REVUE BELGE
DE NUMISMATIQUE
ET DE SIGILLOGRAPHIE
CLXI – 2015
BELGISCH TIJDSCHRIFT
VOOR NUMISMATIEK
EN ZEGELKUNDE
BRUXELLES – BRUSSEL TABLEDESMATIÈRES–INHOUDSTAFEL
urban versus ruralcontexts:differencesofmonetisation fromancientgreecetotheearlymiddleages (coinfinds,taxesandtrade)–conferencemay23 2014
▪ François deCallataÿ&JohanvanHeesch , Introduction 1 ▪ CatherineG randjean, Lamonétarisationdel’ Astu etdela Chôradescités recques( vi es.av.n.è.–vesiècleden.è.)enquestions 3 ▪ François deCallataÿ, ComediesofPlautusandTerence:anunusualop portunitytolookintotheuseofmoneyinHellenistictime 17 ▪ ChristianLauwers, Coinsetateliersmonétairesceltes:del’ oppidum aux artisansitinérants 55 ▪ FranS troobants&Jeroen Poblome, Byin andsellin inlateRomanPisi dia:ahypotheticalframeworkofcoinuseinSa alassosanditscountryside 73 ▪ Philippa Walton, Frombarbarismtocivilisation?Rethinkin themoneti sationofRomanBritain 105 ▪ Jean Marc D oyen , La monét (ar)isation des rands domaines ruraux de Gauleseptentrionale:entre estioncapitalisteetcommercedeproximité 121 ▪ AlessiaR ovelli, Contextesurbainsvs.ruraux:l’Italiecentraleetsepten trionaledurantleHautMoyenÂe 145 ▪ Jean PierreDevroey, Activitémonétaire,marchésetpolitiqueàl’â edes empereurscarolin iens 177
mémoires –artikels
PanagiotisP.Iossif , Who’swealthier?Anestimationoftheannualcoinpro ductionoftheSeleucidsandthePtolemies 233 PierluigiDebernardi &OlivierL egrand , RomanRepublicansilvercoinsof the quadrigatus periodstruckinSpain 273 DavidBiedermann &Florian Haymann , DieDenaredesP.VentidiusBas sus( rrc531 ) 293 MartinBeckmann , Trajan’srestoredcoina e:volume,valueandpurpose 311 Peter Talloen, Fran Stroobants &Patrick Degryse , HephaistosinPisidia: establishin theimportanceofacointype 325 Giacomo Manganaro , TraGallienoetil‘re numGalliarum’:‘radiati allici anomali’inSicilianel iii iv secolo ad 343 FernandoLópez Sánchez ,PriscusAttalus’secondcoinissuesinNarbonne (414 5)andthecirculationofclipped siliquae inSpainandGaul( 420 2) 371 PeterS pufford, Turnin fromFrancetotheEmpire–eshioftheLow CountriesfromanAn lo Frenchcurrencyre iontoanElectoral Imperial currencyre ioninthefieenthcentury 387 inhoudstafel –tabledesmatières
mélanges –mengelingen
Aleadpatternfora denaro ofpopeAdrianIII( 884 885 )orStephenVI(V) (885 888 ), doorR.VanLaere–Ze elmatrijsvande beeckersenmulle ners vanTon eren( 15 de eeuw), doorT.Ghys &R.VanLaere 401
comptesrendus –recensies
Harald Derschka ,Suzanne Frey Kupper&Reiner Cunz,Selbstwahrnehmun undFremdwahrnehmun inderFundmünzenbearbeitun (R.VanLaere ) 407 Susanna SilbersteinTrevisaniCeccherini,LamonetazionediRe ioMa no reca.Dal iv sec.a.C.allachiusuradellezecca(Ch.Flament ) 409 M. Reddé (dir.), Del’orpourlesbraves!Soldes,arméesetcirculationmonétaire danslemonderomain(V.Geneviève ) 412 Karl Josef Gilles , DerrömischeGoldmünzenschatzausderFeldstraßeinTrier (J.vanHeesch ) 414 Klaus Vondrovec ,CoinaeoftheIranianHunsandtheirsuccessorsfromBac triatoGandhara( 4th to 8th century ce )(R.VanLaere ) 415 Lucia Travaini , IcappelidiCarloilCalvo(G.Sarah) 418 Niklot K lüssendorf ,NumismatikundGeld eschichte.BasiswissenfürMittel alterundNeuzeit(R.VanLaere ) 421 Martin Bloemendal etal.,Gesla eninDordrecht–teru blikopdeMuntvan Holland(H.Vanhoudt ) 423 Willy Geets , RekenmuntenklinkendemuntindeZuidelijkeNederlanden.Een complexeenintiemerelatie( 13 de 18 de eeuw)(E.Aerts ) 424 José Diaz Tabernero & Luca Gianazza , Die Geldbörse des ‚Söldners‘ vom Theodol Pass(VS)=Ilriposti liodel‘mercenario’delColledelTeodulo(VS) (R.VanLaere ) 427 Andreas Hedwig (eds.), FinanzpolitikundSchuldenkrise 16. 20 .Jahrhundert (R.VanLaere ) 429 Gerd Henrich Stork , GeowissenschaenimSpie elvonMedaillenundMünzen (R.VanLaere ) 431
bibliographie –bibliografie Christine Servais, Biblio raphiedelanumismatiquebel e 2014 –Biblio ra fievandeBel ischenumismatiek 2014 433
srnb –kbgn
Extraitsdesprocès verbaux–Uittrekselsuitdeverslagen 449 Listesdesmembres–Ledenlijsten 465
nécrologie –overlijdensbericht GayvanderMeer(M.Scharloo ) 469 MartinBECKMANN*
TRAJAN’S RESTORED COINAGE: VOLUME, VALUE AND PURPOSE Abstract –Trajan“restored”aseriesofsilverand oldcointypes,theori inalsof whichdatebackasfarasthe 3rd centurybc .epurposeofthesecoinsremainsun clearandtheirinterpretationisproblematic.ispaperapproachestheproblemfrom thepointofviewofproduction.Itshowsthatthecoina ecouldhavebeenproduced insufficientvolumetoconstitutea congiarium ,butalsothatthevolumerelativeto thenormalcoina edifferedsubstantiallybetweenthe oldandthesilver,su estin thepossibilitythattherestoredcoina ehadmorethanoneintendedﬔnction. Introduction tanuncertainpointintrajan’sreign aremarkableseriesofgold andsilvercoinswasissuedatRome.esecoinsbearoldtypesof AtheRepublic(silver)ortheportraitsandtypesofearlieremperors (gold) and also the inscription (on the reverse) imp [erator ] caes [ar ] traian [us ]aug [ustus ]ger [manicus ]dac [icus ]p[ater ]p[atriæ]res t[ituit ]:theEmperorTrajan[...]restored[thiscoin].Inthemostrecent surveyofTrajan’srestoredcoinseries,BernhardWoytekhasidentifieda totalof 50 Republican denarius types(e. .,Fig.1)and 23 Imperial aureus types(e. .,Fig.2).[1]
Fi .1–TrajanicrestorationofadenariusofT.Carisius,ori inalca. 45bc (bmc Trajan 688 ,©TrusteesoftheBritishMuseum)
* DepartmentofClassics,McMasterUniversity; e: [email protected] [1] Woytek 2010, p.641 644 .HolgerKomnick( 2001, p.132 134 )counted 51 Republican and 23 Imperialtypes;someoftheformerareremovedbyWoytekandothersadded (2010, p.167 168 ).Inthefirstcomprehensivestudyofthesubject,Mattingly( 1926 ) counted 43 Republican and 22 Imperial types. e change in known types since Mattingly’sstudyisrelativelysmall,suggestingthatwenowhaveafairlycompre hensiveknowledgeoftheoriginalmakeupoftheseries. rbn clxi(2015),p.311 324. 312 martinbeckmann
Fi .2–OstensibleTrajanicrestorationofanaureusofJ.Caesar;thetypedidnot existonCaesar’scoina e( bmc Trajan 696 ,©TrusteesoftheBritishMuseum) e Republican types range in date (of the original coins) from the pre denarius didrachm coinageofthe 3rd century bc tothetimeofAugustus, whiletheImperialseriesspansrulersfromCaesartoNerva(omittingCali gula,NeroandDomitianwhileincludingPompey).MostRepublicantypes arecopiedmoreorlessfaithﬔllyfromtheiroriginals;themajorexceptions aretheadditionsoffalsemoneyers’names(FuriusCamillus,Cocles,and DeciusMus)tothreeearlyanonymoustypes. [2]eImperialtypesonthe otherhandrelymuchless,andinsomecasesnotatall,onoriginalmodels. epresenceinthereverseinscriptionofTrajan’stitle Dacicus (awarded ad102 )andtheabsenceof Optimus (awarded ad114 )givesnomorethana broaddaterangeforthecoins.Twopossibledateswithinthisrangehave beenarguedfor.Mostcommentatorshaveassociatedtherestorationwitha recallofworncointhatissaidbyCassiusDio( 68 .15 .1 3)tohaveoccurred aer Trajan’s return from his second Dacian war (ca. ad 107 ). [3] More recentlyWoytek,buildingonstylisticandtypologicalobservationsmadein the 1930 sbyPaulStrack,hasarguedforadateneartheendofthepossible range,intheyears 112 or 113 .[4] e purpose of Trajan’s restored coinage is a puzzle. It purports to “restore”oldcointypes,butitishardtobelievethatthelatercoinsinthe series(uptoNerva,Trajan’simmediatepredecessor)wouldhavebeenin needofrestoration.GreatcarewastakeninthecareﬔlcopyingofRepubli cantypes,butthevolumeofthesilvercoinage( seebelow )issosmallthatit couldhardlyhavemadeavisualimpactinthemassofcirculatingmoney. Furthermoreitisclearthattherestoredseriesincludesmorethansimple
[2] Woytek 2010,nos. 801 , 802 , 803 ;Komnick 2001,nos. 2, 1, 3.Occasionallythelegends ofsomeoriginalRepublicantypeswerealteredwhencopiedontherestored denarii , byremovingabbreviated praenomina orexpanding(correctlyornot)ligatures;see Woytek 2004, p.231 232 . [3] iswastheopinionofHaroldMattingly( 1926 and bmcre iii )andwasalsooneof thetwopossibilitiessuggestedbyPaulStrack( 1932, p.41 42 );ithasbeenfollowed by a number of scholars since then, e. . Duncan Jones 1994, p. 195, n. 8; Harvey 2002, p.94 .Duncan Jones 1994, p.200 believesprofitcouldhavemotivatedTrajan’s actions,butWolframWeiser( 1999 )hasarguedthatthiswasanunlikelymotivation. [4] Strack 1932, p.41 42 andn. 84 ;Woytek 2010, p.168 169 .Komnick( 2001, p.137 138 ) alsoarguedforadateof 112 114 butonthebasisoftheuseofthenominativecase inthereverselegend;asWoytek 2010, p.168 notes,thisdistinctionisnotuseﬔlasa chronologicalaid.CurtisClay( 2012, p.356 357 )arguesinfavourofthemoretradi tional,Dio basedinterpretationinhisreviewofWoytek 2010 . trajan’srestoredcoinage 313 reproductions: the additionof fictitious names (in theRepublican series) andtheinventionoftypes(intheImperialseries)showmanipulationofthe typesandlegends,presumablywithadeliberatepurposeormessageinmind. Finally,thedifferenceincomplexityofmessagebetweenthegoldandsilver serieschallengesassumptionsofaudienceandreception:themessageofthe silvercoinagemightbeassumedtobetargetedatasimpleraudiencethan thatofthegold,butthemostobscureiconographyandcomplicatedepi graphyappearsonthesilvercoinagewhilethegoldisdominatedbysimple typesofemperors,personificationsandsymbolsofvictory.
FunctionoftheRestoredCoinage epurposeofthispaperistoinvestigatethiscoinagefromanoverlooked perspective,viz .fromthepointofviewofitsproduction:howmanycoins wouldhavebeenproduced,whatﬔnctionacoinageofthisvaluecouldhave had,andhowthesecoinswouldhaverelatedtothenormalcoinageprodu cedbytheRomanmint.ismakesitpossibletoprovideapractical,physi calcontextforTrajan’srestoredcoinage. einformationrequiredbythisapproachisobtainedfromdataondie identificationsandcoincountsinboththerestoredandtheregularcoinage. Byapplyingstatisticalformulætocountsofdiesandcoinsitispossibleto estimatetheoriginalnumberofdiesusedtostrikethecoinage,andfrom thistoestimateitspossiblevalue.isestimatecanprovidearoughguide tothepotentialpracticaluseoftherestoredcoinage,especiallyinevaluating itssuitabilityforuseinacoherentbodyasasinglepayment.ediecounts canalsobecomparedtoavailabledataforthemaincoinage,makingitpos sibletoevaluatethesizeoftherestoredcoinageinrelationtoit.ebasis forthesecalculationsarethedieandcoincountspublishedbyKomnick.[5] efollowingtablegivesasynopsisofthedieandcoincountsforthe denarii andthe aurei .[6] Denomination Obversedies Reversedies Coins denarii 43 51 158 aurei 32 35 124 Table 1–DieandcoincountsforTrajan’srestoredcoina e
[5] AlthoughWoytek( 2010 )haspublishedmorespecimensofTrajan’srestoredcoinage thanwereknowntoKomnick( 2001 )–189 denarii versusKomnick’s 164,and 172 aurei versusKomnick’s 121 –boththeobverseandreversediecountsandthecoin countsusedheredependonKomnicksinceWoytekdoesnotgivediecounts. [6] e totals given here differ from those given by Komnick ( 2001 , p. 135 ) because duplicatesidentifiedbyWoytekhavebeeneliminated(subtractingthreeduplicates, oftypes 805 , 825and832 ,forthe denarii ,andsubtractingoneduplicateoftype 865 forthe aurei),becausenon confirmable denarius types 821 , 835 and 840 havebeen removed,andbecausethefourhybrid aurei identifiedbyKomnickhavebeenadded tothetotalcoincount. 314 martinbeckmann
efirstpointthatmustbemadeisthattheratioofcoinstodiesforboth the aurei andthe denarii ishigh.ereare 3.9coinstoeverydocumented aureus obversedie(ifWoytek’scoincountisusedtheratioisgreaterthan 5 coinsperobversedie);comparablestudiesofroughlycontemporarygold coinageofTrajanhaveyieldedaratioof 4.6coinsperobversedie,anda studyofthe aurei ofFaustinatheElderyielded 5.9coinsperobversedie. [7] eratiofor denarii isslightlylower,at 3.7coinsperidentifiedobversedie, but in fact this isa highnumber when compared to other die studiesof denarii .Duncan Jonesfoundaratioof 1.9coinsperdieinaslightlysmaller sample( 147 coins)of denarii ofAelius. [8]emainreasonforthishighratio inbothmetals,butespeciallyforthe denarii ,islikelythestronginterestof collectorsinthese(mostly)rarecointypes.emainimplicationofthese highratiosisthatthelikelihoodofdiscoveryofnewdies(andthuspoten tiallynewtypes)isrelativelylow.WarrenEstyprovidesaformulaforesti mating the coverage of the sample, “the probability that the next coin discovered from that issue will be from a die already observed in the sample.”[9]ApplyingthatformulatothedataforTrajan’srestoredcoinage, theestimatedcoverageis 92 94%forthe denarii and 90%forthe aurei .[10] is provides a good basis for estimation of the original number of dies usedtostrikethiscoinage.
eOriginalNumberofDies enumberofdiesobservedinthesampleisnecessarilylessthantheorigi nalnumberofdiesactuallyusedtostrikethesecoins.Itispossibletoesti matethenumberofobversediesintheoriginalpopulationusingstatistical formulæ;inthisstudyIhaveusedthegenerallyacceptedformulædevised byWarrenEsty. [11]erearetwostepsinthecalculations:firstthecalcula
[7] SeeBeckmann 2007 ,p.78 79 andBeckmann 2012 ,p.9.Forasummaryofotherdie studies of Imperial gold, see Bland 2013 , p. 268 269 . For Woytek’s numbers, see above,n. 5. [8] Duncan Jones 1994 ,p. 152 . [9] Esty 2006 ,p. 360 . [10] IuseEsty’sformula 〈1〉toestimatecoverage(Esty 2006 ,p. 360 ).edataforsingle tons( i.e. diesrepresentedbyasinglecoin)istakenfromKomnick’sdiecatalogue. eformulais:coverageofthesample =1-numberofdies[obverseorreverse]re presentedbyasinglecoininthesample/numberofcoinsinthesample: ▪ forthe denarii :Obverses: 1-9/158 =94.3%;Reverses: 1-12/158 =92.4% ▪ forthe aureii :Obverses: 1-12/124 =90.3%;Reverses: 1-13/124 =89.5%. [11] OnthesuitabilityofEsty’sformulæcomparedtothoseofothers,particularlysince itaccountsforsingletons,seedeCallataÿ 1995, p. 294 295 .EvenButtrey,otherwise a critic of attempts to calculate ancient coin production, accepted that statistical estimatessuchasEsty’softheoriginalnumberofdies“arestatisticallysoundand genuinelyuseﬔl”(Buttrey 1994, p. 341 ). trajan’srestoredcoinage 315 tionofa“pointestimate”oftheoriginalnumberofdies,thenthecalcula tionofthe“confidenceinterval”,arangebetweenwhichonecansaywitha certaindegreeofconfidence(here 95%)thattheactualoriginalnumberis likelytolie.UsingdatafromKomnick’sdiestudy,acalculationofthepoint estimateyields 50obverseand 62reversediesforthesilver, 42 obverseand 46 reversediesforthegold. [12]Aerapplyingtheformulatocalculatethe confidenceinterval,itcanbesaidwith 95%confidencethatforthe denarii theoriginalnumberofobversedieswasbetween 44and 57 ,whileforthe aurei theoriginalnumberofdieswasbetween 36 and 49.[13] NumberCoinsStruckandTotalValue Itispossible,thoughproblematic,totakethesecalculationsonestepﬔrther andproducesomeestimatesofthenumberofcoinsthatthesediesmayhave struck.Estimatesofancientcoinproductioninvolvethemultiplicationof theestimatednumberoforiginaldies(expressedasarange)byanestimated averagecoinproductionperdie,workingwiththeassumptionthatalldies wereusedtoexhaustion(thepointatwhichtheybecamedamagedorbroke entirely). e procedure has been much discussed.°[14] e value of such calculationsfordrawinglarge scaleconclusionsabouttheRomaneconomy isdebateable,butwitharelativelysmall,self containedgroupofcoinslike Trajan’srestoredcoinage,itshouldatleastbepossibletoarriveatanesti
[12] Formula 〈2〉 in Esty 2006 : estimate of the original number of dies = (number of differentdiesinsample/estimatedcoverageofsample) ×(1+numberofdiesthat struckexactlyonecoin/ 2×numberofdifferentdiesinthesample): ▪forthe denarii : Obverses: (43/0.943 )×[1+ 9/(2×43)] =50 .4 Reverses: (51/0.924 )×[1+12/(2×51)] =61.7 ▪forthe aurei : Obverses: (32/0.903 )×[1+12/(2×32)] =42 .1 Reverses: (35/0.895 )× [1+13/(2×35)] =46 .4. [13] Formula 〈4〉inEsty 2006 ,employingthewordingsuggestedbyEstyonp. 361: e formulais:confidenceintervals =pointestimateofnumberofdies +(2×pointesti mate/numberofcoins)squared ±(2×pointestimate/numberofcoins) ×square rootof 2×pointestimate: ▪for denarius obversedies:50 +(100/158 )² ±(100/158 ) ×Z10 0 =50 .4±6.3or [44,57 ] ▪for aureus obversedies: 42 +(84/124 )² ±(84/124 ) ×Z84 =42 .6±6.2or [36,49 ] FollowingEstyIhaveroundedtheresultingnumbersbeforeaddingorsubtracting toobtainmaximum/minimumdieestimates. [14] esharpestcritiqueofthisapproachisButtrey 1994 (retractingthecritiqueofsta tisticaldieestimatesbythesameauthorinhis 1993 article,butexpandingthecriti cismofestimatesofdieproductivity),whoemphasizesespeciallythelackofclear evidenceforancientdieproductivity.OntheotherhanddeCallataÿ( 1995 )hasde fendedtheapproachandpointedoutthat thereissomedocumentedproduction data, though mostly from the medieval world. For another defence of the proce dure(anditsuseonanambitiousscale)seeDuncan Jones 1994p. 165 ;foracritique ofDuncan Jones’method,seeHowgego 1996 . 316 martinbeckmann mateoftherangeofpotentialoutputofthedies. [15]isoutputrangemay thenbecomparedtothepotentialcostsofdifferentusesofthecoinage. erehavebeenanumberofdifferentattemptstoestimatethenumber of coins that each die could produce, drawing on data from die studies, hoardanalysis,medievalmintrecords,andmodernexperiments.eonly ancientsourcewherewehaveagoodestimateofbothdiesandtotalpro ductionistheAphictyoniccoinageofDelphi,forwhichwehaveepigraphic recordsoftheamountofsilverbullionturnedintocoinandestimatesof the die counts from die study. [16] is shows that the minters produced between 23 ,000 and 47 ,000 coinsperdie.Medievalmintrecordsshowsil vercoinproductionvaryingbetween 2,000 and 78 ,000 coinsperdie,with an average rangebetween 30 ,000 and 35 ,000 ; thissits comfortably in the middleoftheDelphicestimates.[17] Workingwithlow/highestimatesof 30 ,000/35 ,000 forthe denarii and using the lowest and highest number of dies estimated at the 95% confi dencelevel,thefollowingaretheproductionestimatesandthevaluerange expressedinthestandardRomanunitofaccount,the sestertius (abbrevia ted;ithadavalueof¼ofa denarius or ofan aureus ):[18] Low High Count ∼1.3mcoins ∼2.0mcoins Value ∼5m ∼8m
Table 2–Productionestimatesforrestoreddenarii (m=million) Sincetherearenoreliableancientrecordsforgoldcoinproduction,one optionwouldbetoassumeasimilarlevelofproductionperdieasforthe denarii ;thecoinsweresimilarinsize(the aureus beingsomewhatlarger), thoughnotinweight(the aureus weighingtwiceasmuchasthe denarius ). Ontheotherhand,medievalrecordsforgoldcoinageshowoutputsranging between 2,500 and 12 ,000 coins per die; as de Callataÿ remarks, this is notablylowerthanforsilver,butthedataisconsistentacrossanumberof
[15] SeeHowgego 1992 ,p. 2 4foradiscussionofthemanyvariablesinvolvedinlarge scalecalculationsusingthisdata. [16] deCallataÿ 1995 ,p. 297 301, notesthatotherattemptstoestimateproductionfrom diestudiesandhoardstatisticsofancientcoinagecontainmanyvariablesandun knowns,whileSellwood’smodernexperimentswereconductedmainlytodisprove atheoryofverylowcoinproductionandceasedbeforethediesbecameworn. [17] esourcesforthisdataarecollectedbydeCallataÿ( 1995 ,p. 300 ). [18] Multiplyinglowestestimatednumberofdiesbylowestestimatedproduction,and viceversa . trajan’srestoredcoinage 317 mints. [19]Iftheestimatesof aureus diesderivedabovearecombinedwith thesetwopossibleproductionestimates,thefollowingfiguresresult: Low High Count ∼1.1mcoins ∼1.7mcoins Value ∼110m ∼170m Table 3–Productionestimatesforaureiifsimilartodenarii Low High Count ∼0.1m coins ∼0.6mcoins Value ∼9m ∼60m Table 4–Productionestimatesforaurei,Medievalmodel eseestimatesallowustomakesomeobservationsonthepotentialuseof thiscoinage.Onepossibilityisthatitwasallowedtoentercirculationby normal means, which was presumably in the form of payment to public employees,especiallytomembersofthearmy.e aurei wouldhavebeen sufficientinnumberandvaluetoconstituteasubstantialcontributionto thenormalbudget(perhaps 600 800m/year; onthis,seebelow );the de narii ontheotherhand,smallinbothvolumeandvalue,wouldhavebeen abletomakelittleimpactintheoverallimperialexpenses. Giventhegreatcaretakeninproducingthe denarii ,otherpossibleuses shouldbeconsidered.Foremostamongtheseisasasingle,unifieddistri butiontotheurbanpopulaceofRome.Suchdistributionswerenormally knownas con iaria (singularcon iarium )andtooktheformofacashhand out made by theemperor to the urban populace atspecial times suchas whenascendingthethrone,assuminganimportantofficeorwhencelebra tingatriumph.evalueofthesehandoutsvaried;wehaveafewspecific referenceswhereeitherthetotalvalueisrecordedorthetotalnumberof recipientsandtheamountgiventoeachisrecorded;wealsohaverecords ofanumberofotherdistributionsforwhichweknowonlytheamountper head.Suetonius( Au .101 .2)saysthatAugustusle40 million inhiswill to be distributed to the people. Augustus recorded the distributions he
[19] deCallataÿ 1995 ,p. 298 .Duncan Jones( 1994 ,p. 164 )arguesthatsincesilvercoins outnumbergoldcoinsinarchaeologicalfindsbyabout 10 ÷ 1butthedieratioofsil vertogoldismuchhigher,thenthediesforgoldmusthaveproducedmorecoins. isis,asdeCallataÿnotes,inconflictwithmedievalevidenceanddoesnottake intoaccountotherpossiblefactorsaffectingarchaeologicalfinds.ereisageneral ideathatgold–being‘soer’thansilver–wouldbeeasiertostrike,butgold(asany other metal) becomes harder through forging, and Roman gold coins had much higherreliefthansilvercoins,increasingtheforgingthatthegoldwouldundergo. 318 martinbeckmann madewhilelivinginhis ResGestae (15 );hisfirstthreedistributionswere worth 100 million (400 perperson,notlessthan 250 ,000 recipients),his fourth 77 million( 240 perperson, 320 ,000 recipients)andhislast 48 million (240 eachto 200 ,000 recipients).Dio( 55 .10 .1)saysthatAugustuslimited therecipientsto 200 ,000 whichgivesusabaselinetomultiplythevaluesof distributionsbylateremperors(thoughvanBerchemestimatesalowernum ber),aboutwhichwenormallyonlyknowthevalueperperson. [20]ese normallyrangedinvaluebetween 240 and 400 perperson,givingatotal valuewithanotional 200 ,000 recipientsofbetween 48 and 80 million .[21] ecalculationsaboveindicatethattherestored denarii alonewouldnot havebeenofsufficientvalueforsuchadistribution,butthatwhencombined withthe aurei wouldmorethansuffice.ecrucialquestioniscouldthe goldandsilvertogetherhaveconstitutedasuitableamountfordistribution perperson?at is, given the productionnumbersindicatedby the esti matesabove,couldthegoldandsilvercoinshavebeenusedinapractical waytodispenseahandoutofnormalvalue?eevidenceforexactlywhat denomination of coins was normally used in distributions is unclear. All threedenominations( sestertii , denarii and aurei )arementionedbytheva rioussources(Augustusforexamplementionsboth sestertii and denarii in the ResGestae )butbronzecanberuledoutforitssheerimpracticality( 400 sestertii weighedabout 10kg)anditwouldseembettertoassumethatthe goalinthesesourceswastoexpresstheoverallvalueratherthandescribethe actual denominations used in the distribution. at leaves either denarii (worth 4each)or aurei (worth 100 ),whichcouldhavebeenusedalone ormixed(thoughwehavenoevidenceofmixeddenominationhandouts). Values totalling in even hundreds could be easily dispensed in gold, but valueslike 240 couldnotbegivenoutentirelyin aurei andwouldhave requiredeither denarii aloneoramixofgoldandsilver. eproductionestimatesforTrajan’srestoredcoinagegiveusarange ofabsolutenumbersofboth denarii (1.3 2.0m)and aurei(0.1 1.7m). ese numbers,alongwithanassumedrecipientbaseof 200 ,000 people,limitthe combinationsofvaluesthatcouldbehandedout.Assumingthatbothsilver andgoldwereused,onlyoneofthehistoricallyattestedvaluesof con iaria (perperson)couldeasilyhavebeenmadeupusingthenumbersofcoins indicatedbytheestimates: 240 .isvaluecouldhavebeenachievedbya distributionof 10 denarii and 2aurei perperson,or 2.0 million denarii and 0.4millionaurei total(for200 ,000 recipients).isisatthetopendofthe
[20]VanBerchem( 1939 ,p. 29 30 )calculatesthatthedistributionofAugustus’posthu mouslargess,withatotalvalueof 40m,wouldonlyhavereached 150 ,000 reci pients. [21] Our evidence for the occurrence of con iaria comes from a variety of sources, especiallyancienttexts,calendarsandthecoinageitself(forasurveyoftheknown con iaria oftheimperialperiodseeBarbieri 1949 ). trajan’srestoredcoinage 319 estimatedproductioncapacityoftherestored denarius diesandatthetop endoftheMedieval basedestimatefortheaureus dieproduction,though muchbelowthelowesttotalsuggestedifweassumethe aureus diesprodu cedasimilarnumberofcoinsasthe denarius dies.Intheenditisthe dena rius numbers that restrict thepossibilities (within the rangeof the docu mentedvaluesfor con iaria ,thatis).enext highestcommonlyattested valuefor con iaria is 300 ;thiscouldhavebeendistributedin aurei alone, butif denarii weretomakeuppartofeachhandoutthen 25 wouldbeneeded perhead(alongwith 2aurei ),foratotalof 5.0 milliondenarii ,morethan twicethehighestproductionestimate. esecalculationssuggestthatTrajan’srestoredcoinagewasproduced insufficientnumberstobepracticallyusableinanormal con iarium distri butionwithavalueof 240 perrecipient.Buthowlikelyisitthatitwasso used?No con iarium isrecordedforTrajanin 112/113 ;hiscoinagerecords onlythreesuchevents,thelastin 107 .[22]emainhistoricalsourceforthe period is Dio; his text is very fragmentary and does not record any of Trajan’s con iaria .e FastiOstienses ,themunicipalcalendarofOstiathat alsoincludesmentionofmanyimportanteventsthathappenedinRome, documentsTrajan’sthirdandperhapsalsohissecond con iarium .[23]e Fasti arecompletefromJanuary 112 tomid May 113 ,suggestingthatadis tribution did not occur during this period; this potentially rules out one possibleoccasionfora con iarium ,Trajan’sassumptionofhis 6th consulship andthededicationofhisnewForumcomplex. [24]elasteventrecorded inthe FastiOstienses beforetheybreakoffin 113 isthededicationofthe ColumnofTrajanonMay 12 .[25]Ifa con iarium wasdistributed,perhaps thiswastheoccasion.emainobjectiontothisisthatsuchaneventwas notrecordedonTrajan’scoinage. FunctionsBeyondDistribution ItisprobablethattherestoredcoinageofTrajan,orpartofitatleast,had intendedﬔnctionsbeyonditsuseforaspecificdistribution.isissugges tedbysomeremarkabledifferencesbetweentherestored denarii and aurei .
[22] ForTrajan’sreign,three con iaria arerecordedonTrajan’sbronzecoinage:oneearly inhisreign,asecondin 103 ,andathirdin 107/108 (mir Traianus 64 , 160 , 312 ). edateofthethirdcongiarium( ad107 )isgivenbythe FastiOstienses (tabletHc ℓ. 1 2;Vidman 1982 ,pp. 47 and 102 ). [23] FastiOstienses tabletHc ℓ. 1 2forthe con iarium of 107 andGd ℓ. 10 11 forthe possible record of the con iarium of 103 ; Vidman 1982 , p. 46 47. e preserved portionofthe Fasti breaksoffinMay 113 andonlyresumesagainin 115 . [24]Strack( 1931 ,p. 41 )suggestedthattherestoredcoinscouldbeconnectedtothe 10 th anniversaryofTrajan’sfirstDaciantriumphandthededicationofhisnewForum, thoughhedidnotconnectthemdirectlytoa con iarium ;Komnick( 2001 ,p. 178 ) supportsaconnectionbetweenthecoinsandthededicationoftheForum. [25]FastiOstienses tabletJ, ℓ. 53 56 . 320 martinbeckmann
efirstinvolvesvalueofthecoinsproduced.Duncan Joneshasestimated thetotalyearlybudgetoftheRomanempireatbetween 600 and 800m, of whichonlyaportion wouldbepaid innew coin, with thebulkbeing madeupofoldcoincollectedastaxes. [26]Comparedtothistherestored denarii ,evenattheirhighestvalueestimate(about 8m)wereatinyfrac tion.e aurei ontheotherhandmayhavemadeamuchmoresubstantial contribution,especiallyifthehigherestimates(about 170m)arecorrect. Butwedonotneedtorelyonthesevaluecalculationstodemonstrate theremarkablediscrepancybetweenthetwometalsoftherestoredcoinage. Itispossibletoobservethesamedramaticdifferenceinthedieestimates,a muchmorereliablecalculation.Duncan Joneshasuseddiestudyandsta tistical formulæ to calculate that about 2,000 obverse dies were used per yearinthereignofHadriantostrike denarii andbetween 25 and 50 ob versediesperyeartostrikegold. [27]DiestudyofthegoldcoinageofTrajan bythepresentauthorhasyieldedrawdiecountsthatareatthetopendof Duncan Jones’sestimatesofabout 50 obversedieseachperyearforaurei , andslightlyhighertotalshaveresultedfromstudiesofthereignofAntoni nusPius. [28]Wemaycomparethedieestimatesfortherestoredcoinageto theseyearlyestimatesofdieuse: Trajan’sCoinage Obversedies, denarii Obversedies, aurei Normal 2000/year 50/year Restored 44 57 36 49 Table 5–ComparisonofnormalyearlydieuseintheRomanmint andestimateddiesusedtostriketherestoredcoina e edifferenceindiecountsoftherestoredcoinagerelativetothenormal coinageisstriking.eseestimatesshowthatthevolumeoftherestored silvercoinagewouldhavebeenminuteincomparisontotheregular dena rius issues,accountingforonlyabout 3%ofthenormaltotalofdiesused per year for denarius production.e situation with the gold is dramati callydifferent.Its 36 49obversedieswouldhavebeenequivalentto 72 98% oftheaverageyearlytotalobversediesnormallyusedintheminttostrike theregulargoldcoinage.emuchgreaterintrinsicvalueofthe aurei would accentuatethesedifferences.iscomparisonisvalidregardlessofthetotal numberofcoinsstruckbyeach aureus die. Finallythereisacleardifferenceindieusebetweenthetwometalsin therestoredseries.
[26]Duncan Jones 1994 ,p. 46 . [27]Ibid. ,p. 150 162 . [28] Ondieuseinthisperiod,seeBeckmann 2007 ,esp.p. 89 .ForAntoninusPiussee Beckmann 2012 ,p. 96 . trajan’srestoredcoinage 321
efollowingtablespresentsasynopsisofdieuse(a=obversedie– r=reversedie)basedonthenumberofdiesusedtostrikeeachtype: [29] Number Number Expressedasa Expressedasa ofdies oftypes %ofalltypes %ofalldies 1a +1r 38 81% 70% 1a +2r 35 11% 14% 2a +2r 32 34% 37% 2a +3r 32 34% 39%
Table 6–RestorationsofRepublicandenarii– numberofdiesattestedforindividualtypes Number Number Expressedasa Expressedasa ofdies oftypes %ofalltypes %ofalldies 1a +1r 10 53% 31% 1a +2r 31 35% 39% 2a +2r 33 16% 18% 2a +3r 31 35% 37% 3a +3r 32 11% 18% 4a +5r 31 5% 13% 5a +5r 31 5% 14%
Table 7–RestorationsofImperialaurei– numberofdiesattestedforindividualtypes
enumberofdiesforeachtypevaries,andthesilverandgoldissuesfollow differentpatterns.efactthatmostofthe denarius types(81%)haveonly one obverse and one reverse die suggests that the series was designed to produceamassofcoinagewithaveryhightypologicallydiversity.Afew types have one obverse and two reverse dies; the opposite ratio does not
[29]edefinitionof“type”intheImperialseriesissomewhatproblematic,withdiffer entscholarsarrivingatdifferentinterpretationsofwhatconstitutesadistincttype, butingeneralatypeinthisseriesmeansauniqueobversecombinedwithaunique reverse. ere are no known hybrid types in the Republican series, but four are knownintheImperialseries,suggestingsomeflexibility(orconﬔsion)indieuse; sinceeachofthesearedocumentedbyonlyonecoin,theyareomittedfromthelist below.Forthehybrids,seeWoytek 2010 ,p. 532 . 322 martinbeckmann exist. is may have been caused by the reverse die failing (breaking or beingirreparablydamaged)earlyinthemintingprocess,beforewhatwas judgedtobeasufficientquantityofcoinofthattypehadbeenproduced (the reverse die, being free moving and directly subject to blows of the hammer,wasmoresusceptibletodamagethantheobverse).erearefour instancesof denarius typeswithtwoobverseandtwoorthreereversedies; thesenumbersmaybetheresultofchance(arandomdecisiontocutmore diesofthesetypesinordertoproducemorecoinsintheoverallseries)or they may be an indication that these particular types (Jupiter, Juno, Sol, Regulus)hadbeendesignatedforahigherlevelofproduction. egoldcoinsontheotherhandhavemanymoretypeswithmultiple obverseandreversedies.Onlyhalfthetypeshaveonlyoneobverseandone reverse die; when measured by overall dies used to produce the restored aurei ,thesetypesonlyaccountforathirdofthetotal.Ontheotherhand, fourtypeshavethreeormoreobversedies:typesofCaesarandDivusJulius havethreeobverseandthreereversedieseach,whileDivusVespasianushas fiveandfiveandDivusTitushasfourandfive(plussharesthreeofthesame diesusedtostrikethesametypeforDivusVespasianus).esefourtypes employ 45%ofthetotaldiesusedforrestored aurei .isshowsthatinthe goldseriestherewasnotasstronganemphasisonvarietyasinthesilver, andthatsometypesweresingledoutforverysubstantialproduction;thisis moresimilartodieuseintheregularcoinage. [30] esedramaticallydifferentratiossuggestthattherestoredsilvercoinage wasintendedtobeasmall,specialissuethatwouldhavecontributedlittle totheoverallvolumeofthenormal denarius coinage,buttherestoredgold coinage was intended to produce a very large number of coins that may havebeennearlyaslargeasthenormalyearly aureus production.issug gests that thegold coinage may have had two intendedﬔnctions:first to make up part of a special distribution, together with the denarii (which alonecouldnothavemadeupadistributionofstandardvalue)andsecond, toconstituteasubstantialportionofthenormalcirculatinggoldcoinageof thatyear.epresenceoftheTrajan’srestored aurei incirculationinaratio verysimilartothatsuggestedbydieestimatessupportsthistheory.[31]
[30]See e. .Beckmann 2007 . [31] eevidenceofthepresenceofrestorationsincirculationcomesfromhoards.e large aureus hoardfromTriercontains 125 aurei ofTrajan,representingabout 6.5 aurei perreignyear;thehoardcontains 5restored aurei (oneofGalba,twoVespa sian,oneTitusandoneNerva;Gilles 2013 ,p.24 ).esmaller aureus hoardfrom Liberchiescontains 66 aurei ofTrajan,orabout 3peryear;thehoardcontains 3res tored aurei (ofGalba,Vespasian,andTitus;irion 1972 ,p. 169 170 ).Forotherfinds of aurei ,includingotherhoardswithsimilarproportionsofrestoredcoins,seeKom nick 2001 , p.284 290 .eArquenneshoard (dispersed on theantiquities market aeritsdiscoveryin 1985 )hadthehighestratioofrestoredtonormalcoinageof anyhoard,withabout 80 90 aurei ofTrajan,ofwhichabout 10 wererestorations. trajan’srestoredcoinage 323
Conclusions Anumberofimportantconclusionscanbedrawnfromthesecalculations. efirstisthattherestoredcoinageofTrajanwouldhavesufficedtomake upadistributiontotheurbanpopulaceaccordingtothestandardmodelof the con iarium .esecondcomesfromthecalculationsoforiginalnumbers ofdiesusedtoproducetherestoredcoinage.eseshowthattherestored denarii differedmarkedlyfromthe aurei whentheirdietotalsarecompared totheestimatednumberofdiesusedperyearforthenormalcoinage.Itis clearthattherestored denarii wereaverysmallissuerelativetothenormal coinagebuttherestored aurei werequitealargeissue,equivalenttomore than two thirds of the normal yearlyproduction. When these factors are consideredtogethertheysuggestthepossibilityofadualﬔnctionforTra jan’srestoredcoinage:firstaspecialissueintheformofapublicdistribution composed of both denarii and aurei , perhaps connected to an important eventinRome;thenthecontinuedproductionof aurei asasubstantialcom ponentofthenormalcoinage,focussedespeciallyontypesofCaesarandthe Flavians.isimpliesadifferenceintheintendedaudienceforeachseries. 324 martinbeckmann
Bibliography Barbieri 1949=G.Barbieri ,Liberalitas ,inE. deRuggiero,Dizionarioepi raficodianti chitaromane ,vol. iv ,p.838 886 .Roma,L.Pasqualucci. Beckmann 2007=M.Beckmann ,Trajan’sGoldCoinage, ad112 117 , AmericanJournalof Numismatics 19 ,p. 77 129 . Beckmann 2012=M.Beckmann , DivaFaustina.Coina eandCultinRomeandtheProvin ces .NewYork. Bland2013=R.Bland ,Whathappenedtogoldcoinageinthe 3rd c. ad ? JournalofRoman Archaeolo y26 ,p.263 280 . Clay 2012=C.Clay ,eRomanImperialCoinageofTrajan, NumismaticChronicle 172 , p.348 362 . deCallataÿ 1995=F r.deCallataÿ ,CalculatingAncientCoinProduction:SeekingaBa lance,NumismaticChronicle 155 ,p.289 311 . Duncan Jones 1994 = R. Duncan Jones , Money and Government in the Roman Empire . Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress. Gilles2013=K. J.Gilles , DerrömischeGoldmünzschatzausderFeldstraßeinTrier .Trier, RheinischesLandesmuseumTrier. Howgego 1992= C. Howgego ,eSupplyandUseofMoneyintheRomanWorld, Journal ofRomanStudies 82 ,p. 1 31 . Howgego1996 =C. Howgego ,ReviewofR. Duncan Jones ’“MoneyandGovernmentin theRomanEmpire”,JournalofRomanStudies 86 ,p.208 209 . Komnick 2001 =H. Komnick , Die Restitutionsmünzen derfrühen Kaiserzeit.Aspekte der Kaiserle itimation .Berlin,WalterdeGruyter. Mattingly 1926=H.Mattingly ,eRestoredCoinsofTrajan, NumismaticChronicle 91, p.232 278 . irion1972=M.Thirion , LetrésordeLiberchies .Bruxelles,ProGeminiaco. Vidman1982=L.Vidman , FastiOstienses .Praha,Academia. Weiser 1999=W.Weiser ,DieWährungspolitikdesTraianus( 98 117 )inRealitätundmo dernerFiktion,ZeitschrifürPapyrolo ieundEpi raphik 125, p.233 242. Woytek 2004=B.Woytek, Trajan’sRestorationoftheDenarius rrc 343/1 b, Numismatic Chronicle 164, p.227 235 . Woytek 2010=B.Woytek , DieReichsprä un desKaisersTraianus( 98 117 ).Wien,Verlag derÖsterreichischenAkademiederWissenschaen.