evidence for the importation and monetar

8/16/2019 Evidence for the Importation and Monetar

1/76

Evidence for the importation

and monetary use of blocksof foreign and obsolete

bronze coins

in the ancient world

Suzanne Frey !Kupper Clive Stannard

Infrastructure and Distribution

in Ancient Economies

Vienna 28 – 31 October 2014


2/76

• Athens Agora: 12,842 coins " 5th # 1st c. BC

$

Athens: 9,737 coins

Nearby states: 1,172 coinsFurther afield: 761 = 6.3%

• Morgantina: 8,711 coins, less Rome or later coins,

Sicily, Rhegion and Carthage, 132 coins = 1.53%

• Monte Iato: 1, 178 coins, less Rome or later coins,Sicily, Rhegion and Carthage, 14 coins = 1.19%

Finds of foreign bronze are not very

common:


3/76

We describe five deliberate transfers

of blocks of coins for Monetary use

Across Hellenistic polities and currency systems

Kos to Central Italy


4/76



Across Hellenistic polities and currency systems

Ebusus to Pompeii


5/76

Within the Roman Empire



Republican asses to the Rhine


6/76

Within the Roman Empire



Gallic imitation antoniniani to North Africa


7/76

Sri Lankan imitations of Roman bronze

Syria " ? $ to Sri Lanka




8/76

The coins we discuss invite explanation

• As an epiphenomenon of intense trade

" Military explanations discounted $

• Or as a case where bronze coin was used totransfer value in trade

We argue that the coins were deliberatelyacquired for monetary use in the importingcontext


9/76

When:

• Purchase + transport > metal + minting,

it is cheaper to mint at end use• This is independent of fiduciary value at

import

• A dearth of small change raises its utility value.

So:

• Foreign blocks are often accompanied orfollowed by imitative coinages

Characteristically, imports and imitations occur when the state cannot supply adequate small coin


10/76

a. The sheer numbers of relevant coins in the

receiving area, checked against their relativefrequency elsewhere

b. The presence of only a specific issue, withoutthe preceding or following issues

c. The sudden presence of specific issues in latestratigraphic contexts or hoards

d. Lack of evidence of a two! way flow of coins

e. Comparison with non!numismatic finds

f. The use of the coins on importation, includingimitations and overstrikes

Criteria for identifying blocks


11/76


12/76

Ingvaldsen XIX " Stefanaki 35 $

XIX/1 #

!"#"$

XIX/2 #

!"#&$

XXI Stefanaki 39

Hemi!obols, 210/200 # 180/170 BC

Obols, late 190s # 180/170 BC Hemi!obol, 2nd 1/4 2nd c. # 170/160 BC


13/76


14/76

• Athens Agora: 4 of 16,557 coins

• Italy: 55+ coins of Kos XIX, 2 only of XXI• Rome, Tiber: 13 of 122 coins

• “Sottosuolo”: well represented

• Campidoglio old excavations from Rome:3 of c. 400 coins

Outside Kos & Kalymna, Kos XIX is not

common, except in Italy

Evidence: sheer numbers


15/76

Finds of Koan bronze,

c. 200!100 BC


Series XIX/1 !"#$%Series XIX/2 !"#"%

Series XVI !"#$% Series XXI !"#"% Others

Lorium

MinturnaeRome

Pompeii

Magdalensberg

Kos

Athens

Ashkelon

AphrodisiasNemea

Didyma

Kalymna

d fl


16/76

Evidence: no two! way flow

• In the Kos Museum, of 270 foreign Greek coins,almost all Hellenistic bronze, there are only:

• 1 Metapontion, of the first quarter of the3rd century # mid!3rd century BC

• 2 Rhegion, of c. 215 # 150 BC

• 5 Roman Republican coins, all but 1 are silver ofthe 1st century BC.

Italian coins are very uncommon in Kos,

though the Asklepieion was much visited

d h b


17/76


N i i id


18/76

• Kos was famous for “sea ! water” wine

• As early as 160 BC, Cato the Elder gives a recipefor vinum coum• The large!scale trade in Koan wine to Italy only

began to be important after c. 130 BC

• Kos had a Roman colony in the late 2nd andearly 1st century BC, negotiatores, involved withKoan wine and silk, but later than the period ofthe export of Kos XIX

• The little evidence we have does not supportthe picture of a flourishing trade between Kosand Italy at this early date

Non!numismatic evidence

E id f i i


19/76

Evidence: use after importation

C l i


20/76

Conclusions

Elements for dating:

• XIX/1 to XIX/2 ratio• Italy: 9%:91% Asklepieion: 88%/22%

• There are 7 of 12 magistrates in 37 legible coins

in Italy, mainly XIX/2• So, the block is towards the end of the issue

• The overstrikes copy RRC 235/1 of c. 137 BC

• The block left between 180/170 and 140 BC

Place of arrival uncertain, certainly Latium, perhaps

Minturnae, perhaps Rome; the evidence is poor


21/76

From Ebusus to Pompeiiand the

Pompeian pseudo!mint


22/76

Prototypes of the Pompeian Pseudo!mint

Ebusus

Massalia

Rome

Athens

c.214 # c.195 BC c.214 # c.150/130 BC

c.150 # 100 BC 130s # 100 BC

211 # 208 BC241 # 235 BC

c. 224/3 # 198 BC

E id h b


23/76

• AAPP excavations: 48%• House of Amarantus: 48%

• U'ci Scavi: 32%• Liri database: 49%

The imitations should not obscure the

enormous presence of canonical Ebusus

There is no similar Massaliot block

• PARP:PS excavations:• 4% of all imported coins• 1.15% of all coins


E id h b


24/76

Pompeii, coins below the AD 79 destruction level


E id h b


25/76

Finds of Ebusan and pseudo!Ebusan coinsEvidence: sheer numbers

Evidence specific issues


26/76

Issues present in Central Italy " Pompeii

+ Liri $ and in Ibiza itself

Evidence: specific issues

Evidence no two way flow


27/76

Museu Arqueològic d’Eivissa i Formentera

• 1 Italian coin in 137 foreign coinsDonación Martín Mañanes: 7,434 local finds

• No Italian or pseudo!mint coins

“ Ahora, tras el examen de más de 7.000 piezas procedentes de la donación Martín Mañanes es seguro que las monedasCampo 1976 grupo XVI deben excluirse de la producción

de Ebusus, así como las del grupo XVIII, que muestran un

peso más reducido y un estilo tosco, pues no se ha encontrado ninguna de e ! as”

Pere Pau Ripollès

Evidence: no two! way flow

Non numismatic evidence


28/76

Non!numismatic evidence

Ebusan trade was part of the western Punic circuit

• Its ceramics are extremely rare in Italy

• Most trade went to Catalonia, or the Balearics

This is despite direct Italic trade to Spain

• The Isla Pedrosa wreck, c. 140/130 BC, carriedCampanian A pottery, coins of Naples, Rome andthe Narbonnaise, and “Italo!Baetic” struck lead

• Pottery at Cabrera de Mar, c. 150 # 90/80 BC, is

largely Italic:

Evidence: use after importation%&''&()&


29/76


Evidence: use after importation%&''&()& Rome


30/76


%&''&()& Rome Ebusus Evidence: use after importation


31/76

%&''&()& Rome Ebusus Evidence: use after importation



32/76




33/76




34/76


%&''&()& Rome Evidence: use after importationEbusus


35/76

%&''&()& Rome Evidence: use after importationEbusus



36/76


%&''&()& Rome Evidence: use after importation


37/76

%&''&()& Rome Evidence: use after importation

Evidence: use aft

er importation%&''&()& Rome Ebusus


38/76

``

`

```

Evidence: use after importation%&''&()& Rome Ebusus

Evidence: use aft

er importation%&''&()& Rome Ebusus


39/76

Athens

``

`

```

Evidence: use after importation%&''&()& Rome Ebusus

Conclusions


40/76

Dating evidenceConclusions

• Excavations in the House of Ariadne, Pompeii

• Massaliot prototype D


41/76

Republican asses

to legionary campson the Rhine


42/76

• Colin Kraay, in his study of Vindonissa, firstsuggested the importation of Republican asses

• These are present in the part of the camp notincorporated before 25/30 AD

• And present in military camps occupied after Tiberius

• Markus Peter 2001 confirmed Kraay’sobservations, with stratigraphic evidence, from

Augusta Raurica, a civic site

Circulation of Republican asses

in legionary camps

bl


43/76

0

100

200

300

400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Republican asses

in military camps on the Rhine

Peter 2001,

fig. 4

Camps had short lives and were abandoned:

1!3 Augustan camps " Haltern, Kalkrise, Augsburg !Oberhausen $

4!9 Later camps " Lorenzberg, Kaiseraugst, Aislingen,Rheingönheim, Hofheim $

Asses of Lyon’s altar!series / Republican asses


44/76

Circulation of Republican asses

in Switzerland

Military camp Civic site: colony Civic site: vicus

Not only military contexts:


45/76

Not only military contexts:

a context of 40/50 AD in the vicus Petinesca

Aventicum and Loussona are very di( erent

• Fewer Republican asses, more Divus Augustus Pater asses, mostly local productions• The nearly complete absence of legionary counter!

marks points to non!military supply


46/76

Roman aes circulating in c. 40!60 ADVindonissa " Augusta Raurica " Aventicum


47/76

• They fill the gap in supply when the Rome andLyon mints were closed:

• Rome: AD 42 # 62?• Lyon: From Tiberius # AD 64

• They were not donatives, because never counter!

marked• They correspond to dupondii of the 1st c. AD, and

were often halved to make asses

The asses went to military camps and

spread west, but few reached Aventicum


48/76

The need for small change: local imitations

Divus Augustus Pater Claudius, Minerva


49/76

• Asses are rare in Ga ! ia Narbonensis, thoughconquered in 123 # 118 BC

• Py: Of 20,079 coins from Provence; only 1.5% Republican asses # Massaliot bronze: 9,732 coins $

• Most are early, none from early Imperial strata • There is a di( erent pattern of halving

• In Italy, they seem to have circulated up to Tiberius, after the massive strikes of Augustusand Tiberius

• They probably came from Italy

Where did they come from?


50/76

Debased antoniniani to North Africa


51/76

• Debased antoniniani of the Central and GallicEmpires ) under Claudius Gothicus, 2% silver ) were accompanied by imitations, andtolerated, even encouraged

• In the last quarter of the third century AD,masses of imitations were made• Aurelian’s reform failed: Gresham’s Law

•From c. 280 to Diocletian’s reform " 294 $,imitations were assembled and hoarded in mass

• After 294, segregated hoards attest to changes inthe economy of small change

In Gaul, between AD 260 & 294

Central Empire Gallic Empire


52/76

Divo Claudio

Central Empire Gallic EmpirePre!reform Post!reform

Genuine Genuine Genuine Imitations

ImitationGenuine


53/76

• The imitations are very common in North Africa • French scholars suggest they were cried down

under Probus

• Others think they were used until the 4th c.• Were blocks deliberately imported, for use as

coin? The La Ciotat wreck has 40 kg., tens of

thousands, of coins


54/76

O'cial Divo Gallic

Emperors Claudio Emperors AD 270!274 30!50% 50!70% !

AD 270!274/275 30!50% 50!70% c. 2%

AD 275>280 max. 6% 80!90% 5!18% End 3rd/early 4th ! 23!45% 50!75%

The are four groups of hoards

of a ntoniniani in North Africa


55/76

North African

hoards of antoniani in

the late 3rd c.

N h Af i I i i l d/ l h


56/76

RGZM hoard

unknown location

“Divo Claudio”

Gozo, Rabbat

Archibishop Pace street

“Tetricus I/II”

North African Imitations, late 3rd/early 4th c.

La Ciotat


57/76

La CiotatWreck


58/76

Late Roman aes to India and Sri Lanka


59/76

• Many late Roman coins are found in southernIndia and Sri Lanka, and imitated in theKingdom of Ruhuna " southern Sri Lanka $

• Walburg identifies two blocks:

• One reached Malabar, near Cochin, about

425/430, closing with coins of Theodosius IIand Valentinian III " 425 # 457 $.

• Some of these travelled through the Ghats

to Madurai, then to Ruhuna • A second, with coins of Marcian " 450!457 $

and Leo " 457!474 $, did not reach Sri Lanka


60/76

• The coins come largely from Syria, probablythrough the Red Sea port of Adulis.

• They they were e( ectively scrap, afterprogressive devaluation of aes, in terms of gold,in decrees of 396, 438 and 455: c. 8 kg of aes = 1

solidus• Later trade with Sri Lanka, bypassing India,

brought Auksumite, and late 5th c. North African “proto!Vandalic” coins with a cross

• In Ruhuna, Roman coins, and the post!450imitations, were used as “special purposemoney” in temple and commercial contexts

S k f b


61/76

Sri Lankan imitations of Roman bronze

1 2 3

4 5 6

8 97

10


62/76

Conclusions


63/76

• Identifying blocks is di'cult, but crucial for

understanding the political and economiccontext, at export and on import

• It needs case!by !case testing of the evidence.False identification falsifies historicalunderstanding, as much as the failure toidentify blocks

• If we fail to recognise blocks, the large

numbers of coins may tempt historians topropose unfounded reasons for their presence


64/76

For example, Stazio’s attempts to explainEbusan bronze coin at Pompeii through trade

• He struggled to make sense of Ebusan coin inthe purse!hoard.

• He supposed that Roman colonisation of

Spain, and massive Campanian wine and oilexports, gave Ebusus a n intermediary role

• He recognised and struggled with the strange

numismatic data: why, of all Spanish mints, was only Ebusus so common? He built anargument to explain this.


65/76

• He assumed first that that Rome allowed

conquered polities ) Ebusus, in particular ) to continue to coin

• Then concluded that Rome had deliberatelypromoted the use of Ebusan coin, in order tooccupy the presumed central role of the islandin Carthaginian commerce, before the supplyof Roman coin became adequate to replace it

• If correct, these would have been facts ofhistorical importance


66/76

If a block is identified:• Who are the actors, on both sides, and who

initiated the transfer?

• Did they know the end use of the coins, or was that a later decision?

• Was it one transfer, or a series of transfers?

• Was the transfer direct, or did it go throughsome intermediary destination?


67/76

How were the coins acquired?

• By coercion, as booty?• Purchased, once demonetised? cf:

• Late Roman Bronze in India and Sri

Lanka • Numidian and Carthaginian coins in

Croatia and Bosnia

• Acquired at fiduciary value? But:• Would a seller accept less than fiduciary?

• Would a buyer pay more than metal?

Kos


68/76

We know:

• No military event: they weren’t booty • No demonetisation: they weren’t scrap

Who gathered together the block?

• Traders? " improbable numbers $

•Money !changers, or the state?

" who might have had such numbers $Who put them into circulation?

• Magistrates? Money !changers?

Kos

Ebusus


69/76

The date is crucial:

• Quintus Caecilius Metellus conqueredthe Balearics in 123 BC. The block isprobably too early

Exactly the same questions as at Kos

• No sign that they were booty or scrap

If bought:• Would sellers sell below fiduciary value?

• Would purchasers pay over metal value?

Ebusus

Successful warfare drove economic


70/76

Successful warfare drove economic

expansion in central Italy, 150 # 50 BC

C l I l i h id d


71/76

• Rapidly increasing market transactions• A chronic, unmet need for small change in

Central Italy ) Rome, colonies and allies )

well before Rome stopped striking bronze• Local remedial solutions, throughout the

2nd and 1st c. BC

• Block importations• Pseudo!mints and informal coinages

• Pragmatic use of old and foreign coin

Central Italy in the mid!2nd c. BC


72/76

• Block transfers were a western phenomenon

• Eastern cities continued to strike

• Republican asses probably fell away with Tiberius’ huge issues

• The probable closure the Roman mint from

AD 42 # 62, of Lyon from Tiberius to AD 64,reduced supply to military camps

In Imperial times


73/76

• The asses left without contemporary coins

• They may have been segregated by money !

changers in Italy, and traded at a discount• If received at full value, this could have

pumped them north

• Their transfer was probably a pragmaticsolution, by low level army administrators

• There were probably more than one transfer


74/76

• In the 3rd c., coinage became decentralised,

and supply in Gaul more di'cult• There was a vast mass of imitations

• Some think they were cried down under

Probus, and sent to Africa • It is more probably that, with the

introduction of the nummus, they became less

useful, and there was some commercialadvantage in shipping them to Africa

• Though large scale, there is no evidence of

o'cial involvement


75/76

• Only under the Flavians and Trajan, and inthe 2nd c. AD, was bronze supply adequate

for the provinces’ needs, particularly thearmy’s

• The Administration became extremelypowerful and centralised. For example:

• From Vespasian on, witnesses to militarydiplomas, who before could have residedanywhere, had to reside in Rome


76/76

Thank you

evidence for the importation and monetar

Documents