Roman Republican Coinage, Volume II

ROMAN REPUBLICAN COINAGE II

ROMAN REPUBLICAN COINAGE II BY

MICHAEL H. CRAWFORD Professor of Ancient History University College London

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo, Delhi Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521074926 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1974 Ninth printing 2008 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-0-521-07492-6 the set

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-parry internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

CONTENTS VOLUME I page is.

List of tables List of figures Preface

xi xiii INTRODUCTION

Introduction I The first period of the denarius coinage The mint of Rome Mints outside Rome The denarius coinage The date of the denarius II III

The pre-denarius coinage The second century - relative chronology c. 206-c. 144 B.C. (nos. 112-221) c. 143-c. 125 B.C. (nos. 222-72) c. 124-c. 92 B.C. (nos. 273-336)

IV The second century - absolute chronology V The first century 91-79 B.C. (Table XII) 78-49 B.C. (Table xin) 49-45 B.C. (Table xiv) 44-31 B.C. (Tables XV-XVII) Appendix: Relative arrangement of quadrigatus issues

1

3 8 12

24 28

35 47 47

55 65 71

75 75 82

89 94 103

CATALOGUE Note on use of the Catalogue

123

Abbreviations used and works cited in headings of the Catalogue

123

Collections cited in the Catalogue

126

Catalogue Appendix Modern forgeries Mis-read coins Plated coins Unofficial issues of bronze coins

131

547 548 553 560

565

Contents

VOLUME II

page 569 569 576 589

1 Technique and technology Metal Struck coins Cast coins (280-212 B.C.)

2 Weight standards The Roman pound Ascertaining weight standards Gold Silver Bronze

590 590 592 593 594 595

3 Monetary magistrates Moneyers Monetary magistrates other than moneyers Military issues

598 598 603 604

4 Special formulae Issues struck from Argentum publicum Issues struck by Senatus consultant

605 605 606

5 Administration and control The people The Senate The mint Magistrates

610 610 616 618 620

6 Roman units of reckoning under the Republic Sestertius Silver and bronze Victoriatus Roman coinage in Livy Nummus

621 621

7 Coinage and finance

633 634 640 694

Inopia Size of issues of coinage Income and expenditure VI

625 628 630 632

Contents 8 Careers of the moneyers

708

9 Types and legends Public types Private types Approach to empire

712 713 725 734

10 Art and coinage

745

Addenda

751 PLATES

Plates

755

Key to the plates

757

Bibliography

797

Concordances

820

Indices

859

Types Legends Sources Persons General

859 879 890 903 912

vu

TABLES VOLUME I

I

The first period of denarius coinage - 211-207 B.C.

II in iv v VI VII vm ix x xi xil

211-207 B.C. - victoriati 211-207B.C. -denarii, quinarii and sestertii 211-207 B.C.-bronze The pre-denarius coinage c. 2$o-c. 212 B.C. Early second-century denarius coinage 207-c. 170 B.C. - victoriati 207-144 B.C. - denarii 207-146 B.C. - bronze Coinage 143-125 B.C. Coinage 124-92 B.C. Coinage 91-79 B.C. Coinage 78-49 B.C. Coinage 49-45 B.C. The moneyers 44-c. 40 B.C. The Pompeians 44-c. 40 B.C. The Caesarians 43-31 B.C. Overstrikes Control-marks on didrachms with Roma/Victory ROMANO Control-marks on denarii of C. Allius Bala Control-marks on quinarii of L. Piso Frugi Control-marks on asses of Q. Titius Control-marks on denarii of C. Vibius Pansa (1) Control-marks on denarii of C. Vibius Pansa (3a-b) Control-symbols on quinarii of M. Cato Control-symbols on denarii of L. Titurius Sabinus Control-marks on second issue of denarii of C. Censorinus Control-marks on denarii of Gargonius, etc.

XIII

xiv xv xvi XVII XVIII

xix XX xxi XXII XXIII

xxiv xxv xxvi XXVII

xxvm

ix

page 4 25 26 27 44 49 53 56 58 60 66 76 84 90 96 97 98 105 138 337 342 345 349 349 350 354 358 364

Tables XXIX XXX XXXI XXXII XXXIII

Control-marks on denarii of L. Censorinus Control-marks on denarii of C. Valerius Flaccus Control-marks on denarii of C. Annius Control-marks on denarii of L. Volumnius Strabo Control-marks on denarii of C. Marius Capito

Control-marks XXXV Control-marks XXXVI Control-marks XXXVII Control-marks XXXVIII Control-marks XXXIV

on denarii of M. Volteius on denarii of M. Volteius on denarii of L. Plaetorius on denarii of Q. Pomponius Rufus on denarii of Q. Crepereius Rocus

page 378 380 382 391 392 400 401

408 410 411

Control-marks on denarii of M. Plaetorius Cestianus Control-marks on denarii of M. Plaetorius Cestianus Control-marks on denarii of M. Plaetorius Cestianus

415 415 416 420

XLIII

Control-marks on denarii of C. Piso Frugi Control-marks on denarii of C. Piso Frugi

XLIV

Control-marks on denarii of M. Plaetorius Cestianus

436

XXXIX XL XLI XLII

VOLUME XLV XLVI XLVII XLVIII XLIX L LI LII LIII LIV LV LVI LVII LVIII LIX LX LXI LXII

424

II

Analyses of silver coins Analyses of plated silver coins Analyses of bronze coins As and sestertius Growth in volume of production of as Size of denarius issues 157-31 B.C. Size of quinarius issues 101-31 B.C. Size of sestertius issues 91-44 B.C. Size of didrachm and drachm issues Size of denarius, quinarius and sestertius issues 211-158 B.C. Size of late gold issues Size of early gold issues Size of bronze issues of denarius coinage Coinage and expenditure from 157 to 50 B.C. Careers of the moneyers Types of aes grave Types of moneyers under Caesar Portraiture in the Republican coinage

570

573 574 623 627 642 674 675 676 677 688 691 692

696 708 717

737 746

FIGURES 1 Form of trophy on victoriati of Metellus (no. 132/1)

page 50

2 Form of superstructure of prow on bronze of C. Saxula, etc. 50

(nos. 173-7) 3 Pattern of control-marks of P. Crepusius (no. 361/1)

376

4 Shapes of blanks used for struck bronze coins

580

5 Relationship between hoard specimens and obverse dies

673

XI

avec les livres sans les medailles on peut scavoir beaucoup et scavoir bien, et avec les medailles sans les livres on scaura peu et 1'on scaura mal Abb6 Geinoz, quoted by A. D . Momigliano, Contributo alia storia degli studi classici, 86 n. 31

1 TECHNIQUE AND TECHNOLOGY The coinages of the ancient world, including that of the Roman Republic, are remarkable in that they were, unlike most other artefacts, mass-produced. I do not wish here to discuss the larger problems raised by the level of Greek and Roman technology,1 but it seems desirable to describe as fully and accurately as possible the techniques used by the Republican mint. I

METAL

The Republic coined at one time or another in gold, silver and a variety of copper alloys; the metals are best considered in this order. Analyses of Republican gold have only once, as far as I know, been attempted; both diey and specific gravity measurements suggest that a very high degree of purity was maintained.2 The same was on the whole true of silver.3 The Republican treasury knew how to test for purity of silver (Livy xxxii, 2, 1-2), and the analyses in Table XLV reveal deliberate debasement only during the Second Punic War (6-8), during the fighting between Marius and the Sullans (26-7) and in the coinage of M. Antonius, notably in the Legionary series (49-62). The debasement of the Second Punic War is reported by Zonaras (viii, 26,14, under the year 217, but not explicidy dated), that of M. Antonius is probably mentioned by Pliny (NH xxxiii, 132, miscuit denario triumvir Antonius ferrum, Antonius as Triumvir mixed iron into his denarii, where ferrum must be an error for aes, since silver and iron are virtually immiscible;4 there is no reason to suppose that the passage refers to plating on iron, see p. 560 n. 1). The analytical evidence for the debasement of the coinage of L. Rubrius Dossenus is corroborated by the frequent occurrence in hoards which I have seen of denarii of Dossenus covered with verdigris.5 Pliny's ascription of a plan to debase the silver coinage to M. Livius Drusus, Tr. Pi. 91 (see p. 616), may preserve a garbled 1 1

9 4 8

See L. Edelstein, Journ. Hist. Ideas 1952, 573; M. I Finley, Ec. Hist. Rev. 1965, 29; H. W. Pleket, Ada Hist. Neerlandica 1967, 1; also G. W. Reecc, Greece and Rome 1969, 32. P. Meyers, Archaeometry 1969,74, for analyses; E. R.Caley, Ohio Journal of Science 1949, 73, discussing specific gravity, mentions an aureus of A. Hirtius (no. 466) with 99 % gold content. F. Schiassi, Ritrovamento di medaglie, 33, is wrongly cited in this connection by J. Hammer, ZfN 1908, 67. The detailed figures discussed here are supported by the figures for the bulk analysis of 87 denarii and 8 quinarii given by A. von Rauch, ZfN 1874, 34. The proposal of I. Cazzaniga, PdelP 1967, 366, to emend the passage should not be accepted. A. Santarelli, Ripostiglio di denari, 7, remarks that in the Pieve Quinta hoard there were 'alcune pochissime (monete) delle famiglie Carisia, Marcia e Rubria investite di ossido di rame'. I have noticed this feature only on coins of L. Rubrius Dossenus and its occurrence on other coins in the Pieve Quinta hoard may be casual.

569

Technique and technology TABLE XLV.

No.

Issue Apollo/Horse ROMA 1 Quadrigatus

1 2

Base Reference %Ar %Au metal 26/1

3 4 5 Half-quadrigatus 6 Quadrigatus (debased)2 7 „ 8 9 Anonymous denarius 1O

n

Anonymous victoriatus

12

Anonymous denarius

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24

25 26 27 28

222/1

„

224/1 228/2 232/1

M. Marcius M. Philus L. Licinius, etc. Anonymous denarius

245/1 281/1 282/4 287/1

98 99 99 99 99 80 60 30 98.60 98.80 879340 98.60 99-37 97.50

— — — — — — — — — 0.700.90 — 0.48 049

9840 0.03 over — 96.00 99-5O 97.90 98.90 over 96.00 98.50 98.80

0.04 0.12 0.33 —

0.40 289/1 — 329/1 340/1 9840 0.12 342/5D 94.87 —

M. Cato L. Dossenus

343/1 348/1 348/2 350A/I

29

u

30

M

Q.C.M.P.I. L. Papius L. Flaccus C. Postumius P. Ypsaeus, etc. C. Servilius

37 Faustus 38

97.70 93.00 91.20 98.39

— 0.48 0.10 —

35OA/2 95.80 —

„

374/1 384/i 387/1 394/1 422/1 423/1

„

95.50 92.60 97.00 95.10 98.60 99.07

Method Cupellation

— — — — — — — — — — — 0.15 2.01 1-57 — 046 1.98 0.77 —

Source von Rauch 1874 von Rauch 1857

u

Bahrfeldt

„

„

X-ray fluorescence Cupellation

„ 9)

„

X-ray fluorescence Cupellation

„ „

X-ray

von Rauch 1857 Reece Carter von Rauch 1857 Thomson

BM

„

Stoicovici

BM

„ Stoicovici

fluorescence

M. Cipius Lentulus L. Frugi C. Pansa

„

33 34 35 36

44/1

L. Iulius C. Flaccus Cn. Gellius

Gargonius, e t c

31 32

Analyses of silver coins

—

— — 0.57 — — —

426/3 95-20 — 426/48 98.20 —

1

1.10 —

148 — — 6.52 8.70 —

— — — — — — — — —

Cupellation

„ M

BM Schiassi

BM

Cupellation and KeUner spectrographic analysis Schiassi Cupellation

„ M

BM

„

Cupellation and KeUner spectrographic analysis Schiassi Cupellation

» n

„ „

» M

Reece

BM

Reece Schiassi Cupellation and KeUner spectrographic analysis Schiassi Cupellation

„

»

This coin may be identified as no. 26/1,ratherthan as no. 15/1, because of its weight of 6-2 gr. * See also H. Dressel, Beschreibung iii, 168, nos. 32-8.

570

Metal TABLE XLV (coitt.)

No.

Reference

Issue

98.00 — 97.00 — 97.00 — 39 C. Restio 455/1 92.50 — Caesar 468/1-298.60 — Palicanus 473/2 95.40 — L. Buca 480/4 95.40 — M. Antonius 489/6 95.50 — P. Clodius 494/23 94.50-0.7096.70 0.90 > M. Antonius 92.49 0.10 M. Antonius LEG II 544/14 85.50 — LEG II 544/14 90.10 — LEG III » 544/15 85.10 — LEG III » 544/15 77-62 — LEG III 544/15 83.80 — LEG V 544/18 89.50 — 93 LEG VII 544/20 90.60 — 99 LEG VIII 544/21 83.95 — 33 LEG VIIII 544/22 89.75 — 93

39 A. Plautius 40 41 42

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

0/ /o Base %Ar %Au metal

431/1 443/1 443/1

Caesar

99 99 99 33 99

LEG X LEG XI LEG XIII LEG XV LEG XX

83.80 83.80 85.60 87.40 544/36 87.30

544/24 544/25 544/27 544/30

— — — — —

Method Cupellation

— — — — — — — — — — 4-73

99 99 99 99 99

99

X-ray fluorescence Cupellation 99 99

99 99 99 99

Carter Bibra Schiassi Giesecke Reece Giesecke von Rauch 1857 Giesecke 99

Akerman Cupellation and Kellner spectrographic analysis von Rauch 1857 Cupellation 99

99 99 99

—

von Rauch 1857 Schiassi 99

—

— — 11-94

99

BM

99

99

— —

Schiassi von Rauch 1857

39

20.71 8.14 6.95

Source

99

99

Giesecke Schiassi Reece

The analyses collected here are clearly of varying accuracy; in any case none can hope to tell us the exact composition of the coin as it was immediately after striking, largely owing to the effects of corrosion and diffusion over the centuries (see J. Condamin and M. Picon, Archaeometry 1964, 98; 1965,110). It appears, however, that the margin of inaccuracy is not likely to be large with the straightforward destruction analysis of coins of high silver content (see L. H. Cope, NC 1967,109); I therefore regard the analyses collected here as substantially accurate. The following sources have been used: J. Y. Akerman, Catalogue of Roman coins i, xiv. M. Bahrfeldt, 'Monete romano-campane', no. 17c!. E. Bibra, Vber alte Eisen- und Silber-funde, 37, no. 1. B(ritish) M(useum) unpublished analyses, commissioned by H. Mattingly, recorded on tickets beneath coins (see, briefly, J. Phelps, Reports of the Royal Mint 1938, 55). G. F. Carter, Analytical chemistry 1964, 1264. W. Giesecke, Italia Numismatica, 325. H.-J. Kellner and W. Specht, JNG 1961, 43. A. von Rauch, Mitt. Num. Ges. Berlin iii, 1857, 295. A. von Rauch, ZfN 1874, 32, no. 18. R. Reece, NC 1964, 233. F. Schiassi, Ritrovamento di medaglie consolari, 34. E. Stoicovicd and I. Winkler, Acta Mus. Napoc. 1967, 449. Th. Thomson, Arm. Ckirme bad, 1809, 129 and 132. I have not been able to use one analysis by Akerman and two by von Rauch, since the coins are not fully identified.

571

Technique and technology reminiscence of the debasement of the coinage by Dossenus in 87; but Pliny's confusions can rarely be resolved with any certainty. I take it that all serious debasement of the precious metal coinage of the Roman Republic was the result of financial stringency. It is apparent that after the debasement of the Second Punic War the quality of the silver coinage was restored to as high a level as could be expected in the ancient world. The quality of the firstcentury coinage is uneven, but this is best explained as the result of melting down for re-use coins which might be debased without taking sufficient care; the bronze coinage was much more carelessly produced (see below). The composition of other silver coinages of the Qvil War period than that of M. Antonius could profitably be investigated; for the bronze coinage of this period is erratic in both composition and weight-standard; and at least one silver coinage, that of Scarpus, is of reduced weight-standard (see p. 595). Two points connected with the metal content of the silver coinage remain to be discussed, the second of which is perhaps not strictly relevant, but is best considered here. First, six analyses (11, 24, 28, 36, 47 and 57) include an account of the trace elements present. Analyses have also been carried out solely with a view to determining trace elements.1 Unfortunately it seems unlikely that such investigations can be very informative. At least from the First Punic War onwards the Roman Republic and its officials were in receipt of booty and revenue from a wide variety of sources. Assorted coins and bullion presumably went together into the melting-pot to emerge as coinage. Only for Rome's first two silver issues does it seem possible that investigation of the trace elements which they contain might reveal the source of the metal used. Second, a number of analyses of plated coins have been carried out. Since these cannot be regarded as official mint products (see p. 560), the analyses are shown separately in Table XLVI. One analysis (2, dealing only widi the base metal core) includes an account of the trace elements present. The most interesting analysis deals separately with the core and the plating (3); the fairly respectable quality of the silver plating2 confirms the inference to be drawn from the Lucoli hoard, consisting largely of fragments of silver denarii ready to be melted down and of newly manufactured plated denarii, that forgers used official denarii to provide the metal for their silver plating. By contrast with the gold and silver coinage, the bronze coinage of the Republic was throughout of erratic composition and often of poor quality, as appears from Table XLVII. Copper was alloyed with lead as well as with tin from a very early stage, doubtless because lead could cost only 7/80 as much as tin (Pliny, NH xxxiv, 161); sometimes lead displaced tin altogether (17, 18 etc.). The wild fluctuations in composition are best understood as the result of melting down old coins without 1 G. Rolandi and F. Cremascoli, Industria Mineraria 1953, 255. * Observed also by E. Bernareggi, RIN 1965, 15; for similar analysis results see M. Bahrfeldt, Antike MUnztechnik, pp. 14-15 of offprint.

572

Metal TABLE XLVI.

No. 1

2 3 4

Issue Quadrigatus

Denarius (core) C. Norbanus (total) (plate)

M. Antonius

Reference

Analyses of plated silver coins 7o Base % Ar % Au metal

less than 33-3 second — century 357/ib 21.50 357/ib 91.80 488/1-218.00

Method

Source

—

—

—

99.05

9)

Bibra

Cu — —

ii

Reece

— — —

82.00

Cupellation

von Rauch 1874

}>

»

Akerman

For the sources used see notes to Table XLV.

imposing any kind of quality control,1 such as did exist for silver.2 It is worth recalling in this context the Roman readiness to overstrike old coins without even bothering to melt them down and make new blanks. Only with the adoption of orichalcum, a copper and zinc alloy,3 as a coinage metal was any attempt made to control die composition of the base metal coinage. Occurring sporadically earlier,4 orichalcum was used as a coinage metal by C. Clovius in 45 with a zinc content of some 28 %j also by Q. Oppius at an uncertain date with a rather lower percentage of zinc (39-41 and 46-7). Zinc also began to appear in a number of provincial coinages,5 doubdess because coins of C. Clovius were melted down to make them. Orichalcum was finally adopted by Augustus for his sestertii and dupondii.6 Although the relationship between orichalcum and copper under Augustus does not provide decisive evidence for their exact relationship earlier, it is clear that orichalcum was from the beginning regarded as more valuable than copper or bronze. The coins of C. Clovius, weighing as much as asses in circulation or being struck at the time, were thus certainly intended at least as dupondii. 1

Though it is worth noting that the substitution of striking for casting from 217 onwards led initially to an improvement in the quality of the bronze coinage, see Table XLVII, 4-7 and 9. The Cambridge analyses showed an increasing proportion of arsenic as the second century progressed. 2 See above and, for Imperial silver, L. H. Cope, NC 1967, 107-20. ' H. A. Grueber, BMCRR i, xxxiv; ii, 45, 350, 368, 385, 412, 454, 504, 512, 532, 538, is uniformly confused on the nature of orichalcum, being unaware of the necessity of zinc as an ingredient. ' E. R. Caley, Orichalcum, 3-8 and 13-31. 5 E. R. Caley, Orichalcum, 9. • For the process of manufacture see E. R. Caley, Orichalcum, 9 2 - 9 ; for the reputation of the metal in antiquity see LSJ, s.vv. 6PE(XO<XKOS and KOCBUEIO:; TLL, s . w . aurichalcum and cadmea.

573

Technique and technology TABLE XLVII.

No. Issue

Reference

Libra! as Libral semis 3 Libral quadrans 4 Semilibral semuncia 5 Collateral quadrans

10

Collateral semuncia Corn-ear Corn-ear1

I Anchor

Corn-ear and f^J 12 Corn-ear and tv 13 Corn-ear and f^

n

14 15

Corn-ear Corn-ear

16

Corn-ear Star Thunderbolt Meta Metellus

17 18 19 20

Tampilus Matienus 23 Matienus 24 A. Caecilius 25 Gryphon 21 22

26 27 28 29 30

Wolf and twins P. Blasio Opeimius Murena Anchor

Star Ass 33 C. Scribonius 34 Mast and sail 35 Q. Libo

31 32

36 37 38 39 40

L. Pitio C. Curiatius L. Tubulus C. Clovius C. Clovius 1 3

%Cu %Sn %Pb Mg 7 8 7

88

12

•

90

9

42/2 42/4 43/5 50/4

93 92

67 95 58

5 8 9 4 11

31

69/5 69/5 69/6 72/7 72/7

89

10

81

3 7

1 16 20

•

1

72/7 113/2 119/6 124/6 132/3 133/7 162/3 i62/5b 174/1 182/1

73

Ca

Mn

Fe

29 20 . 1

• 24 1

100

99 100

21

79

8

92

72

3 3

14 25

77

2

72

72

3 3 7 •

21 25 18 25 28

83

79 68 62

7

76 86 77 88

1

5

9

1

17 11

196/1 195/1 201/3 213/1 215/3

65

5

2i6/2a 240/2b 315/1

183/1 189/4 190/1 186/1 194/1

Si

22

70 62 72

1 2

6 7 8 9

Analyses of bronze coins

31 23

6

30 30 28 28 26

70

72 71

1

74

•

65 68

2

92

22 26 1

5 6

75 71

Although this piece belongs to the corn-ear issue, the corn-ear is not aaually present on it. This piece is overstnick on a coin of Rhegium, see Table rvm, 63, b.

574

• • •

Metal

Co

Ni

• • •

• • • •

Zn

As

Ag

•

Sb

.

S

/

V . . .

Au

.

Method

Source

Wet analysis

Phillips

Wet analysis and spectrography Cambridge Spectrography „

•

Wet analysis and spectrography Spectrography

/

.

.

.

Wet analysis Spectrography

• .

• .

• .

. .

Wet analysis and spectrography Spectrography

„ „

Caley Cambridge

u M

•

• •

NONE

• •

• • •

•

•

NONE X-ray fluorescence Carter Wet analysis and spectrography Cambridge Wet analysis „

23 29

575

Giesecke Bahrfeldt

Technique and technology TABLE XLVII (COM.) No. Issue

Reference

C. Clovius Sex. Pompeius 43 Sex. Pompeius 44 Octavian 45 Octavian

41 42

46 Q. Oppius 47 Q. Oppius

%Cu % Sn %Pb

Mg

Si

Ca

Mn

Fe

71

74

8

71

10

79

8 4

81

16 19 13 14

79 84

Quantitative analyses by means of spectrography and X-ray fluorescence should not be regarded as being particularly accurate, especially in view of the unevenness in composition of ancient bronze coins; the accuracy of the analyses collected seems, however, sufficient to support the points made in the text (above, pp. 6-7). The following sources have been used: M. Bahrfeldt, NZ 1905, 42. E. R. Caley, Composition of Greek bronze coins, 104. Cambridge unpublished analyses, commissioned by myself (I should like to thank the Fitzwilliam Museum Syndicate for permission to analyse spectrographically 30 pieces, of which 2 are unofficial imitations and are not listed here; 5 pieces were provided by myself, for wet analysis; I should also II

STRUCK COINS

The four possible sources of information concerning the technique of striking coins are the coins themselves, surviving pieces of coining equipments representations of coining equipment or processes and literary or epigraphic testimonia. These last are very few and far between, while the third of the sources mentioned has very serious drawbacks. The activity of coin-production shaded into jewellery in one direction and metal-working in the other and it is rarely possible to tell from a relief or painting whether coining or some related activity is represented. Such uncertain representations in any case tell us no more than is suggested by common-sense and by the five certain representations of coining equipment or processes; the odiers are best ignored.1 The value as evidence of surviving dies is even less than that of representations. Although it is difficult to be certain that all surviving ancient dies are forgers' dies, they should certainly all be viewed with grave suspicion. All Republican examples but one seem to be forgers' dies (see p. 562 n. 3) and the same seems to be true of the large number of early Imperial examples, whether of bronze (for striking gold and silver) or of iron (for striking copper or copper alloys).2 The great preponderance of bronze dies (for striking gold and silver) seems to me best 1

Representations of coining equipment and processes are collected by C. C. Vermeule, Ancient dies, 10-37; reasonably certain representations are nos. 4, 1, 7, 11 and 12 in Vermeule's list (no. 7 is now in the British Museum, see B. Ashmole, BMQ 1955, 71 with pi. xxiii); uncertain representations are nos. 2-3, 5-6, 8-10 in Vermeule's list and a clay plaque frcm Alexandria in the Ashmolean Museum illustrated in Archaeology 1957, 100. * The distinction is based on the size of the dies.

576

Struck coins

Co

Ni

Zn

As

Ag

Sb

Au

Method

Source

Wet analysis „ „ „ „

Bahrfeldt Phillips Grueber Phillips Grueber

„

Bahrfeldt

like to thank Dr K. M. Bowkett and Mr K. I. Bullman, both formerly Department of Metallurgy, University of Cambridge, for carrying out and evaluating the analyses). G. F. Carter, Analytical chemistry 1964, 1264. W. Giesecke, Italia Numismatica, 351. H. A. Grueber, NC 1904, 244. J. A. Phillips, J. Chem. Soc. 1852, 265. I have not been able to use one analysis by Phillips and one by Bibra (see notes to Table XLV), since the coins are not fully identified. The analyses discussed by E. Bernareggi, RIN 1964, 7, are no use at all for scientific purposes, since the coins are not identified at all.

explained by the assumption that forgers concentrated on counterfeiting precious metal coins (for the method seep. 560 n. 1); Vermeule's view1 that the mint was less careful about dies for striking gold and silver is incredible. There is in any case no universally valid way of distinguishing between forgers' dies and official dies (see pp. 561-2). It is perhaps just worth stating the probability that official dies were made from the same materials as forgers' dies, namely bronze for striking gold and silver, iron for striking base metals. The most important source of evidence, in the end, for die techniques used by the mints of the Roman Republic is the coins themselves. The preparation of dies Each obverse and reverse die for the Republican coinage appears to have been individually cut;2 there is no evidence that any attempt was made to mass-produce dies, eidier by casting or by 'hubbing', that is by striking dies in intaglio from a master die in relief. Cast dies involve a loss of detail and crispness which can be documented for forgers' dies for plated silver coinage,3 but of which no trace appears on the official, pure silver coinage of the Roman Republic; they may be left out of account. Various processes of'hubbing' are postulated by those who hold they were 1

Ancient dies, 40.

1

The techniques and presumably the tools were the same as for cutting gems in intaglio; for a discussion of the tools used see S. Casson, Congress 1936, 40-52; the use of both drill and compass may be documented for Republican dies - the former was apparently used to mark the ends of the straight lines of the letters in the legends (see, for instance, PI. xxxv, 1), the latter was used to mark out the circular border (M. Bahrfeldt, Antike MOnztechnik, p. 18 of offprint). Seep. 561.

1

577

Technique and technology used in the classical world; basically, we are asked to believe either that a master die only blocked out the salient features of the design or that it created a perfect die, perhaps with lettering to be added. I do not see how satisfactory evidence for the first process can ever be produced and propose to ignore it. 1 1 do not believe that die second process was operated under the Republic. Dies with mistakes were carefully corrected2 and dies were recut; so die obverse die of N. Fabius Pictor widi die control-letter G (no. 268/lb) and so several obverse dies of Cn. and Sex. Pompeius (nos. 470 and 477).° Aldiough correction of mistakes on dies is perhaps not incompatible with the use of 'hubbing', bodiering to re-cut dies is surely incompatible widi die possibility of producing new dies by die simple use of a master die.4 The metal from which a die was made was doubdess work-hardened by being hammered before die process of engraving was begun; obverse dies could apparendy produce about 30,000 coins each (see p. 694), reverse dies rather less. The artists The number of engravers5 employed in die mint at any one time was, I diink, very few. The gigantic issue of L. Iulius Bursio displays two distinct styles in its obverse dies (see Pi. XLVI, 11-12; die reverses are not really susceptible of stylistic analysis), presumably the work eidier of two artists or of two groups of artists; since die whole issue was struck as a single sequence (see commentary on no. 352), we cannot really postulate two groups of artists working in isolation; it is necessary to regard die two styles as those of two individual artists, each dierefore responsible for some 200 obverse dies in half a year (to die rest of the year belongs die issue of Mn. Fonteius, the dies for which were also cut by die same two artists).6 The reverse dies for part of die issue of D. Silanus can widi some plausibility be assigned to three engravers (see commentary on no. 337); they may reasonably be supposed to have cut all die other dies between them. The mint was apparendy as an experiment from 135 to 124 divided into two teams functioning in alternate years (see p. 65); in diis puzzling arrangement each team apparendy had only one engraver whose distinctive style appears on both silver and bronze (compare, most dramatically, Pis. xxxvi, 14 and 15, xxxvii, 2 and 3). 1

It is worth noting that just two obverse dies, with the control marks XXXVI and IXL, of the second type of L. Lucretius Trio (no. 390/2) have very small heads; inspection of specimens struck from them suffices to show that each die was individually cut. 1 See on nos. 246/43, 390/2, 437/4b, 494/27 and 528/3; M. Bahrfeldt, Antike Miinztechnik, p. 15 of offprint, notices the phenomenon, but describes it slightly inaccurately in the case of the first example. * Note also the vicissitudes of the control-letters on no. 480/3 and 17 (see below, p. 588 n. 3). 4 N. Durr, Musees dt Geneve Juillet-Aout 1963, 11, argues for the third century A.D. that Roman dies were normally produced by 'hubbing'. See also my discussion in general terms in A. D. Momigliano (ed.), Sources of ancient history (forthcoming). 8 Signatores in ILS 1635, scalptores in ILS 1638; the terms were presumably interchangeable. • The two styles run side by side from no. 352 to no. 394, see commentary on no. 388. For the time needed to produce a die see H. Zehnacker, FestschxiftJ.Vogt i, 1, 278-9; P. Grierson, Numismatics, 110.

578

Struck coins It follows that I am not wholly convinced by the theory that the mint included an 'erster Graveur' who produced one or more patterns and a number of hacks who turned out the bulk of the dies; 1 there are certainly issues which show one or two fine dies and a large number of poor-quality dies (as no. 343); but I believe that sometimes one and the same man could produce a few fine dies and could then allow his engraving to deteriorate under pressure of work.2 Nor do I believe that eight separate engravers produced the eighteen (or so) obverse dies used for the Triumviral portrait gold of 42.3 As far as we can tell, the same engravers worked on dies for all three metals, where appropriate (see above for bronze and silver; for silver and gold compare Pi. XLVII, 6 and 7). The same engravers also seem often to have cut bodi obverse and reverse dies and boda design and lettering; the erroneous repetition of M. CATO on one reverse die of no. 343/2b suggests that it was being cut by a man who also cut obverse dies; and on the obverse dies of the issue of P. Satrienus a particular style correlates widi a distinctive way of composing Roman numerals (see commentary on no. 388).* Issues such as no. 342/1-2 show obverse and reverse almost as interchangeable. The preparation of blanks No examples survive of blanks intended for coins of the Roman Republic;5 it is clear, however, diat a number of different methods of manufacture were used, sometimes simultaneously,6 quite apart, of course, from the mere re-use of existing coins for overstriking. The methods to leave most traces are those used for die bronze coinage from 217 onwards. Two-sided moulds, with a number of interconnected compartments, were employed. The point at which the two sides of a mould joined might be either in the middle of the rim of the blank or at one edge of the rim, widi the result that a blank might have one of two characteristic profiles (see Fig. 4,2-3) ;7 obviously 1

A. Alfoldi, SNR 1954, 9; also H. Zehnacker, RN 1961, 33. 3 T. V. Buttrey, Portrait gold, 29-31. * Styles D and E of no. 342/5 suggest an extra engraver. * Of course, obverse and reverse dies may sometimes have been cut by different men; the different approaches to spelling on no. 403/1 perhaps suggest this, also that one of the men concerned was Greek. For Greek artistic conceptions in the Republican coinage see also p. 725 n. 2. We have only one real artist's signature, the letter P concealed in the hair on the head of M. Antonius on no. 542/1-2 (first pointed out in the sale catalogue Santamaria 21/11/1920, 177 and 184). I am wholly unconvinced by the attempts of M.-L. Vollenweider in Steinschneidekunst to identify gem-cutters with particular die-cutters; on p. 27 the gems of Pamphilos, homogeneous in style, are held to resemble very diverse coins ranging in date from the early 60s to the late 40s; in fact, the resemblance hardly goes beyond the fact that in each case female heads are portrayed (cf. P. Zazoff, Gnomon 1969, 198). 6 For examples from other coinages see G. F. Hill, NC 1922, 7 n. 14; 11 nn. 28-9. 1 The officinatores of ILS 1634-5, cf. 1636, CIL vi, 1145, were presumably the mint personnel concerned with the process; the nummularii of ILS 1636-7, cf. CIL vi, 8463, were presumably concerned with problems of metal content, the aequator of ILS 1639 with the weight of blanks. ' The following issues are found with the profile of Figure 4, 2 - struck bronze from no. 38 to no. 219 (with five exceptions, see below) and occasional semisses thereafter; asses from no. 312 to no. 329. The following issues are found with the profile of Figure 4, 3 - struck bronze from no. 97 to no. 100 and part of the struck bronze of no. 89; most fractions from no. 226 onwards; asses from no. 290 to no. 296 and from no. 334 to no. 355. The as of Sulla (no. 368) reverts to the profile of Figure 4, 2.

579

Technique and technology a great deal of variety within each type is possible; if the mould was not fitted together properly the profile may be deformed (see Fig. 4,4). The lugs formed by die metal in the interconnecting channels were often not broken off and remained attached to one or other of die blanks (see Fig. 4,1). The whole method of making blanks for the struck bronze coinage was presumably taken over from die techniques used for the cast bronze coinage (see below).

2

3

4

Fig. 4. Shapes of blanks used for struck bronze coins.

Blanks for gold and silver coins were apparendy prepared from 269 onwards (no. 20) by filling depressions in an open mould with molten metal.1 The resulting slugs of metal were then hammered to the desired diameter for die dies currendy in use and re-heated to reverse the work-hardening effect. The blanks for die token bronze coinage produced between 241 and 226 were made in the same way as those for the gold and silver coinage. The blanks for Rome's first two issues of didrachms and dieir associated token bronze were to all appearances prepared in a way that was familiar to Greek mints in South Italy; each was cast in a spherical two-sided mould and then struck in such a way that the join was obliterated by the type on each side, remaining visible only at two points on the edge.2 1

2

There is never any trace of the join left by a two-sided mould. Depressions in an open mould could be filled either by pouring from a ladle (difficult) or by melting scraps making up the right weight in situ (see A. Barb, NZ 1930,1; M. F. Hendy and J. A. Charles, Archaeometry 1970, 17). I know of one silver coin where a scrap protruding from the edge seems to reveal the use of this process, a piece in an unpublished hoard of late quadrigati from Montedoro in the Museo Nazionale di Taranto. G. F. Hill, NC 1922, 6-7; the blanks for no. 23 were apparently made in the same way (thus copying the contemporary coinage of the mint of Messana at which they were produced, see p. 40 and M. Sarstrom, Coinage of the Mamertines, 21).

58O

Struck coins

Serration At intervals through almost the whole course of the denarius coinage, from its inception down to the mid-sixties, the denarii of certain issues or parts of issues were provided with serrated edges.1 The serration was done by hand with a chisel before striking.2 Unfortunately the purpose remains obscure. The view of H. Mattingly that denarii serrati were the coinage of the Marians3 was demolished by E. A. Sydenham;* but the latter's view that they were struck at non-Italian mints, primarily for Transalpine circulation, cannot stand either. There is one example of a denarius of an issue normally serrated which is struck on an unserrated blank regarded by Sydenham as characteristic of the mint of Rome (denarius of Mn. Aquillius, no. 401/1, Rome, Capitol 1112); and there is one serrated example of that part of the issue of C. Egnatius Maxsumus which is not normally serrated (no. 391/3, Copenhagen, from die same reverse die as a normal piece). Clearly serrated and unserrated denarii were being produced not only at the same time, but in the same place, with occasional confusion of blanks. Since serration was not systematic, it could not prevent forgery, for a forger could choose which issue to copy; we are left with the likelihood that serration was no more than a casual decorative fashion.5 Trial pieces6 It seems that dies were sometimes tested before being used for a production run. There survive a hybrid piece in base metal of C. Numonius Vaala,7 a version in bronze of an aureus of L. Livineius Regulus,8 a piece of lead with the types of a denarius of M. Fourius Philus impressed on either side (Haeberlin 696) and a piece of bronze with the reverse type of a quadrans of L. Piso Frugi impressed on it three times (Paris, A 7046) ;9 the last piece is interesting and will be discussed below. In general, there is no way of telling what the purpose of trial pieces was - to show how the product of particular dies looked or to test whether the machinery as a whole was working. 1

Nos. 79 (cf. Ailly, Recherches ii, 556), 202 (cf. M. Bahrfeldt, Bull. Memuel de Num. 1883-84, 133), 282, etc. For a full list see General Index. For issues wrongly regarded in the past as serrate see pp. 551 (four coins) and 553. 1 H. Mattingly, JVC 1924, 32-3; E. A. Sydenham, NC 1935. 229-30; M. Bahrfeldt, Antike MiXmtechnik, pp. 11-12 of offprint, is in error. » JRS 1922, 234-6; NC 1924, 46-52. • NC 1935, 211-12. 1 So H. A. Grueber, BMCRR i, 159. Note the way in which serration is one element of artistic continuity in the issues which precede and follow Sulla's capture of Rome in 82, see p. 79. • L. Cesano, Rass. Num. 1907, 57, deals with Imperial examples. ' Obverse of no. 514/2, reverse of no. 514/1 -Paris, A 13311 (same obverse die as a normal denarius, Paris, AF). * T. V. Buttrey, Portrait gold, 66-7. ' M. Bahrfeldt, Nachtrage iii, pi. ii, 43. There are two other supposed trial pieces, a small plaque bearing a head of Mercury with a caduceus over his shoulder, SEPVLLIVS and (?) Q, (J.-A. Blanchet, RN 1898, 122), and a block of silver with the obverse type (without inscription) of a denarius of L. Aquillius Floras on either side (R. Mowat, RIN 1903, 385). The second piece is a modern forgery (M. Bahrfeldt, Nachtrage iii, 21), the first does not reproduce a coin type.

581

Technique and technology The process of striking1 The anvil and punch dies tested, cased and ready, a heated blank2 was placed on die anvil die by a suppostor by means of tongs, die punch die held in place by two malliatores and a hammer wielded by a third malliator? The dies were not, under die Roman Republic, in any way fixed in relation to each other, but die malliatores seem in fact often to have kept them in much die same position for a long time, presumably for die whole of a shift; coins struck from die same pair of dies normally show die dies in the same position.4 The picture is of a mint using dies intensively to produce a large volume of coinage and exhausting one or other die in a relatively short time (see below). Coins struck from die same pair of dies but showing die dies in a different position may be regarded as produced in different shifts or as die result of momentary carelessness. Of some importance is die probability that die mint, for the sake of increased productivity, struck several coins simultaneously. The Augustan as illustrated by J.-B. Giard5 seems to result from die placing of a blank in such a way that it was struck by parts of two obverse and two reverse dies mounted side by side.6 And although it is difficult to be certain, die trial piece for quadrantes of L. Piso Frugi mentioned above seems impressed by diree different dies, again presumably mounted side by side.7 Certainly the occasional occurrence of coins with the die on one side centred and that on die other side not is readily understandable if several obverse and reverse dies were mounted side by side and had all in theory to be aligned before striking took place (see Addenda). Mis-strikes Apart from the mis-alignment of dies (see above), die failure to centre blanks, the use, in the case of die bronze coinage, of a blank intended for a smaller denomination 1

The assertion of C. H. V. Sutherland, Cittophori, 13, cf. 18, that in the late Republic the mint was divided into officinae which each used a different reverse type seems to be based on an out of date chronology of the issues of the year 44. * Hot striking is implied by Lucan vi, 403; Statius, Silvae in, 3,102-5; note the early bronze struck from two blanks fused together and the denarius of L. Buca struck from three blanks fused together (p. 583 n. 2) and see L. H. Cope, NC 1969, 158-9, for hot striking of antoniniani of Claudius II. But the blank cannot have been very hot, or traces of overstruck coins would not have remained, nor would brockages (one coin striking another, see below) have been possible. Republican overstrikes belong mainly to the period of emergency coinage during the Second Punic War. For a denarius of C. Poblicius struck cold see J. Condamin, J. Guey, M. Picon, RN 1965,130 n. 1. 1 The terminology and the ratio of suppostores to malliatores are to be found in ILS 1635; the malliatores presumably took it in turns to wield the hammer, cf. the tessera in Vienna with a representation of coining, C. C. Vermeule, Ancient dies, Representation no. 11. * See, for instance, T. V. Buttrey, MusN i960, 96 - four out of five specimens from the same pair of dies show the dies in the same position. * RN 1967, pi. xiii, 42. * The as of L. Titurius Sabinus (no. 344/4) briefly and unclearly described by R. Kampmann, BSFN i960,400, seems also to display parts of the impressions of two obverse dies and two reverse dies. ' The Greek coins discussed by G. F. Hill, NC 1922,37-8, seem also to result from attempts to strike two or more coins simultaneously; they are not, as he thought, evidence for 'hubbing', on which see above.

582

Struck coins than that being produced 1 and the production of coins anything but circular (the blank was not confined by a collar as nowadays), various things could go wrong in the process of striking. The blank could move between hammer blows, acquiring thereby double images; more than one blank could be inserted, with the result that one-sided coins appeared.2 One-sided coins were presumably normally re-struck; traces of this process survive in coins which have a double image on one side only (a quadrigatus in the Montedoro hoard, for instance). There are occasional examples of coins which have been struck, turned over and restruck, presumably because the images produced by the first striking were inadequate;3 there was evidently at least some attempt at quality control. But the commonest mis-striking of the Republican coinage is the brockage, normally produced when a coin remained embedded in the punch (reverse) die and impressed the next blank with a concave version of the anvil (obverse) type. Most silver issues of the Republic are represented by brockages of this kind, certainly from the beginning of the denarius coinage (note a brockage of no. 72/3 in the Tivisa hoard, one of no. 72/1 in the Serra Orlando hoard); there is a brockage of the gold issue no. 490/2 in Vienna; Leningrad has a brockage of an early bronze issue, no. 63/6, 64/6 or 65/6 (incidentally also overstruck).4 Very occasionally a coin was left in the anvil (obverse) die and impressed the next blank with a concave version of the punch (reverse) type; so a denarius of Longinus (no. 413/1) in The Hague (1929/76) and one of L. Aemilius Buca (no. 480/6) in Paris (A 3932) and a quadrans of M. Acilius (no. 255/4) m Paris (A 3790). There are two examples known to me (Paris, A 13251 - a denarius of Cn. Nerius; Pontecorvo hoard 1205 - a denarius of C. Pansa) of a brockage of this second kind restruck, presumably to achieve acceptable quality. But the overall impression is of a coinage produced carelessly and in haste; the impression is supported both by the argument adduced above from the pattern of work in die mint and by the extent to which dies were used long after breaks had begun to mar the intelligibility of the design (see Pi. LVIII, 20 for instance). Given the scale on which the Republican coinage was produced (see pp. 6968".), we should not be surprised. 1

M. Bahrfeldt, Antike Miinztechnik, p. 7 of offprint. * G. F. Hill, NC 1922, 34 n. 76; E. Fabbricotti tells me there is a similar piece in a private collection in Rome. Moscow 28675 ' s a denarius of L. Aemilius Buca (no. 480/4) struck on three flans fused together; the Vicarello find includes a Minerva/Horse's head ROMANO bronze (no. 17/1) struck on two flans fused together to form afigure-of-eightshape. 3 A denarius of C. Vibius Pansa (no. 342/5) in the Rizzi hoard (Coin hoards, no. 268); a denarius of T. Carisius in the San Bartolomeo hoard (C. Cavedoni, Memorie di Religione, di Morale e di Letteratura iv, 1834, 29011.); a denarius of L. Titurius Sabinus (no. 344/1), Haeberlin 1371. 4 Cf. M. Bahrfeldt, Antike Mtinztechnik, p. 8 of offprint, nos. 2-6, for Imperial examples of bronze brockages. C. Cavedoni, Memorie di Religione iv, 1834, 29011., cites from the San Bartolomeo hoard a coin of Paullus Lepidus which appears to be not only a brockage, but hopelessly badly centred.

583

Technique and technology Control-marks1 On some issues (mainly silver, occasionally bronze, never gold) diere occur differential marks which appear to relate to a procedure for controlling the way in which dies were used.2 The fourth issue of didrachms (no. 22) provides the earliest instance; each reverse die is numbered, with Greek numerals ;3 each obverse die bears a symbol, but the same symbol occurs on several dies. A straightforward differentiation of dies is readily intelligible, but it is not immediately obvious what the purpose was of a symbol occurring on several dies. The dilemma is presented in an even more acute form by later issues. The different systems of control-marks may be classified as follows. Control-mark occurring on obverse or reverse only, different for each die C. Fonteius, no. 290 Ti. Q., no. 297 Mn. Fonteius, no. 307 M. Herennius, no. 308 L. Scipio Asiagenus, no. 311 L. Memmius Gal., no. 313 L. Saturninus, no. 317/2-3 C. Coilius Caldus, no. 318 C. Fabius, no. 322 C. Fundanius, no. 326 T. Cloulius, no. 332 L. Piso Frugi, no. 340/2 C. Vibius Pansa, no. 342/1 C. Censorinus, no. 346/2 L. C. Memies Gal., no. 349 Gargonius, Ogulnius, Vergilius, no. 350A/1 C. Licinius Macer, no. 35473b 1

2

3

C. Norbanus, no. 357 P. Crepusius, etc., no. 360 Q. Antonius Balbus, no. 364/ lb C. Valerius Flaccus, no. 365 C. Annius, no. 366 Ex s.c, no. 376 C. Naevius Balbus, no. 382/ib Ti. Claudius, no. 383 M. Volteius, no. 385/3 P. Satrienus, no. 388/lb L. Lucretius Trio, no. 390/2 C. Egnatius Maxsumus, no. 39i/ib-2 L. Farsuleius Mensor, no. 392 L. Cossutius Sabula, no. 395 Q. Pomponius Rufus, no. 398 M. Plaetorius Cestianus, no. 405/1-4 and no. 409/2

This section supersedes my remarks in PBSR 1966, 18. The marks on the issue of Cn. Blasio (no. 296/1) divide it into twelve varieties, and are not really control-marks. Likewise, the marks on the issue of C. Malleolus (no. 335/3) divide it into five varieties. For the odd use of letters on the issues of C. Limetanus and L. Cassius Longinus see on nos. 362 and 413. It makes no difference whether the differential marks are letters, numerals or symbols; the argument of A. Alfoldi, SM 1954, 18 and 25, that certain symbols show the technicians in the mint to have been devotees of Isis is simply fantastic; are other technicians to be regarded as strong believers in augural ritual? This part of the system is borrowed from the Ptolemaic coinage (see p. 39); note also the controlmarks on the Minerva/Eagle bronze (no. 23/1), borrowed from the contemporary coinage of the Mamertines (see p. 40).

584

Struck coins Unrelated control-marks occurring on obverse and reverse, different for each die N. Fabius Pictor, no. 268/ib L. Cota, no. 314/id Q. Antonius Balbus, no. 364/1 e So far we are faced simply with differentiation of dies, normally obverse or reverse, very occasionally both.1 But since there are numerous issues which bear no control-marks, the problem arises of why differentiation was undertaken so haphazardly. At this point, the issue of L. Manlius and L. Sulla (no. 367) becomes relevant. The control-marks on this issue, when they occur, take the form of numerals placed on the reverse before the horses' legs and this might seem straightforward enough. But VI, IX, XV and XX are the only numerals which occur (see commentary on no. 367), and on dies where there is plenty of room there is normally no trace of a numeral at all. Nor is this all. When one does occur, it is very small and very faint and clearly not cur into the dies in the same way as the rest of the type. It seems almost to have been scratched on as a sort of last-minute extra and of this I think there are only two possible explanations which make sense. Either the mark was normally placed elsewhere than on the face of the die or it was usually scratched on the die so lightly that it became obliterated almost as soon as striking began. Either way, I think we must conclude that at any rate this issue was provided with a system of control-marks, the traces of which were not intended to survive on the coins.2 We are now in a position to consider a different system of control-marks. Control-mark occurring on obverse or reverse only, the same for several dies C. Sulpicius, no. 312 L. Cota, no. 314/ib-c L. Thorius Balbus, no. 316 L. Saturninus, no. 317/1 L. Sentius, no. 325 Piso, Caepio, no. 330 D. Silanus, no. 337/1-2 Q. Titius, no. 34i/4d3 C. Vibius Pansa, no. 342/3-5 M. Cato, no. 343/2

L. Titurius Sabinus, no. 344/3 Gargonius, Ogulnius, Vergilius, no. 350A/3 Q. Antonius Balbus, no. 364/ic-d Anonymous quinarii, no. 373 L. Volumnius Strabo, no. 377 C. Naevius Balbus, no. 382/ia C. Egnatius Maxsumus, no. 391/3 L. Plaetorius, no. 396/ib M. Mettius, no. 480/3 and 17

It is possible that each of the very small number of control-marks on the first two issues of denarii of D. Silanus (no. 337/1-2) are artists' signatures; but this explana1 2 3

Where both are differentiated, the ratio of obverse to reverse dies may readily be ascertained, sec p. 672. See also below, on the issue of L. Iulius Bursio. Note also one as of C. Vibius Pansa (no. 342/7b) with a control-mark.

585

Technique and technology tion will clearly not work for the denarii of, for instance, C. Sulpicius (no. 312), where all the letters of the Latin alphabet occur as control-marks. Given the possibility that a die could be marked elsewhere than on the face, we are presented with two alternatives. Either the mint used for some issues one control-mark on the face of a die and another elsewhere or it was content for some issues to differentiate only groups of dies.1 Two systems of control-marks remain to be discussed. Some issues bear a controlmark on the obverse paired invariably with a particular control-mark on die reverse. Each pair of control-marks may have one pair of dies or more dian one obverse and reverse die. The issues involved are twelve in all. Paired control-marks, with one pair of dies L. Iulius Caesar, no. 320 Lentulus Marcelli f., no. 329 P. Sabinus, no. 331 C. Marius Capito, no. 378 L. Papius, no. 384 M. Volteius, no. 385/4 L. Roscius Fabatus, no. 412 Paired control-marks, widi more than one obverse and reverse die L. Cassius Caeicianus, no. 321 M. Serveilius, no. 327 C. Poblicius, no. 380 Q. Crepereius Rocus, no. 399 L. Axsius Naso, no. 400 Since obverse dies lasted longer than reverse dies (see p. 672), die pairing of one obverse die and one reverse die meant a waste of part of the working life of die obverse die. In die case of paired control-marks, with more dian one obverse and reverse die, an obverse die still functional could be used with a newly cut reverse die, always provided the pairing of control-marks was preserved. The pairing of controlmarks should presumably be regarded as a primitive attempt to control the use of obverse and reverse dies in relation to each other. It remains to discuss a small group of issues, some of which show traces of a more sophisticated attempt to control the use of obverse and reverse dies in relation to each odier C. Allius Bala, no. 336 D. Silanus, no. 337/3 L. Piso Frugi, no. 340/1 1

The obverse dies of the fourth issue of didrachms (no. 22, see above) must be remembered in this connection.

586

Struck coins C. Censorinus, no. 346/1 L. Iulius Bursio, no. 352 P. Crepusius, no. 361 C. Piso Frugi, no. 408 The control-marks on the third issue of denarii of D. Silanus (no. 337/3) are a letter of the Latin alphabet on the obverse and a numeral between I and XXX on the reverse. In principle, every letter is combined with every numerals an obverse die may be combined with reverse dies with different numerals and a reverse die may be combined widi obverse dies with different letters. The pattern is best explained, I dunk, by supposing that the mint was operating twenty-two anvils simultaneously, to each of which a letter was assigned;1 each anvil then worked through die numerals, taking over new obverse dies with its letter as required; a given obverse die with a letter could thus be used with two or diree reverse dies with different numerals; a given reverse die widi a numeral could move from one anvil to anodier by way of an overnight stay in a box of reverse dies. I have suggested above that the control-marks on die first two issues of denarii of D. Silanus are artists' signatures; but die gigantic third issue was part of die Roman response to die expected outbreak of die Social War and it is reasonable to suppose that a different system of control-marks could have been adopted (see p. 608 n. 1). But it was not entirely without precedent; the system on die issue of C. Allius Bala (no. 336) bears a certain formal similarity, which is, I dunk, significant. What happened here was that die issue was eventually much less extensive dian anticipated. Twenty-one anvils were each apparendy assigned a letter; but instead of dieir working dirough die symbols which formed die control-marks on die reverse, only one symbol, a grasshopper, was used by all anvils; the remaining symbols, a few dies to each, were distributed each to two or three anvils. The issue of denarii of L. Piso Frugi (no. 340/1) moves from a system of paired control-marks, widi one pair of dies in each case, to a system of paired groups of dies, widi the same type of control-mark widiin each group and widi a different actual control-mark for each die. Eventually, however, all system disappears and obverse dies and reverse dies, often repeating die same control-mark again and again, are combined according to no discernible principle. Such was die pressure of production in the first year of the Social War. The first issue of denarii of C. Censorinus (no. 346/1) copies die worst features of the system of L. Piso Frugi, but with decreasing enthusiasm;2 in die course of die issue control-marks begin to drop out and eventually disappear altogedier. The issue of C. Piso L.f. Frugi (no. 408) likewise copies die system of control-marks of L. Piso Frugi, without understanding or conviction (see commentary on no. 408). 1

The letters A to X with retrograde D.

• See p. 584 above for the second issue.

587

Technique and technology Only with the issues of L. Iulius Bursio (no. 352) and P. Crepusius (no. 361) do we find traces of really intelligent attempts to control the use of obverse and reverse dies in relation to each other. The whole issue of L. Iulius Bursio forms a single sequence, produced in one workshop. Apparently a number of symbols was chosen and cut into the obverse dies with which it was intended to start the issue; when a die wore out it was replaced by one with the same symbol. Meanwhile the reverse dies were simply running through a series of different types of control-marks; but the way in which the obverse dies were replaced suggests that the mint was thinking in terms of the relationship of obverse and reverse dies (for details see commentary on no. 352). The most carefully designed system of control-marks is that of P. Crepusius. The reverse control-mark is simply a numeral, but on the obverse the letters of the Latin alphabet were used in turn first with no symbol and then with each of twenty-three different symbols. This type of obverse control-mark is slightly different from that of L. Iulius Bursio, but follows naturally from it. Instead of the same symbol being used and replaced when necessary throughout the issue, all the dies with the same symbol were used in a group over only a small part of the total sequence. But several groups were always current at any one time. Widi a number of obverse dies being thus succeeded not just by any new obverse die, but by an individually designed replacement, a fairly careful check must have been kept on the correlation of obverse and reverse die use. At the end, only two general remarks can safely be made.1 First, I know of no example of a control-mark being re-cut to make another control-mark,2 except in the year 44 ;3 this suggests that in the heyday of control-marks (from 130 to 60) they always related to dies and never to anydiing else. Second, even if we are not prepared to assume that control-marks existed which did not form part of the type, it is apparent that there were a number of different approaches to the practice in the Roman mint; whedier the inventiveness involved was that of the moneyers or of humbler functionaries, we cannot say.4 For us, however, control-marks are not without their uses. They make a die-study of an issue considerably easier. They also provide some sort of check on estimates (based on how many dies survive) of how many dies were used for an issue; it is reasonably certain, for instance, that the control-marks on the obverse of the second 1

2 3

4

I know of no certain evidence which would suggest that control-marks on the Republican coinage were intended to serve as indications of date (though see commentary on no. 290); nor do they indicate what sources of metal were used. A control-letter was repaired in the issue of N. Fabius Pictor, corrected in that of L. Lucretius Trio. A. Alfoldi, SM 1964, 70; 1968, 60; I am not convinced by the supposed example of a re-cutting of the letter L into the letter B; it is in any case difficult to regard the letters on these two types of the year 44 as control-letters of the traditional type. It is interesting that C. Piso Frugi (no. 408) seems to ape the approach to control-marks of the issue of his father L. Piso Frugi (no. 340); C. Capito (no. 378) seems to misunderstand the system of control-marks of P. Crepusius (no. 361).

588

Struck coins issue of L. Lucretius Trio (no. 390/2) have only one die each; the sequence of numerals goes up to LXXX and an estimate of how many dies altogether were used which goes far beyond this figure cannot be right. 1 in

CAST COINS

(280-212 B.C.)J see p. 44

None of the moulds used for the production of the aes grave of the Roman Republic survives;2 they were presumably destroyed once they were no longer usable, as dies were. Several specimens produced in the same mould now survive (see E. J. Haeberlin, Aes grave, Pi. 25,1-3, for instance) and moulds were presumably used many times, though no estimate is possible of just how many times (see also p. 693). It is also apparent that the moulds for a number of pieces were interconnected and could be poured simultaneously; the Museo Civico di Bologna possesses a piece of aes grave still attached to the 'tree' of bronze which once connected it to at least four other pieces poured with it.3 1

2 For further details see p. 640. Th. Mommsen, RMzu, 186 n. 59. ' Bologna, Cat. 15 with PI. 4; E. J. Haeberlin, Aes grave, PI. 52, 39. Earlier asses were apparently poured in moulds which disposed them one above another, E. J. Haeberlin, Aes grave, 37-8. The group of still interconnected asses in the British Museum, Th. Mommsen, RMtu, 186 n. 59, is not a modern forgery, as M. Bahrfeldt, Antike Miinztechnik, p. 4 of offprint; but it is a group of struck pieces, not of cast pieces, see p. 753.

589

2 WEIGHT STANDARDS Since the theoretical and actual weight standards of an issue of coinage may differ, our understanding of the financial history of the Roman Republic will clearly be affected not only by variations in theoretical weight standards, but also by the extent to which theoretical weight standards were observed. Some basic problems have to be faced. Although we possess a certain amount of literary information about Republican weight standards, the identification of the issues struck according to these theoretical standards depends on the discovery of the actual weight standards of the issues (one may even have to guess on the basis of these what the theoretical standards are). There are in addition notorious practical difficulties in the way of establishing actual weight standards and in the way of expressing the theoretical weight standards of Rome in modern terms. I

THE ROMAN POUND

The weight standard of the earliest Roman silver coinage, the didrachm coinage, was borrowed from die silver coinage of Campania.1 But the standard of the Roman didrachm coinage was rapidly adjusted downwards to a level which stands in a simple 3:2 relationship with the level at which the standard of the denarius began its existence. This standard of the denarius in turn stands in a series of simple relationships with the various standards of the mainstream bronze coinage of the Roman Republic. These in turn can all be expressed in terms of the Roman pound, which may be regarded as being by the time of the early Republic a distinctively Roman unit of weight. Valuations in pounds of bronze constituted for the Romans the first step towards coinage, taken in die course of the fourth century,2 and die unit on which die earliest issue of bronze coinage was based weighed just a pound. This unit was called the as. The ultimate origin of die Roman pound and the derivation of die word 'as' are both obscure.3 But die existence of the words 'dupondius' or 'doubleweight' and 'assipondium' or 'singleweight'4 should imply that as far as die coinage is concerned 'as' simply means 'unit'. 5 The term was perhaps taken over together with 1

R. Thomsen, ERC iii, 138-9. • Livy iv, 30, 3 with commentary of R. M. Ogilvie. 3 B. Laum, Heiliges Geld, 117-18, on 'as', should not be taken seriously. 4 Varro, LL v, 169; Festus, s.v. Dispensatores. 4 For 'as' as a unit in a non-monetary context see TLL ii, 746-7; Varro, LL v, 169 is clearly wrong to derive 'as' from ' aes'.

590

The Roman pound its subdivisions into 12 ounces and 288 scruples from the terminology of length or area measurement.1 Certainly it is interesting that a pound of bronze is approximately a handful and it seems plausible that this should have been designated as a 'unit' or 'as' and then have been assigned the subdivisions already associated with the 'as*. This view is perhaps supported by the fact that a number of Italian communities produced bronze coinages the standards of which approximated more or less closely to the Roman pound;2 opinions perhaps differed as to what constituted a handful. Calculations of the weight of the Roman pound, assuming this to have been constant throughout Roman history, may be based either on objects weighing a pound or on objects weighing a known fraction or multiple of a pound. 3 A list of some of the various calculations that have been made is instructive.4 327.45 grammes 327.18 325.80 325.06 or 325.40 323.50 32347 323.26 322.56

Coins Coins Stone weight Stone weights Weights Balances Stone weights Coins and weights

A. Boeckh5 J. A. Letronne6 L. Cagnazzi7 E. Hiibner8 A. Segre9 M. Lazzarini10 M. Lazzarini11 L. Naville12

There are no decisive criteria for regarding any of these calculations as correct, although some clearly have greater plausibility than others; nor does it in fact seem reasonable to suppose that the Romans were able to maintain the weight of thenpound absolutely constant, at all times and in all places.13 Of the various calculations I

Varro, RR i, 10, 2; Columella v, 1, 12; Pliny, NH xviii, 178; cf. J. Rubino, Vorgeschichte, 9 n. 9. • Tuder, Tarquinii, Reate and the Vestini, as well as a number of Latin colonies. In any case, I regard all attempts to derive the Roman pound from Eastern weight systems as misconceived; cf. J. Beloch, GG i, 2, 333-5, on the theories of F. Hultsch. 3 Cf. P. Grierson, JVC 1963, The President's Address, vii-viii. 4 The list owes much to the list drawn up by Grierson, xi-xiv. The calculations of O. Viedebannt, Forschungen, 82; E. J. Haeberlin, Frankfurter Munzzeitung 1918, 391 are based on weighings of Republican denarii and are insufficiently precise to be worth reproducing. The existence of a pound of 206.25 8r-> advocated by O. Viedebannt, Forschungen, 73 and 79, is sufficiently disproved by E. J. Haeberlin, NZ 1919, 85. s Metrologische Untersuchungen, 165. • Considirations, 3-8. 7 Sui valori delle misure, 115-17, cf. 95. • MonatsberichteKPAW 1861, 544-5; CIL ii, 4962. 10 • Metrologia, 137. RAL 1948, 221. II NSc 1907, 689, citing earlier calculations; BCAR 1908, 69, citing earlier calculations; Conimbriga 1965, 8 i . 11 L. Naville, SNR 1920-22, 42 and 257; Les monnaies d'or de la Cyrinalque, 108. The comment of W. Giesecke, Berliner Munzbldtter 1922, 375 and 401 adds nothing; his pound of 279.36 gr., Italia Numismatica, 217-18, is based on the curious belief that an Attic talent weighed the same as 6,000 denarii. The citation of O. Viedebannt, RE iiA, 1348, is merely careless. 19 For official weights and measures kept on the Capitol see ILS 8629-35; Carmen de ponderibus 62; Hyginus 123; H. Willers, Kupferpragung, 203; A. Eran, SM 1969, 8, with earlier bibliography; note also the Lex Silia de ponderibus.

591

Weight standards that have been made, a large number are in the vicinity of 324 gr.; this seems to me the most sensible equivalence to adopt; although it is of course not exactly right, it is certainly not far wrong and has the great merit of being easily divisible by the numbers by which the Romans were in the habit of dividing; greater precision in adopting an equivalence is entirely spurious (see Addenda). We may thus draw up the following table of equivalences: 1 pound

= 324 gr.

1 uncia

= Tl5 pound = 27 gr.

1 scruple (scripulum) = ^ i i pound = 1.125 grII

ASCERTAINING WEIGHT STANDARDS

If then one accepts a Roman pound of c. 324 grammes, it is possible to go on to investigate the actual weight standards of the various issues of the Republican coinage, the theoretical standards in each case and the extent to which the two coincided. An issue of coinage was described by the Romans as struck so many to the pound1 and this terminology presumably reflected mint-practice; certainly no attempt was made to adjust the weight of individual pieces very carefully.2 Blanks were presumably made roughly the same size in the hope that they would turn out roughly the same weight and the size reduced or increased towards the end of a batch depending on how the metal was lasting;3 thus the mean weight of a batch of coinage straight from the mint would be the same as its weight standard. But this is clearly not true of the coinage which survives today, almost all of which is more or less worn or corroded; hence the difficulty of establishing the actual weight standard of an issue of Roman coinage. It has been argued that a frequency table may be a more reliable guide to the weight standard of an issue than an arithmetical averaging process.4 But there is no reason why this should be so and there are cases where a frequency table can be seen to be totally unreliable as an indication of weight standard (see below). The best way, therefore, to discover the weight standard of an issue is to take the mean of the weights of unworn specimens;5 if this is impossible the only 1

See p. 594 n. l and p. 593 n. 5 below; also CTh xii, 6, 13; xv, 9, 1; CJ x, 72, 5. Cf. Th. Mommsen, RMvi, 296 n. 25; T. Hackens, RBN 1962, 42-3, suggests, perhaps rightly, that technique improved towards the end of the Republic. For obvious reasons, greater care was always taken over the preparation of blanks for aurei. As examples of variations in weights of denarii, note well-preserved denarii with gryphon (no. 182/1) weighing 5.01 gr. (thus Paris, A 2310) and 3.27 gr. (thus Hannover 1445). ' The data discussed by T. Hackens, RBN 1962, 39-41, may point to the division of the issue of Petillius Capitolinus into successive batches, each including specimens of the four types composing the issue. 4 G. F. Hill, NC 1923, 364; NC 1924, 76; L. C. West, Coin standards, 4; T. Hackens, RBN 1962, 32. 6 See P. Grierson, JVC 1963, The President's Address, iii-iv, for the principle underlying this conclusion.

s

592

Ascertaining weight standards

valid alternative is to take the mean of the weights of available specimens and attempt to estimate the mean loss of weight as a result of wear and corrosion.1 Although in neither case is it possible to achieve absolute precision, there are enough groups of coins in unworn condition to allow useful deductions to be made about possible mean loss of weight. Taken as a whole the evidence allows reasonable certainty about both actual and theoretical weight standards. Ill

GOLD2

The properties of this metal are such that wear does not cause much weight-loss;3 it is probably also true that gold circulates less than other metals. One may therefore expect the mean weight of surviving specimens of a gold issue to be close to the original mean weight. This expectation is confirmed by a hoard consisting solely of aurei of A. Hirtius (no. 466) and presumably buried in an almost uncirculated condition soon after the date of issue. The mean weight of the hoard pieces is only marginally higher than that of other surviving pieces, 8.035 gr. as opposed to 8.03 gr.4 The mean weights of the two denominations of Rome's earliest gold issue (nos. 28/1-2 and 29/1-2) are given by Bahrfeldt as 6.82 gr. and 3.41 gr., slightly above the weights of 6 scruples (6.75 gr.) and 3 scruples (3.375 gr.) respectively. The weight standard of the Roman stater may therefore be regarded for convenience as 6 scruples, that of the half-stater as 3 scruples. The weight standard of the three denominations of Rome's second gold issue (nos. 44/2-4, 50/1, 72/2, 88/1,105/2,106/2) may similarly be regarded as based on a 60-as piece of 3 scruples, with the exception of no. 72/2, which is perhaps slightly underweight. The weight standards of both gold issues are described in the Catalogue according to the principles outlined in this paragraph. The gold coinage of the Empire from Augustus to Nero was based on an aureus struck at 40 to the pound,5 thus weighing 7-J- scruples = 8.10 gr. From no. 456 onwards the mean weights of aurei given by Bahrfeldt approximate very closely to this weight and the aurei in question, together with their occasional half-pieces, may be regarded as based on a weight-standard for the aureus of i\ scruples. Earlier gold issues of the first century B.C. cannot be so neatly described, but there is a pattern of progressive decline in weight from the Sullan issues onwards; the introduction of, in effect, a new monetary metal presumably involved experiments and adjustments, but the reasoning behind them cannot now be recovered.6 1

This will obviously vary, depending on the extent to which an issue circulated and on the metallic composition and size of the coins. A possible further complication, for which it is impossible to allow, is that some of the heavier specimens of an issue may have been picked out and melted down. 2 I do not discuss the weight standard of the gold issue struck for T. Quinctius Flamininus (no. 548), which is Greek, that of a Macedonian stater. 3 P. Grierson, NC 1963, The President's Address, xiv n. 1. 4 s M. Bahrfeldt, Goldmunzenpragung, p. 36. Pliny, NH xxxiii, 47. • The weight standard of the aureus of Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (no. 460/1), known only from one specimen, cannot really be established. The weight standard of the gold piece of Cn. Lentulus (no. 549) is mysterious to me; I suspect it to be non-Roman (see commentary).

593

Weight standards IV

SILVER

The denarius of the late Republic was in theory struck at 84 to the pound,1 thus weighing 3$ scruples = 3.86 gr.2 Detailed examination of the issues of M. Volteius shows that it adhered to this standard. For the first variety (no. 385/1) T. Hackens cites a mean for 176 specimens of 3.77 gr.,3 while the peak of a frequency table falls at 3.90 gr.; although the latter weight is probably close to the weight standard of the variety, this is entirely fortuitous. Better evidence is provided by the 55 specimens of the whole issue in fresh condition in die Maccarese hoard,4 buried about 5 years after the date of the issue. The mean weight of the first variety is 3.89, of the second variety 3.88, of the diird variety 3.80, of the fourth variety 3.82.5 The mean of all four varieties together is 3.84. When a frequency table is constructed, the first variety produces a peak at 4.00, the fourth variety a peak at 3.80 (the second and third varieties are not represented by enough specimens to construct a frequency table); all four varieties together show peaks at 4.00 and at 3.80.6 It seems reasonable to suppose that the first two varieties were struck on a slightly higher standard than the second two; but diere is no way of deciding whether the former were struck first and the weight standard was then adjusted downwards or vice versa. The weight standard of the whole issue should be regarded as being slightly more than 3.84 gr. and equated with the theoretical weight standard of die denarius, 3.86 gr. If then die issue of M. Volteius was struck on a weight standard of 3$ scruples = 3.86 gr., it is reasonable to expect that this was also true of all other issues of the denarius coinage after its early period (from no. 197 onwards). Detailed examination 1

Pliny, NH xii, 62 (assuming that 1 mina = 1 libra); xxxiii, 132; Celsus, de medicina v, 17, 1; Scribonius Largus, ad Callistum, praef.; Celsus, ad Pull. Nat. in F. Hultsch, MSR ii, 284, no. 3. * The corresponding weights for victoriatus, quinarius and sestertius are 2* scruples, if scruples and I scruples. 8 RBN 1962, 32. * Coin hoards, no. 309. ' The fifth variety is not represented in the hoard. ' Frequency table of no. 385/1: Frequency table of no. 385/4: 4.10 gr. + ++ + 4.00 gr. ++++ ++++++ 3.90 gr. + +++ ++ + 3.80 gr. + ++++++++++ + 3.70 gr. + ++++ ++ + 3.60 gr. + ++ + 3.50 gr. + Frequency table of no. 385/1-^4: 4.10 gr. ++++ + 4.00 gr. ++ + + + + + + 3.90 gr. ++++++++++++++ 3.80 gr. 3.70 gr. + ++++++++ + 3.60 gr. +++ + 3.50 gr. + 3.40 gr. +

594

Silver of every issue would be laborious and in many cases, in the absence of hoards with large numbers of fresh pieces, impossible; but it is possible to observe without much difficulty that the pattern of weights of pieces of most of these issues in museums is similar to the pattern of weights of pieces of the issue of M. Volteius.1 The only issue in the late Republic which one may assert was not struck on a weight standard of 3^ scruples is diat of Scarpus (no. 546).* The legionary issue of M. Antonius (no. 544), although debased (see p. 569), was of full weight. It remains to consider the early period of the denarius coinage.3 Here it is apparent that at first the denarius was in theory struck at 72 to the pound, thus weighing four scruples.4 Of the issues from no. 44 to no. 111, all but a few observed this theoretical standard;5 nos. 57-8 and most of nos. 112-21 occupy an intermediate position between the issues struck with a denarius of 1/72 pound and the issues struck with a denarius of 1/84 pound, as do nos. 125-6 and 128, which are detached from the main sequence. The relatively high standards of nos. 153-5 and 157 are doubdess fortuitous. V BRONZE

As already remarked, the weight of the as of the earliest substantive issue (no. 14) of bronze coinage of the Roman Republic was just a pound; 6 with the second and third issues (nos. 18-19) the weight of die as rose somewhat, for reasons at which it is only possible to guess;7 it then dropped below a pound and settled at about ten ounces (nos. 21 onwards).8 1

Note the issues of quinarii of C. Fundanius, T. Cloulius, P. Sabinus and C. Egnatuleius discussed by H. Willers, Kupferpragung, 48 ; the mean weights of the (very large) numbers of specimens of each issue in the Sustinenza hoaid (Coin hoards, no. 339) are 1.91 gr., 1.90 gr., 1.885 8r- a n d 1-995 Br-> corresponding to denarii of 3.82 gr., 3.80 gr., 3.77 gr. and 3.99 gr. * There are a few issues of around 200 and again in the 170s which are not of full weight, nos. 115-16, 127 and 129-31; 162-9. 1 First properly discussed by K. Samwer and M. Bahrfeldt, ' Geschichte des alteren romischen Mllnzwesens', NZ 1883, 90-2. 4 The corresponding weights for victoriatus, quinarius and sestertius are 3 scruples, 2 scruples and 1 scruple. Note Galen, de pond. 7 and 13. 6 See NC 1970, 52-3 for documentation of the weight standards of the three victoriatus issues nos. 70/1,71/1 and 83/1; the mean weights of unworn specimens are high enough for the issues in question to be regarded as having been struck on a full three-scruple standard. Silver issues in this period not struck according to the theoretical standard are nos. 102/1 and 103/1-2.

* The weight standards of the various issues of aes grave have been calculated on the basis of the lists of weights in E. J. Haeberlin, Aes grave, except in the case of no. 19, for which the weights of the specimens in the Ardea and Santa Marinella hoards {Coin hoards, nos. 20-1) have been used, as well as those of the specimens listed by Haeberlin, and of no. 40, for which the weights of the specimens in Syracuse have also been used. 7 I suspect the increase in weight standard to be the accidental consequence of the very high relief of the types; the light-weight quadrantes, sextantes and unciae of the Apollo/Apollo series (no. 18) perhaps represent an attempt at compensation. Another odd, unexplained phenomenon is the existence of heavy-weight semunciae of the Dioscuri/Mercury and Roma/Roma series of aes grave (nos. 14 and 21). * See E. j . Haeberlin, Aes grave, 36, for a frequency table of the weights of the Prow series with prow r. (no. 35).

595

Weight standards With the outbreak of the Second Punic War, financial stress brought about a series of drastic reductions in the weight standard of the bronze coinage (see p. 43): c. 217 c. 215-212 c. 214 c. 211

Semilibral standard1 Post-semilibral standards with attempted stabilisation Quadrantal standard Sextantal standard

Asses of six ounces at: Asses of three ounces Asses of two ounces

Associated with the sextantal standard was the new denarius coinage; with it financial stability returned. At the same time the Roman state took the first steps towards succeeding in making the bronze coinage at least to a certain extent a token coinage; some issues were struck seriously under-weight,2 other issues consisted of full-weight asses with under-weight as well as full-weight fractions;3 and from no. 57 onwards the weight standard of the bronze coinage as a whole gently declined. An attempt to raise it in c. 170 (see pp. 52-3) was unable to reverse the long-term trend and by the time the issue of C. Antestius (no. 219, the last for many years to include the as) was struck, the weight standard of the bronze coinage was based on an as of less than an ounce. The weights of the fractions struck in the following period produce (except for nos. 238-9) as-averages in the general region of 16 gr.; the weight standard was presumably in theory based on an as of two-thirds of an ounce, 18 gr. Only in 116 or 115 was it possible to make a fairly successful attempt to raise the weight standard of the bronze coinage; standards based on asses of one ounce and half-an-ounce existed side by side for a time,4 but eventually the former prevailed. In 91, in the face of the threat from the Social War, the weight standard of the bronze coinage was fixed at half-an-ounce (see pp. 77-8); the measure was doubtless precautionary, since it is hard to believe that the relatively restricted issues of the next few years exhausted Roman supplies of bronze; the one Sullan issue of bronze (no. 368) did not adopt the new standard.3 With the Sullan issue, the striking of bronze by the Roman Republic came to an 1

The Prow series with prow 1. (no. 36), based on an as of about 236 gr., forms a step in the direction of this standard; for discussion of the following standards see R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 39-48; pp. 625-8 below (the identification of standards by Lachaussce, RN 1911, 188, 313 and 407, is carried out in a wholly arbitrary fashion). 1 Nos. 63/2-6, 64/2-6, 65/2-6, 69/1-2, 97/22-8, 99/1-10, 100/1-7. ' Nos. 59-61 and 110. 4 In the issues of C. Fonteius (no. 290/5) and P. Nerva (no. 292/4); for these issues see M. Bahrfeldt, Nachtrdge iii, 49 and 139; the other issues regarded by Bahrfeldt as struck on a double standard are not in fact so struck - the really light-weight pieces of Me(tellus), Tamp(ilus), C. Scribonius and L. Pomponius are unofficial copies of Roman issues (see pp. 565-6), while the triens of C. Scribonius discussed by Bahrfeldt does not constitute a separate issue and the bronze coins of P. Maenius Antiaticus simply cover a very wide range of weights. 5 As may be seen from a number of Augustan hoards (Coin hoards, nos. 494, 514, 516, 517) and from the Bolsena hoard (MEFR 1964, 51), the Republican bronze which remained in circulation was of more or less uncial standard.

596

Bronze end for over diirty years; of the bronze coinage of the period of the civil wars it is impossible to form a clear picture. The asses of Cn. and Sex. Pompeius (nos. 471 and 478-9) were apparently intended to weigh about an ounce, the as of L. Atratinus (no. 530) and the dupondius of Cn. Piso Frugi (no. 547) were apparendy based on a semuncial standard.1 There is no way of telling what denominations were represented by the bronze issue of Octavian (no. 535)2 and the orichalcum issues of C. Clovius (no. 476) and Q. Oppius (no. 550),3 hence no way of identifying the standards involved. System and sanity returned only with the principate of Augustus. 1 2 3

For all these issues see M. Bahrfeldt, NZ 1909, 67-78 and 84-5. See H. Willers, Kupjerprdgung, nos. 103-4. For these two issues see M. Bahrfeldt, NZ 1909, 78-84. For the date of the issue of Q. Oppius see commentary. I do not regard the 'Fleet' bronze of M. Antonius as a mainstream Roman issue.

597

3 MONETARY MAGISTRATES I

MONEYERS

The creation of the office is mentioned in only one literary source (D i, 2, 2, 27-32 Pomponius), which must be quoted in full. Cumque consules avocarentur bellis finitimis neque esset qui in civitate ius reddere posset, factum est, ut praetor quoque crearetur, qui urbanus appellatus est, quod in urbe ius redderet. (28) Post aliquot deinde annos non sufficiente eo praetore, quod multa turba etiam peregrinorum in civitatem veniret, creatus est et alius praetor, qui peregrinus appellatus est ab eo, quod plerumque inter peregrinos ius dicebat. (29) Deinde cum esset necessarius magistratus qui hastae praeessent, decemviri in litibus iudicandis sunt constituti. (30) Constituti sunt eodem tempore et quattuorviri qui curam viarum agerent, et triumviri monetales aeris argenti auri flatores, et triumviri capitales qui carceris custodiam haberent, ut cum animadverti oporteret interventu eorum fieret. (31) Et quia magistratibus vespertinis temporibus in publicum esse inconveniens erat, quinqueviri constituti sunt cis Tiberim et ultis Tiberim, qui possint pro magistratibus fungi. (32) Capta deinde Sardinia, mox Sicilia, item Hispania, deinde Narbonensi provincia totidem praetores, quot provinciae in dicionem venerant, creati s u n t . . . And when the Consuls were taken away from Rome by wars with neighbouring peoples and there was no one available in the city to administer justice, it was arranged that there should also be a Praetor (who came to be called Praetor Urbanus), whose job it was to administer justice in the city. After some years he was unable to cope, as a result of the influx of foreigners, and another Praetor was created (who came to be called Praetor Peregrinus, since he administered justice for the most part among foreigners). Then when there was a need for magistrates to conduct auctions, Decemviri Litibus Iudicandis were instituted. At the same time Quattuorviri to look after the roads, Triumviri to strike coinage and Triumviri Capitales to look after the prison were also instituted, the last also charged with executions. And since it was inconvenient for magistrates to appear in public at night, Quinqueviri were appointed to act for them. Then with the capture of Sardinia, Sicily, Spain, Narbonensis, as many Praetors were created as there were provinces... The college of moneyers here forms part of a group of minor executive officers. Its existence (and litde more) is confirmed by two passages of Cicero, minores 598

Moneyers magistrates partiti iuris plures in plura sunto... aes argentum aurumve publice signanto . . . quodcumque senatus creverit, agunto (de leg. iii, 6) and Treviros vites censeo; audi capitales esse; mallem auro aere argento essent (Jam. vii, 13, 2, playing on the similarity between Treviri and tresviri). The number of moneyers was increased by Caesar from three to four, for political rather than administrative reasons (see Suetonius, Caes. 41, minorum etiam magistratuum numerum ampliavit, with the occurrence of the title IIIIVIR on issues of 44-40, nos. 480, 485, 494 and 525). The survival of the moneyers into the Empire (three in number once again) is attested by Dio liv, 26, 6. So far the literary sources on the moneyership (for mentions of a moneyer and a supposed moneyer see no. 347 and p. 547). A large body of Imperial inscriptions1 confirms the survival of the office. The full title of a moneyer under the Empire seems to have been triumvir (or tresvir) aere argento auroflandoferiundo (for instance in CIL iii, 6076).12 The abbreviation IIIVIR.A.A.A.F.F is normal on coins of the Augustan moneyers and on inscriptions of the Empire. It occurs also on the elogium of C. Claudius Ap.f. C.n. Pulcher, Cos. 92 (Inscr. It. xiii, 3, no. 70). Its two component halves occur on certain Republican coins, IIIVIR fairly frequendy, A.A.A.F.F on no. 480, and I see no reason to doubt that the normal title of a moneyer under the Republic was the same as it was under the Empire. The legend IIIIVIR A(VRO) P(VBLICO) F(ERIVNDO) on coins of 42 of P. Clodius, L. Livineius Regulus and L. Mussidius Longus (no. 494) surely adverts to the fact that they belonged to the first college in the history of the Republic to strike gold (see pp. 94-5) and tells us nothing about the normal tide of a moneyer. The history and nature of die moneyership are both somewhat uncertain and the evidence of the coins must be considered in some detail (the constitutional position of the moneyership vis-d-vis Senate and people is discussed in Chapter 5). Most of die issues of the denarius coinage and almost all of its later issues bear a name (for the reasons behind the practice see below, pp. 601-2), sometimes accompanied by the abbreviated designation of a Republican or quasi-Republican magistracy, from IIIVIR and IIIIVIR to Q and IMPERAT(OR). In diese last cases the immediate source of audaority for the striking of the coins is apparent (for magistrates other dian moneyers see below). The names not accompanied by the designation of a magistracy are usually taken to be those of moneyers. This seems to me basically right. For the first century or so of die denarius coinage it simply never occurred to a moneyer (or 1

For which see Th. Mommsen, RMto, 366 n. 2; O. Hirschfeld, Verwaltungsbeamten, 183-4; H. Strasburger, RE viiA, 515; K. Pink, Triumviri Monetales, 8; J. R. Jones, BICS 1970, 70 (incomplete - add at least Corinth viii, 3, 125; AE 1968, 474; CIL vi, 1518 with RE Sextius 4 1 ; T. P. Wiseman, New men, no. 516). ' This order of aes, argentum, aurum is given by Pomponius and by Cicero also and is surely correct. Flare seems originally to have referred to cast coins (Varro, RR ii, 1, 9, aes antiquissimum quod est flatum pecore est notalum; Gellius ii, 10, 3), but already by the late Republic could refer simply to coins (Cicero, Sest. 66 and the legends on nos. 393/ib and 485/2); note also nummum conflatum in the fragment of Varro's Annales dealing with the coinage of Servius Tullius.

599

Monetary magistrates to anyone else) to indicate his magistracy on his coins, thereafter the presence or absence of the designation IIIVIR, IIIIVIR or A.A.A.F.F depend on the whim of the moneyer and are without significance. This appears most readily from die coinage of 44-40. After Caesar's increase in the number of moneyers, die designation IIIIVIR appears on die coins. But of die four moneyers of 44 L. Aemilius Buca alone uses it, on part of his issue, while C. Cossutius Maridianus uses the designation A.A.A.F.F, again on part of his issue. Of die diree moneyers who actually struck in 43, only L. Flaminius Chilo placed IIIIVIR on his coins. In 42 P. Clodius and L. Livineius Regulus placed IIIIVIR. A. P. F on die gold they struck for Antonius, Lepidus and Octavian, L. Mussidius Longus on part of the gold he struck for the Triumvirs, while C. Vibius Varus did not use the designation at all. And in 40 or 39 Ti. Sempronius Gracchus used IIIIVIR on one part of his issue. The absence of die designation IIIVIR from most issues of before 44 does not therefore preclude their having been produced by moneyers. And indeed some issues bear diree names, which it would be perverse not to regard as diose of a college of moneyers (nos. 283,284, 285, 335, 350A, 360 and probably 299). Groups of three issues each bearing one name can also sometimes be plausibly suggested (for instance nos. 214-16 and 255-7). But life would be too simple if all issues bearing just a name and no indication of a magistracy could be regarded as having been produced by moneyers and we must consider two special groups for which diis rule does not apply. The Republican coinage of die time of die Second Punic War, both before and after die introduction of the denarius, was struck at a number of mints in Italy and the adjacent islands (see p. 12). Of die symbols and letters used to distinguish the various issues most are ambiguous and to attempt to identify them is profidess. But some certainly indicate mints, a corn-ear for Sicily, I for Luceria (bodi used before and after die introduction of the denarius), £ for Corcyra, a corn-ear and ^ for Catana, some certainly indicate people, C- \fiL and C- AL- on issues struck in Sicily, C, AA and A# on issues struck in Sardinia, CN- C O on an issue of an uncertain mint. It seems to me diat die majority of ambiguous symbols and letters indicate people, although diis cannot be proved (see p. 725); but it is in any case clear that men who were not moneyers could sign an issue and diereby declare dieir immediate responsibility for it - C, AA and NZ represent die names of L. Cornelius (Lentulus), P. Manlius Vulso and C. Aurunculeius, Praetors of Sardinia in 211-209. Similarly, the gold issue widi die simple legend T- QVI NCTI (no. 548) was struck for T. Quinctius Flamininus, Cos. 198, in Greece (compare die issue of Cn. Lentulus (no. 549)). The second group of coins not bearing an indication of a magistracy, but not struck by moneyers, is die Narbo issue (no. 282). This consists of five varieties, each 600

Moneyers signed by a different man and all signed by L. Licinius Crassus and Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, Triumviri col. ded. 118. The coins were struck at Narbo and, although there is no explicit testimony, the law setting up the colony presumably made generous financial provision for this, the first Roman colony outside Italy, and Crassus, for whom the planting of the colony was the fulfilment of an ambition, evidently made arrangements to strike the coins himself. The exact position held by his five junior partners is uncertain. The great diversity of mints during the Second Punic War was doubdess caused by the breakdown in Roman communications in Italy after the batde of Cannae in 216. With Rome's recovery of control, in which the battle of the Metaurus in 207 was the last phase, the mints closed and between the end of the war and Sulla the only issues struck outside Rome were that of Flamininus and that produced at Narbo. The remainder of the coinage can be satisfactorily arranged in a single sequence and, in the absence of indications to the contrary, it should be regarded as having been produced by moneyers at the mint of Rome.1 By the time of Sulla a marked change in mint practice had taken place. Down to 118 no designation of any magistracy had appeared on the Republican coinage (the letter Q on nos. 86A and 86B probably indicates a person or a place). But soon after, M. Sergius Silus struck an issue of denarii which bore his name followed by the letter Q, which in this position can be understood only as the abbreviation for Quaestor. The issue belongs to die sequence of issues of the mint of Rome and the reason for the change in practice is surely die need to indicate the fact that someone odier than a moneyer is striking, for the first time, at the mint of Rome. Up to diis point only moneyers had struck there and their bare names had sufficed to identify the issue. Once die new practice of naming a magistracy other dian the moneyership had been adopted it was presumably adhered to; it was certainly taken over for almost all issues struck outside Rome.2 In any case, issues of the mint of Rome bearing only a name should in my view be regarded throughout the Republican coinage as having been struck by moneyers.3 If this view is right and if therefore the presence of moneyers' marks and names on the coinage indicates dieir existence from a point shortly after die institution of die denarius system onwards, say from 207 onwards, it is a largely academic question whether the magistracy came into being then or whether an existing magistracy 1

2 3

A slight puzzle is posed by the occurrence, within the sequence of issues from the mint of Rome, of anonymous issues side by side with signed issues; although for convenience they are numbered separately in the catalogue, I suspect that they belong in each case with particular signed issues (cf. pp. 48-50). The exceptions are nos. 373, 443, 452, 458, 468, 483, 500, 535 and 543. A. Alfoldi, Gnomon 1954, 389-91, argues that non-moneyers could strike at the mint of Rome without explicitly identifying themselves and that they are revealed to us by their choice of coin types; but the types in question can be otherwise explained and the suggestion introduces quite unnecessary confusion into the Republican coinage. For the interpretation by H. B. Mattingly of the formula ex.s.c. as the mark of an issue by a Quaestor (NC 1956, 189), see p. 88. 601

Monetary magistrates altered its previous practice. For it seems obvious that the practice of signing the coinage, adopted first for military issues outside Rome, then taken over by moneyers at Rome, was a response to the disastrous decline in the quality of the coinage which had characterised the last years of the didrachm system; a faulty batch, if signed, could be traced back to the man administratively responsible;1 and it was perhaps held that the Censors, with whom responsibility for die coinage during the existence of the didrachm system was probably vested (see pp. 42-3), had been guilty at least of incompetence in allowing the coinage to go to pieces. Although certainty is unattainable, I incline to die view that die moneyership was created widi or soon after die institution of the denarius system ;2 certainly die evidence of Pomponius (quoted above) is wordiless;3 but die question is unimportant.4 The moneyership was, I diink, diroughout an annual,6 elective magistracy. Mommsen originally argued that it was a special magistracy for a long time, used only when required.6 But dirough most of die second century, diere were moneyers, usually diree moneyers, functioning nearly every year. It was surely simpler to be prepared not to make use of every moneyer (see pp. 618-19) dian to have to arrange for a special magistracy as an almost annual event.7 Since ultimate responsibility for the coinage lay widi die people, it is reasonable to suppose diat die moneyers were elected radier dian appointed.8 The absence of the moneyers from die lists of magistrates in die epigraphic lex repetundarum, the lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae and Cicero, Cluent. 148 proves only diat moneyers were not by virtue of their office qualified for admission to the Senate and diereby automatically disqualified to serve as Gracchani iudices.9 As a matter of practice, of 1 9

For a concern withfinancialcontrol in this period see Livy xxv, 7, 5 for a special commission sacris conquirendis, donisque persignandis (in 212).

The IHviri mensarii appointed in 216 are of some relevance in this connection; the moneyers appointed from 211 are in a certain sense their successors (see p. 33). 3 So rightly Th. Mommsen, RMw, 367 n. 5; H. Schaefer, RE viiiA, 2574-5. 4 There is no evidence that the office was suppressed by the Triumvirs and revived by Augustus, contra H. A. Grueber, BMCRR i, lxviii; it simply did not function. 6 Tenure of office presumably began, as for the Quaestors, on 5 December. • RMw, 366-7; St. ii, 639, cf. 601. 7 If the moneyership was an annual magistracy, certain consequences for the arrangement of the coinage follow automatically; since nothing that we know of the Republican constitution suggests that a moneyer could be superseded after striking (see Th. Mommsen, St. i, 28-31 and 217-18) or that two colleges could hold office simultaneously, we may not assign more than three moneyers to any one year. It is noteworthy that when Sulla perhaps wished to strike without using the Marian moneyers he found in office, he did so by reproducing the issues of three optimate moneyers of the second century (see on nos. 369-71). The chronologies of H. A. Grueber, BMCRR i, 189-91, for the late second and earlyfirstcenturies and of A. Alfoldi, Ned. Kunst.Jahrb. 1954,151, for 44-42 may be ruled out of court without further argument. There is no example of iteration of the moneyership. 8 There is no evidence for the identity of the presiding magistrate. • L. Coilius (no. 154), if an ancestor of C. Coilius Caldus, Cos. 94, did not confer Senatorial ancestry on him ([Q. Cicero], Comm. pet. 11 with M. Gelzer, Nobility, 35); L. Cassius Longinus (no. 413) remained an eques (Cicero, Plane. 58); and L. Mussidius Longus (no. 494) did not become a Senator, since Q. Varius Geminus, and not he, was the first Paelignian Senator (T. P. Wiseman, New men, 243). Note that the Praefecti Capuam Cumas, elected according to Fesrus, s.v. Praefecturae, do not figure in the lists of magistrates discussed in the text. 602

Moneyers course, it might be easier for one sort of person to be elected than another; the election of L. and C. Memies to the moneyership for the residue of the year 87 was doubtless as irregular as the election of Marius and Cinna to the consulship of 86 (Livy, Epit. lxxx); Messala advertised the fact diat he was moneyer in the year of his father's consulship (no. 435) and doubdess owed his election in part to that of his fadier ;J it also seems probable that although members of the great families could readily be elected moneyers, the people was not entirely unaware of the advantages of expertise and tended if possible to elect members of banking and commercial families.2 II

MONETARY MAGISTRATES OTHER THAN MONEYERS

It appears that moneyers were empowered by virtue of dieir office to convert each year an amount of bullion determined by die Senate into coin, and that certain odier magistrates could be specially empowered by the Senate to perform the same function (see the list on pp. 606-7). A problem is posed by certain magistrates other than moneyers apparently striking at the mint of Rome (for military issues see p. 604) without special authorisation from die Senate. Thus Q. Lutatius Cerco, A. Manlius and Cn. Nerius struck denarii or aurei, C. Fundanius denarii and quinarii, P. Sabinus, T. Cloulius and C. Egnatuleius quinarii (nos. 305, 381, 441, 326 and 331-3), all as Quaestors.3 In addition, M. Fannius and L. Critonius struck as Plebeian Aediles, P. Fourius Crassipes as Curule Aedile. The last three struck during die dominatio Cinnae and A. Manlius struck under Sulla; it would be unwise to deduce any general rule from instances falling in an untypical period. But it does seem diat die Quaestors (die immediate superiors of the moneyers, see p. 617) could strike coin by virtue of their office, aldiough the right was rarely exercised. Cn. Nerius functioned at a time when it was doubtless desirable to convert bullion into coin as fast as possible, Q. Lutatius Cerco perhaps struck when all the moneyers were temporarily unavailable. The remaining Quaestors seem to have struck in somewhat unusual circumstances; the quinarius, which they all struck, was revived to pay for the agrarian schemes of Marius and Saturninus in Cisalpine Gaul, where the quinarius (old victoriatus) was die unit of account (see p. 628); the Quaestors perhaps felt that so important a matter should remain in their hands. 1 1

1

Compare perhaps C. Norbanus, probably moneyer in 83 (no. 357), the year of his father's consulship, and the moneyers discussed on p. 86. R. Herzog, RE xvii, 1453-6; T. P. Wiseman, New men, 85, on nummularii and moneyers. Although members of gentes attested in the East, presumably mostly involved in business, do not enter public life as moneyers with any greater readiness than they enter it as Tribuni militum, it is probably worth recalling certain moneyers who seem to belong to great business families; thus the moneyer L. Minucius (no. 248) perhaps belonged to the same family as L. Minucius Basilus, who died in Greece and presumably had interests there (Cicero, de off. iii, 73; Valerius Maximus ix, 4, 1; his nephew and adopted son is perhaps the Minucius who appears as Ephebe at Pergamum, RE Minucius 7); the moneyers L. Cossutius Sabula (no. 395) and Q. Crepereius Rocus (no. 399) surely belonged to the two families with the same nomina active in the East (on the latter see now B. Levick and S. Jameson, JRS 1964, 98). For the age at election of a moneyer see p. 710. For the arguments against regarding the monetary magistrates Ap. Claudius and T. Manl(ius) as Quaestors see on no. 299.

603

Monetary magistrates III

MILITARY ISSUES

During three periods in the history of the Republic, issues signed by individuals were produced which were detached from the main-stream coinage of the mint of Rome1 - the Second Punic War, the Civil War between Sulla and his enemies, the prolonged wars from 49 onwards.2 The military coinage of die first period (nos. 59-111 and 125-31; see p. 12 for discussion of dates and mints) was, I think, produced under the overall control of the Senate. When A. Cornelius Mammilla and T. Otacilius Crassus, governors of Sardinia and Sicily in 216, asked for money, they were told there was none (Livy xxiii, 21, 4; cf. Valerius Maximus vii, 6, 1) iussique ipsi classibus atque exerdtibus suis consulere, they were ordered themselves to make provision for their fleets and armies.3 Whether this decree was regarded as authorising other commanders in the field to produce coinage also, whether each was specifically authorised or whether a general enabling decree was passed, I am fairly certain that all commanders who produced coinage regarded themselves as doing so in response to the wishes of the Senate. The dispersion of minting was presumably merely intended to avoid as far as possible the dangers likely to arise from transporting coin and to make the best possible use of resources (note the practice of overstriking local coins).4 Certainly the coinage of the Second Punic War provides no evidence for the view that commanders possessed the right of coinage.5 The issues of Sulla and the Sullani,6 of Caesar and his opponents, and of the Triumvirs and their contemporaries were in my view quite simply illegal.7 Sulla did not strike before the end of 83 (see p. 80), that is when the invasion of Italy was decided on and he no longer even formally recognised the authority of the Republican government; similarly Caesar struck only when the decision to cross the Rubicon was taken (see p. 89). For the Triumvirs the Lex Titia might perhaps be invoked; but it cannot explain the coinages of the Liberators or of men such as Q. Cornuficius and Q. Labienus. For all these coinages, the moneta castrensis of Lucan v, 380, the exigencies of war provided the reason and, insofar as one was needed, a justification could be found in the belief that the war was for die res publica. The context in which this moneta castrensis appears is clear evidence of its illegal status. 1

A great deal of coinage in the period of didrachm coinage under the control of the Censors was produced outside Rome, nos. 1-2, 13, 15-16, 23 and 37; since it is unsigned, there is little information to be gleaned from it about its administrative framework. See also n. 3 below. 2 For the Narbo issue see pp. 600-1, for the issues of T. Quinctius and Cn. Lentulus see on nos. 548-9. 3 It is not certain that Mammula ever produced coinage; for a possible issue of Crassus see no. 40; a mint certainly began to operate in Luceria also in this period, see no. 43. • Note also the issue struck on Corcyra, no. 101. The Senate apparently sometimes provided commanders in the field with bullion (Livy xxvii, io, 11-13, with p. 34). • Contra Th. Mommsen, RMtv, 376-7; for Roman commanders striking provincial or local coinages see M. H. Crawford, Coinage and money under the Roman Republic (forthcoming). • Note also the (probable) Marian issue of anonymous quinarii, no'. 373. The issue of Pompeius as Proconsul (no. 402) belongs in this context. 7 Contra, for instance, C. H. V. Sutherland, CRIP, 10. It is interesting that gold first makes its appearance as a major monetary metal in military issues.

604

4 SPECIAL FORMULAE I

ISSUES STRUCK FROM 'ARGENTUM PUBLICUM'

All official coinage was presumably made from metal owned by the Roman state1 and it is not obvious why certain issues should expressly advert to this fact. The issues in question are eight in number. (1) (2)

(3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

C. Fabius M. Lucilius Rufus L. Sentius P. Servilius Rullus L. Titurius Sabinus M. Fannius, L. Critonius Mn. Fonteius L. Iulius Bursio

EX-A-rv

rv r

/^G-PVB

A-rv r-A EX-A-r EX-A-r

The last three issues belong to the period 86-85 > th e y w e r e perhaps struck from the money left to the populus Romanus by Ptolemy Alexander I of Egyptj2 which probably arrived at Rome in the course of 86,3 and the unusual origin of the issues was perhaps felt to be important enough to justify the addition of the legends P-A and EX-A-r. The first four issues belong to the years 102-100, which fall within the heyday of the iusiurandum in legem, attached to laws as a mark of the sovereignty of the people;* the use of a formula recording the fact that coinage was struck ex argento publico perhaps reflects a climate of opinion in the formation of which assertion of the rights of the people played a prominent part.5 On part of the issue of L. Titurius Sabinus, there occurs either A- TV, or A", to identify the head of Tatius, or a palm-branch, in allusion to Roman success in the Social War. I have no explanation to offer of A- P V here.6 1

Note the variant title for a moneyer found in 42, IHIvir a(uro) p(ublico) f(eriundo), no. 494/1-9 (see also p. 599). For the identity of the testator see E. Badian, RM 1967, 178. E. Badian, RM 1967, 188-9 with n. 38. Appian, BC i, 131 with commentary of E. Gabba. For the Marian sympathies of the moheyers concerned see p. 730 with n. 7. The formulae s.c.d.t. (for which see on no. 385), p.e.s.c. (for which see below), d.p.p. (for which see on no. 312) and p.p. (for which see on no. 307) have nothing to do with argentum publicum; the issue no. 335 is not relevant in this connection {contra A. Klugmann, NZ 1878, 218).

605

Special formulae II

ISSUES STRUCK BY 'SENATUS CONSULTUM'1

Certain issues of the Republican coinage were apparently distinguished by being struck ex senatus consulto. But since all legal issues were produced under senatorial control (see p. 616), it is not very clear why this fact was sometimes expressly indicated. It is perhaps best to begin by listing the issues involved (for the variants piecunia) e(rogata) s(enatus) c(onsulto) and d(e) s(enatus) s(ententia), see nos. 329 and 355): (1) (2)

(3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

(u) (12)

(13) (14)

(15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

M. Sergius Silus L. Torquatus Cetegus Lentulus Marcelli f. Piso, Caepio L. C. Memies C. Licinius Macer C. Cassius, L. Salinator Q. Antonius Balbus C. Annius C. Valerius Flaccus Anonymous Sullan issue with cornucopiae C. Marius Capito Laterensis L. Procilius f. C. Naevius Balbus Ti. Claudius L. Rustius L. Farsuleius Mensor Cn. Lentulus

(21) P. Lentulus (22) L. Plaetorius

(23) Q. Pomponius Rufus (24) L. Axsius Naso (25) T. Vettius Sabinus

Quaestor Quaestor Moneyer Moneyer Quaestors Moneyers Moneyer Moneyers Praetor Proconsul Imperator —

ex. s.c. ex.s.c. ex.sx. p.e.s.c. (on part of issue only) ex.s.c. ex.sx. ex.sx. (on bronze only) d.s.s. (issue of bronze only) s.c. ex.sx. ex.sx. ex.s.c.

Moneyer Moneyer Moneyer Moneyer Moneyer Moneyer Moneyer Quaestor Curator denariis flandis Quaestor Quaestor Moneyer Moneyer Moneyer

sx. (on part of issue only) s.c. sx. sx. sx. sx. s.c. ex.sx. ex.s.c.

s.c. s.c. sx. sx. s.c.

K. Pink, Triumviri; Essays Mattingly, 55, offers nothing of value for this subject, see in particular the review of the former work by C. A. Hersh, NC 1952, 145; Pink never seems to have understood that the whole basis of his arrangement is fallacious. 606

Issues struck by senatus consultum (26) M. Plaetorius Cestianus (27) P. Galba (28) M. Plaetorius Cestianus (29) P. Ypsaeus (30) Sufenas (31) M. Scaurus, P. Hypsaeus (32) Faustus (33) C. Considius Nonianus (34) P. Crassus (35) Cn. Plancius (36) A. Plautius (37) Messala f. (38) Q. Sicinius, C. Coponius (39) (40) (41) (42)

Mn. Cordius Rufus T. Carisius L. Cestius, C. Norbanus Ti. Sempronius Graccus

(43) Q. Voconius Vitulus

Moneyer ex.s.c. or s.c. Curuleaedile s.c. Curuleaedile ex.sx. Moneyer s.c. Moneyer s.c. Curuleaediles ex.s.c. Moneyer s.c. (on part of issue only) Moneyer s.c. Moneyer s.c. Curuleaedile s.c. Curuleaedile s.c. Moneyer s.c. Moneyer, s.c. Praetor s.c. (on part of issue only) Moneyer s.c. (on part of issue only) Moneyer s.c. or ex.s.c. Praetors s.c. (on part of issue only) Quaestor designates Quaestor s.c. (on part of issue only) designates

Of these issues some at least were plainly struck in an emergency context, those of Q. Antonius Balbus and his Sullan enemies, that of Cn. Lentulus, that of Q. Sicinius with C. Coponius, finally those of L. Cestius widi C. Norbanus, of Ti. Sempronius Graccus and of Q. Voconius Vitulus. It may readily be believed in these cases that the Senate was induced to make special provision for the striking of coinage and that it entrusted the striking to the man who needed the coinage or to his deputy. In the remaining cases the coinage was produced only by a moneyer, Quaestor or Curule aedile, but according to no immediately apparent pattern. The arrangements made for the production of coinage ex senatus consulto were apparently as haphazard as those in force for the production of the routine coinage of the moneyers (for which see p. 618). Two points may nonetheless be made. Firsdy, the practice of marking an issue with EX- S- C,etc, began towards the end of the second century in a period when the financial administration of the Roman Republic was becoming increasingly complex. I believe that after the loosely controlled coinage system of the Second Punic War had been abandoned the Senate normally decided at the beginning of the year how much coinage was to be struck (see p. 616). It seems in principle likely that issues marked with EX- S- C,etc, were 607

Special formulae authorised separately later in the year.1 Detailed consideration of four particular years reinforces this conclusion. In 100 there were three moneyers, of whom the last, Lentulus Marcelli f., marked part of his issue p{ecunia) e(rogata) s{enatus) c(pnsulto)\ akhough die-links between the two parts of the issue are theoretically possible, none in fact occur, which suggests that the coinage produced s.c. was detached in time from die rest. The first issue of 87, that of L. Rubrius Dossenus, bears simply die moneyer's name, the second issue, that of L. C. Memies L.f. Gal., produced after die Marians gained control and therefore presumably specially audiorised, bears die mark EX- S- C. The issues of 81 are even more instructive. The first issue, diat of A. Postumius Albinus, is very large and is followed by the very small issue of L. Volumnius Strabo and die equally small first part of the issue of C. Marius Capito. All diis coinage bears simply die moneyers' names. The second part of die issue of C. Marius Capito is very large and bears die mark S- C; it appears diat diis moneyer was given special authorisation by the Senate, during the year and during die period of his striking coinage, to produce an additional batch of denarii. Finally, in 49 die coinage of die Quaestor Nerius and the moneyer Q. Sicinius was apparendy produced widiout special authorisation,2 die coinage of Q. Sicinius widi die Praetor C. Coponius bears die mark S* C; it was doubdess a special war issue.3 In die second place, the incidence of issues including pieces marked widi E X • S • C, etc., is highly suggestive. The thirty-four issues which are not obviously emergency issues may be tabulated thus: 115-101 B.C. 100-91 B.C. 90-81 B.C. 80-71 B.C.

3 out of 40 = 7% 2 „ 13=15%

70-61 B.C. 60-51 B.C.

4 out of 17 = 24% 9 „ 19=47%

5 9

50-46 B.C.

2

„ „

29 = 17% 23 = 39%

„

14 = 14%

It is clear diat by far the greatest concentration of diese issues falls between 80 and 51. The early part of die period is known to be one of recurrent financial crises (see p. 638) and it is possible that die financial administration of die Roman Republic was in this period conducted on such a hand-to-moudi basis that the Senate was frequendy unable or unwilling to decide at die beginning of the year how much coinage should be struck; instead it had recourse to specially audiorised issues during die year. 1

See Valerius Maximus vii, 6, 4 for a decree to melt down temple ornaments in 82; Cicero, fam. xi, 24, 2 for money decreed for Brutus in the middle of the year 43 (no coinage was actually struck, see P- 95); A. H. M. Jones, Studies, 101-2 for Imperial practice. The massive issues of late 91 (see p. 587) were presumably authorised by the Lex Papiria; hence no senatorial decree was necessary. * See Caesar, BC i, 6, 3; Appian, BC ii, 135; Dio xli, 3, 4 and 6, 3 for the financial dispositions of the Senate early in January 49. ' The later issues of the Pompeians are military issues pure and simple, see p. 604. 608

Issues struck by senatus consultum But perhaps more significant is the fact that at any rate the 50s were a period when the year sometimes began without elected magistrates apart from Tribunes or when the Senate was for some other reason prevented from functioning normally. In such circumstances the Senate presumably found it hard to make its regular annual authorisation of coinage. It is clearly not possible to maintain that in such circumstances all the coinage of the year had to be specially authorised; if the Senate proceeded as soon as possible, it was doubtless held that a regular annual authorisation had taken place. But this may have been inadequately done and it is noticeable that years of known disruption are marked by coinage struck s.c.; it is worth tabulating the correlation, most striking for the year 53.1 60 B.C. No decrees for two months (Cicero, ad An. i, 18, 7). P. Ypsaeus perhaps belongs in this year and strikes s.c.2 56 B.c. January occupied with Egyptian question (P. Stein, Senatssitzungen, 37-9); sortitio of Quaestors delayed (Cicero, ad Q. fr. ii, 3, 1; cf. ad Att. i, 14, 5; fam. i, 4,1); Consuls not invested formally with powers (Dio xxxix, 19, 3 with A. Magdelain, Imperium, 18-19). Faustus strikes part of his coinage s.c. 55 B.C. Interregnum (P. Stein, 44 n. 242). P. Crassus strikes s.c; A. Plautius and Cn. Plancius strike prolifically s.c. as Curule Aediles. 53 B.C. Interregnum till July. Messala f. strikes only coinage of this year s.c. 52 B.C.

Interregnum. Coinage apparently normal.

50 B.C. No Senatus consultum nisi de feriis Latinis by February (Cicero, fam. viii, 6,3). Perhaps no coinage this year, perhaps normal issue of Marcellinus. To sum up, it thus seems probable, though not absolutely certain, that routine coinage, although authorised by the Senate, bore no special mark and that only when an issue was separately authorised during the year was it marked with EX-S-C,etc. 3 1

Cicero, Sest. 74, actum nihil nisi de me, on the year 57 is clearly exaggerated; nonetheless, C. Considius Nonianus strikes s.c. in this year. ' Sufenas, who strikes i.e., is a near contemporary as moneyer, see p. 87. • This view is adumbrated by Th. Mommsen, RMw, 378; the argument of A. Alftildi, Gnomon 1954, 389-91, that EX • S • C, etc., appears on the coinage according to no discernible principle is unnecessarily despairing. The formulae d.s.s. on no. 297 and s.c.d.t. on no. 385 have nothing to do with issues by senatus consultum; the formula s.c. on no. 490 refers to the decree providing for the erection of Octavian's statue, on no. 497 to the military command conferred on Octavian.

609

5 ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL The production of an issue of coinage under the Roman Republic involved two separate stages, which must be carefully distinguished. It was necessary both to decide what denominations were to be issued and to fix the total amount of coinage to be issued at any one time together with its distribution over the various denominations. Clear evidence exists that a law was necessary or at least customary for the initial adoption of a particular denomination or weight standard.1 When a large number of denominations were available it was presumably a matter of administrative discretion which ones were actually used and in what proportions. The total amount of coinage issued was normally under Senatorial control.2 These rules, with all others, broke down in the period of Civil War from 49 onwards. I

THE PEOPLE

Two laws governing the denominational structure of the Republican coinage are clearly attested, the Lex Clodia and the Lex Papiria3 (Pliny, NH xxxiii, 46 - is qui nunc victoriatus appellatur lege Clodia percussus est, the coin which is now called the victoriatus was (first) struck under die terms of the Lex Clodia, and mox lege Papiria semunciarii asses facti, soon the as was made semuncial under the terms of the Lex Papiria). The first of these, the Lex Clodia, effectively legalised the current practice with regard to the victoriatus, according to which this old coin weighing threequarters of a denarius was treated as half of a denarius (see p. 628), and at the same time perhaps authorised the issue of a new coin, of the weight of a quinarius and with more or less the types of the old victoriatus. The law was presumably, though not necessarily, passed shordy before the new quinarius was first struck in 101. It was doubdess tribunician, but its audior is not identifiable. Although there were considerable periods in the first century B.C. when the new quinarius was not issued, Pliny implies that the Lex Clodia continued to be regarded as the source of audiority for the issue of the quinarius to die end of die Republic and beyond. 1

Th. Mommsen, RMw, 363, discusses in general terms the involvement of the assemblies with monetary regulations; no evidence is cited for the view, 363-6, that the Consuls were specially involved. 1 A. Alfoldi, Gnomon 1954, 389-91, rightly emphasises senatorial involvement, although wrong in some details. ' E. Babelon, RN 1884, 36, 'La loi Plautia-Papiria', is largely a work of fiction. 6lO

The people The prime purpose of the Lex Papiria of 91 (for the date see p. 77, for the reasons behind it see p. 596) seems to have been to authorise the production of bronze, including the as, on a weight standard of half an ounce instead of an ounce. (The reason can hardly have been shortage of resources, cf. p. 616 below; it may have been felt that the restoration of the full uncial standard, see p. 596, had been poindess.) Its existence and function are confirmed by the bronze coins of semuncial weight standard probably of this year (no. 338) bearing the legend L.P.D.A.P. This should be expanded as lege Papiria de assis (or aeris) pondere} A second purpose of the law seems to have been to revive the sestertius. Rare sestertii of 91 and 90 (nos. 337/4 and 340/3) bear the legend E.L.P, most naturally expanded as e lege Papiria. The full title of the law was perhaps Lex Papiria de assis pondere et sestertio feriundo. It may be argued that mere revival of a denomination should not need a law, but the sestertius had not been struck for over a century and a law may have been regarded as necessary for this reason. Certainly it is impossible to believe that if a denomination lapsed for a few years a law was necessary to revive it. Particularly during the second century the small denominations in bronze were continually being dropped and revived and the as itself was not struck for some thirty-five years. On the analogy of the Lex Clodia, the Lex Papiria may be taken to have provided authority for the issue of the silver sestertius to the end of the Republic. Whether Augustus had the law in mind when he adopted the semuncial weight standard for his bronze coinage after the chaotic practice of the Civil Wars (see below, also p. 597 above) must remain uncertain. If the literary and numismatic evidence for the last stage in the reduction of the weight standard of the bronze coinage is clear and consistent, the opposite is true of the evidence for the earlier stages (and for their relationship with the silver coinage) and it is not obvious how much of the garbled testimony of the literary sources one should try to rescue. One may start with two complementary statements of Festus (s.w. Sextantari asses and Grave aes). Sextantari asses in usu esse coeperunt ex eo tempore, quo propter bellum Punicum secundum, quod cum Hannibale gestum est, decreverunt patres, ut ex assibus qui turn erant librari, fierent sextantari; per quos cum solvi coeptum esset, et populus aere alieno liberaretur, et privati, quibus debitum publice solvi oportebat, non magno detrimento adficerentur. 1

H. Gaebler, ZfN 1902,174 n. 5. Th. Mommsen's interpretation, lege Papiria de aerepublico, defended by H. WMeis,Kupferpragung, 78-9, is less satisfactory, since there is no evidence that the law concerned itself (or needed to concern itself, see p. 605) with the supply of bullion. Willers' argument, that the letters L . P . D . A . P cannot refer to a law authorising the semuncial weight standard because they appear only on a small part of the bronze of that standard, will not do; after c. 141 all denarii were tariffed at 16 asses, but only five issues bear the mark of value XVI. As for the suggestion of K. Pink, Triumviri monetalts, 32 and 58, that the Lex Papiria included a clause relating to 'special triumvirates', there is no evidence that these existed now or at any other time.

Administration and control Sextantal asses came into use when because of the Hannibalic War the Senate decreed that instead of being libra! asses should be sextantal; their intention was that when the latter were used for discharging obligations the Roman people would be relieved of its indebtedness and private individuals to whom the state owed money would not suffer serious loss. and grave aes dictum a pondere, quia deni asses, singuli pondo libras, efficiebant denarium, ab hoc ipso numero dictum. Sed bello Punico populus Romanus, pressus aere alieno, ex singulis assibus librariis senos fecit, qui tantundem, ut illi, valerent. Aes grave has this name because of its weight, for ten asses each weighing a pound made up a denarius, also accounting for its name. But during the (Second) Punic War the Roman people, hard pressed by debt, made six (sextantal) asses out of each libra! as, with the intention that a sextantal as should be worth as much as a libral as. The two passages tell the same story with minor variations; the first specifies correcdy (see p. 30) that the sextantal weight standard came in during the Second Punic War and ascribes the measure to the simple action of the Senate, the second wrongly associates the libral weight standard with the denarius (see p. 37 n. 4) and asserts that the populus Romanus was responsible for the sextantal weight standard. Apart from the mistaken association of the libral weight standard with the denarius (universal in the Roman tradition, Varro, LL v, 174; Priscian, defig. num. 9; Volusius Maecianus, Distr. 74), Festus' story is consistent with the numismatic evidence. The version involving action by the populus Romanus seems preferable and a lex de assibus sextantariis should be assumed. But the introduction of the sextantal weight standard was only one stage in the introduction of the denarius coinage to replace Rome's debased quadrigati. I have argued (p. 24) that the denarius coinage was a single unified system, including three gold denominations, the denarius and its fractions, the victoriatus and bronze, and it is also apparent that a national debf was incurred to finance it (see p. 32). The full tide of the law of 211 was perhaps lex de assibus sextantariis et de pecunia nova feriunda. Two modifications in the denarius coinage of the Republic (apart from those brought about without legislation under the stress of Civil War) must now be considered. The first of these is the appearance of the uncial weight standard, the second the retariffing of the denarius at sixteen instead often asses. Both are explicitly described only in Pliny's unsatisfactory account of the Republican coinage. After dealing with the earlier phases (see pp. 35-7), Pliny gives substantially the same account as Festus of the introduction of die sextantal weight standard, but mis-dates it to the First Punic War. He then gives some information on individual denominations and continues (xxxiii, 45) postea Hannibale urguente Q. Fabio Maximo dictatore (217 B.C.) 612

The people asses unciales facti, placuitque denarium XVI assibus permutari, quinarium octonis, sestertium quaternis,' afterwards, when Hannibal was pressing hard, in the dictatorship of Q. Fabius Maximus, the as was made uncial; it was then agreed that a denarius should be worth 16 asses, a quinarius 8 and a sestertius 4'. As Mommsen remarks,1 Pliny's account of the Republican coinage goes back at least in part to the same source as that of Festus. It is not clear whether Pliny's higher absolute dates are a variant from the same source, the version of a different source or die product of Pliny's imagination. But the fact of the uncial weight standard and the retariffing of the denarius should be accepted. The precise nature, however, of the laws or law involved is not obvious. Two other pieces of evidence may be brought to bear on the retariffing of the denarius, die five issues of denarii widi the mark of value XVI (nos. 224-8) and a fragmentary passage of Festus (s.v. Sesterti not[am]). It is probable, though not of course absolutely certain, diat the mark of value XVI appeared immediately after the retariffing of the denarius and then lapsed; the mark of value X doubtless reappeared because die name of the denarius remained unchanged. If die mark of value XVI is to be connected widi die retariffing, this fell in c. 141, and certainly a historically satisfactory account of die measure can be given on diis assumption (see p. 621). Pliny's date for die retariffing, before die introduction of the coin, is in any case impossible. It follows that any restoration of die passage of Festus which attempts to reconcile it widi Pliny's date for die retariffing cannot be right. In particular, to restore lege Flaminia and dien because of Pliny's Q. Fabio Maximo dictatore to associate the law widi C. Flaminius, Cos. 217, is impossible; Flaminius was dead before Fabius became Dictator and never in Rome during his tenure of the consulship. The following restoration is offered exempli gratia and tries to avoid making the passage tell us more than we know already. Sesterti not[am ait Verrius Flaccus signa continere] dupundi et semisis; q[uare sestertius dictus quasi semis] tertius; sed auctu" sesq[uiassis* eriam mine sestertius est;] apud antiquos autem [denarii denorum assium e-] rant et valebant d[ecusis,' qui dicebantur quadriga-] ti, bigati, quinquessis q[uinarii; denarius qui mine] est numerum aeris perduct[um habet ad XVI asses lege Fla-] minia minus solvendi; a[rgenti enim penuria premeba-] tur populus Romanus/ " The MS reading, which I have checked, is aucto, making no real sense and easily emended. * Compare sesquilibra, Cato, Agr. 23, 106. c Compare Festus, s.v. Sestertius. d Identical line length is not to be expected, since the use of abbreviations is inconsistent and line ends in the other column of the MS are irregular. 1

RMw, 288 n. 14. 613

Administration and control The passage may be translated as follows. Verrius Flaccus states that the mark of value of the sestertius contains the marks of the dupondius and the semis; the name of the sestertius derives from the fact that the semis is its third component; but even now when it is greater by an as and a semis, it is still a sestertius; originally, however, the denarius consisted of ten asses and was worth a decussis (it was also called quadrigatus or bigatus), the quinarius was worth a quinquessis; the denarius of the present day consists of sixteen asses as a result of the Lex Flaminia minus solvendi; for die Roman people was suffering from a shortage of silver. Akhough other names than that of a Flaminius may be restored, diere is a Flaminius available in die mid-second century, Leg. 154, who may be taken, perhaps as Tr. Pi. c. 141, as the author of a Lex Flaminia minus solvendi.1 The tide of die law is readily intelligible - die Roman state seems to have held diat bronze could be exchanged for silver at die Aerarium (see p. 626 n. 3) and die effect of the law will have been to reduce the amount of silver that had to be paid out for a given amount of bronze (for die motivation of die law, misunderstood by Festus, see p. 625). The new exchange rate between denarius and as created by die retariffing remained officially in force until die end of the denarius coinage, confirmed by the edict of M. Marius Gratidianus of 85 (see p. 620). An immediate consequence of the retariffing seems to have been the adoption of the sestertius instead of die as, as die Roman unit of account (see p. 621). Since die retariffing effectively devalued die as, die new method of accounting was perhaps introduced by senatus consultum in a deliberate attempt to obscure the fact of the devaluation. The evidence for the appearance of the uncial weight standard is unfortunately equivocal, but it seems almost certain, despite Pliny's indication to the contrary, that it emerged gradually and not as the result of a law or other enactment. From the very start of the denarius coinage widi its sextantal weight standard for die bronze, some issues (notably nos. 63-5 and 69) produced outside Rome were of uncial weight standard or less, presumably because of local shortages of bronze. By die time minting was concentrated at Rome in about 207, die weight standard there was somewhere between sextantal and uncial (no. 57). There was from this point a slow decline to a weight standard less than uncial. At no point in the decline can a stage be recognised from the coins at which the uncial weight standard could have been introduced. Traditionally,2 die two issues of'uncial' dupondii (nos. 56/1 and 69/1) are regarded as marking the introduction of the uncial weight standard. But no. 69/1 certainly belongs at the start of die denarius coinage and the anonymous issue should be placed not very far from die start (see discussion on pp. 11-12). Bodi are fiduciary 1 1

Pliny may well have found this Lex Flaminia in his source and jumped to the (wrong) conclusion that it belonged in 217. As in E. A. Sydenham, CRR, 33-4.

614

The people

issues of the period when a sextantal weight standard was in force. I conclude therefore that no specific enactment was ever made about the uncial weight standard and that Pliny's asses unciales facti merely preserves a memory of the fact that the weight standard was approximately uncial at the time of the retariffing of the denarius. The most important event in the history of the Republican coinage was of course its introduction to the city of Rome, on the date of which the literary tradition is divided between 269 and 268 (see pp. 42-3). It is argued there that control of the Republican coinage in its early years was in the hands of the Censors and the discrepancy is most readily explained by the supposition that the decision to inaugurate a coinage at Rome was taken by a law of 269 and that the decision was put into effect by the Censors in the following year (for the arrangements for issues outside Rome before 269 see below). A Lex Ogulnia Fabia de aere argento (? auro) flando feriundo should be postulated; Rotondi's hesitation over this law1 is the result of trust in a false account of the introduction of the sextantal weight standard. The denominational structure of the aes grave introduced under the law was perpetuated at a variety of weight standards to the end of the Republic, but the didrachm coinage introduced at the same time underwent a number of modifications in the course of its short life. These included both the production of silver fractions together with a range of token bronze fractions for the didrachm and the issuing of gold. All these features are paralleled in the Greek models from which the Roman didrachm coinage was derived and it is probable that they were provided for in the Lex Ogulnia Fabia. No separate authorisation was thus needed for the gold issue of 216. The didrachm coinage and aes grave in their early years declined gently in weight standard, doubdess as a result of purely administrative action. But the last years of this period of Roman coinage are marked by a drastic reduction in the weight standard of die aes grave and a severe debasement of the silver coinage (Zonaras viii, 26, 14). The first seems to have been at least in part a conscious act of policy and I should argue that a law was passed to put it into effect. Not only is the formal distinction readily apparent between coins of the semilibral weight standard and those of the preceding issue, but the Roman state seems to have taken great care to see that the amount spent on the Ludi Romani of 217 (after the reduction in weight standard see p. 43) weighed as much as the amount spent the previous year, although for secular purposes the new asses were worth as much as the old (see pp. 626-7). I Q 2 1 7 333,333} asses were spent (Livy xxii, 10, 7), in contrast to 200,000 previously (Dion. Hal. vii, 71, 2 and Ps-Asconius, 217 St, who both wrongly give the sum in sestertii rather than in asses, see p. 623). Since the new asses weighed 6 ounces and the asses of die preceding issue 10 ounces, 200,000 of the latter weighed the same as 333,333^ of the former (200,000 x -^ = 333,333^). The name of the law responsible for the change in weight standard was perhaps lex de assibus semilibralibus, 1

Leges publicae, 243.

615

Administration and control The semilibral weight standard lasted for perhaps two years before a further reduction took place, associated this time with a debasement of the silver coinage. The result was the collapse of the entire system, leading to the replacement of die didrachm coinage by the denarius coinage. Although no certainty is possible, it seems likely that die reduction and debasement were ad hoc measures and not the result of legislation. (The slight and short-lived debasement of 87 was probably also an ad hoc measure.) One curious law remains to be discussed, which reinforces the general conclusion that alterations in the denominational structure and in the weight or quality of the Republican coinage were properly a matter for legislation. It is the law recorded in one cryptic sentence of Pliny (xxxiii, 46), Livius Drusus in tribunatu plebei octavam partem aeris argento miscuit. Pliny does not distinguish between M. Livius Drusus, Tr. Pi. 122, and M. Livius Drusus, Tr. Pi. 91, but it seems certain diat die younger is meant. There is no trace of debasement of the silver coinage after eidier tribunate and Pliny's record of die law can only be explained on die assumption diat it was passed by die younger Livius Drusus in 91 and annulled widi die rest of his laws (Cicero, de leg. ii, 31; Asconius 68-9C; Cicero, de domo 41 and 50; de leg. ii, 14; Diodorus xxxvii, 10). The reason for die projected debasement of die silver coinage remains quite mysterious. Rome was able in the following- year and for some years thereafter to produce an enormous silver coinage widiout any apparent difficulty. Perhaps Livius Drusus believed diat his programme would be inordinately expensive to carry out. II

THE SENATE

By die mid-second century B.C. control of the financial resources of die Roman Republic was firmly in the hands of the Senate (Polybius vi, 13,1), and was exercised dirough the Quaestors. Polybius' caveat diat the Consul in Rome could help himself to money from die treasury is not borne out by the Livian narrative of die Second Punic War.1 The same narrative shows that part of die process of bringing the dictatorship under civilian control was die taking away of its financial independence.2 It is less clear what conditions were like before the Second Punic War. It has been argued (pp. 42-3) that die dating of die early Roman coinage suggests very strongly indeed diat die Censors were in some way responsible for die successive issues from 280 to 225. The precise nature of diis responsibility is puzzling, in particular how continuity was assured when the Censors resigned and before dieir successors were appointed and how die actual process of striking bullion into coin was arranged. The most reasonable suggestion seems to be diat, as in die second century, die Censors were merely executive officers of die Senate and set in motion 1 F. W. Walbank, on Polybius vi, 12, 8, is unduly cautious on this point. • Livy xxii, 23, 6-8, cf. xxviii, 45, 14.

616

The Senate a policy agreed on by that body which could then be carried out by junior magistrates, presumably Quaestors. Although it is theoretically conceivable that the production of coinage was contracted out, the stylistic continuity of both silver and bronze from 269 onwards (nos. 20-7) militates against this possibility.1 The issue of 225 was overtaken by the Second Illyrian War and the Second Punic War and for a decade coinage was produced on a hand-to-mouth basis (see pp. 600-1 and p. 604). From 211 onwards the coinage was, I think, effectively in the hands of three annually elected moneyers (see pp. 601-2) and the Censors had no further concern with it. Given overall Senatorial control, the standard procedure of the Roman Republic from this time onwards with regard to the amount of coinage to be produced may be reconstructed as follows. At the beginning of the year the Senate would meet to hear estimates of income and expenditure together with a statement on the surplus coinage in hand2 and to authorise die production of the required amount of coinage.3 The Quaestors presumably handed bullion over to the moneyers and received it back in the form of coin.4 From this coin, together widi any coin already in the aerarium, the Senate would from time to time authorise expenditure.5 The crucial problem, for the resolution of which there is no explicit evidence, is whether or not the system assumed diat all payments would normally be made in new coin (either of the current year or remaining from the previous year) or whedier 1

There is no evidence for the contracting out of the actual production of coinage at any period in Roman history; the moneyer L. Piso Fmgi (no. 340) is not the same man as the contractor for military supplies, and there is thus no reason to suppose that the moneyer contracted out the production of part of his issue to himself; nor can it be argued that P. Monetius soc.l. Philogenes, attested in CIL vi, 9953, worked at the production of coinage during the period when he was the slave of the societas which ultimately manumitted him (contra O. Hirschfeld, Verwaltungsbeamten, 185 n. 2). Melting down of metal was sometimes contracted out during the Empire, CIL xiv, 3642; vi, 8455, 8456, 791; for the contracting out of the production of a third-century Greek coinage, see H. Ross Holloway, Hieronymos, 33-6. 2 For a certain awareness of the working of the finances of the Roman state, see Cicero, de leg. iii, 41; [Sallust], Ep, ii. l, 3; cf. Aristotle, Rhet. i, 4. The Illviri mensarii appointed in 216 were special budgetary officials; note also the formula used by Livy to describe the sum granted to the Censors to spend, vectigal annuum decretum est, xl, 46, 16; cf. xliv, 16, 9. For stocks of coin see p. 618 n. 5 below. * In 209 the provision of bullion for coinage (Livy xxvii, 10, n - 1 3 with p. 34) formed part of quae Romae agenda erant (xxvii, 12, 1) before the year's operations commenced. Note that revenues from the provinces came in at the end of the year for which they were collected (in 44 - see p. 639) or at the beginning of the following year (in 45-44-Nic. Dam., Caes. 55; Appian, BC iii, 39; Dio xlv, 3,2; these revenues, intended for the Parthian War, were kept by Octavian) and that provision for provincial governors was normally made at the beginning of the year (e.g., Livy xl, 35, 3-4; Cicero, ad An. iii, 24,1). The provision of bullion for coinage is perhaps also mentioned in Cicero, Phil, vii, 1 (January-February 43), de Appia via el de moneta consul refert; the business could perhaps relate to the fabric of the temple of Juno Moneta; S. Weinstock (in conversation) took it to relate to the problem of Caesar's portrait on the coinage; I doubt this. In any case the existence of a regular authorisation of bullion for coinage follows from the occurrence at intervals of special authorisations (on which see p. 606). * The Quaestors' responsibility for testing the quality of the metal of the Carthaginian indemnity, Livy xxxii, 2, 1-2, is interesting in this connection. * For early examples of expenditure via the Quaestors note Polybius xxiii, 14, 5; SIG 674 = Sherk 9, line 68; SIG 688 = Sherk 10, B, line 13; Lucilius 428-9M; cf. O'Brien Moore, RE Supp. vi, 741.

617

Adtntntstration and control old coin would normally be stored and re-used, as it certainly was in 43 (see p. 640 n. 2). For on the answer to this question depends die possibility of correlating volume of coinage with state expenditure. Certainly some new coinage would normally have to be struck, for die aerarium from a very early date found itself in possession of foreign coinage which would not be acceptable in Italy.1 But it does not follow that denarii which came into the aerarium were melted down and made into new coin, a process which would undoubtedly have involved some loss.8 On balance I believe diat down to Sulla they were and regard two general considerations as relevant. A rule diat all coin coming into die aerarium had to be melted down and recoined would reduce die possibility of fraud;3 one could question a functionary on how he came to have a batch of new coin in his purse, one would have less reason to suspect a batch of old coin.4 And at only one point between 211 and 81 is there a gap in die sequence of Republican coinage such as to suggest that substantial stocks of old coin were being used for payments.5 But die strongest reason for believing that down to Sulla die Roman Republic was in normal times in die habit of making payments in new coin is die very close correlation which does in fact exist between volume of coinage and scale of expenditure from year to year (see p. 694). Even so, two cautions are necessary. The correlation between the volume of the coinage of die Roman Republic as defined in this book and the size of die payments being made can never be perfect, since much provincial revenue was coined on die spot and spent in die form of cistophori or Iberian denarii.6 And even if the Roman Republic was in the habit of making payments in old coin, exceptional expenditure would presumably still be reflected in increased coinage. Ill

THE MINT

We have little information on how die moneyers actually went about administering die production of the required amount of coinage, once diis was agreed.7 The most 1

Conspicuously from booty, also from taxation, see, for instance, Cicero, de domo 52; ad Ait. ii, 6, 2; i6>4• M. I Finley, / / Int. Conf. Earn. Hist, i, 22; considerations of prestige would have encouraged moneyers to discount this consideration. 1 For Imperial legislation against misconduct by mint officials see M. H. Crawford, NC 1968, 58; for possible examples of Republican misconduct see pp. 602 and 620. 1 The almost complete disappearance of the practice of overstriking once the chaotic conditions of the period of the Second Punic War were past perhaps suggests that the mint was in the habit of melting down all old coinage; sporadic examples of overstriking may then be regarded as the result of inserting old coins into the production process at an advanced stage; it is hard to see otherwise how coins came to be overstruck in the same year as they were originally issued (Table xvm, 110 and 111). * The mint clearly sometimes overproduced (see Pliny, NH xxxiii, 55-6 for stocks of coins at various points in Roman history); the result of overproduction one year could be spent next year and thus relieve the mint of the need to strike. ' For Roman use of the latter see M. H. Crawford, NC 1969, 79-84. ' For the technical operations involved see p. 569.

618

The mint serious problem is posed by the fact that of the three moneyers appointed in any given year only one or two might actually strike; quite apart from the fact that coins do not survive of enough moneyers to provide three a year between 211 and 45, one moneyer is attested by literary evidence of whom no coins are known (no. 347). The problem would not really be altered by the supposition that all these men struck a token issue which was not large enough to survive. The most plausible supposition is that as in everything else at Rome social status counted; compared with the period from c. 145 to 100 and with die 80s, the 70s, 60s and 50s were a period when relatively few moneyers struck; diose that did were on the whole of high social status (see also p. 711); if the year's authorisation of coinage was all produced during their periods of striking, that was just too bad for their humbler and now unknown colleagues.1 Great differences in die amounts of coinage produced by moneyers who were apparendy colleagues are also surprising (for instance nos. 357-8); they further suggest diat moneyers divided the year into periods and operated in turn. Presumably the agreed amount of coinage might all be required at one time radier than another; presumably also it might be required at a time which was not anticipated.2 One moneyer adds die words pri(mus) fl(avit) to his name (L. Flaminius Chilo, no. 485); an order of striking, the existence of which is implied by this formula, was doubdess agreed by the moneyers radier dian drawn by lot; Chilo, unlike his colleagues, was perhaps of Senatorial family.3 The notion of an order of striking is complicated by two factors: first, it is clear that in some years, notably 44 and 42, a moneyer might go back to striking after a period off duty;* second, issues were sometimes struck joindy by two (as no. 285/2) or three moneyers (as no. 285/3-7). The extent of administrative discretion and die identity of its possessors are alike unclear. Presumably once a denomination had been established by law it was for die Quaestors or the moneyers to decide whedier or not it should be struck in any given year (compare p. 611). Questions of metal content were normally a matter for legislation (see p. 616); but the debasements of 213-2125 and of 87 were presumably administrative measures; so presumably were the slight decline in die weight of die denarius soon after its institution and die more long-term and more considerable decline in die weight of the bronze coinage in die second century. Two points call for 1

We can be reasonably certain that in the year 44, for instance, all the coinage needed was produced in the first half of the year (see pp. 94-5); all four moneyers were involved, but presumably might not have been. * For the procedure when additional coinage was required see p. 606. ' No other moneyer explicitly draws attention to the fact that he struck first; the addition of the titulature IIIVIR to a moneyer's name is entirely haphazard, see p. 600. * One may argue that in these years conditions were exceptional; for Caesar's freedmen overseeing the mint see Suetonius, Caes. 76, for Caesar's overall financial control, exercised through Praefecti, Dio xliii, 45, 2; 48, 1 and 3. It will not do to argue with A. Alfoldi, SM 1966, 148, that the sharing of dies by the moneyers of 44 is the result of the presence in the mint of Caesar's freedmen; compare the sharing of dies by moneyers in the second century, p. 51. * As also the contemporary reduction of the weight standard of the bronze below a semilibral level.

619

Administration and control comment: around 170 and again in 115 the weight of the bronze coinage was raised quite dramatically;1 and around 170 a decision was taken virtually to eliminate the striking of the denarius, to be followed by another after 160 to start once more and then by a third around 145 to abandon the striking of the as. Remembering the initiative of Cato the Younger as Quaestor, I am inclined to regard the two raisings of the weight standard as quaestorian measures (mint officials had perhaps profited from the drop in the weight of die bronze coinage). The sequence of events leading up to the abandonment of the as were perhaps decided at a higher level; the abandonment of the as involved a change in the method of paying the army and soon brought about the need to retariff die as (see p. 625). Finally, it is clear that types could be chosen and put into use at very short notice; the kaleidoscopic succession of types in 44 is enough to prove this; it is also probable that part of the regular coinage of 46, not only daat struck by special authorisation, reflects the events of diat year (see on nos. 464-5). IV

MAGISTRATES

Apart ftom the use by Caesar of Praefecti to oversee the finances of die Republic (see p. 619 n. 4), only one case is known to me of involvement wida the coinage of magistrates other than diose concerned, direcdy or indirectly, with producing it. This is the action taken by the Praetors of 85, who, I believe, took steps to enforce observance of the official exchange rate of sixteen asses to one denarius (for which see p. 625). The semuncial reduction of 91 (see p. 611) and die dislocation of normal life caused by the events of the next few years had apparendy caused the nuntmus, here the denarius, to be tossed about, so that no-one knew its value (Cicero, de off. iii, 80; Pliny, NH xxxiii, 132; xxxiv, 27, is demonstrably in error).2 The Praetors presumably promised redress to anyone who was defrauded by the operation of irregular exchange rates. 1 2

On the second occasion production of the as was resumed after an intermission of some thirty years. For detailed argument see PCPhS 1968, 1; P. J. Goddard, SCMB 1969, 7 and 42, is of no interest; the attempt of J. R. Jones, BJCS 1971, 99, to disprove the existence of irregular exchange rates between as and denarius depends on the remarkable belief that the mean of 18 and 17 is 16.

620

6 ROMAN UNITS OF RECKONING UNDER THE REPUBLIC I

SESTERTIUS

In the historical period the Romans expressed a large number of assessments of value, from property qualifications to fines, in monetary terms; since these assessments of value were often politically important, it is clearly desirable to know what these monetary terms meant and whether they varied from one period to another.1 Confusion was sown, uncharacteristically, by Mommsen; the reality is in my view very simple and can be expressed in four propositions. The Romans officially reckoned in asses2 from earliest times down to the point at which the denarius was revalued at sixteen asses instead often asses;3 thereafter they officially reckoned in sestertii;4 all state assessments hitherto expressed as so many asses were now converted to the same number of sestertii;5 all state payments hitherto computed in asses were hereafter made in such a way that the same amount of silver was paid out.6 Individual practice of course did not always conform to the first two propositions, 1

Theearliest systematic attempt to relate Roman monetary terms to the coinage is that of J .A. Letronne, Considerations; basing his calculations on the Constantinian solidus, he establishes the weight of the Roman pound; since the denarius is described by Roman authors as a fraction of a pound (see p. 594 n. 1), it is then possible to identify particular coins as denarii. * The practice developed from reckoning in pounds of bronze (Livy iv, 30, 3 with lucid commentary of R. M. Ogilvie); cf. Festus, s.v. Nancitor for pecunia in the Foedus Cassium. For reckoning in asses at the time of the retariffing see Pliny, NH xxxiii, 45 with p. 622 below. Sums of money in Livy, presumably deriving ultimately from official records, are normally in asses (iv, 16, 2; x, 46, 15; xxviii, 9, 17; xxix, 15, 9; xxxi, 13, 7; 20, 7; xxxvi, 40, 13; xliv, 5, 4) or amounts aeris or aeris gravis (Concordance i, 271-2; Epit. xlviii; cf. Valerius Maximus iv, 4, 10). For quadrigati and denarii in Livy see p. 630. It does not follow from the existence of a system of decimal subdivision of the sestertius (Volusius Maecianus 65, 73, 76, cf. 74-5) that the sestertius was used as a unit of reckoning while the denarius was still worth ten asses; the system is exposed as a late construction (so also A. Nagl, Rechentafel, 74-7, for different reasons) by the symbols it uses - I for 1/10 instead of for one as, i for 1/20 instead of for one semuncia. Sestertii occur in Cato, Agr. 14,3; 14,5; 21,5; 22, 3-4; 144, 3; 144,5; 145, 2, where they should be regarded as posthumous alterations of the text (for these see F. Leo, Geschichte des ro'm. Lit., 272 n. 1; A. Mazzarino, Introduzione al de agri cultura, esp. 85); for Cato's use of denarii and asses in reckoning see Plutarch, Cato Maior 4; Seneca, Epist. 94, 27. For sestertii in Livy see p. 631. 4 Of course small sums such as corn prices could still be expressed in asses. The Lex Valeria of 86 simply reduced debts to one quarter and did not affect the basic system of reckoning, contra Th. Mommsen, RMto, 383-4. 5 E. Meyer, Rom. Staat, 52-3, following H. Mattingly, JRS 1937, 106-7, seems to say that recorded assessments in asses are merely archaising conversions of first-century figures in sestertii; that is to carry scepticism too far, given the testimony of Polybius (see Table XLVIII, first entry). ' Payments to soldiers were doubtless those principally affected and the only ones for which explicit evidence survives; soldiers' pay could, for obvious reasons, not be casually increased or decreased, pace G. R. Watson, Historia 1958, 118. 621

Roman units of reckoning under the Republic but this does not affect their general validity; the official unit of reckoning in England now is the pound, despite the fact that surgeons express their prices in guineas and my College expresses the cost of wine consumed in pence; since die last two propositions related only to matters of official concern, there are no exceptions. The first problem to be considered is the expression in sestertii of assessments earlier expressed in asses; the evidence is best displayed in tabular form (see Table XLVIII, where die figures in denarii and asses record the state of affairs before c. 141, the figures in sestertii the state of affairs thereafter). It seems to me far more plausible to assume that the samefigurewas transferred from assessments in asses to assessments in sestertii than to argue, with Mommsen,1 that the sestertius (weighing a scruple of silver) and die libral as were originally equivalent and that figures could be expressed indifferently in one or die other; that figures so expressed were perpetuated unchanged when with die creation of die denarius system die sestertius was fixed at 2.5 asses; and that whenever figures involve the equivalence 2.5 asses = 1 sestertius = 1/4 denarius (an equivalence which came in with die denarius system) they must have beenfixedafter the as ceased to be libral.2 Against Mommsen's first point may be urged the high silver:bronze ratio of 1:240 which it implies,3 against the whole theory die fact that diere is a gap between the end of die libral as in 217 and die first appearance of die coin and hence of the word sestertius in 211.* It is not, by contrast, unreasonable to suppose thattheeffort of converting assessments in asses to assessments in sestertii when the retariffing took place seemed too great and that it was decided simply to write the assessments across from so many asses to the same number of sestertii; the decision was doubtless also politically convenient, since it would have had the effect of reducing the size of the prima classis, deliberately increased a few years earlier (see p. 631), but doubdess now swelling out of all proportion because of the effect of die influx of wealdi to Rome from the East (compare Aristotle, Pol. 1306b 9; 1308a 35). As for payments, die crucial piece of evidence is diat provided by Pliny (NH xxxiii, 45), 'placuitque denarium sedecim assibus permutari..., in militari tamen stipendio semper denarius pro decem assibus datus est', 'and it was decided that a denarius should exchange for sixteen asses, but in paying soldiers a denarius has always been given for each ten asses due to them'.6 How much was actually due to 1

RMvi, 302-4 (starting from the false premise that the denarius and the triental standard were contemporary), cf. 197, 206 and 292-4. The theory of K. Samwer and M. Bahrfeldt, NZ 1883,185-9, is no improvement. * RMti), 304, cf. 302 n. 40. * See below, p. 626 n. 8. * Varro, LL v, 173; Festus, s.v. Trientem tertium; Vitruvius iii, 1, nostri quartam denarii partem, quod efficiebatur ex duobus assibus et tertio semsse, sestertium nominaverunt. 1 The attempt of H. B. Mattingly, NC 1969,99-100, to discount the testimony of Pliny is astonishing; there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Pliny was aware of the figures for donatives recorded by Livy and that he invented his account of the retariffing of the denarius to accommodate them. The accounting device recorded by Pliny is a perfectly reasonable one by which a decrease in soldiers' pay could be prevented.

622

Sestertius TABLE XLVIII. Denarii Census qualification 10,000 for prima classis D. Hal. iv, 16, 2 Pol. vi, 23, 15

Limit of application of Lex Voconia Fine for iniuria

Basic daily wage Nominal assessment

As and sestertius

Asses

Sestertii

100,000

IOOJOOO1

Livy i, 43,1

Gaius iii, 42 Inst. iii, 7, 2 (qualification of locupletiores liberti)

100,000

100,000

Cic, de re p. iii, 17 Gaius ii, 274

Ps-Asc. 247St Dio lvi, 102

25 Gell. xx, 1, 123 cf. xvi, 10, 8 Gaius iii, 223 Festus 508L 3 (see p. 624)

25 Coll. Mos. Rom. ii, 5, 5

1 (per jugerum rent) Livy xxxi, 13, 7

i(fine) Plut., Mar. 38* Val. Max. viii, 2, 3 ; (sale of hereditas) Gaius ii, 252; (sale of property) Cic, Rab. Post. 45 Val. Max. v, 2,10 Livy, Epit. Iv /LS8302, etc.; (prize in games) Gellius xviii, 13, 3

3 Cic, Rose. Com. 28

1

Compare the 100,000 sestertii owned by Vergil, Donatus, Vit. Verg. 13; cf. Vit. Prob. 25,000 drachmae = 25,000 denarii = 100,000 sestertii. ' The early origin of the passage is vouched for by the occurrence of the word crumena (A. Watson, JRS 1970, 112). * 4 chalkoi = 4 asses = 1 sestertius. 3

Certain passages, which have sometimes been thought to provide equivalences, but which do not in fact do so, have been ignored in the creation of this Table—Livy xxxiv, 46,3 with Plutarch, Cato Maior 10 (cf. R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 152-3) and Livy, Epit. xlviii with Polybius xxxi, 28, 5-6; the presumed normal cost of the Ludi Romani before 217,200,000 asses (see p. 627 n. 1), does notfigurein this Table because only the convertedfigureof 200,000 sestertii is attested (D. Hal. vii, 71, 2; Ps-Asconius 2i7St). The equestrian census in the late Republic was 400,000 sestertii; before c. 141 it will have been 400,000 asses; unless it had been altered, it cannot be represented by the census level of 1,000,000 asses recorded for 214 in Livy xxiv, 11, 7 (contra Cl. Nicolet, Ordre Equestre, 46-48; for other arguments against his view see P. A. Brunt, Manpower, 700). I see no way of deciding whether the sponsio of the Lex Crepereia (125 sestertii, Gaius iv, 95) bore any relation to either of the two primitive poenae sacramenti (50 and 500 asses, Gaius iv, 14).

623

Roman units of reckoning under the Republic them Pliny does not say, but a well-known passage of Polybius (vi, 39,12) records that in his time a Roman legionary was paid 2 obols a day = ^ drachma = § denarius.1 If the denarius had not been retariffed when he wrote, £ denarius would have equalled 3^ asses, if it had been, \ denarius would have equalled 5^ asses. Since the retariffing took place in c. 141 (see below) and since Polybius probably drew on his experience in the Third Carthaginian War in writing about legionary pay,2 the former view is more probable. It may be supported by two texts which suggest that a legionary was paid 3 asses a day ( = iT85 obols, rounded offby Polybius to 2 obols). They are Plutarch, Ti. Gr. 13, where Nasica offers the agrarian commissioners 3 asses a day each, presumably the lowest daily wage paid out by the Roman state,3 and Plautus, Most. 357, where 3 nummi are regarded as an appropriate wage for a soldier;4 the figure is not a standard Hellenistic one5 and is perhaps the equivalent of 3 asses (see Addenda). When the retariffing took place, paying the legions in silver was a relatively recent innovation (see below); it was clearly impossible to pay them less silver dian before and it doubdess seemed easier to pay their 1,080 asses per annum, after deductions, in denarii at the old rate of exchange rather than disturb things by computing a new rate of pay. The evidence of legionary pay makes it clear that sestertii were not yet used as units of reckoning when the denarius was retariffed. Although absolute certainty is unattainable, it seems to me highly probable that they were adopted (except for military pay) immediately after the retariffing, to disguise the fact that the as, die previous unit of reckoning, had in effect been devalued from 1/10 to 1/16 denarius.6 The as will now have disappeared as an official unit of reckoning. Since sestertii first appeared in 140,7 it is important to establish when asses were last used. The last lex sumptuaria to calculate in asses is die lex Licinia,8 ascribed by Macrobius to a P. Licinius Crassus Dives; it follows the Lex Didia of 143 and may dierefore be 1

The view (H. Mattingly, JRS 1937, 101-2) that Polybius is here talking of obols of the Aeginetic system rather than the Attic system is merely an insult to Polybius, see commentary of F. W. Walbank on ii, 15, 1; note also that the mina at vi, 58, 5 is an Attic mina of 100 drachms, not an Aeginetic mina of 70. • F. W. Walbank, Commentary on Polybius, 6. 3 For the use by Plutarch of obol to translate as see Pob. 11 with Gellius xi, l, 2, etc. (on the equivalences between sheep and cattle, and bronze). • The passage is cited by Letronne, Considerations, 27, following le Beau, Mimoires de littirature tiris des registres de I'Acadimie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres xli, 186, but not in recent literature. 6 G. T. Griffith, Mercenaries, 294-306. • A suggestion made in JRS 1970, 41 n. 10. 7 SIG 674 = Sherk 9, line 69 (140 B.C.); Gellius vi, 11, 9 (recording a speech of Aemilianus of 140 B.C.); Frontinus, Aq. i, 7 (on the cost of the Aqua Marcia, etc., finished and presumably costed after 140 B.C.); Livy, Epit. lv (138 B.C.); SIG 688 = Sherk 10, B, line 13; etc. 8 Macrobius, Sat. iii, 17, 9; Gellius ii, 24, 7; Festus, s.v. Centenariae. For earlier sumptuary limits in asses see Macrobius, Sat. iii, 17, 5; Gellius ii, 24, 3; Lucilius 1172M (compare U53-54! 1318); Tertullian, Apol. 6,1 (Lex Fannia - the calculation of Athenaeus vi, 108 in sestertii (2} drachms = 10 sestertii) is clearly an aberration); Gellius ii, 24, 2 (SC of 161 B.C.).

624

Sestertius attributed to Mucianus and to 142 or 141 (or just conceivably 140).1 If the changeover in reckoning is linked with die retariffing, this also may be dated c. 141. An answer to the question of why the Roman state was forced to retariff die denarius at 16 instead of 10 asses can perhaps be found by looking at the monetary history of the period preceding the retariffing. Soon after 160, after a decade or more when it was hardly struck, the denarius began to be produced again, now in very large quantities; around 145 the as, the commonest denomination down to 160, went out of production altogether (die last issue is that of C. Antestius, no. 219). The change from a coinage primarily in bronze to one primarily in silver is clearly to be related to a change in the mediod of paying the Roman army; the final step seems to have been taken just after a period when Rome was simultaneously involved in several prolonged foreign wars. In die course of all this, not only will die growing dominance of silver have led people to regard die as as no longer die unit on which the coinage as a whole was based, but the fact diat the stock of asses in circulation was no longer being leavened widi bright new pieces will also have reduced the attractiveness of die denomination. Presumably die unofficial valuation of the denarius in asses moved upwards from 10 to 16 and die state was forced to recognise die fact.2 It would be useful to be able to relate the history of the qualification for membership of the lowest census class to the history of Roman units of reckoning, but I cannot do so widi complete conviction. The highest figure, 11,000 asses, is given by Livy i, 43,7; 3 Polybius vi, 19,3, presumably written about 150, records 4,000 asses;4 die next figure, 1,500 asses, appears in Gellius xvi, 10,10 and Cicero, de re p. ii, 40. If die last figure is audientic as it stands, it presumably falls between about 150 and 141, since it is in asses.6 The conversion of die figure to 1,500 sestertii widi die retariffing presumably reversed die trend apparent up to this point to reduce die qualification for service in die legions; if recruiting became markedly more difficult as a result, this perhaps impelled C. Laelius, Cos. 140, and Ti. Gracchus after him to think of agrarian reform rather than lowering the qualification again.6 II

SILVER AND BRONZE

The earliest Roman coinage consisted of cast bronze asses weighing a pound and their fractions, together with silver didrachms weighing initially rather more than and eventually exacdy six scruples. Once it is admitted that Mommsen's equation 1

So in partrightlyI. Sauerwein, Leges sumptuariae, 94-104, who notices the significance of the use of sestertii, but misses the evidence for their appearance. The Lex Licinia appears to have replaced the Lex Fannia, after a lapse of time which impressed Macrobius. 1 So first T. V. Buttrey, ANSMusN 1957, 61-4; the argument is still valid whether bullion could or could not (as I believe) be brought to the mint to be coined. 3 The 12,500 asses of D. Hal. iv, 17, 2 was probably arrived at by halving the figure for the next to lowest class, R. M. Ogilvie on Livy i, 43, 7. * 400 drachmae = 4,000 asses. ' Cf. E. Gabba, Athenaeum 1949, 186 n. 3; P. A. Brunt, Manpower, 404, probably places the figure at too early a date. * I have no idea of where thefigureof 375 asses recorded by Gellius xvi, 10,10 fits into the picture. 625

Roman units of reckoning under the Republic between an as and a scruple of silver is wrong (see p. 622 above), we are left without any information on how die two component parts of the earliest Roman coinage were related to each other.1 Clearly it is likely that ad hoc equations could be made;2 and I have argued that die semilibral reduction was only possible because the new asses were placed in the same official relationship with silver as the old.3 But die earliest evidence of an official equation built into die monetary system is provided by die decussis of die last (quadrantal) weight reduction before die institution of die denarius system (no. 41/1); since for die denarius system die Romans decided to make die silver unit worth ten asses, it is difficult to avoid die conclusion diat when die decussis was produced it was worth die same as die then existing silver unit.4 If diis is right, die silver:bronze rado is 1:120, die same as diat displayed by die denarius system.5 When diis was created, gold, silver and bronze were all given marks of value to make their relationship explicit; one scruple of gold was worth 20 asses, four scruples of silver were worth 10 asses; gold:silver is here 1:8, silver: bronze 1:12c 8 A substantial problem remains. The earliest asses were simply coins weighing a pound of copper and presumably worth more or less just diat; on die odier hand die face value of both quadrantal and sextantal asses was also not far distant from diat of dieir metal content.7 Yet die purpose of die semilibral reduction was presumably to produce coins of die same face value as before but of lower metal 1

1

• •

6

• '

Gold presumably stood in a fixed relationship to silver, though we have little reliable information on what this was: the ratio of gold to silver was 1:10 in the Eastern Mediterranean after Alexander, 1:12 in the Western Mediterranean; early evidence from Rome (Livy i, 53, 3; 55, 8; etc.) is clearly fictional (so rightly Th. Mommsen, RMw, 197 n. 80); the Mars/Eagle gold was struck at a ratio to silver of 1:8, silver being thus deliberately over-valued in order to inspire confidence in the new denarius; a ratio of 1:10 was prescribed a propos of the Aetolian indemnity in 189; thereafter we are in the dark again until the age of Augustus; the equation between gold and silver in Livy xxxviii, 55, 6-12 occurs in a speech and is worthless as evidence (contra Th. Mommsen, RMw, 402 n. 115), the equation in Suetonius, Caes. 54 occurs in a context which, to say the least, does not inspire confidence in its reliability. But the chief problem, to which there is no answer known to me, is posed by the existence of a clearly token bronze coinage associated with the silver didrachm and a bronze coinage where face value and metal value approximated. Note the elogium of C. Duillius (Inscr. hal. xiii, 3, no. 69), where 3,700 nummi of gold+200,000300,000 nummi of silver = 2,900,000-3,400,000 pounds of bronze (1 silver nummus = io pounds of bronze?). JRS 1964, 31The nomos of 10 litrae common in Magna Graecia provided an obvious precedent; note also the Etruscan practice of tariffing coins in terms of units (or multiples or fractions thereof); see also p. 28 n. 4. Note also the unique coin worth 1/10 of a quadrigatus (no. 28/5) and therefore presumably an as; the coin is perhaps dimly recollected by Varro, LL v, 174, nummi denarii (in error for quadrigati) decuma libella ... et erat ex argento parva. 6 scruples of silver = 10 x 72 scruples (the theoretical weight of a quadrantal as) of bronze. For an earlier discussion of the contrast between the two systems see JRS 1964, 30-1; I am now convinced that the Oath-scene gold piece with the mark of value XXX is false (see p. 548). For the ratio between gold and silver in the denarius system see also p. 34 n. 1. A ratio of silver: bronze of 1:120 was normal for the Hellenistic world, M. J. Price, Essays Robinson, 103; see also E. S. G. Robinson, NC1964,41. As the Roman Republic coined and put into circulation ever greater quantities of silver (on a scale unparalleled in the Greek world), bronze became relatively more valuable; silver:bronze under Augustus is perhaps notional]y 1:6o.

626

Silver and bronze TABLE XLIX.

Growth in volume of production of as Number of issue

nation Decussis Quincussis Tressis Dupondius As Semis Triens Quadrans Sextans Uncia Semuncia Quamincia

14

18

21

24

25

26

27

35

36

38

57-8

39

41

t

17 19

.

365

19 3

200

7 6

ii

1 14

95

104

108 160

1OO 111

136 203

128

102

76 •

163 105 •

18 30 39 36 85 135 64 •

44

18

70

55

76 83

52 69 67

130

7 3 . 2 1

35 •

•

•

22

. 1168'

54 47 62 63 74

395 266 208 184

•

312

*

. 80 32 28 21

45

•

40 46 18 26 219 271

346 92

54 59 96 73 79

96 45 1064 172*

2 2

3

24«

•

Numbers of coins are taken from Haeberlin, unless otherwise stated. 1

Unique piece, not known to Haeberlin. * This enormous total is almost entirely accounted for by the existence of a single hoard, the Cerveteri hoard, which contained 1,569 asses of this issue and most of which passed into the collections studied by Haeberlin. • The figures in this column are those provided by the Paris collection. 4 This figure includes one piece with corn-ear (for the uncia with corn-ear, Haeberlin's no. 151, see Haeberlin's illustration).

content.1 At some stage, presumably with the quadrantal standard, this policy was apparently abandoned; an adjustment of state payments must be postulated as a necessary consequence. The occurrence of such an adjustment is attested by the structure of the coinage; for in all issues of aes grave down to and including the Prow series of semilibral standard the lowest denominations were normally the commonest; with the Prow series of post-semilibral standard the pattern changed markedly and the as became (as it was for the whole of the first half of the second century) the commonest denomination; clearly at this point and this point only were soldiers paid enough for asses to be needed in large quantities and for the as to become the characteristic component of legionary pay.2 By contrast, the levels of census assessments were apparently not changed.3 In conclusion, I should now wish to reconstruct the monetary history of the period from 218 to 211 thus. 1

See p. 626 n. 3 above. The gods were given offerings of the same metal content; the original cost of the Ludi Romani seems to have been 200,000 asses (reported as 200,000 sestertii or their equivalent by Pseudo-Asconius 2i7St; D. Hal. vii, 71, 2), in 217 they cost 333,333! asses (Livy xxii, 10, 7; cf. Plutarch, Fab. 4; also OGIS 480 with n. 14 for later (perhaps derivative) examples of figures made up of threes). * See Table XLK. * Livy xxiv, 11,7-8; see also p. 631.

627

Roman units of reckoning under the Republic Precious metal 218 217 216 215-214 214 213-212 211

Bronze

Didrachm of 6 scruples Unchanged (Gold issue) Unchanged

Libral, tariffed at intrinsic value Semilibral, dius becoming fiduciary Unchanged Post-semilibral (oriental to quadrantal); when quadrantal, tariffed at intrinsic value again (1/10 didrachm) (Decussis) Adjustment of state payments Silver debased Unchanged Denarius Sextantal

The creation of the denarius thus falls in two stages: a rash attempt to restore the bronze coinage as a coinage of intrinsic value led to pressure on the silver coinage, which was debased; Rome then took special measures to acquire bullion (see pp. 32-3) and was able to restore the silver coinage and relate it to a bronze coinage of sextantal as opposed to quadrantal standard. Thus, to resume this and the preceding section, state payments were adjusted in 214 to take account of the decline in the weight of the bronze coinage; assessments were converted from a given number of asses to the same number of sestertii with the retarifHng of the denarius in c. 141, they were not, as far as we know, systematically altered at any other time (for instance, to take account of the declining real value of the as). Ill

VICTORIATUS

With the creation of the denarius in 211, its half-piece, the quinarius, and its quarterpiece, the sestertius, were also introduced. Both lapsed after a few years, say by 207.1 Both were revived during the Social War and during the Civil War of 49-44. Thereafter the silver sestertius lapsed for good. The silver quinarius had both a more eventful and a longer history. Most notably, it was struck in spectacularly large quantities as part of the main-stream coinage of the Republic in 101 and 99-97, by Antonius (alone or widi Lepidus) in 43-42, by Antonius and Octavian in 39 and by Octavian in 29. When the silver quinarius was first revived, it was revived with the types of a victoriatus. The curious history of this coin provides the reason. Originally struck in order to provide a coin suitable for use in areas where the unit of reckoning was the drachma, it lapsed during dae 170s. It is clear that because the revived quinarius took over the types of the viaoriatus (Pliny, NH xxxiii, 46) it came to be called a victoriatus (Varro, LL x, 41). But it is equally clear daat such old victoriati as remained 1

For discussion of this date see pp. 34-5; for an isolated issue of quinarii see no. 156/2. 628

Victoriatus in circulation were by 101 already only worth half a denarius instead of three quarters as originally. The sums in Cato, Agr. 15, 1 only work out on the assumption that a denarius was worth 10 asses (libellae) and a victoriatus 5 asses {libellae).1 The reason for the drop in value is probably that in the absence of new victoriati die existing stock simply became as a whole more and more worn and less and less desirable.2 The lack of a mark of value doubdess facilitated the devaluation. It is also noticeable that die victoriatus as a unit of reckoning is particularly characteristic of die Rhone valley3 and of one area of the Italian peninsula, namely Cisalpine Gaul. It was carried in a triumph from Liguria in 177 (Livy xli, 13, 7). It occurs in the celebrated sententia Minuciorum (1LLRP 517). It is also of the same weight as the native currency of Cisalpine Gaul. These imitations of die drachmae of Massalia were struck from about 230 at least to the end of the second century and certainly remained in circulation into die first century. Over diis period dieir weight dropped from about 2.96 gr. to 2.00 gr.4 They are found all over Cisalpine Gaul, particularly north of the Po, and in Liguria. It is also wordi recording diat die Roman victoriatus penetrated to Cisalpine Gaul early and in large quantities, as in the Caltrano Vicentino and Gambolo hoards; die Masera hoard of the mid-second century still contains a notably high percentage of victoriati, by now wordi only half a denarius each. First-century hoards from Cisalpine Gaul are sometimes characterised by an enormous percentage of quinarii, never found elsewhere, for instance, the Sustinenza and Borzano hoards.5 If we now look at the occasions on which Rome struck quinarii, a significant link widi Gaul is apparent. Supplies and recruits came from Cisalpine Gaul in 90-89 (Plutarch, Sert. 4; Appian, BCi, 188, cf. Sisenna, frr. 29 and 72P);6 Marian forces, for whom perhaps the issue of quinarii, no. 373, was struck, concentrated in Cisalpine Gaul at the end of 82 (Appian, BC i, 410, 415, 418 and 422, widi commentary of E. Gabba on last two passages). In 43-42 Antonius and Lepidus were in Gaul or were governors in absence and part of their coinage alludes specifically to Lugdunum. It is not surprising to find diem striking the local denomination. In 39 and 29 there were veterans to be settled, partly in Cisalpine Gaul. I should argue diat die issues of 101 and 99-97 are to be linked widi Marius' colonising activity and widi Saturninus' leges agrariae. The moderate issue of 101 suggests diat Eporedia was by then envisaged for setdement, the enormous issues of 99-97 diat die lex agraria of 100 was 1

The text is gratuitously altered by E. Jungst and P. Thielscher, Philologus 1937, 331. The victoriatus thus suffered a fate similar to that of the as, see above, p. 625. The language of Pliny at NH xxxiii, 46, is qui nunc victoriatus appellalur lege Clodia percussus est, does not make it clear whether the Lex Clodia devalued the victoriatus or revived the quinarius, see p. 610. 8 Cicero, Font. 19; J. B. Colbert de Beaulieu, JNG 1966, 52. 4 A. Pautasso, Le mottete preromane, 100-6 (dates); 91-3 (weights). 6 See Coin hoards, nos. 113, 114, 162, 339 and 418. ' Not for the Italian side, U. Ewins, PBSR 1955, 74-5. For Gallic mercenaries see Appian, BC i, 219.

s

629

Roman units of reckoning under the Republic put into effect and that Rome struck money specially for the purpose, to finance the viritane settlement of Marius' veterans.1 Only if this took place is the tranquillity of the 90s comprehensible.2 IV

ROMAN COINAGE IN LIVY

Livy uses nummi quadrigati twice in connection with the proposed ransom ofprisoners after Cannae (xxii, 52, 2; 58, 4; cf. 59,18, where nummi alone is used), once in connection with assistance at Venusia to the survivors of Cannae (xxii, 54, 2). Polybius (vi, 58, 5) also discusses the proposed ransom after Cannae and gives the sum involved as 3 minae = 300 drachmae. It is possible to argue that this is the correct sum, interpreted as 300 denarii by later Roman writers and called 300 nummi quadrigati by Livy or his source because by then this was a synonym for denarii (Pliny, NH xxxiii, 46); but it is very odd diat nummi quadrigati occur in Livy only in a period when die didrachms now known (from their type) as quadrigati were in existence. I incline to the view that 300 quadrigati is die correct sum for die proposed ransom after Cannae, misunderstood by Polybius as 300 of die Roman coins (denarii = drachmae) current in his own day.3 Livy uses denarii in viii, 11,16, of die vectigal paid to die knights by die people of Capua; die whole episode is probably a late invention. Livy also uses denarii in xxi, 41,6, in a speech of P. Scipio; diis is likewise surely a late invention. Otherwise Livy uses denarii from xxxiii, 27, 3. onwards, in a period when the denarius was certainly in existence.4 Livy in my view uses bigati as a synonym for denarii;5 he does not mean by diem explicidy denarii widi biga types. 500 bigati occur in xxiii, 15, 15 (where diey are understood simply as 500 drachmae by Plutarch, Marc. 10), in die course of a highly romantic story figuring L. Bantius of Nola; it is reasonable to suppose diat die word, if not die whole story, is a late accretion to die historical tradition. Odierwise die word occurs from xxxi, 49, 2 (where it is restored) and certainly from xxxiii, 23, 7 onwards, in a period when the denarius was certainly in existence,6 and could be used to compute the value of booty. 1

For the Lex Agraria of 100 see Appian, BC i, 130, with commentary of E. Gabba; the hereditary connection of the Triumvir M. Antonius with Bononia, Suetonius, Aug. 17, perhaps arose from an involvement of his grandfather with land distribution in the area in 99. * The negotiations between Marius and the irpcoTOi 6v6pES of Plutarch, Mar. 30 were doubtless, over precisely this question. The problem is not well handled by P. A. Brunt, Manpower, 412-13. 8 Contra F. W. Walbank on Polybius vi, 58, 5. It is worth drawing attention to the i\ pounds of silver of Livy xxii, 23, 6, which = 120 quadrigati, which nearly = the 250 drachmae of Plutarch, Fab. 7. Note that the 500 denarii of Livy xxxiv, 50, 6 = the 500 drachmae of Plutarch, Flam. 13. Contrast Livy xxxii, 17, 2 where a ransom of 300, presumably Macedonian, nummi is involved. * Livy does not use quinarii; for victoriati in Livy see pp. 7 n. 2 and 629. 6 The extraordinary view of L. H. Neatby, AJA 1951, 241, that bigati were victoriati does not require refutation. * I believe that in general Livy's reports of sums of money go back to official records (compare K. Gast, Die zensorischen Bauberichte, esp. 128-9) > for argentum Oscense see NC 1969,82-3, cf. nurnmus in Livy xl, 47, 10; as far as cistophori are concerned, there does not seem to me yet to be decisive evidence for the date of their inception. 630

Roman coinage in Livy

Although not used as official Roman units of reckoning till c. 141, sestertii occur on six occasions in Livy, apparendy always in passages deriving from Valerius Annas,1 who may readily be regarded as mistakenly using the terminology of his own time. It is, however, not immediately apparent what original sums of money his sums of sestertii represent. One sum, the more dian 120,000,000 sestertii carried in the triumph of Aemilius Paullus (Livy xlv, 40,1), appears as a sum of over 6,000 talents in Polybius xviii, 35, 4. The first figure converts to 30,000,000 denarii, the second figure to 36,000,000 denarii; since these two sums are of the same order of magnitude, it is reasonable to hold that Valerius Antias and Polybius are substantially in agreement, but differ over precisely which items carried in the triumph are to be included in the total cash valuation.2 It follows that Valerius Antias may be taken as having carefully converted sums which he found in other units of reckoning into sestertii, not as having simply written across sums of denarii, etc., as the same number of sestertii. If this is right, we can see diat the sum of 30,000 sestertii in Livy xlv, 15, 2 is of considerable significance; it is die value of the minimum amount of property held by a freedman who was relieved from any restriction on tribal registration at the census of 169-168 and is likely, being an assessment, to have been expressed originally in asses. In Valerius Antias' day one sestertius was wordi four asses; the amount appearing in records made in 169-168 is therefore likely to have been 120,000 asses. Now not only is it inherendy probable that the property assessment which qualified a freedman to be registered in whatever tribe he wished was that of die prima classis (note diat die locupletiores liberti of Gaius iii, 42 and Inst. iii, 7,2 have die property of a member of die prima classis); die figure of 120,000 asses for the minimum property assessment of a member of die prima classis persistendy appears as an alternative to die figure given by Polybius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Livy.3 It seems to me to follow diat in 169-168 die figure of 120,000 asses was operational and that it was reduced between dien and (say) 150, when Polybius was putting togedier his study of Roman institutions ;4 diefigureof 100,000 asses (apart from being taken over by Dionysius and Livy) remained in force to be converted to the same number of sestertii widi die retariffing of the denarius in c. 141 (see p. 622). 1

Livy xxviii, 9, 16 with A. Klotz, Livius, 185; xlv, 15,2, with Klotz, 21 and 47; 40, 1; 43, 8; 44,14, with Klotz, 21 and 47; xlv, 4,1 follows a passage derived from Valerius Antias, Klotz, 95, and should clearly also be attributed to him. ' For varying computations in Greek sources see commentary of F. W. Walbank on Polybius xviii, 35, 4; remaining Latin sources exaggerate hopelessly. * Pliny, NH xxxiii, 43; Fesrus, s.v. Infra classem; cf. Schol. Bob. goSt; I take the 125,000 asses of Gellius vi (vii), 13, 1 to be a mere mistake for 120,000 asses; given this, it is significant that the figure is associated by Gellius with Cato, active in the period to which I wish to assign a property qualification for the prima classis of 120,000 asses. 4 I am unable to suggest a reason for the change, though it is worth recalling that Cato thought that the numbers of the holders of equi publici should be increased (ORF3, p. 37).

631

Roman units of reckoning under the Republic v

'NUMMUS'

Apparently ef South Italian or Sicilian origin (Varro, LL v, 173; Pollux ix, 79), the word nummus in Latin originally meant simply a coin, perhaps with the overtones of a standard coin. It seems to refer to a bronze unit when it occurs as a mark of value in the coinage of Teate and Venusia;1 it may mean a didrachm, an as or simply a coin in Plautus;2 it means a drachm when it occurs in Terence.3 Early official uses of nummi in the sense of sestertii are careful to use the phrase nummi sestertii or its Greek equivalent in full;4 the earliest certain use of nummus by itself to mean sestertius is in Lucilius, followed by Cicero, in Verr.2 v, 141-2.5 So the unspecified vopioi, 6(vo(jia and TSTpdvona in the Delos accounts of the early second century onwards cannot refer to Roman coins, but must refer to Greek coins, presumably West Greek;6 the standard coins at Tarentum, Heraclea and Syracuse were vopoi, at the last of which multiples of v6\xo\ were struck in large quantities under Hieron II. 1

BMC Italy, Teate 1; Venusia 19; cf. ILLRP 504, 674; J. Heurgon, BSFN 1963, 278. The Iguvine Tables move from reckoning in nummi and dupondii to reckoning in asses; I see no way of deciding whether nummi are here bronze or silver units, but suspect the former, contra J. Heurgon, inProblemi dell'Umbria, 116. Nummi are now also attested at Rossano di Vaglio, M. Lejeune, RAL 1971, 667. 2 Didrachm - True. 561; perhaps Pseud. 809; Rud. 1323-44; as - Most. 357; cf. T. Frank, AJP 1933, 370; A. Stazio, Numismatica 1948,19. The view of G. P. Shipp, Glotta 1955,144, that nummus may mean sestertius in Plautus is to be rejected, R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 148-9. 3 Heaut. tim. 606. * See p. 624 n. 7; add FIRA i, 7, line 48; 8, line 66; ILLRP 518 (105 B.C.); ILLRP 465 (Sullan). ILLRP 464 (Sullan) is too fragmentary for it to be clear what monetary notation appeared with the first figures to be mentioned. 4 Compare ILLRP 465a (68 B.C.); Vetter 2 (Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae - later than the Lex Latina, M. Torelli, Arch. Class. 1969, 2, therefore first century); Vetter 233 (second century according to Vetter - doubtful). The Lucilius texts are 6s6W, 1049W, cf. 1050-51W. I believe that the progression of coins in Lucilius 500-1M: 'Praeterquam in pretio: primus (modius) semisse, secundus nummo, tertius iam pluris quam totus medimnus' is semis, sestertius (4 asses) and much more than 3 asses, the price of a medimnus if a modius cost a semis. The sense of nummus in Lucilius 327M, 440M and 492M is ambiguous. Attikon occurs at 1259M. « The compilers of the Delos accounts used the terms Sivdptov, fjuiov and dcxo- 7)> but in 48 he was borrowing from Cicero,7 and Caesar claimed that Asia was ruined by his exactions (BC iii, 32, 5; cf. iii, 3,2); he himself was no better off; despite the 390,000,000 denarii carried in his triumph (Appian, BC ii, 421), he felt himself obliged partially to restore portoria in Italy and to reduce the number of people receiving the corn-dole; in 45 he sold public land (Dio xliii, 47,4); he was also thought to have plans for introducing an inheritance tax (Dio lv, 25, 5). At his death, there were 175,000,000 denarii in the temple of Ops, soon all spent by Antonius and Dolabella (Nic. Dam., FGH 90, fr. 130 = Caes. 28,110; Velleius ii, 60,4; Obsequens 68; Cicero, ad Att. xiv, 14,5-7; 18,1; Phil, i, 17; ii, 35 and 92-3; iii, 30; v, 11 and 15; etc.); Antonius was then obliged to resort to the sale of immunities to raise cash (Phil, i, 24; ii, 35 etc.). The revenues from the East due at the end of 45 had been kept by Octavian (p. 617 n. 3), those due at the end of 44 were diverted by Brutus (Asia - Cicero, Phil, x, 24; xiii, 32; Appian, BC iii, 259; iv, 18 and 316; Dio xlvii, 21,3; Syria - Brutus in Cicero, ad Brut, ii, 3,5; i, 11,1; Plutarch, Brut. 25; cf. Velleius ii, 62, 3) and it seems that 43 opened with the treasury empty (Cicero, ad Att. xvi, 14,4). Letters of Cicero in June and July 43 refer to the desperate state of the finances of the Republic (jam. xii, 30,4; ad Brut, i, 18, 5; cf. Dio xlvi, 31,3; 1

M. Gelzer, Caesar, 123-4. Caesar apparently started without anything in hand, see Cicero, ad Att. vi, 1, 25, with commentary of D. R. Shackleton Bailey, for his debt to Pompeius; cf. vii, 12, 2. 3 There is a hopeless clash between Pliny and Orosius vi, 15, 5 (4,13s pounds of gold, 900,000 pounds of silver). 4 The aerarium doubtless contained more than the proceeds of the vicesima libertatis, the distinctive source of income of the aerarium sanctius - we happen to hear that Caesar found 1,500 pounds of silphium in the aerarium (Pliny, NH xix, 40). 1 Pompeius was authorised to take money from the aerarium (Appian, BC ii, 135; Dio xli, 3, 4 and 6, 3; Caesar, BC i, 6, 3) and clearly took some (Ahenobarbus was provided with money at Corfinium, Caesar, BC i, 23, 4); when Rome was evacuated, the door of the aerarium was left open (Caesar, BC i, 14, 1), but soon closed (Cicero, ad Att. vii, 12, 2), apparently without using the keys; at this stage there was still money in the aerarium (Cicero, ad Att. vii, 21,2), which was eventually taken by Caesar (Cicero, ad Att. x, 4, 8; 8, 6; Dio xli, 17,1-2; Appian, BC ii, 164; Plutarch, Caes. 35; Pomp. 62; Fionas ii, 13 (iv, 2), 21; Orosius vi, 15, 5; Pliny, NH xxxiii, 55-6; Lucan iii, 112-168; the incident is ignored in Caesar, BC i, 33, 3). • Cicero, ad An. x, 14,1, for fears of proscriptions to raise cash; see also Dio xlii, so. ' Cicero, ad Att. xi, 2, 3; 3, 3; ct.JRS 1970, 46-7 n. 66. 1

639

Coinage and finance Appian, BC iii, 269; Cicero, ad Caes. tun. fr. 5).1 It is no wonder that no coinage was struck at Rome in the latter part of 44 arid the earlier part of 43 (see pp. 492-3 and 94-5)-2 From 43 to 31 With the creation of die Triumvirate on 27 November 43, die history of die treasury of die Republic is effectively at an end. The proscriptions partly solved the immediate problems of the Triumvirs over money (see commentary on no. 495); more long-term measures were the complete restoration of portoria in Italy and die introduction of direct taxation (Appian, BC iv, 19 and 132-146; Dio xlvii, 14, 2 - in die year 43; Appian, BC v, 282 and 540; Dio xlvii, 16-17; xlviii, 34; xlix, 15,3; 1, 10, 4 - in die years 42-31). Both Antonius and Octavian eventually found diemselves in financial difficulties; the last gold issues of the latter were on a reduced weight standard,3 die Legionary issue of denarii of the former was debased (see p. 569). Only when Octavian returned to Rome widi die wealdi of Egypt (to which Antonius had evidendy not had full access) was die spectre of inopia pecuniaefinallyremoved. Summary The treasury was empty in 213-212 and again at die end of 89; by die end of diis period, dierefore, all revenue accruing during it had been spent. Between 88 and 63, revenue was sometimes inadequate to cover expenses and never large enough to build up a surplus. After 62, a surplus seems to have existed, but diis had been exhausted by the end of 44; again, dierefore, all revenue accruing during the period had been spent by die end of it. II

SIZE OF ISSUES OF COINAGE

If it is accepted that die coinage of die Roman Republic was issued in order to pay the expenses of die state, it is clearly desirable to know how large die various issues were. Since diere is no ancient source which records diis explicidy, die information must be extracted from diose coins which survive. It is a fairly simple matter to count a sample of surviving coins from each issue. But it cannot be taken for granted diat all issues are now represented by the same percentage of dieir original bulk.4 Nor does diis procedure give us any idea of die absolute size of an issue, since there is no agreed figure for die survival rate of ancient coinages. These are dierefore die two basic problems which must be solved. 1 See Cicero,/am. xi, 10, 5, for D . Brutus using his own wealth. * The deliberations de moneta in early 43 (see p. 617 n. 3) will have come to a negative conclusion; a small amount of ready cash was available to be decreed to Octavian early in the year (Cicero, Phil, v, 53; vii, 10) and to Brutus in mid-summer (Cicero, fam. xi, 24, 2). ' M. Bahrfeldt, GoldmUnzenprOgung, pp. 185-6. • With the coinage of the Roman Republic from 211 onwards, however, I regard it as probable that the survival rate was fairly uniform; we are dealing with a coinage which circulated over a very wide area without interruption for a very long time.

640

Size of issues of coinage Relative size of issues The most obvious way to confirm or correct an estimate of the relative size of issues obtained by counting surviving coins is to count the dies used to produce them. If an issue surviving in x specimens used y dies and an issue surviving in 2x specimens used 2y dies, there is clearly some likelihood that the first issue was half the size of the second.1 But we are still no nearer knowing what relation the number of dies from which specimens survive to be observed bears to the number of dies which were actually used. Fortunately, for the Roman Republic it is possible to solve this problem. A. Denarii and quinarii from c. 157 onwards A number of Republican moneyers were considerate enough to use for denarii and quinarii numbered or lettered sequences of dies; and it is possible to observe without undue difficulty that in some cases a number or a letter never has more than one die.2 Now although the sequences in question are rarely complete, it is clear, for instance, that a sequence which goes with occasional gaps from I to LXXX is unlikely ever to have extended very far beyond LXXX (cf. pp. 588-9). It is therefore possible to compare, for the issues under discussion, the number of dies from which specimens survive to be observed with a theoretical maximum. It emerges from the available examples that the first figure is consistently some 90 % of the second figure. We may therefore assert with some confidence that if we count the number of dies used to strike the surviving specimens of an issue of denarii or quinarii during the Republic, the total will not be far from the theoretical maximum. Two problems remain, one practical, one theoretical. The practical problem is that to count all the dies used to strike during the Republic would be the work of several lifetimes. Tables L and Li therefore display the occurrence, in a representative sample of hoards, of all issues of denarii and quinarii struck under the Republic from c. 157 onwards; it is then possible to estimate the numbers of dies used for issues where they have not been counted by comparing them with issues where the dies have been counted. The theoretical problem is how to explain the discrepancy between the theoretical maximum number of dies for an issue and the number of dies actually attested. There seem to exist three possibilities. Either the missing dies were never used, or they were used and broke immediately, or their whole product disappeared from circulation without leaving a trace. The last possibility seems unlikely for every case; we should have to envisage all coins from all missing dies being lost to us 1

My remarks in NC 1965,153, are unduly pessimistic; the product of individual dies doubtless varied greatly, but these variations would average out in a large issue. * Lettered sequences of dies for bronze are unfortunately never of this type; for the different systems see p. 584. Dies used for plated coins are of course irrelevant in this connection, since the coins in question are to be regarded as ancient forgeries (see p. 560).

[cont. on p. 693] 641

Coinage and finance TABLE

L. Size of denarius issues, 157-31 B.c.

S

h

43 197/1 198/1 199/1 200/1

Anonymous with Victory 157Anonymous with Dioscuri 156 Saranus 155 Natta 155

201/1 202/1 203/1 204/1 205/1

C. Scribonius C. Talna C. Maianius L. Saufeius P.Sula

154 154 153 152

206/1 207/1 208/1 209/1

Safra Flaus Natta L. Itius C. Iunius

150 150 149 149 149

M. Saranus

Q. Libo L. Pitio C. Lucanus L. Cupiennius

148 148 148 147 147

219/la-b C. Antestius 219/ld-e C. Antestius 220/1 M. Iunius 221/1 Annius Rufus 222/1 Anonymous

146 146 145 144 143

21O/1

214/1 215/1 216/1 217/1 218/1

24 ? 3 8

30

6 3

96

?

13 7

10

7

?

3

3 8

1 1

29

10

2

1

33

13

2

•

2 .

9

1 1

43

12

6

3

2

5 .

4

5 7 3

9 14 9

9 47

11

4 8 3

7

3

2

2

9 6

8

7

6

3

4 7 9 6 4

2

3 3

10

? 4

5 6 . 9 6

4

223/1 224/1 225/1 226/1 227/1

C. Trigeminus L. Iulius L. Nomentanus C. Titinius M. Rusticus

142 141 141 141 140

228/1 228/2 229/1

C. Flaccus C. Flaccus M. Cota

140 140

2

•

6 4

15

5

7 9 3

39 35

10 10

1

6

7

13

6 3 3

69 .

8

6 3

3

2

1

5

1

26

7

4

3

7 9 . 3

6

2

30

4 .

35

16 19 26 13

3 6

4

5

2 2

4

20

3

11

4 32 14

1

4 8

11

1

2 1

6 6 7

4

.

4

2.

5

7 . 7 4 4

2

35 26 47

2

.

11

8 15

1

55

3

1

1

66 9

•

6

•

21

6

•

16 3 4

t

2 1

38 14 1

12 12 ,

1 1 .

3 3 .

1

6

1

1

1

•

2

•

•

2 2

2

1

6 •

3

•

•

•

•

•

6

( ,

2

The Syracuse hoard contains also three uncertain pieces of the Narbo issue.

642

2 2

22

40

139

9 ?

69 54

1

2

1

•

10

11

, 6 7 5 2 1 . . 1 1

Size of issues of coinage

I 26 ? 5

3 ?

?

1

1

4

2

6

2

3

?

63 89

[42] [59]

2 1 1

m 24 134 176 125

[74] [16] [89] [117] [83]

114 92 136 4 84

[76] [61]

92 112 123 82 110

[61] [75] [82] [55] [73]

23 157 181 36 44

15 [105] [121] [24] [29]

65 41 4 16 5

[43] [27] 5 16 6

3

8

2

3

11

4

2

14

4

•

13

3

3

9 ?

2 1

12

6

5

2

n n

7 4

4 3 2 1

2

1

15 26

3

2 1

3

3 l l l

2 1 1 2 »

1 2 1

6 5

7 7

7

2

l

3 2

2

4

l

1 2

7

•

. 2

7

•

•

•

2

3

1

6

2 .

3 3 3 3

2

3

4 9 5

l

l

2 1

1

2

•

2 1

#

l

2 2 . 1

3

4 6

4 9

4 4

•

i l

2 •

•

1

2

. l

1

2

2 1

2 2 2

1 1

2

1

1 2

1

1 1

1

[56]

(11)

7

(72)

[48]

12

10

The Awetrana hoard contains also two pieces of no. 299/ia or lb, one piece of no. 317/3 or no. 318/1 and one piece of no. 393/ia or lb. * In the case of all hoards which have been published and for which inspection has led me to correct the published record, the correct figures have simply been used for the Table without explicit note. For bibliography see Coin hoards, nos. 131-2,149,157,161-2,227,233,249,252,311,309,351,365, 417.440.45«» 475.488,493. S°5-«» 5 » - 3 -

643

Coinage and finance

LtO

TABLE L (COM.)

230/1 231/1

A. Spurilius C. Renius

139 138

232/1 233/1 234/1 235/1 236/1

Cn. Gellius P. Paetus Ti. Veturius Sex. Pompeius M. Tampilus

138 138 137 137 137

237/1 238/1 239/1 240/1 241/1

Cn. Trio L. Gragulus C. Serveilius C. Trigeminus L. Trebanius

136 136 136 135 135

242/1 243/1 244/1 245/1 246/1

C. Augurinus Ti. Augurinus C. Geminus M. Marcius C. Numitorius

135 134 134 134 133

247/1 248/1 249/1 250/1 252/1

P. Calpurnius L. Minucius P. Maenius M. Geminus L. Albinus

133 133 132 132 131

253/1 254/1 255/1 256/1 257/1

L. Opeimius M. Opeimius M. Acilius Q. Metellus M. Vargunteius

131 131 130 130 130

258/1 259/1 260/1 261/1 262/1

Sex. Caisar Q. Pilipus T. Cloulius Cn. Domitius Anonymous

129 129 128 128 128

263/1 264/1 265/1

M. Metellus4 C. Serveilius Q. Maximus

127 127

4

127

•

•

t

5

4

1

19

11

5

3 6

3

39

12

3

2

10

5

4 7 8

13 10

4 6

12

43 60 91 170

18 17 3

2

2

23

11

8

121

23

11

73

10 10 1

11

7 162 4 52

26 13

4

2 2

12 12 2

1

6

1

20

2 2 2

•

24

46 28 69

21

58

29 3 6 8 13

2

4 3 8 •

3 7

11

•

5

1

8 15 15 25 4

4 3

5 3 4

2

10

•

23 39 63 64 28

3

8

30 32 25

1

5

4 .

41

4 3 7 7

•

65

17

4

6 6 6 28

2

•

7 78 5O 42 4 36 1

4 .

•

1

•

3 1

5 3

1

7 4 8 4 2

4 4

3 4 5

•

•

1

4

2 10

11 21 1

t

2

•

1E 1

17

t

•

§

94

7 t

.2}

1

3

•

-2

8

5 •

«

Ricd

0

Banz

ftj

Petat

Date

•g

Issue

£ %

1 10

8 11

13 6 4 6 2

3 5 1

20 12

3 9 4 6

6 6

2

2

3

6

3

The 36 specimens of this issue in the Riccia hoard are clearly afreak- the issue was doubtless struck from rather less than 44 obverse dies.

644

tO

I Ul Ov VUI OV

OV

'

'f >' OUIUI^UI sllyiOOslVO

i *~^ »™~t»""» - J O v OO f >*Ul V5 O

I'M •

U, OOUsl w M N j 0 0

>•*

•

tO

•*

^ '^->* A O V9 OvU M » M0O00

M U i A OUl l t l l

I-*

U) M. Ul * . K)

»» »» Ov •* to

•

s]

•

U ) U | W ^ Ul

4>> M U ) • U

to •

•» 10 to • •

to U> to to •

MUlUlU N

0 0 OWO •» -fc-

»*»*»*

to »*

N**tJ*t

M »* .

•

AUtlUI

MvlMUl «

to

U >• O\ 0O 4k *

W (JUi

10 O U0 .£.

(0 •

A '• >' x KI A vj Ul OOslOVVO

10

W 10

00-J • *

Ul

h>

Ul •

tO Ul Ul •

* • * .

*r * " t T r-^ Ul f O U l v l Ul ^ U I U I O

| * U| Q iy|

Ov tO 'oSsT'oN s i s i O Ul Ov

Hfc t^ O O

10 • M.

O VU Ui lil

o vo KI •» '

COM)'

•

IO * . • »

M 00U • J U

Q

•

.

10 s i Ul

t* t* »» M O 0 0 O H > O

^

iyi to vy> ooi^i

n

.

>-» •

Ui s I U ^> VO

-fc N •* VO

to

to

Ul

KI Ul v l

Number of obverse dies

Total

Bagheria3

Aquileia

Terranova

Gallignano

Bourgueil

Maille

Vigatto

Seica Mica

Awetrana2

Alvignano

San Giuliano

Casaleone

Maccare

Pontecorvo

Monte Codruzzo

I

Coinage and finance

JO

eg

i 1E

Date

Issue

Numbe

TABLE L (COM.)

266/1 267/1

C. Cassius T. Quinctius

126 126

68 36

268/1 269/1 270/1 271/1 273/1

N. Pictor C. Metellus M. Laeca Mn. Balbus Q. Labeo

126 125 125 125 124

7

274/1 275/1 276/1 277/1 278/1

C. Cato M. Fannius M.Carbo Q. Rufus C. Plutius

123 123 122 122 121

279/1 280/1 281/1 282/1 282/2

Carbo M. Tullius M. Philus M. Scaurus L. Cosconius

121 120

282/3 282/4 282/5 283/ia 283/lb

C. Malleolus L. Pomponius L. Licinus Q. Marcius, etc. C.F.L.R.Q.M.

118 118 118 117

284/ia 284/ib 285/1 285/2 286/1

M. Calidius, etc. Cn. Foulvius, etc. Cn. Domitius Q. Curtius, etc. M. Silus

116 116

287/1 289/1 290/1 291/1 292/1

Anonymous M. Cipius C. Font Mn. Lepidus P. Nerva

"4 114 113

293/1 294/1 295/1 296/1 297/1

L. Philippus T. Deidius L. Torquatus Cn. Blasio Ti.Q.

112 112 112 111 111

10

3

14

4

5

7

1

4 •

I 1 I I

4

11 1

•

15

5 7

5 3

4

13

21

2 11

36

4 4 24 30 19 16 12

7 18 8

19 16

5 5

12 10

8

18

4

8

"9

27

118 118

4

27 4

3

5

13 24 60 28 2

2

3 8

15

3

6

•

• .

•

•

5 3

5

3

1

"7

•

"5 "5 "5

•

#

"3 112

•

646

•

1

13

1

4 7

4 3 7

8 8

•

•

•

1

2 10 10

15 31

15

9 67 9

6

7

11 11

30

19

7

14 3?

7

1

12

2 2 2 10

t

1 ,

9

6

2

8 3 4 15 3

^

^H^ ^k^ ^H^

00UIAMM

^ ^

M

•» U l • » • » • »

•*

»»

vl OOf U 00

^ A ^1^^

Ul

M

^ ^ ^fcj^

• M

-

•» U l • K)

0\ i

M N Ul

»* M A

^^ (^ 00 ^£ (^

^O ^A ^^1 O£ ^J

•» M O* >*

" C A O C

A

oo oo'a'oN o

>l » U I W

»* U l • i^

••Mi-'

K » tl

•»

Ul

^J i * ^^ ^^ OJ

UT*OO\O ON-J

» w -

Ul •

00-J W £ O

S

^^ ^A ^A ft£

M UI vj oo

** ** »* 00 O OtUI

Ul M U l

M Ul •

Ul

00 O\ OvVW O

>• f U l l ' U I

UlUI O W « O\ ' M

' •»

oo •* >» • * M O MOO-JU,

>»

Ul

W f

00 •» \O • •

"J •

A- A N '

M

-

.

l *

* . O0 >c-.00.

#

•

4^ •*

Number of obverse dies

Total

Bagheria*

Aquileia

Terranova

Gallignano

Bourgueil

Vigatto

Seica Mica

Awetrana1

Alvignano

San Giuliano

N •» K U> O

Maccarese

Pontecorvo

Monte Codruzzo

Casaleone

O • ~J • • *

1st Ul t* M M M * •

** ** U l U) •> » K

U U I U l I've

» M Ul A Ul * M M «-)

M

M WfUIUI

Ul 0 0 * .

M V l OOUI •»

MiOUi 6 M

U l U l O OO*.

M

>»

* . - J O 00 •»

Coinage and finance

z

Date

Issue

ber

TABLE L (cottt.)

298/i 299/la 299/lb 300/1 301/1

L. Caesius Ap. Claudius, etc. T . Manlius, etc. C. Pulcher P. Laeca

111 110 110 109 109

302/1 303/1 304/1 305/1 306/1

L. Cilo Mn. Aquillius L. Memmius Q. Cerco L. Flaccus

108 108 108 108 107

307/la Mn. Fonteius6 307/1 b-d Mn. Fonteius5 308/ia M. Herennius 308/ib M. Herennius A. Manlius9 309/1

107 107 107 107

a s

E

CO

6

1

27 37

14\ 15/

89

25

14

35

10

1

10

45

22

25

2

3

1

19 15

5

8 8 14

3

10

6 7

7

2

{5

19

6

16

•

•

33

.

6

310/1 311/1 312/1 313/1 314/1

Cn. Sisena L. Asiagenus C. Sulpicius L. Memmius L. Cota

106 106 106 105

17

5

1

2

9 6

6 1

3 8 30 23 3

316/1 317/1 317/2 317/3 318/ia

L. L. L. L. C.

Balbus Saturninus Saturninus Saturninus Caldus

105 104 104 104 104

39

33

22

1

1

•

28 4

18 3

38 •

318/ib 319/1 320/1 321/1

C. Caldus Q. Thermus L. Caesar L. Caeicianus C. Fabius'

104 103 103

12 19

2

4

10

15 ,

102 102

8 •

2 1 1

5

C. Fabius' L. Iulius M. Rufus

102 101 101

322/ia 322/ib 323/1 6 6 7

5 6 20

2

10

5 9

•1

•J

3 1

This issue is surprisingly fully represented in the hoards, considering the small number of dies used to strike it; there is no obvious explanation. The prolific representation of these rare issues in the Berchidda hoard is clearly a freak. The two parts of this issue emerge very differently represented in the hoards; the picture might be more normal if the distribution of the pieces in the Monte Codruzzo hoard were known.

648

•

•»

•»

4». .

UJ •

i^\ OV 4k

O to OT M 00 •*

• 4k 10 UJ M

(OMtO

•» •

H>

0 0 10

UJ >-»

.—i.—. N , . UiONV0(yivO 00 UJ N U I U i

to'uj i^i •», OO ly
• 10 o v - J 4k

-^1 to to

10 Ov M

4k M »O

M M

M M UJ

-UJIAOUJ

10- U U l H

M

00 M 4k

«g .

vo •

•»

00

00

O\

I—lUI 'V l\ 4k ^ I - ^ M M I J ! I O O O O O

to to •U 10 I UJ to I •>> O

tO M •

• * to •

4kOV-

M

to to •

U ) OO-

kOtO-

U> tJ •

M t o o -

OOv

M to 4k to M O V

to

to

K> •* 1 0 N

>•

to 10

^-, M M M A UJU)M4kM ~J Kl O UJ O

o\ 00 NVOOv N VOOO MN)

•»

N

•

UJ VA fc>

Ov •» •» O O

,_, M M ,—N^> totOIOUJM OOVO0OM

Ul O\ OVui

tOtOIOMVO - J O\ 00 O O

00O M

4k

MM K)4>vo UJ to

Gallignano

Bourgueil

Mailld

Vigatto

Seica Mica

Awetrana2

Alvignano

San Giuliano

Casaleone

Maccarese

Pontecorvo

Monte Codruzzo

Number of obverse dies

Total

Bagheria3

Aquileia

Terranova

r—, UJ 4k UJ r—i OOOONUl OOUi >J O O

VA004^VOUJ

M

- V ^ M t O M

• UJ UJ 4k M

•

to

M

•

.

M

M

M •

M

SOOlMMOt --IMSOO00

.

N * .

-sl4kM~J4k OOSOUlMM

4k

00 •

Ul M M

'

O04t

&

M M U» •

«s| M •

M

M 00

M M

«4> N

M 4k • M

M M

M O S M M U t .

M M -

4k U l 4k

S

f W

M 00 "6

M M

M M . ^ M -5 M

4k

^ ^ J O O O V M M ul o » M O M U i - J

U. • U l

M

MsOMUiUI O O O U i O

Mm so M M4kUIUI00

M U I ' M

.

M M - U I

M

•

M U I 4k 4k • U l '

• -s) 4k

• • O> M

•

• Ul 4k M

Ul 004k

M

Ov M

M M

•

•

V J M O S M O I MOOOUiOO

4k MM4k UIMSOSOM

M

M

Ul • Ul Ui Ul

Ul • Ul Ul M

M • M M Ul

•

M

Ut

M

M

Maccarese

Pontecorvo

Monte Codruzzo

U I SO -qu

Ului 4kO\

M

M Ul

MM

M •

4k 4k

Number of obverse dies

Total

Bagheria'

Aquileia

Terranova

Gallignano

Bourgueil

Maille

Vigatto

Seica Mica

Awetrana*

Alvignano

San Giuliano

W • Casaleone

Ul

M 0s

MM OO

Coinage and finance

Date

L. Dossenus L. C. Memies

87 87

350A/1 350A/2 351/1 352/1 353/1

Gargonius, etc. Anonymous M. Fannius, etc. L. Bursio0 Mn. Fonteius

86 86 86 85 85

353/2 354/1 356/1 357/1 359/2

Mn. Fonte'is C. Macer P. Crassipes C. Norbanus L. Sulla

85 84 84 83

360/1 361/1 362/1 363/1 364/1

P. Crepusius, etc. P. Crepusius C. Limetanus L. Censorinus Q. Balbus

82 82 82 82 83

365/1 366/1-3

C. Flaccus C. Annius, etc.

366/4 369/1

C. Annius, etc. L.Sulla M. Metellus

370/1 371/1 372/1 372/2 374/1

C. Serveilius Q. Maxiiaus A. AJbirus A. Albinus Q.C.M.P.I.

374/2 375/2 376/1 377/1 378/1

IMPER Q EX.S.C L. Strabo C. Capito

OO OO

379/1 379/2

L. Procilius L. Procilius

80 80

a CQ

3 S

£ S

fc E

t co

"d

c m

1 12 19 12

3 19 1

14 7

OO OO

348/3 349/1

3 6 7 / I J 3J 5

L (com.)

3

Issue

Numb

TABLE

" The 167 specimens of this issue in the Monte Codruzzo hoard are somewhat more than one would expect on the basis of its occurrence in the other hoards in the Table.

652

U>

>* U )

•-•

•

*»

ri

•»

h* *»- Ul

•»•» l-'Ul M U I O O O

•»

Ul

Ul M

Ul*

N

-J

Ul

00 00

U l N>

•» o o u

A7>'

A

vo

OJ U)

Ul

00\OVO>* KOOOOOO O

*

>-

•»

Kl M M •»

ooui *

f

u? UJ Ov

4 » o ooui O O O O U l O v

uiuiUvn » N O v O O O

Total OKIKIUIUI O v v l M O v O

h» U l Ul Ov -b. >* Ov UlMOOUlOO

Number of obverse dies

Aquileia

Terranova

»* M h* ^IOUIUIKI 0 * 0 0 0 0 0

* ^ •» •»

00

Bagheria3

Gallignano

Maille

Vigatto

Seica Mica

Ul Ul •

uiov K>

Kl

Bourgueil

N

•»

Avvetrana2

O\ Ov (• v l

-fe. •

O OON >-

Alvignano

San Giuliano

Casaleone

o u t Kl >-> fc* t-h^lOvttl OvOOUlUlUl

lOUUl •>

Ul

VO vo • Ul

M 10

Maccarese

Pontecorvo

Monte Codruzzo

Kl »

O

'

-1^ N - J

MUI

•

•» Ul OOQ

OOU) 4>. OO

-b. to -t- vo

Ul Ul Ul O\

Ul.tx-

O«Wl O

O \ - 4 •» OJ

OOUi M to Ul

U>

•

M

^j

»* Ul **

vo ooui **

-*>. •*

ooo<J

4 i OO U M

to

o\

M. (sj

IF

Coinage and finance TABLE L (cm.)

I 80

380/1 382/1 383/1

C. Poblicius C. Balbus Ti. Claudius

79 79

384/1 385/1 385/2 385/3 385/4

L. Papius M. Volteius M. Volteius M. Volteius M. Volteius10

79 78 78 78 78

385/5 386/1 387/1 388/1 389/1

M. Volteius L. Cassius L. Flaccus P. Satrienus L. Rustius

78 78 77 77

L. Trio

76

L.Trio

76 75

390/1 390/2 391/1 391/2 391/3

C. Maxsumus C. Maxsumus C. Maxsumus

76

75

75

392/la 392/lb 393/« 393/ib 394/1

L. Mensor" L. Mensor Cn. Lentulus Cn. Lentulus C. Postumius

75 75 75

395/1 396/1 397/1 398/1 399/1

L. Sabula L. Cestianus P. Lentulus Q. Rufus Q. Rocus

74 74 74

400/1 401/1 403/1 404/1 405/1

L. Naso Mn. Aquillius Kalenus, etc. T. Sabinus M. Cestianus

71 71 70 70 69

10 11

75 74

73 72

The 37 specimens of this part of the issue in the Maccarese hoard are clearly a freak - it is no bigger than no. 385/3. This part of the issue is hopelessly under-represented in the hoards; there is no obvious explanation.

654

W

K) • »

H

-4

•»

•»

O (MU

k»

0O

»»

fcl

•

Ui

U)

.

u> n ^

•

U»

K>

O

•

nk

00*.

H

H

0 0 •*

•

O »

•»

O O O O ^S ^ t ^ ^

w

K)

O

M

Ul

O

•

^ ^

^^M^

•» •» o ^ ^

UW

^^^J

^^^^

O O

tO W09 00 O Ui O

UlW

^^4

*.

Ui

O

U>

(0

^ ^ ^

10

00*.

O

M

(J

Number of obverse dies

Total

Bagheria3

Aquileia

Terranova

Gallignano

Bourgueil

Maille

Vigatto

Seica Mica

Awetrana*

Alvignano

San Giuliano

Casaleone

Maccarese

Pontecorvo

Monte Codruzzo

I

Coinage and finance

Rome

405/2 405/3 405/4 405/5 406/1

M. Cestianus M. Cestianus M. Cestianus M. Cestianus P. Galba

69 69 69 69 69

• •

407/1 407/2 408/1 409/1 409/2

C. Geta C. Geta C. Piso M. Cestianus M. Cestianus

68 68 67 67 67

.

410/1 410/2 410/3 410/4 410/5

Q. Musa Q. Musa Q. Musa Q. Musa Q. Musa

66 66 66

410/6 410/7 410/8 410/9 410/10

Q. Musa Q. Musa Q. Musa Q. Musa Q. Musa

66

411/1 412/1 413/1 414/1 415/1

L. Torquatus L. Fabatus Longinus L. Brocchus Paullus Lepidus

65 64 63 63

416/1 417/1 418/1 418/2 419/1

Libo Libo, etc. M. Frugi M. Frugi M. Lepidus

62 62 61 61 61

419/2 419/3 420/1 420/2 421/1

M. Lepidus M. Lepidus P. Ypsaeus P. Ypsaeus Sufenas

61 61 60 60

422/la 422/lb

M. Scaurus, etc. M. Scaurus, etc.

58 58

z

Issue

Date

TABLE L (COM.)

•

66

66 66

66 66 66

.

62

59 . .

656

u •3

2

S

E

oo

«

i*

rUl'UIUI

r - '

Ul . Ul tsl

o\ O.

M x

•»

OOOO^l^UI

tsl

>-> U l U l

OOO

•

Ul

tsl

Kl Ul

-fc. tsl

OVH*

tsl

•»

• * tsl

5. &,

•»

•*

u>

tsl

l-»

tsl O» >*

O

7 7 " ^ - ? A

M

^ . ^ X O i ^ w

«

A A A _ 1 7

•>

^

OUivJi^UI

tslUiJ^OO

OOVO Ul --J

0 0 •»

tsl .

to •*

K>

o o oo tsl u< H>

tsl 4 k

I " O

•

UitslluiUI

tsl

tsl •* • • V© 0 0 O VO

HI

Ul

tsl CMO

tsl •»

•» •» * N

U l \O 0 0 ^ 1

00

tsl

.

U

•

I

^ ^ W W ^

i1

-

N .

.

A A A A A

«*Ul

•

•* .

.

-

•» •

•

(O •

•»

h> l ^ l ^ >» M.

A A A A A

v) Ul OOUl U

•

» . | s l - h >

tot'*

*

•

VO 0 0

Ul

'

_ _

Ul N

7T A

N M ~-J