The Empire Strikes: the Growth of Roman Infrastructural Minting Power, 60 B.C
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Empire Strikes: The Growth of Roman Infrastructural Minting Power, 60 B.C. – A.D. 68 A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Classics of the College of Arts and Sciences by David Schwei M.A., University of Cincinnati, December 2012 B.A., Emory University, May 2009 Committee Chairs: Peter van Minnen, Ph.D Barbara Burrell, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Coins permeated the Roman Empire, and they offer a unique perspective into the ability of the Roman state to implement its decisions in Italy and the provinces. This dissertation examines how this ability changed and grew over time, between 60 B.C. and A.D. 68, as seen through coin production. Earlier scholars assumed that the mint at Rome always produced coinage for the entire empire, or they have focused on a sudden change under Augustus. Recent advances in catalogs, documentation of coin hoards, and metallurgical analyses allow a fuller picture to be painted. This dissertation integrates the previously overlooked coinages of Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt with the denarius of the Latin West. In order to measure the development of the Roman state’s infrastructural power, this dissertation combines the anthropological ideal types of hegemonic and territorial empires with the numismatic method of detecting coordinated activity at multiple mints. The Roman state exercised its power over various regions to different extents, and it used its power differently over time. During the Republic, the Roman state had low infrastructural minting capacity. The Roman state’s infrastructural power over the European and African provinces grew as more regions began using the denarius and its bronze coin fractions. The Roman state’s minting infrastructural reach suddenly extended into Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt during the reign of Nero and continued to increase thereafter. In the Imperial Period, the state’s infrastructural power was modest and limited to some extent, as it managed an empire-wide system of coordinated mints in which the mints also retained some autonomy. This diachronic sketch suggests that the state’s infrastructural minting capacity grew significantly about one hundred years into the Imperial Period, in part due to the development of an imperial ideology. ii Copyright © 2016 David Allen Garrett Schwei All Rights Reserved iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation could not have been possible without the help and guidance of many people. Foremost among them are my committee. I thank my co-advisers Peter van Minnen and Barbara Burrell, as well as Duncan MacRae the third reader. Their keen eyes and minds have strengthened this dissertation’s methodology and argument. They have helped me achieve one of my major scholarly goals: to move beyond narrow numismatic debates and engage with larger historical problems, all while still remaining faithful to the numismatic evidence and tradition. A dissertation so rooted in numismatics could not be possible without the magnificent collection available in the Burnam Classics Library. I thank Jacquelene Riley, Michael Braunlin, the late David Ball, Phoebe Acheson, Cade Stevens, and the many student workers for maintaining and making this collection available to us. I thank the staff and curators at the American Numismatic Society for introducing me to numismatics and its methods during the Eric P. Newman Graduate Summer Seminar in 2011. I owe a particular debt of gratitude to David Wigg-Wolf and the late Richard B. Witschonke for their guidance and introducing me to all aspects of numismatics. I am grateful to Oliver D. Hoover, Arthur Houghton, the late Getzel Cohen, Michael Braunlin, and Barbara Burrell for helping me maintain my interest in numismatics and find ways to use the skills I learned in New York. I also thank the University of Cincinnati Department of Classics and the Trustees of the Louise Taft Semple Fund for the generous financial support that has enabled me to study and conduct my doctoral research here. I am deeply indebted to the administrative staff who has kept the department running throughout my many years here: Carol Hershenson, John Wallrodt, iv Laura Deller, Kenneth Gottorf, Deema Maghathe, Patrick Tyler Haas, Kelsie Murray, Natalie Long, Kevin Newman, Joe Katenkamp, and Lindsay Gundler. This department has also given me a world class education and opportunities. I am grateful to Peter van Minnen, Barbara Burrell, the late Getzel Cohen, Harry Gotoff, Steven Ellis, Kathleen Lynch, Holt Parker, Eleni Hatzaki, Kathryn Gutzwiller, Susan Prince, Daniel Markovic, and Valeria Sergueenkova for training me in philology, archaeology, and history. I thank Steven Ellis for allowing me to join the Pompeii Archaeological Research Project: Porta Stabia in 2010 where I learned a great deal about archaeology and came to appreciate material culture even more. I am very grateful for the many teaching opportunities and experiences that I have had in Cincinnati. I thank the UC Classics Outreach Program, Susan Prince, Valeria Sergueenkova, the Graduate Association for Teaching Enhancement, Daniel Markovic, and Lauren Ginsberg for teaching me how to teach. Finally, I thank my students for the many lessons and the great joy that they have imparted to me. Last but certainly not least, I thank my family and friends for their unwavering support. My mom Kathy Schwei, my dad Steve Schwei, my sister Alison Ballou, her husband Matt and children Miranda, Madeleine CaiQun, and Atticus, and my brother Daniel and his fiancé Sharon Raya never stopped believing in me, offered advice and comfort, shared their homes, strategized with me, and brought much joy and amusement into my life. I am honored and forever grateful to be a part of this amazing clan. I thank Liz Hamilton, Hollyann Barry, Bea Hamilton, Matthew Barry, and Thane Thompson who have accepted me as one of their own, who have helped me get away to the relaxing countryside, and who have always recognized the need for a little touch of whimsy. My friends and colleagues in Cincinnati have offered me much needed support and jocularity. I especially thank Cat Baker, Taylor Coughlan, Meg Sneeringer, Kyle Helms, CJ Miller, Samantha Hudson, Kendall MacMahan-Kitchens, Elyce Moschella, Ryan v Huibregtse, David Kwasny, Mitch Brown, and Carina Moss for their encouragement and friendship. I also thank Amber Platt, Meghan Snyder, Emily Rose Merz, Andrew Connor, Heather Graybehl, John Ryan, Chris Cloke, Emily Egan, Allison Emmerson, Katie Swinford, Marcie Handler, Kristina Neumann, Alex Schaefer, Preeya Phadnis, Melissa Hartzell, Amit Bindra, Bea Perruzzi, Emilia Oddo, Sabrina Brown, Mohammed Bhatti, Andy Lund, Sabina Ion, Patrick Tyler Haas, Meredith White, Taylor Kleineick, Rachelanne Bolus, Katie Breyer, Justin Dale, Sarah Lima, Bill Weir, Simone Agrimonti, Sarah Beal, and Alice Crowe. This dissertation could not have been possible without the advice and support of all these people. For that I am thankful. All mistakes remain my own. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………. ii Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………... iv Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………….. vii List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………………. xiv List of Charts ……………………………………………………………………………. xvii List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………… xviii Chapter One: Introduction 1.1. The Problem ………………………………………………………………………... 1 1.2. Theoretical Framework …………………………………………………………….. 2 1.3. Previous Scholarship ……………………………………………………………….. 12 1.4. Coordinated Decisions at Multiple Mints ………………………………………….. 16 1.5. Unknown Decision-Makers ………………………………………………………… 19 1.5.1. The Mint at Rome ………………………………………………………………… 20 1.5.2. Coin Legends ……………………………………………………………………... 21 1.5.3. Summary ………………………………………………………………………….. 23 1.6. Decisions About Coin Production and How to Detect Them ……………………… 24 1.6.1. Opening and Closing Mints ……………………………………………………… 26 1.6.2. Denominations, Weight Standards, and Metal Standards ………………………... 29 1.6.2.1. Weight Standards ………………………………………………………………. 29 1.6.2.2. Denominations of Bronze Coins ……………………………………………….. 31 vii 1.6.2.3. Metal Standards ………………………………………………………………… 32 1.6.3. Coin Types ………………………………………………………………………. 33 1.6.4. The Quantity of Coins Produced …………………………………………………. 35 1.6.5. Recoinages ………………………………………………………………………... 38 1.6.6. Data Management ………………………………………………………………… 40 1.7. Outline of the Dissertation ………………………………………………………….. 42 Chapter 2: The Late Republic (60 – c. 55 B.C.) 2.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………… 47 2.2. The Denarius in Italy, Sicily, Spain, and Africa …………………………………… 48 2.2.1. The Origin of the Denarius ………………………………………………………. 48 2.2.2. The End of Silver Coin Production on the Iberian Peninsula …………………….. 49 2.3. Greece and Macedonia ……………………………………………………………... 53 2.3.1. The Annexation of Greece ……………………………………………………….. 53 2.3.2. Greece ……………………………………………………………………………. 57 2.3.3. Macedonia ……………………………………………………………………….. 62 2.4. The Province of Asia ………………………………………………………………. 64 2.5. Syria ………………………………………………………………………………… 67 2.6. Roman Infrastructural Minting Power in the Late Republic (60 – c. 55 B.C.) …….. 69 Chapter 3: The Civil Wars (49 – 27 B.C.) 3.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………… 73 3.2. Imperatorial Mints During the Civil Wars …………………………………………. 74 viii 3.2.1. Caesar ……………………………………………………………………………. 75 3.2.2. Pompey and the Pompeians ……………………………………………………… 77 3.2.3. Brutus, Cassius, and the Liberators ……………………………………………….