(3) viii(l),
190
iv,
J92
iv(3),
J95
v,
196
iv(2),
198
iv,
201
iv,
202
iv(2),
204A
iv,
205
iv,
209
iv,
210
iv,
21 1 A
iv,
215
iv(2) vii(l),
216
iv,
217
ii(l) iv(l),
218
iv(3) viii(l),
219
iv(2) v(l);
Sestertius OB Cives Servatos
iv, illegible ii; Dupondius illegible ii;
As
Moneyers
otherwise
illegible
iii
(2) iv(
1 1
) viii(
1
),
Nimes otherwise
illegible iv,
illegible ii(3) v(2) ; Quadrans
caduceus
iii,
altar
vi, illegible
i.
23 Divus 1
iv(2),
2
iv(l) vii(l),
3
iv(2) vii(2),
6
i(l) iv(12) vii(l) ix(l).
Augustus
Pater
24 Tiberius 15
iv(l) vii(l),
16
iv,
18
vii,
20
iii,
25
ii(l) iii(l) iv(l),
26
iv,
28
iv,
39
iv(3)
x(l),
40
iv(8) ix(l);
As- altar
type
iv.
14
Agrippa (Tiberius)
32
ii(l) iv(8) v(3),
34
v(2).
16 Caius 30
iv(l) viii(l),
32
iv(l) viii(l),
38
ii(l) iv(2) ix(l),
40
iv(l) vii(2),
42
iii,
44
iv,
47 iii
;
As of
Carthago
Nova
iv, Quadrans illegible
iv.
52 Claudius 60
vii(l) ix(l),
62
iv,
64
iv(3) v(l),
66
iv(5) v(3) vii(l) x(l),
67
iv,
68
ii(l)
iv(l) v(l) viii(l),
69
iii(l) iv(4) v(l) x(l),
72
ii(2) iv(4) vii(2),
74
ii(l)
iv(7) v(4) ix(l),
82
x,
84 iii.
6 Nero 139
v,
169
ii,
206
ii,
318
iii,
426-8
v,
As
illegible
ii.
4 Galba 35
vii,
60
v(l) x(l),
64 vii.
16
Vespasian
522
vii,
527
iii(l) vii(l),
545
vii,
554
viii,
555
ix,
557
iv,
567
iii,
582
iv;
Dupondius illegible v;
As
illegible iv(l) v(2) vii(l) viii(l) x(l).
8 Titus
(Vespasian)
664 ii.
(Titus)
94
ix,
122
vii(2),
123
vii, 129.b.ii,
133
vii,
135 iv.
19 Domitian
(Vespasian)
710
v;
As
illegible
ix.
(Domitian)
232
iv,
242
vii,
278A
iv,
301
iv,
335
iv,
367
vii,
385a
iii(l) viii(l),
393
v,
421a
iii,
434
v;
Denarius
illegible ii;
Sestertius
illegible vii;
As
illegible
ii(3) vii(l).
1
Anonymous Quadrans
RIC ii no. 6 ii.
3 Nerva 60
v,
62
v,
87 viii.
10 First
Century
As
illegible ii(2) ;
Small bronze iv
(1
-h I counter
marked) ; Quadrans
illegible iv(6).
16
Trajan
395
iv(l) x(l),
410
v,
476
i,
527
vii,
570
vii,
695
ii;
Denarius
illegible iv;
Sestertius
illegible ii(l) v(l) viii(l); Dupondius illegible viii;
As
illegible
vii(3) x(l).
24 Hadrian 600
v,
605
vii,
616
vii,
654
v,
669
viii,
676
vii,
682
vii,
716
ix,
795
vii,
824
vii,
970
vii;
Sestertius
illegible ii(l) v(l);
As
-
Restitutori
illegible vii, illegible
ii(l) iv(4) vii(2) viii(l);
Greek
Imperial
bronze
-
semis size
iv(2).
1 Sabina Sestertius
illegible
v.
27 Antoninus Pius 648
ii, 694.b.iii,
809
viii,
822
viii,
830
vii,
834
iv,
as 842 but As
vii,
862a
iv,
909a
ii;
Contorniate with rim
-
illegible ii;
Sestertius
illegible
i
(3) ii(l) v(l),
halved
v; Dupondius illegible i;
As
illegible iii(2) iv(2) v(2) viii(2) ix(l).
(Marcus Aurelius)
1270 vii.
5 Faustina I
(Antoninus Pius)
1 155
vii,
1 159
i,
1 167
ii;
Sestertius
illegible v;
As
illegible
ii.
17 Marcus Aurelius
(Antoninus Pius)
1238
vii,
1264
ii,
1305
iv(l) v(l),
1361 viii.
(Marcus Aurelius)
145
vii,
834
vii,
839
vii,
959
ii,
960
v,
1226
viii,
1247
vii;
Sestertius
illegible v;
As
illegible ii(2) v(2).
8 Faustina II
(Antoninus Pius)
1389
viii,
1409
v;
Sestertius
illegible iv(l) v(l);
As
illegible vii(3) viii(l).
3 Lucilia
(Marcus Aurelius)
1741
ix;
As
illegible v(l) vii(l).
9 Commodus
(Marcus Aurelius)
1588 vii.
(Gommodus)
302
iii,
318
vii,
425
vii,
509
vii(2),
533
v;
Sestertius
illegible
i(l) iv(l).
1
Crispina (Gommodus)
679 vii.
24 First to Second Sestertius
illegible iii(3) v(l) viii(l);
As
illegible iii(5) iv(4) v(3) vi(4)
Century viii(l) ;
halved As
illegible
iii
(2).
2 Second
Century
Denarius
illegible ii;
Sestertius
illegible
ii.
4
Septimius
Severus Denarius
illegible iv;
Sestertius
illegible ii;
As
illegible vii(l) ix(l).
2
Julia
Domna Sestertius
illegible
ii
(
1
)
vii
(
1
)
.
6 Caracalla 500
iv,
as 506
vii,
532
viii,
533
v;
Sestertius
illegible vi; Dupondius illegible
iii.
1
Elagabalus
280 iv.
1
Julia
Soemias Plated denarius obv.
type
2 rev. Salus
-
note
p.
164. ix.
10 Severus Alexander 397
x,
456
iv,
515
iv,
525
viii,
538
v,
601
v,
?626
v,
648
ii(l), v(l), vii(l).
2
Julia
Mamaea 676
v(
1
) ix(
1
)
.
2 Maximinus I Thrax 67
ii,
78 iv.
9 Gordian III 301
viii,
302
ii,
305
iv,
307a
ix,
308
viii,
332
iv;
Sestertius
illegible i;
As
illegible iv(l), viii(l).
8
Philip
I 150
vii,
158
ii,
160
vii,
167
vii, 169.b.iv,
177
viii,
194
ix;
As
illegible
vi.
3
Philip
II 255a
ix,
256
iv,
268 iv.
3
Trajan
Decius 11
vii,
120
ix,
124 viii.
2 Trebonianus Gallus
105.b.viii;
Sestertius
illegible
ii.
3 Volusian 253
ix,
256
iv(l) vii(l).
9 Third
Century
Sestertius
illegible v,
with rim
iii;
As
illegible ii(2) v(2) ix(3).
1 Valerian I 160 ii.
29 Gallienus As 157
viii(l) ix(l),
as 159 but e
ii(2),
160
v,
163
v,
165
ii,
178
ii(2),
180
viii,
207
v,
208
ii(4),
221
viii,
258
i,
282
v,
284
i,
617
v; illegible ii(4) iii(2)
v(l) vi(2).
3 Salonina 5
ii,
12
ii,
28 ii.
21 Claudius II 15
ii,
as 38
iii,
48
v,
66
v,
178
viii,
261
ii(3) iii(l) iv(2) v(l), copy
as 261
ii(l)
v(l); illegible ii(2) iii(3) v(l) viii(l).
1 Tetricus II 270 ii.
14 Aurelian 53
viii,
as 53
viii,
as 56
ix,
79
iv,
139
i,
140
ii,
as 142
viii,
147-
description
as 149-
ii,
154
viii,
184
v,
257
vii,
362
v; illegible v(l) vi(l).
1 Severina 7 As iv.
2 Tacitus 89
ii; illegible
iii.
6 Probus 158
ii,
185
viii,
203
ii,
as 731
i; illegible iii(l) v(l).
1 Carus 75 ii.
1 Carinus
Illegible
iii.
1 Numerian 409 viii.
6 Diocletian Pre-reform radiates
illegible ii(4)
iii
(2).
22 Radiates
Regular post-274 i(4) ii(5); Regular illegible ii(4) iii(4) v(l) vi(2) viii(l);
Barbarous
illegible
vi.
294-317 Roman
Imperial Coinage,
Volumes 6 and 7
6 294-305
1 Ticinum As 36.b.viii.
6 Rome 76.a.vii, 77.a.iv,
as 77.a.
-
nomm.
-
viii, 77.b.i,
78
i,
88.b.iv.
1
Carthage
*27.b.ii.
2
Cyzicus
15.a.x,
16.b.v.
8 Alexandria 46.a.x, 46.b.i(l) x(2), 48.a.ii(2) x(l),
48.b.ii.
122 RICHARD REECE
13 Mint Uncertain *Follis otherwise
illegible ii(l) iii(l).
Radiate fraction VOT XX
ii(4) iii(2) iv(l);
VOT X ii.
Radiate fraction otherwise
illegible
i
(2) v(l).
31 ""Folies'
(3)
Otherwise fractions
(28).
6 305-313
16 Rome 162
ii,
as 196
iv(l) vii(l), 2O2.a.ix,
208
ii(2) x(l),
209
ii,
*238
iv,
*239
ix,
as 258
i(3), *281.c.v,
as
348.a.i(l) ix(l).
3 Ostia 14
viii,
*58
i,
*60 iii.
1
Carthage
As 51.b.v.
1 7 Mint Uncertain Galerius reverse
illegible
ii.
Soli Invicto Gomiti
i(l) ii(4) iii(2) viii(3) ix(l).
Iovi Conservatori
ii(4) ix(l).
37 'Folies'
(32)
*Fractions
(5)
7 313-317
1
Lyon
Soli Invicto Corniti
illegible
iv.
1 Aries 71 ii.
7 Rome 12
vii(l) viii(l),
19
viii,
27
viii,
40
vi;
illegible v(2).
1
Aquileia
illegible
v.
1 Antioch 7 ix.
1 Alexandria Iovi Conservatori
illegible
iii.
4 Mint Uncertain Soli Invicto Corniti
i(l) ii(l) v(l);
Iovi Conservatori ii.
16
7 317-324
2 Trier 372
ix,
400 viii.
2 Aries 125
ii,
200 ix.
4 Ticinium 142
ix,
162
ii,
167
ii,
174 v.
24 Rome As 104
ii(l) v(4) vi(2),
106 i
v,
as 106
v,
110
ii,
111
ii,
112
v, 116i(l) vii(l),
120
v,
123
ii(2),
190
v,
209
vii,
225
ix,
232
ii,
238
ii,
247
vi;
D N Constantini
Max
Aug illegible
i.
1
Aquileia
Virtus Exercitus
illegible
v.
2 Thessalonika 101
ii,
D N Constantini Max
Aug illegible
i.
2 Heraclea 48
ii,
52 iv.
1 Antioch 36 iv.
18 Mint Uncertain Victoriae Laetae Princ
Perp ii(2) iii(l) iv(l).
Virtus Exercit ii
(
1
)
iii
(
1
)
vi
(
1
)
.
Caesarum Nostrorum
i(l) ii(5) iv(l).
D N Constantini Max
Aug
v
(2) ix(2).
56
7 324-330
2 Aries 264
ii,
309 i.
3 Rome 322
v;
Providentiae
Augg illegible iii(l) v(l).
1
Aquileia
Providentiae
Augg illegible
v.
1 Thessalonika 128 vii.
3 Heraclea 74
ii,
106
v;
Providentiae
Augg
iii.
2
Constantinople
As 35
ii,
140 viii.
1 Bronze Medallion Gonstantine I reverse uncertain ii.
7 Mint Uncertain Providentiae
Augg i(l) ii(2) iii(l).
Salus
Reipublicae ii;
Securitas
Reipublice
ix.
Lines of
legend
iii.
20
330-348 Late Roman Bronze
Coinage
-
Part I
330-335
1 Trier Gloria Exercitus 2 Standards viii.
1 Aries 375 ii.
22 Rome 531
vi,
535
vi,
536
vii,
540
ii(2) ix(l),
541
ii(l) ix(l),
542
ii,
544
ix(6),
546
vii(l) viii(l),
548
v;
Gloria Exercitus 2 Standards
iii(l) viii(l);
Urbs
Romaii(l) v(l).
2 Siscia 745
vii,
747 viii.
1 Thessalonika 838 vi.
5 Heraclea 898
viii,
904
iv,
909
vii,
917
vii;
Gloria Exercitus 2 Standards iii.
5
Constantinople
1010
v,
1015
ii;
Gloria Exercitus 2 Standards
iii(l) x(l);
Urbs Roma ii.
1 Nicomedia Gloria Exercitus 2 Standards ii.
2
Cyzicus
1232
v,
1233 ii.
2 Alexandria 1430
ii,
1431 ii.
335-341
2 Aries 412
v;
Gloria Exercitus 1 Standard vi.
6 Rome 564
vii,
567
vi,
571
vii,
575
ii,
580
ii,
as 581 vi.
1
Aquileia
Gloria Exercitus 1 Standard vi.
2 Siscia 782
ii;
Gloria Exercitus 1 Standard i.
1 Thessalonika 848 v.
2
Constantinople
1036
ii;
Gloria Exercitus 1 Standard x.
2 Nicomedia 1142
viii;
Gloria Exercitus 1 Standard i.
2
Cyzicus
1273
vi;
Gloria Exercitus 1 Standard x.
64 Mint Uncertain Gloria Exercitus 1 Standard
i(8) ii(ll) iii(5) v(6) vi(22)
viii
(6).
Pax Publica
iii; Quadriga vi(2);
Virtus
Augusti ii(l) vi(2).
82
341-348
1 Aries Aeterna Pietas iv.
2 Rome 642
viii,
643 viii.
1
Aquileia
701 ix.
1 Siscia Victoriae DD
Augg QNN
vi.
7
Constantinople
1052
ii(2),
1056
viii; Populus
Romanus
ii(l) v(l) vi(l);
VOT XX MULT
XXX iii.
3
Cyzicus
VOT XX MULT XXX
i(l) vi(l) viii(l).
4 Antioch 1398
ii;
lust Ven Mem
v;
VOT XX MULT XXX
iii(l) vi(l).
141 Mint Uncertain Victoriae DD
Augg QNN i(7) ii(10) iii(20) iv(l) v(6) vi(33) viii(16).
VOT XX MULT XXX
i(19) ii(4) iii(12) vi(6) viii(4).
lust Ven Mem
ii(l) vi(2).
160
124 RICHARD REECE
348-350 Late Roman Bronze Coinage
-
Part II
1 Trier 35 ii.
1 Aries Fel
Temp Reparatio
Hut i.
1 Rome 591 v.
1 Siscia 1140 viii.
1
Constantinople
2022 vi.
1
Cyzicus
2485 ii.
9 Mint Uncertain Fel
Temp Reparatio-
Phoenix
ii(l) vi(3);
Hut
ii; Galley i(l) ii(l) vi(2).
15
350-355
9 Aries 429
ii,
438
viii,
455
viii,
Fel
Temp Reparatio
Fallen Horseman
type
3
i(2)
v(2); type
uncertain
ii(l), iii(l).
28 Rome 653
ii,
654
viii,
657
iv,
662
vi(l) viii(2),
664
ii,
667
ii(l) v(l),
674
viii,
676
viii,
677
viii,
680
vi; Magnentius
Two Victories
i(2) iii(l);
FTRFH
type
2a
iii(l); type
3
i(3) viii(l); type
4
i(l) v(2) viii(l); type
uncertain
ii(l) vi(l) x(l).
3
Aquileia
896
ii,
925
viii; Magnentius
Two Victories
iii(l).
4 Siscia 1206
ii,
FTRFH
type
3
i(3).
6 Thessalonika 1681
ii(l) v(l) viii(l);
FTRFH
type
3
i(l), type
4
i(l); type
uncertain
iii(l).
2 Heraclea FTRFH
type
3
i(l) viii(l).
7
Constantinople
2029
ii,
2039
vi;
FTRFH
type
3
i(5).
4
Cyzicus
FTRFH
type
3
i(2) iv(
1
) ; type
4
i(
1
)
.
3 Antioch FTRFH
type
3
i(I) ; type
4
i(l) ; type
uncertain
iii(l).
771 Mint Uncertain
Magnentius
Two Victories
i(3) ii(5) iii(6) iv(3) viii(l);
Magnentius
Salus Chi-Ro
iii(l).
FTRFH
type
3
i(50) iv(13) v(3) viii(6) ix(3); type
4
i(9) iv(4) v(l) viii(9);
type
uncertain
ii(117) iii(182) iv(25) v(4) vi(280) vii(l) viii(43) x(l).
type
3 overstruck on Urbs Roma obverse on reverse iv.
837
355-361
1 Trier
Spes Reipublice
iii.
3 Aries 458
iv; Spes Reipublice iii(2).
14 Rome 684
viii(2),
687
vi(5) viii(2),
689
vii,
as 689
ii, Spes Reipublice v(l) vi(2).
1 Siscia 1228 viii.
2
Cyzicus
2502
ix,
2503 ix.
1 Alexandria
Spes Reipublice
iii
(
1
)
.
348 Mint Uncertain
Spes Reipublice i(29) ii(48) iii(83) iv(17) v(7) vi(139) viii(24) ix(l).
370
361-364
1
Lyon
268 ii.
2 Aries 470
iv; Julian
VOT
X/XX
i.
22 Rome 695
iv(l) viii(l),
696
ii(4) iv(l) ix(l),
697
viii; Julian
VOT
X/XX i(l)
ii(6) iii(l) v(2) vi(l) viii(2).
2 Siscia 1267
vi; Julian
VOT
X/XX
vi.
1 Sirmium 1619 i v.
71 Mint Uncertain
Julian
VOT
X/XX i(5) ii(17) iii(25) iv(l) v(2) vi(10) viii(2) ix(l);
Isis
i(l) ii(l) iii(3) vi(l); Jovian
VOT V
i(l) ii(l).
100
364-378
1 Trier Securitas
Reipublicae
iv.
1
Lyon
305 iv.
17 Aries 481
viii,
483
ii,
507
ii;
Gloria Romanorum
iii(l) v(l) vi(l);
Securitas
Reipublicae i(l) ii(l);
Gloria Novi Saeculi
i(3) ii(l) iii(4) iv(l).
55 Rome 700
viii,
705
ii,
711
viii,
713
ii(l) vii(l) viii(l),
721
ii,
724
ii,
725
ii(3) iv(2)
vi(l),
726
ii,
730
ii(6),
733
vi,
736
ii(3) vi(l),
737
ii(l) ix(l),
738
viii;
Gloria Romanorum
i(2) vi(l) viii(l) x(l);
Securitas
Reipublicae i(10) ii(3)
iii(l) iv(l) v(l) vi(2) viii(2) ix(l).
28
Aquileia
968
iv,
973
ii,
1012
ii,
1016
ii,
1039
ii(2),
1040
ii,
Gloria Romanorum
i(6)
vi(l) viii(l);
Securitas
Reipublicae i(8) iii(l) iv(l) vi(3).
43 Siscia 1271
viii,
1272
vi,
1273
v,
1279
ii,
1287
vi(l) viii(2),
1302
ii,
1303
ii,
1304
ii,
1328
ii,
1333
ii,
1334
ii(2),
1344
iv,
1373
ii,
1377
vii,
1485
ii(2),
1503
ii;
Gloria Romanorum
i(4) ii(l) iii(l)
vi
(2);
Securitas
Reipublicae i(ll) iii(2)
v(l) ix(l).
1 Sirmium 1634 iv.
20 Thessalonika 1719
ii(2),
1722
ii(2),
1725
ii,
1796
ii;
Gloria Romanorum
i(3) ii(l) iii(4)
vi(3);
Securitas
Reipublicae i(3).
1 Heraclea Securitas
Reipublicae
iv.
6
Constantinople
2066
ii,
2113
ii;
Gloria Romanorum i
(2);
Securitas
Reipublicae i(l) iv(l).
1 Nicomedia Securitas
Reipublicae
i.
1
Cyzicus
Securitas
Reipublicae
i.
5 Antioch Gloria Romanorum
iii(l)
viii
(3) ;
Securitas
Reipublicae
viii.
1 Alexandria Securitas
Reipublicae
vi.
870 Mint Uncertain Gloria Romanorum
i(50) ii(83) iii(86) iv(39) v(2) vi(43) viii(8) ix(l).
Securitas
Reipublicae i(65) ii(118) iii(169) iv(38) v(4) vi(123) viii(38) ix(3).
906
378-383
1 Arles Concordia
Auggg
i.
4 Rome 766
v;
Concordia
Auggg i(2) ;
VOT
XV/XX
i.
1
Aquileia
1058 vii.
2 Siscia Concordia
Auggg i;
VOT Uncertain i.
1 Thessalonika 1816 ii.
1 Heraclea 1960 iv.
2
Cyzicus
VOT V
iii;
VOT Uncertain i.
1 Antioch 2741 vi.
92 Mint Uncertain VOT X
iii(2) ;
VOT
XV/XX ii(l) iii(3) vi(3) ;
VOT Uncertain
i(4) ii(16)
iii(23) iv(5) vi(22) viii(3);
Concordia
Auggg ii(l) iii(5) vi(l) viii(l);
Virtus
Romanorum
ii(2).
105
383-388
8 Rome As 775
ii,
782
ii(l) viii(l),
789
ii,
790
ii;
Two Victories
viii(3).
3
Aquileia
1084
iv,
1086
iv;
Two Victories v.
126 RICHARD REECE
1 Siscia As 1560 iii.
28 Mint Uncertain
Reparado Reipub ii(l) iv(l) ; Magnus
Maximus
Gateway iii;
Two Victories
i(2) iii(8) iv(2) v(4) viii(5);
Virtus Exercitus
i(l) ii(l) iv(l) viii(l).
40
388-392
2 Rome Salus
Reipublicae i(2).
4
Aquileia
Salus
Reipublicae
i
(4).
1 Siscia 1575 vi.
3 Thessalonika 1854
ii,
1862
i,
1865 ii.
3
Constantinople
2183
ii;
Salus
Reipublicae iii(2).
1 Nicomedia Salus
Reipublicae
i.
14
392-408
247 Rome Urbs Roma Felix
i(57) ii(66) iii(94) iv(7) v(3) iv(7) viii(8) ix(2);
Priscus
Attalus826ii(l) iii(2).
155 Mint Uncertain Victoria
Auggg iv(6) vi(4);
Salus
Reipublicae 1(11) ii(3) iii(2) iv(4) v(2)
vi
(16) viii(9) ; Victory
Uncertain
ii(45)
iii
(51) ;
Gloria Romanorum
type
19
ii(l) iii(l).
402
408-423
7 Rome Victoria
Augg v(l) vi(l) viii(5).
425-455
6 Rome As 847
viii,
as 856
viii,
as 868 mm
*/-/RP viii;
VOT PVB
Gateway vi;
VOTXXiv(2).
1
Constantinople
Cross in Wreath v.
7
Fourth to
early fifth century
2210 Mints Uncertain Reverses
illegible i(57) ii(583) iii(637) iv(121) v(43) vi(576) vii(l) viii(128)
ix(64).
455-540
1 Ravenna Victoria
Auggg
as 586 viii.
28
Monograms
Marcian Uncertain
ix; Completely
Uncertain
iv(l) v(10).
167
Kingdoms
Vandal
-
Hahn 14
plate
42
-
XLII on As of
Vespasian v;
Vandal
Angel
v(5); Angel
with wreath
v;
Cross in
hairy
wreath
v; type
uncertain
v(19);
type illegible v( 140).
5 Athalaric BMC Vandals as 65
vi,
69
pi
VIII No 24
iv(2).
Theoderic BMC
Ostrogoths
as 42 ff
viii(l) ix(l).
201
rXl
v. PvTv.
i^v.
[\Lv.
IFNv.
K
\j
or
CloC
v(3|.
TKk KL
P^u.
1/W
Byzantine
498-650 Dumbarton Oaks
1 Anastasius D.O.
23.j.
v.
10
Justinian
I D.O. 217.1.
viii(2),
286.d.3.
ii,
as 330
v,
331
v(2),
363-2.
iv,
370.2.
iv,
follis
iv,
V nummi x.
6
Justin
II D.O. 206.2.
vi,
207
v(l) vi(l),
217
v(l) vi(l),
XX Nummi ix.
2 Maurice Tiberius D.O. 294
ii,
as 294 v.
2 Constans II BMC 311-20
iii(l) ix(l).
1 Heraclius D.O. as 263 v.
1 Sixth to Seventh XX Nummi otherwise uncertain v.
Century
23
Bag Hoard,
Basilica
Aemilia, Groups
i or ii
This
group
of coins was
completely
enclosed in a mineralised
'bag*
woven of thread similar to a
coarse linen. No coin later than the issue Urbs Roma Felix
(
?a.d.
408)
could be identified. No mint
marks were
legible.
House of Constantine Two Victories
(1);
VOT XX MVLT XXX
(2);
Fel
Temp Reparatio
Fallen Horseman
(6); Spes Reipublice (5).
House of Valentinian Securitas
Reipublicae (5).
House of Theodosius Two victories
(
1
) ;
Urbs Roma Felix
(4)
.
Illegible
coins
(40).
Corroded
fragments Many
molten
droplets
and fused
lumps (36).
A small hoard of 71 bronze coins of the Rome
mint, 345-8,
associated with the Palatine material
-
group
x
-
will be the
subject
of a
separate
short article in Coin Hoards.
128 RICHARD REECE
PART II INTERPRETATION AND COMMENT
One of the most
important points
about the collection which
really
needs to be
settled before
any commentary
can
begin
is its
integrity.
While there is no reason
to
suspect any
additions to the collection from other areas of the
city,
or from
outside
Rome,
the
position
on coin removed from the
group
is
unfortunately
a
matter of
complete uncertainty.
It is
generally assumed,
and the execrable condition
of the
majority
of
pieces
in the
group fully
bears this
out,
that the better
pieces
were removed to other
collections,
but in the absence of documentation it is best
simply
to
regard
the
group
of coins under consideration as
probably
the remnant
of a once
larger
and finer collection.
Once it is admitted that the collection is
incomplete
then certain restrictions
must be
applied
to
any commentary, although many points
will be unaffected.
Thus there is little
point
in
discussing
the relative numbers of silver denarii and
sestertii and asses since the silver and
larger
bronze coins will
probably
have been
preferentially
selected out of the collection. There will
probably
be a bias
against
silver and
larger coins,
and in favour of smaller coins. But it would be unreasonable
to
suspect any
selector of
going conscientiously through
the asses of
Augustus
selecting
out those of
just
one set of
moneyers,
so within the
moneyers'
asses of
Augustus
the relative numbers of different sets of
moneyers might
have some basic
archaeological
value and
validity.
The ratio between the
larger
coins of the
early Empire up
to
250,
and the
smaller coins of the later
Empire
is almost
certainly suspect,
and biased
against
the
earlier coins.
But, again,
it would be
highly surprising
if
any
selector before the
present
time would have
gone through
the Two soldiers with Two standards' issue
of the House of Constantine
selecting
out
only
the coins struck in the mint of
Nicomedia,
so
that,
while the
relationship
between the
large
issues of
Julian
and
the smaller issues of 330-5
may
be
badly altered,
within either issue the mints
represented may
well be an accurate
sample
of what was
originally
found. As a
final
example,
it would be unreasonable to accuse a selector of
taking poorly
preserved
'folies' of the time of Diocletian in
preference
to finer asses or
dupondii
of the
High Empire,
so that when these survive in reasonable numbers the absence
of such 'folies' is
unlikely
to be due to a selector.
With these
points
in mind attention
may
be drawn to some of the
interesting
points
on the list. This must
obviously
be a
selection,
since it would be
possible
to
prolong
the
report indefinitely by commenting
on each
type
of coin as it occurs.
Matters of
comparison will,
for the most
part,
be left on one side while the basic
nature of the list is established.
While most of the coins found can be classed as casual losses it is doubtful to
what extent the few Aes Grave and
early
cast coins can be so described. Most of the
finds can be assumed to come from usual
types
of
archaeological layer
such as the
fills of
pits
and
trenches,
construction
deposits,
flattened rubbish
heaps
and so on.
In
many
cases the exact nature of the
layer
in which each coin was found would
add
only
a limited amount to our
knowledge
of the use of the coin. In the case of
these
large lumps
of cast bronze it would be of the
highest
interest to know in what
context
they
had been
deposited
and what the chances could have been that such
deposition
was accidental. The later
republican
coins
give
a
general sample
of the
bronze
produced
between the late third
century
and the middle of the second
century
b.c. There seems to be a
gap
between the issues of about 200 and 160
b.c.,
and this
might
be attributed to the
difficulty
of
identifying
the series marked
by
symbols
when the coins are in worn condition. This
explanation
will not
hold,
since
the issues of c. 180 b.c. onwards with letters are also
apparently missing.
The
gentle
flow of bronze coins continues from about 160 to about 130
b.c.,
when silver
begins
to be more
commonly
found. This
simply represents
the more
common
minting
of silver and the
comparative rarity
of bronze. There seems to be
no
simple
connection between the commonness of the bronze
republican
issues as
listed
by
Crawford from the Paris collections and the survival of such coins in these
deposits.
Certain issues of the later second and first centuries b.c.
may appear
to
be more than
usually common,
such as the three
prow
issue of C. Vibius
Pansa, 342,
and the
jugate
heads of C.
Censorinus,
346. It must be true that the unusual
designs
described mark these coins out as easier to
identify
on worn
examples
than
normal,
and it is
impossible
to allow for this bias. The
republican
series ends with the
Caesarian bronze of issue 476 and the
early
bronze issues of
Octavian, 535,
and these
issues lead
straight
on to the
Augustan
issues.
From
Augustus
to Claudius the coins
represent
a
general
selection of the
dupondii
and asses
commonly
available with an admixture of sestertii and small
set of
moneyers
of
Augustus,
nor on one
particular
reverse such as
Minerva,
for
change.
The
types
are
varied,
thus there is no
very
obvious concentration on one
Claudius. The Minerva reverse is the most
common,
whether in
Rome,
or
Spain,
or
Britain,
but in Rome it takes its
place
as the best
represented
in a series of reverses
whereas outside the
City
it seems to be the basis of the bronze
coinage.
The
long
reign
of
Augustus provides
55
larger
coins and 35
quadrantes,
the four
years
of
Gaius
provide
nine
larger
coins and seven
quadrantes,
and a theoretical 13
years
for
Claudius,
31
larger
coins and 21
quadrantes.
It is clear that Gaius is well
represented
here in the centre of the
administration;
there is no
suggestion
whatsoever
that his coins are rare due to
any
withdrawal as a result of damnatio
memoriae,
and
if this is not in evidence at Rome it would seem a most
unlikely suggestion
to
explain
the absence of coins of Gaius from
military
sites in
Germany
or Britain. In this
collection,
which is almost
certainly
biased
against large coins, quadrantes
show
up
quite
well,
in better numbers for instance than in the coins
dredged
from the Tiber
(Reece 1981).
Their numbers are still not
large enough,
even in this
sample
biased
in their
favour,
to
represent
small
change
as we know it in our use of modern
money;
this must therefore be one more
piece
of evidence
against
a
money
market based on
the smallest coins available. With a value of
1,600
to the
gold piece,
not far from
the value of the Diocletianic
denarius,
the
quadrans
counts as
'change necessary
for
equity'
rather than
'money
useful for
shopping',
and resembles the modern
Jp
rather than the Victorian
farthing.
The lack of
coinage
of Nero cannot be
completely explained by noting
the
restriction of his
period
of issue of bronze coins to the
years 64-8,
for his six coins
compare unfavourably
with the 16 for the four
years
of Gaius or the four for the
year
of Galba. While the
high quality
of his coins
may
have counted
against
him
in the
process
of selection which we are
assuming,
it is
strange
that few of his common
130 RICHARD REECE
asses or small denominations have been noted. The most obvious characteristic of
the
coinage
of Domitian is the
way
that it is well
spaced
out
through
the
reign,
in
marked distinction to similar
coinage
in Britain which
clumps
around the issues of
a.d. 86 with the titles COS XII CENS PER. The
knowledge
that
coinage
at the
source is
equally spaced,
but that in one remote
province
it is
clumped
does
suggest
a means of
examining
the whole
problem
of
supply,
and
strongly argues
for the full
and detailed
publication
of coin lists from as
many widely spaced
areas of the
Empire
as
possible.
The
coinage
of Hadrian is of a
very general
character and
completely
avoids
the Provincial issues
except
for an
illegible
RESTITVTORI
type
which
could,
of
course,
have related to
Italy.
The
investigation
of the distribution of these series
would
obviously
be of interest
and,
as a first
hypothesis put
forward
mainly
for
attack,
it
might
be
suggested
that the series were intended
for
the
provinces,
rather
than as about the
provinces. Following
on this line it is worth
noting
the absence of
Britannia asses and
dupondii
of Hadrian and of Antoninus Pius when both are well
known in Britain itself.
Septimius Severus,
like
Nero,
is rather
conspicuous by
his absence. That this is
more than accident or
purposeful
selection is
suggested by
the excellent coins of
Caracalla, especially
of the Circus Maximus in almost
perfect
condition
(RIC 500),
a
very
rare find. The one coin of
Elagabalus
shows the reverse of
Roma,
and this
follows on the line of the sestertius of Caracalla. While the absence of obvious
provincial
issues has been
noted,
it would be
interesting
to examine the issues
concerned with Rome if
only
there were
comparable
material in the Mediterranean
area,
and a
background against
which to
compare.
The series of bronze coins of Severus Alexander are
again
well
spaced
out
through
the
reign,
while those of Gordian III are concentrated around 241-2.
They
follow the
general pattern
of the
early
third
century
in
forming
a series of
sestertii and asses without the introduction of
silver,
so that the battle of the denarius
and the new radiate is unseen in these
deposits.
This
may,
as
always,
be due to
selection of
silver,
or
silvery
coins out of the
group,
but the
prevalence
of bronze
does follow the
general
Italian
pattern.
Base silver radiates
appear
around
250,
but
do not become common until the sole
reign
of Gallienus after 260. All of Gallienus'
29 coins are
radiates,
and all but one
belong
to the mint of
Rome;
the
import
belongs
to the mint of 'Asia'.
The
general pattern
of radiate coins is thin. This is
surprising,
since the coins
are most
unlikely
to have been selected out of the
group
and their absence
today
must reflect an absence of loss. All the consecration issues of Claudius II are of the
Altar
type,
not the
eagle,
and two of these coins are
copies,
the
only
coins in the
group
which can be classed as Barbarous Radiates. The
presence
of
only
one coin
from the Gallic
Empire,
Tetricus
II,
underlines the affiliation of the Claudius
copies
to the Mediterranean series rather than to the
prolific copies
of North Gaul
and Britain.
With the
reign
of Aurelian two features are worth comment.
Large bronzes,
called Asses in
RIC,
make a last brief
appearance;
while their existence is well
known their
appearance
as site
finds, perhaps diagnostic
of
general use,
is note-
worthy. Among
the radiates the
proliferation
of mints now becomes obvious with
the
following representation:
Rome
-
4,
Milan
-
4,
Ticinum
-
1,
Siscia
-
2,
and
Cyzicus
-
1. For Probus there are three coins of Rome to one of
Siscia,
and the one
coin of Carus is of Ticinum. In
general
this
coinage
of the late third
century
is
rather
scrappy
and
disjointed; larger deposits
will be needed to
explore
the
problems
of circulation and use in
any great
detail.
Most features of the fourth
century
are best dealt with later in
comparative
detail. For the moment I shall restrict
myself
to direct comment on the
presence
and absence of certain coins. In the
period
294 to 305 the balance of 28 fractions
(all radiate)
to
only
three 'folies5 is
surprising
from the
viewpoint
of the North-West
provinces,
but normal from the
viewpoint
of
Carthage.
As I
suggested
earlier I do
not believe that the absence of the
larger
denomination can be
solely
due to selection
out of the collection
; rather,
the differential distribution of denominations is a real
phenomenon
which demands
plotting
and
explanation.
We
may
be
seeing
here a
continuation of the
pattern by
which silver denarii of the
early
third
century
are
more common on the frontiers and sestertii of the same
period
are more common in
the Mediterranean area
(Reece 1973).
This factor of 4: 1 works
very
well whether
with denarii : sestertii or 'folies' : radiate
fractions, perhaps
too
neatly
to
inspire
confidence. Whatever the
reasoning
the
phenomenon
is short
lived,
because the
decline of the 'follis' meant the
quick
elimination of its
fractions; by
320 bronze
coinage
was once
again
uniform.
Two bronze
medallions,
one of Constantine I and one of Constantine
II,
should form a
high point
in this
report
were it not for their
very poor condition,
and
the
illegibility
of their reverses. In
any
case the writer's bias is to
regard
the un-
common as of far less interest than the common
simply
because it
appears
far less
often,
and can therefore
give
far less information of an
archaeological
nature. Later
in the House of Constantine there is no evidence that
any
of the
commonly
represented
issues with the reverse of the Fallen Horseman
(Fel Temp Reparatio,
348-55)
are
irregular
even
though
one is overstruck on an issue of Urbs Roma
(330-5).
The
coinage
of the fifth
century
could
provide
much
ground
for comment if
only
the
examples
were in
good
condition,
or
legible,
or at least with discernible
types. Unfortunately
this is not the case. While Late Roman
Bronze
Coinage
has
blazed a trail
through
the darkest
parts
of the
jungle,
it has done so at the
expense
of
separating
out the clear and
regular
issues from the
imperial
mints from all
competing
material. This is an excellent first
step
in the
understanding
of the
coinage
of the
period,
but it is not of the
greatest
use when faced
by
an indiscriminate
mixture of small module
coinages
of the fifth and
early
sixth centuries. Work on
these coins has reinforced an
impression produced by working
on the coins from
Carthage,
that a
survey
of all
coinage
in use in the Mediterranean area
during
the
later fourth to mid-sixth
century
is
urgently
needed.
The last issues in this
group,
for which
complete
confidence could be
claimed,
were all
closely
related issues with the reverse Urbs Roma
Felix,
and the three
coins of Priscus Attalus
(409).
I would
strongly agree
with Carson and Kent's
observation on the
similarity
of these
issues,
and would therefore
willingly accept
their date of c . 408 for Urbs Roma Felix. As will be seen
later,
these coins have
considerable
chronological significance
for these
deposits.
The issues after 410
seem,
132 RICHARD REECE
with one
single exception,
to
belong
to the mint of Rome. In no case am I
completely
sure of
identifications, though
in all cases I have
only quoted
references where the
balance of
probability
was
strong.
With the near
ubiquity
of
Victory
on the fifth-
century coinage
of Rome it is
quite
certain that
many fifth-century
coins have
gone
unrecorded,
or have been listed as
uncertain,
since in the absence of a
legend
com-
plete
identification is
virtually impossible.
I mentioned in the introduction to the
catalogue
that
my description
of some
issues as 'Vandal' was
firmly
based on the
similarity
of these coins to the
great
number found in levels of the
early
to mid-sixth
century
at
Carthage.
Their
presence
in
Rome, together
with coins of Athalaric and Theoderic makes the mixture of
issuing
authorities
certain,
and the
problems
of attribution of uncertain
specimens
highly problematic.
Byzantine
issues are
sporadic.
Folies are
rare,
and the usual denomination is
the XX nummus
piece.
This contrasts with
Carthage
where even XX is a
high
denomination,
and with the Danube frontier where most of the coins of the sixth
century
are folles
(Reece 1977).
There is the usual
gap
in
Byzantine coinage
until
the
anonymous
issues of the ninth
century;
these will be dealt with in the
separate
publication
on the medieval and later coins.
These
notes,
which have followed
through
the
catalogue
in
commentary,
come
now to the
Bag Hoard,
and that in turn will lead on to a discussion of the
deposits,
and a
comparison
of the
coinage
in Rome in the fourth
century
with finds from
further afield.
The
Bag
Hoard
This
group
of 100 coins was found
among
the
large lumps
in
groups
i and ii
which
came,
without
any doubt,
from the floor of the Basilica Aemilia. While the
number 100 is
questionable,
because the estimation of the number of
fragments
is
totally subjective,
its status as an uncontaminated
group
is unassailable. As mentioned
above,
the
hoard,
in its
bag,
must have been burned for the carbonised fabric to
have been able to resist
decay
for
long enough
to become
totally
mineralised. It is
theoretically possible
that mineralisation could have
happened
to the fibres
simply
through
the
process
of
quick
corrosion of the
copper coins, perhaps
in an
organic
and acid
medium,
with the
resulting
inhibition of bacterial action which the
copper
salts in solution
might
be
expected
to cause. Such
high
concentrations of
copper
salts
presuppose
a remarkable
process
of
corrosion,
and I know of no case where
such
complete
mineralisation has been
reported.
The latest coins in the hoard have
the reverse Urbs Roma
Felix,
and I have
already
mentioned
my
reasons for
accepting
Carson and Kent's date for the coins of c. 408. These coins are
not, generally, very
common; they
are
relatively unimportant
in the 'Schola Praeconum'
group
which
belongs
to the second
quarter
of the fifth
century,
and their
presence
in this
group,
and the absence of
any
later
coins,
leads me to claim a date for the
group
soon
after 408.
Although
I have a
very strong antipathy
to the attachment of historical
dates to
archaeological
material I
can,
in this one
instance,
find no reason to hold
out
against
the
generally
held view that the
burning
of the Basilica Aemilia is due
to the sack of Rome
by
Alaric's
Visigoths
in
410,
and I
accept
this date for the
hoard.
Scepticism might suggest
that
any
later
sacking,
such as the Vandal attack in
455,
is at least
logically
as
strong
a
possibility
as the sack of
410,
since the vital
piece
of
positive
evidence is the latest coin in the
hoard,
c.
408,
and that this
piece
of evidence
cannot, by
its
very nature, adjudicate
between
any
of a series of later
possibilities. Though
I incline
naturally
to the
sceptical view,
it is in this case
demonstrably unlikely
to be
right,
since the
negative
evidence of what is not in the
hoard is almost
stronger
than the
positive
evidence of what is. From the 'Schola
Praeconum'
group
we know the
likely composition
of a
group
of coins of the
years
425 to 450. This
group
of coins is
internally
well dated on
positive
evidence
(issues
of 425 to
455)
and is in
complete agreement
with the
dating
of the fine
pottery.
A hoard burned in a Vandal sack of 455
ought
therefore to resemble this
group
of
coins,
and the
Bag
Hoard does not. If the
Visigothic
sack of 410 had
gone
unrecorded
in
history
the basic evidence of this hoard would still have
suggested
a
conflagration
in the Basilica Aemilia after 408 and before the middle of the fifth
century.
The
deposits
or
groups
A
summary
of what is recorded about the
groups
has been
given
in the
introduction. In each case this can be no more than a
suggestion
as to where each
group
was
found,
and no
chronological guide-lines ought automatically
to be
inferred. With a firm date for the
Bag
Hoard it is
possible
to see the Basilica Aemilia
groups (i,
ii and
iii)
as
basically large,
scattered hoards of the
year
410. The overall
composition
of these
groups, allowing
for some
byzantine
and later coins in the
topsoil
of the
area,
and a hoard of
republican
asses in
group
ii which had also
undergone
a
fire,
is similar. To
help
in
comparisons
the coins from all the
groups
have been listed
by chronological periods
in Table 1
; they
have been
re-grouped,
in a manner that will be
explained
later,
and reduced to a common 'coins
per
thousand' of the total
imperial
coins
found,
in Table 2. The features of
similarity
include a minimal
representation
of coins of the
periods
before
259,
a low but
constant tail of coins from 259 to
350,
and a sudden enormous increase of coins
after the
year 350, reaching
a
peak
with the issues of 364 to
378,
but
containing
respectable
numbers of Urbs Roma Felix
and,
in
groups
ii and
iii,
the rare coins
of Priscus Attalus.
This scattered hoard is
unique
in that the
find-spots
of its
component parts
can still be
inspected
on the
pavement
of the
Basilica;
first hand
inspection
shows
that the coins were
probably
concentrated in the south
aisle,
and in between two
columns
dividing
the aisle from the nave a
particular
concentration is centred on
a
rectangular
set of iron
stains,
which could
suggest
the base
angle
irons of a
substantial wooden chest. The Roman
purpose
of the hoard is at
present beyond
me,
as is the erratic distribution of coins over the floor. While the first
point might
well be
elucidated,
the second cannot
possibly
lead to more than historical fiction.
With the
warning
that at least three of the
groups
are
basically
scattered
hoards
deposited
at one moment in
time,
whose
composition
is
totally
determined
by
the coins in circulation at that
time, though possibly
modified
by selection,
we
may
look at the other seven
groups.
It would be
good
if there were some method
by
which
we could test the
'normality'
of the Rome
groups
as
judged against
other
groups
of
coin finds
throughout Italy,
or the Mediterranean coastal
regions
in
general.
134 RICHARD REE CE
Table 1 . Coins from the ten
deposits by periods
of issue
i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Total
27 B.C.-A.D. 41 2 13 8 106 9 1 13 7 4 4 167
41-54
-
4 2 26 10
-
4 1 2 3 52
54-69
-
31
-
3
-
2
- -
110
69-96
-
7486
-
12 33 1 44
96-117 1 2- 2 4- 5 3- 2 19
117-138
-
2- 64
-
10 2 1
-
25
138-161 5 7346- 462- 37
161-180
-
3-2 7- 9 2 1
-
24
180-192 1
-
1 1 1
-
6
- - -
10
193-222
-
2 1 3 1 1 3 1 2
-
14
222-238
-
2-35-1 1 1 1 14
238-259 1 4- 7- 1565- 29
259-275 3 23 10 4 14 3 1 9 2
-
69
275-294 5 179- 2 3- 3
- -
39
294-317 12 26 7 6 8 1 3 9 6 6 84
317-330 6 27 6 5 16 4 3 2 7
-
76
330-348 44 55 52 9 29 98 14 31 13
-
345
348-364 126 215 311 72 27 450 2 109 8 2 1322
364-378 171 254 270 89 10 185 2 62 7 1 1051
378-388 14 27 44 12 6 27 1 14
- -
145
388-402 19 52 56 10 2 21
-
9
- -
169
Total 1 410 745 785 375 170 795 100 280 64 21 3745
Greek
-
24 11 50 17
- -
4 2
-
108
Republic
-
619 18 52 179
-
8 6 4 7 893
402+ 57 69 98 15 204 13
-
19 9 1 485
Total 2 467 1457 912 492 570 808 108 309 79 29 5231
A suitable
background
has been constructed from a selection of sites around the
Italian,
French and
Spanish
coasts of the Mediterranean and this
may
be used for
comparison (Reece forthcoming).
The coins on this set of sites have been
arranged
in
just
such an order as Table 2. The
diagram
on which I
prefer
to show the
similarities and differences is the
picture
of cumulative
percentage.
This
may
sound
technical,
but it would be
difficult,
if numbers have to be
used,
to think of a method
with less
complication
or obfuscation. I shall
go through
the method in
detail,
with
apologies
to readers who will need no such
guide.
Since I have restricted
my
use
of numbers to the absolute
minimum,
and tried to use no abstruse mathematical or
any
statistical methods at
all,
I
hope
all
readers,
even the most
arithmophobic,
will
try
to follow
my
line of
argument.
The
diagrams
shown on
Fig.
1 and
Fig.
2 show lines of
symbols
which start out
from the bottom left-hand side of the
picture
and climb
up
to the
top right.
Each
site starts without coins at the
beginning
of the first
period (0 per cent,
bottom
left)
and builds
up
its
holdings
until at the end of the last
period
it has its full
complement
(100 per cent, top right).
There are
roughly
20
periods
to cover the 100
per cent,
and the
simplest
site
might
therefore have about 5
per
cent of its
coinage
in each
Table 2. Coins from Table 1 divided into two
groups
and
expressed
as coins
per
mil
(per thousand)
a: Late
Deposits
b: General
Deposits
Per Per
i ii iii iv vi viii Mean Year v vii ix x Mean Year
27 B.c.-A.D. 41 5 17 10 24 1 25 14 0-2 53 130 63 190 109 1-6
41-54
-
5 3 12
-
4 4 0-3 59 40 31 143 68 5-2
54-69
-
4 1
- - -
1 0-1 18 20
-
48 22 1-5
69-96
-
9 5 31
-
11 9 0-3 35 120 47 48 63 2-3
96-117 2 3
-
8
-
11 4 0-2 24 50
-
95 42 2-0
117-138
-
3
-
24
-
7 6 0-3 24 100 16
-
35 1-7
138-161 12 9 4 16
-
21 10 0-4 35 40 31
-
27 1-2
161-180
-
4
-
8
-
7 3 0-2 41 90 16
-
37 1-9
180-192 2
-
1 4
- -
1 0-1 6 60
- -
17 1-4
192-222
-
3 1 12 1 4 4 0-1 6 30 31
-
17 0-6
222-238
-
3
-
12
-
4 3 0-2 29 10 16 48 26 1-6
238-259 2 5
-
27 1 21 9 0-4
-
50 78
-
32 1-5
259-275 7 31 13 16 4 32 17 1-0 82 10 31
-
31 1-9
275-294 12 23 11
-
4 11 10 0-5 12
- - -
3 0-2
294-317 29 35 9 24 1 32 22 1-0 47 30 94 286 114 5-0
317-330 15 36 8 20 5 7 15 1-2 94 30 109
-
58 4-5
330-348 107 74 66 35 123 111 86 4-8 171 140 203
-
129 7-2
348-364 307 289 396 282 566 389 372 23-3 159 20 125 95 100 6-3
364-378 417 341 344 349 233 221 318 22-7 59 20 109 48 59 4-2
378-388 34 36 56 47 34 50 43 4-3 35 10
- -
11 1-1
388-402 46 70 71 39 26 32 47 3-4 12
- - -
3 0-2
of the 20
periods
so that at the end of
period
1 its
holding
was 5
per cent, period
2
-
10
per cent,
and so on in a
straight
line across the
diagram.
On
Fig.
1 this is most
nearly
seen in the line of circles which
represents
the mean
of Mediterranean sites. There are kinks in the
line, but,
in
general,
it
pursues
a
fairly
even course from 0 to 100
per
cent. This demonstrates that the
general
rule
for sites in the Mediterranean area is to have a
roughly equal spread
of
coinage
throughout
the 21
periods
under
study
between 27 b.c. and a.d. 402. The limits of
the values from which this mean is derived are shown as
single
dots either side of
the mean
values,
and
they
show that all the Mediterranean values assembled lie in
a broad band which follows the
simple
line which adds 5
per
cent
per period
to the
running
total. As most of these
groups
of coins derive from museum
collections,
the
excavated coins from Luni
(Frova 1973, 833-82)
are added to the
diagram
to test
its
reliability. Although
the Luni values are
always
on the low side of the
range
until
the later fourth
century, they
are within the
spread
of Mediterranean values in
general,
and follow the same
general
trends. On to this
diagram
the total values
for all the ten
groups
from Rome have been
plotted
as one line. The
shape
of this
curve is
completely
different from the Mediterranean
spread
of
values,
from the
Mediterranean
mean,
and even from the coins excavated at Luni. The rise
upward
from 0
per
cent is
very slow,
and the first
major
advance does not come until the
beginning
of the fourth
century.
136 RICHARD REECE
Fig. 1
But we
already
have assurance that three of the Rome
groups
are not
general
groups
of site-finds
spread
out over 400
years,
but scattered hoards whose
deposition
reflects
only
one
instant,
and whose
composition
reflects at best one of the four
centuries of the
complete period.
The next
stage
is therefore to
spread
out the Rome
groups
on a
diagram
similar to
Fig.
1 so that
they may
be seen
individually.
On
Fig.
2
the three
groups
from the Basilica Aemilia have been
given
the same
symbol,
but
the other seven
groups
have been
given
individual
symbols.
The three first
groups
hang closely together,
but
they
are also
joined by groups
vi and viii from the Lacus
Iuturnae and from the Velabrum. The other
groups approximate,
in
varying degrees
Fig. 2
of
divergence,
to the
general
band sketched out for Mediterranean
background
values,
and revolve around the mean of those values. The immediate
suggestion
must therefore be that we have in the ten Rome
groups
three
groups
which are
virtually
a scattered hoard of the
year 410,
and two other
groups
of
very
similar
composition,
which are
presumably
to be
explained
as
deposits
which accumulated
quickly
at the end of the fourth and
beginning
of the fifth
centuries,
and which
therefore share the same
composition
and characteristics as the hoard
groups
while
being deposited
over one or two decades rather than in one
day.
The five other
groups
seem to be of much more
general composition,
some with more
early
coins
138 RICHARD REECE
in
them,
and others with more
late, except
for
group iv,
the
general
Forum
group,
which shows a
shape
much more like the
groups
of around the
year
400. Its
position
in the middle of the
diagram
is due
solely
to a
large
number of coins of
Augustus
and Tiberius. If these are left on one side the whole curve would move down to
the area of the hoard
groups,
and its
shape
would then make it
indistinguishable.
I therefore
propose
to treat it as a late
group
into which a number of
early
first-
century
coins have found their
way.
This
reasoning
accounts for the
way
that Table 2 has been
presented.
The late
deposits
have been
grouped together,
and the
'general' deposits
have been left
together
as a collection of individuals rather than a coherent
group.
The mean
values have been found for the two
groups
and these have been
put
on to
Fig.
1.
The result seems to
repay
these calculations for the late
groups
follow the lower line
well
away
from the
general
and
expected
run of
background
sites while the
'general
deposits'
run
smoothly through
the
spread
of
background
values
interweaving
with
the
background
mean. The late
groups
can now be seen
quite clearly
to have
pulled
down the Rome Total line out of all
normality;
when these are extracted the line
for Rome
springs
back into its
expected position.
We have succeeded in
separating
out four
deposits,
one
generally
from the
Forum,
one from the Cloaca
Maxima,
and two from the
Palatine,
which bid fair
to be the
equivalent
of
general
coin lists from individual sites excavated in the
centre of Rome. Because there is no record of where the coins came from within
these
sites,
there is
nothing
further that we can do in the
way
of detailed site
explanation.
These
groups
are now on record for future
use,
and some comments
on their
general composition
will be made below.
The three
groups
from the Basilica Aemilia have
already
had
enough attention,
which leaves us with three
groups
labelled
Velabrum,
Forum
Uncertain,
and Lacus
Iuturnae. All three of these
groups
have few
early coins, except
for the anomalous
and isolated
clump
of
Augustan
coins in the Uncertain
group ;
all
suddenly expand
about the
year
350;
all have the unusual Urbs Roma Felix issues of a.d. 408: and
all have one or two issues which take the
deposits
on into the later fifth and sixth
centuries. In each
case, however,
the centre of
gravity
of the
group
lies around the
year 400,
with some later additions. I have
explained
in detail
my
reasons for
choosing
this date in the earlier section on the
Bag
Hoard. The two areas
represented
can derive little in detailed
commentary
from these coin lists
except
to
say
that
there seems to have been a
process
of accumulation of worn
coins,
and
perhaps
therefore also other
rubbish,
around the
year
400 or a little after.
Activity
measured
by
coin loss did
continue,
but on
present comparative
evidence it was
sporadic.
For the Lacus the
implications
are rather more
precise,
for here is a monument
with well defined area and
depth
whose fill included a
large
amount of
pottery,
glass
and metal
fragments, very
well recorded
by
Boni in his excellent
report
of
1901
(Boni 1901).
The best known of the
pottery
is the
type
collection of Forum
ware,
a
glazed
Roman fabric which has been
variously
dated from the later medieval back to the
sixth
century (Potter
and Whitehouse
1981). My feeling,
since
being
introduced to
the
pottery,
is that it is
part
of the North Italian-Danubian tradition of
glazed
pottery
of the fourth and
early
fifth centuries. While the latest coins in the
group,
of around
580, give
a firm date
by
which the Forum ware was
probably deposited,
this assumes that the
pottery
is a later
part
of the
deposit
than the
majority
of the
rubbish,
for which the bulk of coins
give
a clear indication of c. 400.
Perhaps
it is
best to
say
that the coins make it
quite
clear that the
majority
of rubbish
deposited
in the Lacus was in
place by
about
420,
that the
majority
of material illustrated
and described in the
report agree
with this
date,
that Forum ware would fit
perfectly
well
here,
but that the
deposit clearly
remained
open
until about the
year
600.
Unfortunately
all this
reasoning may
be
completely pointless,
for Boni makes it
quite
clear in his
report
that he found one coin in the fill of the
Lacus,
a coin of
Honorius with the reverse Gloria
Romanorum,
to be dated around the
year
400.
He mentions the
finding
of no other
coins, gives
no indication that a further coin
report
is to be
expected
from
any
source
whatever,
and if
any
credence is to be
attached to what I
regard
as an excellent
report
for its
time,
the
labelling
of
group
vi
of the Rome coins would seem to be in error. The new move of Forum ware towards
what I
regard
as its true date
may
therefore be a most remarkable
accident,
and the
matter must therefore be left
open
for the moment.
General comments
It remains to look
briefly
at the relative numbers of coins in the different
deposits
at different
periods,
and then to examine the
origins
of the coins which
arrived in Rome in the fourth
century.
The results of Table 2 are shown in
Fig.
3. The
deposits
are divided
up
into
the late
deposits
and the
general deposits,
the columns
collecting together
the mean
values of the two
groups
in coins
per
thousand have been
adjusted according
to
the number of
years
in each of the time
periods,
and the two sets of results have
been drawn out
directly
in two
diagrams.
The characteristics which have
already
been described now become visible : the difference in the
representation
of coins
up
to
300;
the
general appearance
of
fourth-century
coins in the
general deposits,
and the
great peak
of the late
deposits
in the
years
348-64 and 364-78. There is
disagreement
between the two
groups
as to the
period
of
greatest supply. According
to the late
deposits,
the
years
348-64
marginally
overshadow
364-78,
and no other
periods
bear
comparison.
The
general deposits suggest
that a
peak
of coin
supply
was reached in
330-48,
and that coin
supply
to Rome thereafter dwindled. Since
the late
deposits
have such a
specialised
nature
showing only
the
coinage
in use
c.
400-50,
random finds in the future will
presumably
resemble the
general deposits.
If this
suggestion
is
accepted,
that the
diagram
for the
general deposits
most
closely approximates
to the actual coin loss in
Rome,
and thence to the actual coin
supply
in
Rome,
the late
deposits
can be seen to have a
remarkably
biased com-
position.
The coins of
330-48,
which should be the
highest,
are
poorly represented
in
comparison
with the
periods immediately
after. This
suggests
to me that there is
discrimination at work
against
the earlier coins and in favour of the later issues.
Whether this discrimination is clearcut
enough
to
suggest
a demonetisation of
earlier issues is
uncertain,
but it is
quite
clear that the number of coins in circulation
around the
years
400-10 in the centre of Rome was
artificially
low in coins struck
before about 353
compared
with the
general
run of losses in the same area. That
suggests
to me a
change
in
monetary policy
in the
years during
which the issues
140 RICHARD REECE
Table 3. Coins of the fourth
century by
mints
v
c c
>
.2 - 8
1

a
^
1 - Ji
n I
1 * 1
c
1 1 !
J 1
1
!
J
r
1 1 ! I i
-
!
n
i
1
OQ4

1 6-1

2-8 18 13 31 12
305

11123 3- 1

11 32 21 53 9
317

-
2
- -
2- 24- 4 1-
-
2 2
- - -
1- 38 18 56 14
324

2- 3

1

132

12 8 20 9
30Q

_
1

1-22

2
-
1 5 5 1 2
-
2 42 61 103 20
335

2- 6

12-1-222

11 64 82 12
34j

1
-
2

11

7
-
3 4
-
19 141 160 17
348

-
1

1- 1

1

1-1

6 9 15 5
350

9
-
28

3 4
-
6 2 7
-
4 3
-
66 771 837 38
355

-
1
-
1 5
-
36

13 1

2-1 51 419 470 15
3g4

_
1
_
1 17
_
55

28 43 1 20 1 6 1 1 5 1 181 870 1051 126
378

1- 4

12-11

21- 13 92 105 9
383

10

72-3-3 1

26 28 54 16
392

247

247 155 402
-
408

7

7
-
7
-
423

showing
the Fallen Horseman were struck
(350-c. 356), though
a much closer
study
of a
larger
number of
fully
identifiable
specimens
is needed to
amplify
the
point.
Comparison
of the coin loss at Rome with the wider coin loss elsewhere is outside
the
scope
of this
report,
but will be the
subject
of work in
progress
to be
published
in the
Cyprus
Numismatic
Report.
The final
diagram, Fig. 4, brings together
in two rather different
ways
the
information
given
in Table 3. For this table the coins of the fourth
century
have
been divided
up
into short
chronological groups
and listed
according
to the mints
which
produced them,
where the mint-mark is
legible.
Since the number of coins
with
legible
mint-marks was small all the
deposits
have been summarised as one.
In one or two cases the results are
slightly misleading
in that it is the
type
shown on
the coin which allows the attribution to a mint rather than the
reading
of a mint-
mark. Thus the issue
Populus
Romanus was struck between 341 and 348
only
at
Constantinople,
and the
recognition
of this
type,
however
worn,
makes Con-
stantinople
the best
represented
mint at this
period;
and the issue of Urbs Roma
CO
6
142 RICHARD REECE
Fig. 4
Felix, unique
to the mint of Rome around
408, gives
all the
legible
coins of the
period
392-408
artificially
to Rome. But
allowing
for these
imperfections
the table
is of use and
potentially
of interest.
Fig.
4a
gives
the actual numbers of
legible mint-marks, period by period,
separated
out into
only
two
groups
of Rome and elsewhere. The variations visible
here bear no obvious resemblance to the variations overall when the similar issues
which are unattributable are added in.
Fig.
4b takes the total of
legible
mint-
marks in each
period
and
simply expresses
the
relationship
between Rome and
other mints as a
percentage
of the total. This
picture
can
perhaps
be
interpreted
more
safely
in that there is a
general tendency away
from a
large representation
of
Rome
early
in the
century,
to a
very
small contribution in the middle of the
century,
and then
gradually
back to Roman
predominance, partly upset
from
364-92, by
the end of the
century.
The
period
324-30 breaks an otherwise
very
smooth
decline;
in consolation it is worth
noting
that this is an
abnormally badly represented period
in the
coinage
in
general,
and that
may
account for the
'irregularity'. Fig.
4a makes
it
quite
clear how tenuous
any interpretation
is since the evidence is so
sparse
and
fragmentary.
Yet this evidence is based on a
quite
remarkable
sample
of over
5,000
identifiable Roman
coins,
a total which no
published
excavation
(where
the find-
spot
of each coin is
published)
can
equal,
and which few site collections outside
Conimbriga,
the German and Danube
Frontiers,
and Britain can
surpass.
In other
words, poor though
this
sample demonstrably is,
it is the best that there will be
(apart
from
Carthage)
in the Mediterranean area for the immediate
future,
for all
competitors
will be from
only general provenances.
This becomes even more
tantalising
when the actual mint
representation
on
Table 3 is
examined,
for those
figures represent
a succint
summary
of an enormous
number of
supplies,
transactions,
movements of
coin, goods
and
people, Imperial
directives, applications
of
laws,
and individual lawlessness. But the
summary
is so
intricately
succinct that it cannot be
convincingly separated
out into its
component
patterns.
It
might
be
thought
that the number of coins from
any
mint found at Rome
would be a
fairly simple
function of the distance of the mint from Rome. Thus Aries
at the mouth of the Rhone has better
representation
than
Lyon,
well
up
on the
Rhone,
or Trier with no direct access to the Mediterranean. It is true that Aries
is better
represented
than
Lyon, but, forgetting
for the moment the
nonsensically
low
figures,
Trier is better than
Lyon,
and the
relationship
between coins from
Aries and
Lyon
forms no
simple
function of the distance from Rome. To all intents
Aries is
represented, Lyon
and Trier are not.
Aquileia
and Siscia are well
represented,
but what are the distances of these two mints from Rome ? How is the distance from
Siscia to the sea to be
compared
with the
voyage
down the Adriatic and round
Calabria,
and is the sea
voyage
from
Aquileia
to be
preferred
to the land route
which,
in
miles,
is
only
a fraction ?
Perhaps
sense
may
be seen in the
closely spaced
mints of the sea of
Marmora,
Heraclea, Constantinople,
Nicomedia and
Cyzicus,
for all four are
virtually
the
same distance from Rome measured in
any way. Constantinople
is
always
the
highest,
but then it is the second
capital
and traffic between the two cities
may
be
expected
to be
unusually heavy,
but there is no such
simple explanation
for the
144 RICHARD REECE
closeness of Heraclea and
Cyzicus
and the
disparity
of Nicomedia. It
might
be
suggested
that this
represents
also the
output
of the different
mints,
that Nicomedia
was a smaller
producer,
or that the
produce
from Nicomedia went
predominantly
into the
great
and
populated
land mass of Asia Minor. Neither
suggestion
succeeds
when the
representation
of these mints is examined in sites other than
Rome,
such
as
Cyprus
or Carnuntum.
The whole
process
of
supply
of
coinage
in the fourth
century
is as
yet
un-
explained.
Michael Fulford and I have
purposely
taken
up opposing
stances in the
hopes
of
producing
testable
theories,
or at
least,
discussion. One line
(Reece 1978)
suggests
that all
coinage
is
produced by
the state for its own
purposes
and that the
only
means of distribution of
copper
coin in the fourth
century
is state
payment.
In its first
step,
on this model the distribution of
coinage
reflects
directly imperial
policy
and action. The second line
(Fulford 1978) suggests
that
coinage
is
part
of
the
general exchange
of
goods
and services and accounts and the movements of
coins from mints of
origin
to
points
of
deposition
is
basically
reflective of the flow
of
trade,
but in reverse. We
may
well be
working
towards a
compromise
in which the
initial
step,
and for some sites
(such
as those on the
frontier),
the
major one,
is state
supply
of state functionaries'
needs,
while once released
by
this mechanism into
circulation the
general
movement of the coin
'pool'
is due to trade and the movement
of
goods
and
people.
I cannot conceive of
provincial mints,
even in the fourth
century, sending supplies
of coin to the mint
City
of
Rome,
and I must therefore
assume that home needs were met
by
direct
payment
from the
City mint,
and that
all other coins arrived at Rome without direct official
organisation.
Does the
preponderance
of Aries over Trier then
suggest
a Mediterranean basin trade area?
Richard Reece
References (General)
Boni,
G.
(1901).
Il sacrario di
Jutarna. Notizie degli Scavi
1901,
41-144.
Dondero,
I. Bricchi-
(1952).
Elenco del materiale numismatico. Antichita fase,
ii, part iii,
3-9.
Frova,
A.
(ed.) (1973).
Scavi di Luni 1970-71
(Roma).
Fulford,
M.
J. (1978).
Coin circulation and mint
activity
in the Later Roman
Empire. Archaeological
Journal 135,67-114.
Potter,
T. and
Whitehouse,
D. B.
(1981).
The
Byzantine
frontier in South Etruria.
Antiquity 215,
206-10.
Reece,
R.
(1973).
Roman
coinage
in the western
Empire.
Britannia
iv,
227-51.
Reece,
R.
(1977). Coinage
and
Currency.
Bulletin
of
the Institute
of Archaeology 14,
167-78.
Reece,
R.
(1978).
Coins and Frontiers: or
Supply
and Demand. In
J.
Fitz
(ed.), Limes,
643-6
(Budapest).
Reece,
R.
(1981).
Roman
monetary impact
on the Celtic World. In B. Cunliffe
(ed.), Coinage
and
Society
in Britain and
Gaul,
24-8
(London).
Reece,
R.
(forthcoming).
Roman
coinage
in the western
Mediterranean,
a first
survey. Opus
forthcoming.
Whitehouse,
D.
B., Barker, G., Reece,
R. and
Reese,
D.
(1982).
The Schola Praeconum I. PBSR
50,
53-101.
References {Catalogues)
BMC
Catalogue of
Coins in the British Museum
(Greek
-
Roman
-
Byzantine).
Sydenham
E. A.
Sydenham,
The
Coinage of
the Roman
Republic, London,
1952.
Crawford M.
Crawford,
Roman
Republican Coinage, Cambridge,
1974.
Roman
Imperial Coinage
H.
Mattingly,
E. A.
Sydenham,
C. H. V. Sutherland and R. A. G.
Carson,
Roman
Imperial Coinage i-vii, London,
1923 ff.
Late Roman Bronze
Coinage
R. A. G.
Carson,
P. V. Hill and
J.
P. C.
Kent,
Late Roman
Bronze
Coinage, London,
1960.
Dumbarton Oaks
Catalogue of
the
Byzantine
Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks
Collection,
Washington, D.C.,
1966 ff.
Acknowledgments
My
first
sight
of the Rome coins came as a result of an idea of
Sig.ra
Anna
Fazzari,
then
secretary
to the Director of the British
School,
and of
my
introduction
by
her to Dott.8sa Dondero. All discussion
concerned with the second view of the coins was carried out
by
Dr. David Whitehouse. and
he,
on
behalf of the British
School,
made work and
storage space available,
allowed us accommodation
during
the
work,
and
guaranteed
the
safety
of the coins. Prof. La
Regina, Soprintendente,
took the
bold and vital decision to allow the coins to be examined at the British
School,
and Dott.88a Dondero
made the most
important
decision of all
by allowing
us to
complete
her work of
many years.
The first two weeks of work were
supported financially by
the
Faculty
of
Archaeology, History
and Letters of the British
School,
and the travel fund of the Institute of
Archaeology
in
London,
and the second and third seasons of work were assisted
by
the British
Academy.
The
only way
in which this work could be
accomplished
in the time was
by working hard,
and
my
three teams of two assistants a
year put
in rather more than the
required
four hours a
day,
without
any
financial
gain,
and still seem to have considered themselves the ones to benefit. In the first
year
Tim
Quine
and
Jon
Colombo covered a
very large
amount of the
cleaning necessary
while
sorting
most of the cleaned coins into
rough groups ;
in the second
year
Stuart Saw and Matthew Brown
continued the
cleaning
and the
identification,
and in the third
year
Richard
Champion
and
Philip
Perkins finished the
cleaning,
and continued the
listing.
Without the facilities of the British School
the work could not have
gone
forward at
anything
like the rate that it
did,
and
especial
thanks are
due to
Sig.ra
Luciana Valentini for the
equanimity
with which she viewed our inroads on the
numismatics sections of the
library. Finally,
Simon
James
redrew the
figures
for
publication
with his
customary clarity
and
accuracy.

Richard Reece, Coin Collection From Rome

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Richard Reece, Coin Collection From Rome

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A Collection of Coins from the Centre of Rome

Author(s): Richard Reece

Anda mungkin juga menyukai