Title: Bringing the Silver in Line: The Denarius and Eastern Silver Coinage in Nero’s Monetary Reforms of AD 64.

MPhil Option B

Student ID: 511283

Abbreviations: the list of abbreviations used in reference citations

AJN = American Journal of Numismatics.

AnnLiv = Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology.

BMC = Grueber, H.A. (1910), Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum, Vol. 1 (London).

BMCRE = Mattingly, H. (1923), Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum (London).

CQ = The Classical Quarterly.

JEA = Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.

JRS = The Journal of Roman Studies.

NC = The Numismatic Chronicle.

OJA = Oxford Journal of Archaeology.

RIC = Sutherland, C.V.H. and R.A.G. Carson eds. (1984), The Roman Imperial Coinage, Vol. I, revised ed. (London).

RN = Revue Numismatique.

RPC = Burnett, A., M. Amandry and P.P. Ripollès eds. (1992), Roman Provincial Coinage, Vol. I (London).

RSN = Revue Suisse de Nunismatique.

SAN = Society for Ancient Numismatics.

1

Bringing the Silver in Line: The Denarius and Eastern Silver Coinage in Nero’s Monetary Reforms of AD 64

Scholarship dealing with Nero’s reign often focus on the scandalous accounts of his

biographers who found the man unlikable, as well as a drain on the Roman treasury with his

‘righteous extravagance’.1 Despite this opinion the study of Nero’s coinage, his reform of the

monetary system in AD 64 in particular, provides evidence for a reevaluation of what Erik

Christensen claims is a ‘bad reputation’; a reputation which Nero has yet to be rehabilitated.2

Nero’s reign was a time of considerable monetary experimentation, but Nero’s reforms mark

the beginning of empire-wide debasements of Rome’s precious metal currency. It appears that

the reforms of 64 BC were an attempt by Nero to align the denarius with existing eastern

coinages to maintain the denarius’ position as the empire’s silver standard. This essay is

going to explore the changes to the empire’s primary silver standards. Can we identify the

relationship between Rome’s denarius and eastern silver coins before and after Nero’s

reforms? Thus, is it possible to call into question scholarly attitudes towards the reforms of

AD 64 as an exclusive method of gaining ‘profit’ to fulfill governmental need for more coin.

2

1 Suet. Nero. 30.1.2 E. Christensen (2003), Coinage in Egypt: The Hoard Evidence (Aarhus), 89.

I. The Mints

I.1. Western Mints: Lugdunum and Rome

During the imperial period the most important centers of minting in the western empire were

Lugdunum and Rome. Founded in 43 BC, Lugdunum became increasingly important to

Rome as home to the Altar of Augustus, the center for the ceremonial concilium Galliarum.3

Furthermore, the city was strategically positioned, situated near meeting points of the Rhône

and Saône rivers, protected by the Alps to the east. Lugdunum continued to mint precious

metal coins for Rome after Augustus death, issuing great series of aurei and denarii alongside

select issues of aes coinage from Tiberius to Nero (AD 54-64). In AD 64 (or sometime

earlier) the emperor decided the bulk of imperial precious metal would transferred to the mint

of Rome, relegating Lugdunum to minting large quantities of aes coinage for the western

empire.4

Giard shares this opinion: based on his study of two dies found near Lugdunum, Giard

argues that Lugdunum continued serving as a principle gold and silver mint until 64.5 Girard

and others appear intent on challenging Mattingly’s study of bust features on early and late

issues of Gaius’ precious metal coinage—Mattingly’s argument is that Lugdunum limited its

production of precious metal around AD 37-8 (this study was based on several differentials

which were affirmed, and added to, by Sutherland).6 Butcher and Ponting have put forward

several theories asserting that the primary minting of denarii was indeed in Rome by AD 61

3

3 RIC, p. 27; Dio. 54.32. Cf. J.F. Drinkwater has noted the difficult nature of the area and Rome’s role in making the area work for its benefit. J.F. Drinkwater (1975), ‘Lugdunum, “Natural Capital” of Gaul?’, Britannia 6: 133-140. Augustus increased the providence of imperial mints outside of Rome—done so, as asserted by Sutherland, ‘by a multiplicity of city-mints and regional mints from end to end of the empire’. RIC, p. 2.

4 Sutherland (1951) 190-198; W. Metcalf (1989), ‘Rome and Lugdunum Again’, AJN 1: 52-65.5 J.-B. Giard (1988), Bibliothèque Nationale. Catalogue des monnaies de l’empire romain II. De Tiberè à Néron

(Paris), 25-27.6 The distinguishing features: transition from bare-headed to laureate bust, size and style of lettering, and

parallelism between precious metal and aes issues. BMCRE I, cxlii-cxliii; C.V.H. Sutherland (1976), The Emperor and the Coinage (London), 64ff. Metcalf is decidedly pessimistic about the transfer date. Metcalf (1998) 53-55.

based on the level of debasement and fineness of Nero’s early silver coinage.7 Although this

inference is problematic (addressed further in section II), some have insisted that pressures

experienced in Rome owing to the fires of 64 make its transfer in that year plausible (section

III); what is certain is that gold and silver minting was firmly centralized in Rome by the

reforms of 64.

I.2. The Eastern Mints: Antioch, Caesarea and Alexandria.

Rome’s incorporation of the Greek East after Sulla’s dictatorship brought great eastern cities

and Hellenistic kingdoms under the control of the Republic. For the most part, Rome’s

assumption of eastern monetary systems was not abnormal since Rome often retained local

operating policies—preferring the umbrella of state control over provinces with local

autonomies. Although Rome became politically active in the region, the Empire chose not to

mint denarii in the East; rather, Roman governors, not eastern sovereigns, were probably

responsible for coining eastern silver.8

Antioch, the primary mint of the Seleucid kings, shows that Nero began making

adjustments to striking silver in the East before 64. The mint seemingly initiated pre-reform

adjustments in preparation for the eventual transition to the new standard. Before AD 60

silver issues consisted of tetradrachms and drachms. We have, however, limited evidence of

minting activity in the regions afterwards.9 Silver minting reemerged at Antioch with the

4

7 K. Butcher and M. Ponting (2005a), ‘The Roman Denarius under the Julio-Claudian Emperors’, OJA 24: 163ff. Grant’s primary concern is the assumption that Lugdunum was the sole imperial mint after 15 BC. For his rigorous point-by-point treatment: M. Grant (1955), ‘The Mints of Roman Gold and Silver in the Early Principate’, NC 15: 40ff.

8 Evidence for provincial minting by Roman governors comes from Antioch where silver coins were minted in the name of Seleucid king Philip Philadelphus, accompanied by the monogram names of the Roman governors. Walker (1976), The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage (Oxford), 67; K. Butcher (2004), Coinage in Roman Syria: Northern Syria 64 BC to AD 253 (London), 51-52. [Figure 1].

9 No silver was minted in the region after Pompey annexed it until the proconsulship of Gabinius (57-55 BC). RPC, p. 606.

institution of Nero’s ‘eagle’ tetradrachm, a coin minted in the style of the Tyrian Sheckel

minted under the Seleucid kings.10 The appearance of the ‘eagle’ tetradrachm signaled the

end of another eastern coin, the Tyrian shekel [figure 2], whose silver content proved too pure

to continue circulating once Nero began his debasement of silver in the empire (section II).11

Caesarea in Cappadocia was important for the provision of coin to the eastern legions

during Nero’s Parthian War, minting heavily in its pre-provincial years until it was officially

annexed by Tiberius in AD 17—the last issue before Roman incorporation being assigned to

the reign of Archelaus, the last monarch of Cappadocia.12 Tiberius’ Caesarea, as suggested by

Sydenham, probably became ‘the great imperial mint for the Roman dominions on the

eastern frontier and issued silver as well as bronze coins’.13 Under Roman governance

Caesarea minted several denominational variants of the drachm with Greek lettering,

maintaining conformity to regional style and tradition [figure 3]; however, once Nero’s

Parthian campaigns were settled in AD 63, the region adapted to the new imperial standards

of Nero’s reforms.14

Alexandria continued its tradition of having a closed monetary system after its

subjugation by Rome in 30 BC. Augustus, allowed the new province its traditional systems,

permitting Egypt to operate under a special system of governance—Christiansen reminds us

that the assumption of Egypt was controlled solely by Augustus is not supported in the

5

10 K. Butcher (2004) 64; S. Sharpe (1838), ‘The Eagle and Thunderbolt on the Coins of Rome and Syria’, NC 1: 187ff. It must be noted that it is not entirely uncommon for there to be large gaps in issues. Sometimes it was just unnecessary to mint.

11 First minted sometime after Tyre’s emancipation from the Seleucids by Cleopatra Thea in 126/25 BC, the coins maintain a strong presence in the East until its last confirmed issue: a half shekel dated to AD 65/6. B. Levy (1995), ‘Tyrian Shekels: the Myth of the Jerusalem Mint’, SAN 19, no. 2: 33; C.H. Kraeling ed. (1938), Gerasa (New Haven), 374-375.

12 RPC 3601; Burnett (1992) 550; on the annexation of Cappadocia: Dio. 57.17, Vell. Pat. 2.39.3.13 E.A. Sydenham (1933), The Coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia (London), 2-3; Sutherland (1984) 8.14 The first examples of imperial issue in the city are drachms bearing the laureate head of Tiberius with Greek

inscription (dated between AD 17-32), not the head of Tiberius (his son Drusus on the reverse) dated between AD 32-34 and bearing Latin inscription as suggested by Sydenham and Mattingly. RPC 3620 (laureate Tiberius); RPC 3621-22 (Tiberus/Drusus issue).

ancient evidence.15 Nevertheless, we cannot argue the fact that it was different in comparison

to other mints of the East. The uniqueness of Egypt’s closed monetary system is attested in

coin hoards, which show that coins from outside of Egypt seldom appear inside the

province.16 Tiberius established a new Alexandrian standard in AD 20 (1 denarius = 1

debased silver tetradrachm = 4 silver drachms [tetradrachm]) which was less than the

traditional standard minted under Cleopatra. Claudius possibly experimented with a series of

new denominations in Egypt—didrachms and drachmas alongside the standard tetradrachms

—however, they did not last.17 By Nero’s reign, Alexandrian coinage had experienced a

series of debasements alongside its eastern neighbors, presumably to establish greater

continuity between them.

II. Debasement: Cooperation between West and East?

AD 64 marked the beginning of Nero’s formal reform of the Empire’s monetary system,

which Sydenham rightly termed an ‘epoch in the history of the coinage of the Roman

Empire’.18 Between AD 54 and 64, precious metal minting in the East and West showed

remarkable stability in the silver standards before the reforms. Nero’s reforms are often

discussed primarily as the debasement of the denarius for the first time since the Punic Wars;

however, Nero’s reforms must be considered an empire wide phenomenon, evidenced by the

silver from Rome’s major minting centers.

6

15 Dio. 51.17; E. Christiansen (1988), The Roman Coins of Alexandria (Aarhus), 11; cf. J.G. Milne (1971), Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins (Oxford), xv.

16 J.G. Milne, ‘The Currency of Egypt under the Romans to the time of Diocletian’, AnnLiv 7 (1914-1916), 52-53. J.G. Milne notes the rarity of Egyptian coins outside of the province as well. J.G. Milne (1922), ‘The Coins from Oxyrhynchus’, JEA 8: 160.

17 Milne (1971) xvii.18 Sydenham (1920), The Coinage of Nero (London), 15.

II.1. Debasement of the Denarius.

Augustus’ weight standard for the denarius had been high. Based on Walker’s pre-

reform data for Augustus, I have used 3.69g of silver as a base. This average falls within the

limits of Sutherland’s averages of 3.85–3.65g.19 Minor changes in Augustus’ weight standard

are recognizable in Tiberius’ reign, but Tiberius never truly deviated from his predecessor’s

standard, staying between 3.85g and 3.60g.20 The denarius had remained relatively pure since

Augustus as well, maintaining a mean fineness of 97% from the reign of Augustus to

Claudius.21 Thus, pure fineness and a relatively consistent weight standard solidified the

denarius as Rome’s main silver currency for over seventy years. That silver standard began to

change early in Nero’s reign, when alterations to weight and fineness are recognizable for the

first time under the Empire.

A significant change in the weight and fineness standards of the denarius are

detectable in the West before AD 64 when the precious metal mint was moved to Rome.

Butcher and Ponting have correctly noted that a treatment of denarius weight standards is a

difficult subject, as scholars opinions vary on the weight standard of the denarius before

Nero’s reforms.22 Scholars do not doubt that there was a change to a different standard early

in Nero’s reign; rather, disagreement lies in the actual weight standard of the reform. The

average of the denarius weights based on various scholarly opinions:

7

19 RIC, p.4. My figure of 3.69g is based on Walker’s mean values of 210 coins from Italy, Rome, Emerita, ‘Spanish’ mint 1, ‘Spanish’ mint 2, Lugdunum and Samos, between the years 30 BC and AD 14. Walker (1976) 18.

20 Gaius and Claudius did not stray from this standard.21 Based in Walker’s figures. Walker (1976) 18. These figures are not unproblematic, which shall be explored

below.22 Butcher and Ponting (2005a) 164.

3.54g: MacDowall (1979), p. 136 3.70g: MacDowall (1979), p. 143 23

3.57g: Walker (1976), p. 18 3.63g: Duncan-Jones (1994), p. 225 3.67g: RIC I, p. 134 3.45g: Butcher and Ponting (2005), p. 116 3.62g: Average for all analyses 24

From the present analyses available, an average of 3.62 has been chosen as a base of

reference for pre-reform denarii in the West.25 This analysis shows Nero had dropped the

weight of his denarius about 0.06g in the years preceding AD 64.26 Not a drastic debasement;

however, when paired with metrological evidence showing increased copper levels in Rome’s

corona civica issues of AD 61, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Nero began to alter

denarius standards around that year. Butcher and Ponting’s analyses further suggest that pre-

reform issues of the Virtus and Roma types exhibit decreased copper contents, implying

denarii of varying fineness circulating contemporaneously.27 Although they propose Nero’s

pre-reform years show experimentation with four different standards of fineness, a small

sample size makes it difficult to accept the hypothesis without reservations.28

Nero’s denarii from AD 64 onwards show a marked decrease in the weight standard

previously adhered to by his predecessors. Walker originally argued for a mean weight of

3.18 grams for Nero’s post-reform denarii. Based on Walker’s figures, the denarius was

reduced 0.41 grams in weight from my pre-reform average of 3.62 grams, and about 0.51

8

23 D.W. MacDowall (1979), The Western Coinages of Nero (New York). MacDowall has two sample averages used here. 1) 3.45g: average of the British Museum samples used. BMCRE I, lii; 2) 3.7g: his pre-reform average of all analyzed silver coinage minted in Rome.

24 This is my average and it should be noted that this number is arbitrary, as it does not take into account the number of coins available in each author’s analysis. It is to avoid using ‘weight ranges’ in this brief study.

25 I prefer to use a base of reference rather than cite the weight ranges provided by Sutherland in the RIC (Nero pre-reform silver: 3.65-3.55 g. RIC, p. 4.

26 The analyses given by the various scholars are so close that the level of weight change is highly problematic.27 Butcher and Ponting (2005a) 178ff.28 ‘No coins of 54/55 were available for analysis. Four oak wreath types, all of 60/61, were analysed. Two

figures types of 61/62 and one of 63/64 complete the corpus of ‘pre-reform’ analyses’. Butcher and Ponting (2005a) 167.

grams from the standard weight set by Tiberius.29 The weight standards given by various

analyses:

3.50g: Mac Dowall (1979) p. 143 3.18g: Walker (1976) p. 18 3.36g: Duncan-Jones (1994) p. 225 3.41g: RIC I, p. 141 3.45g : Butcher and Ponting (2005b) p. 116ff 3.38g: Average for all analyses 30

Walker’s system of analysis put forward a mean weight calculation of 2.97g in post-64

denarii, suggesting a mean percentage of silver near 93.50% (93.48).31 Due to unreliable

sampling techniques, Walker’s figures have proved to be substantially flawed.32 Recently,

Butcher and Ponting have demonstrated that denarius silver contents were debased more than

Walker’s figures show: the silver content of the denarius after AD 64 was 80%, not 93% as

Walker suggested.33

Butcher and Ponting’s figures reveal that debasement of the denarius, which

numismatists have long considered a ‘watershed’ in the coinage of Rome, was a more abrupt

and drastic change than previously thought. The change in weight under Nero values the

denarius at around 1/96 of a Roman pound, a substantial change from the previous reckoning

of 89 or 90 to the Roman pound.34 Duncan-Jones has shown that if the change was from 1/89

9

29 Walker (1976) 18. Walker’s figures correlate with MacDowall’s analyses. MacDowall (1979) Appendix I, 250.

30 see note 26.31 Walker (1976) 17.32 Walker filed the top layers of the coin to expose the underlying silver layers for analysis. This, however, did

not account for the process of blanching used by ancient minting authorities. The end product looked like pure silver, but had a higher concentration of copper-oxide beneath the silver surface. Butcher and Ponting (2005, 1994).

33 31 coins were sampled by ICP-AES [plasma atomic emission spectrometry] and 21 of those had silver contents less than 85%. Ten were ‘outliers’, the subjects of sampling problems. Butcher and Ponting (2005a) 179.

34 Duncan-Jones (1994), Money and government in the Roman Empire (Cambridge), 221; Sydenham (1920) 13. Butcher and Ponting claim that since we do not know the actual weight of the Roman pound, the reckoning is ‘not particularly helpful’. Butcher and Ponting (2005a) 164.

(or 1/90), then the change to a value of 1/96 to the Roman pound possibly increased silver

output by 6 to 7%—not precise, but helpful nonetheless.35

II.2. Debasement of the Eastern Coinages.

Based on Nero’s minting of ‘eagle’ tetradrachms from AD 59/60 to 64 [figure 4], it is

reasonable to suggest that changes were planed for Antioch early on when the pure Tyrian

shekels were no longer issued [figure 2]. Tyre’s minting standards had been high since

Augustus’ reign, maintaining a silver content near 97% (the remaining 3% of its fineness was

copper) and weighing around 14.1 grams.36 Nero’s first substantial issue of tetradrachms

from Antioch (regnal year 3:AD 56/57) continued the standard Antioch had used since the

40s BC—70.1% silver, weighing about 14.8g. The two standards (97% of Tyre and 70% of

Antioch) existed side by side before Nero’s reign, with the coins of the Syrian standard

circulating predominately in the southern Levant, Antioch’s coinage in northern Syria. With

an overvaluation of 37% against the Antioch standard, Tyre’s coinage could not continue

existing if Nero sought to bring the denarius in line with the Eastern coinages. Nero’s reform

was therefore intended to unite Syria under one standard, the standard of Antioch.37 Although

Antioch’s weight standard was similar to that of Tyre, the ‘Antiochene’ standard was only

worth 3/4 of Tyre’s ‘Attic’ standard before Nero. If the Antioch tetradrachm indeed

maintained a weight standard near 14.8 (its traditional weight since Tiberius: 3.7g to the

drachm) then we can assume that the value of the coin was determined by fineness—the

weight was 0.52 heavier that the denarius, but it contained the same amount of silver as four

10

35 Duncan-Jones (1994) 221. Duncan-Jones asserts that the weight of the Roman pound is 322.5 grams based in silver’s relationship with the gold standard. Duncan-Jones, ‘Weight-loss as an index of coin-wear in currency of the Roman Principate?’ (1987), 255. Cf. L. Naville (1920-22), ‘Fragments de métrologie classique’, RSN 22: 257ff.

36 94.6% was suggested by Walker. Walker (1976) 58; Butcher and Ponting (2009), ‘The Silver Coinage of Roman Syria Under the Julio-Claudian Emperors’, Levant 41, no. 1: 70.

37 Butcher and Ponting (2005b).

denarii.38 Thus, Nero attempted to keep the regional familiarity in line with his monetary

reforms.

Caesarea minted on the same standard as Antioch (about 70%), but the mint

experienced a considerable reduction in the number of denominations issued. Caesarea had

traditionally minted drachms, didrachms, hemidrachms, 24-as pieces and 12-as pieces with

latin legends, possibly due to the military importance of its city mint.39 Nero’s reforms are

marked by the transition from the obverse legend NERO CLAVD DIVI CLAVD F CAESAR AVG

GERMANI (with young portrait) to NERO CLAVD DIVI CLAVD F CAESAR AVG GERMA (with older

portrait); this change coincides with a reduction of reverse types and the disappearance of the

rare 24 and 12-as pieces. The province’s number of denominational variations has incited

numerous suggestions regarding the Caesarean drachm’s relationship with the denarius.

Walker concluded that the Caesarean silver standard maintained mean of 63% fineness,

making the denarius (80% fine) the ‘preferred’ coin in the region because the drachm was

overvalued.40 Furthermore, Walker argued for equivalency between the drachm and denarius

based on weight alone (1 drachm, 3.41g = 1 denarius, 3.36g), despite the silver content of the

drachm being markedly less (fineness: drachm 63%, denarius of 80%).41 Walker’s proposal

that denominational standards at Caesarea remained similar is difficult to reckon with the

analysis of 24 and 12-as pieces that Butcher has suggested.42 If the 24-as was indeed worth

1.5 denarii as the data suggests, then the 12-as is worth 3/4 of a denarius. Butcher argues that

this is evidence for two pre-reform standards in the region because the drachm did not equal

a denarius. Confusion between the varied standards, if indeed was the case, was remedied

11

38 K. Butcher, ‘Rhodian drachms at Caesarea in Cappadocia’, NC 152 (1992), 43; Butcher and Ponting (2009) 71ff; Walker (1976) 70.

39 RPC, 555ff.40 Walker (1976) 41-48.41 Walker (1976) 45ff; Butcher (1992) 43.42 Butcher (1992) 42; Walker (1976) 44.

when the 24 and 12-as coinages were discontinued for a more functional system, where coins

were valued at one denarius (1 denarius = 1 ‘Attic’ drachm).

Recent studies by Butcher and Ponting provide evidence that the Alexandrian

tetradrachm plays a key role in our understanding of Nero’s reforms in 64. Evidence from the

second century AD suggests an ‘Alexandrian’ standard was equal to 1/4 of the ‘Attic’

standard, but comprising of the same denominations.43 Butcher and Ponting note that since

one denarius was considered equal to one ‘Attic’ drachm, an ‘Attic’ tetradrachm was worth

four ‘Alexandrian’ tetradrachms.44 They suggest:

4 Alex. Tetra = 1 Antioch Tetra. = 1 Tyre Tetra. = 4 denarii

Analysis of the Tiberius’ Alexandrian issues with contemporary issues from Tyre show that

Alexandrian tetradrachms only maintained a fineness of 25.6% compared with the Tyrian

standard fineness of 97%. Weighing 13.3g, the Alexandrian tetradrachm was 0.80 grams

lighter that the Tyrian tetradrachm (shekel) at 14.1g; nevertheless, the level of fineness and

weight determines Alexandrian tetradrachm’s weight of silver at 3.4g, very near the Tyrian

standard at 3.42g.45 The standard is quite different from the standard of the contemporary

Roman denarius at 80% fineness, weighing roughly 3.45g with a silver standard of about

2.76g. The relativity of eastern silver coins and Tyrian issues has led Butcher and Ponting to

argue convincingly for Tyre as the source of eastern silver standards.

12

43 J.R. Melville Jones (1993), Testamonia Numaria (London), 403.44 Butcher and Ponting (2005b) 111.45 Butcher and Ponting (2005b) 111ff. Butcher and Ponting note that Duncan-Jones’ weight for the Alexandrian

tetradrachm (13.45g) is not far from their results, suggesting that it is not entirely impossible that Duncan-Jones’ suggestion of standardization with the Roman pound is correct. Butcher and Ponting (2005b) 110 n. 51, 117; Duncan-Jones (1994) 221, 225, 234.

Nero’s discontinuation of Tyrian coinage, and the region’s shift to Antioch’s standard, affirm

Butcher and Ponting’s assertion that Antioch became the focal point of eastern silver

standards.

A notable change occurs in the Nero’s 10th regnal year (AD 63/64) when the

Alexandrian tetradrachm changes to the Antioch silver standard [figure 5]. Alexandrian

tetradrachms of that year exhibit a reduced fineness of 18.4% and a weight of 13.3g, making

their silver content roughly 2.45g.46 The change is a 0.95g decrease in the silver content of

Alexandria’s coinage, but the decrease in fineness placed Alexandria’s silver standard near

Antioch’s standard of 2.6g. When the Alexandrian and Antiochene tetradrachms are

compared with post-reform denarii we are able to identify a level of standardization. Based

on standard works regarding Roman silver coinage, the comparison of silver weight standards

are as follows—Tyre’s coinage is shown here for comparison as it was no longer minted in

64:47

Denomination: 4 Alex. Tetra [1] = 1 Antioch Tetra. = 1 Tyre Tetra. [1/4] = 4 denarius [1]Fineness: [18.4%] 70.10% 97% [80%]Weight: [13.g] 14.8g 14.1g [3.45g]

Weight of Silver: [2.45g] 10.36 [2.6g] 13.7 [3.42g] [2.76g]

This analysis reveals that the Alexandrian tetradrachm was brought into line with the

standard of Antioch, whose coinage formed the eastern standard after the removal of the

Tyrian tetradrachm (shekel). More remarkable is the denarius’ reduction to 2.76g, placing it

near the standard of Antioch as well. It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that debasement of

the denarius was part of a greater standardization of silver coins, between East and West.

Alexandria transitioned to the existing standard of Antioch, whose 70% fineness standard had

13

46 The analysis of Butcher and Ponting is very close to that of Walker and Duncan-Jones. Butcher and Ponting (2005b) 119.

47 The numbers based on MacDowall (1958), Walker (1976), Duncan-Jones (1994), Butcher and Ponting (2005b).

been in use since the 40s BC; in addition, to align with that stable standard, the denarius

maintained its weight, but dropped its fineness to 80%, settling at a silver content of 2.76g.

III. Conclusion

The primary focus of this paper has been the changes made in the silver coinages of Rome’s

major minting centers at Nero’s reforms in AD 64. At the heart of this study, however, is a

greater question: why did Nero institute these changes? Scholars such as Mattingly, Grant,

and Walker all prefer debasement as a weapon of Nero’s administration to control resources

in the wake of economic pressures within the empire.48 The year AD 64 was tumultuous.

Although the Parthian War had ended in the East, the great fire in July of 64 destroyed much

of the city and its rebuilding must have taken a considerable toll of on Rome’s imperial

coffers.49 Newbold has argued convincingly that fire’s effect in Rome placed stress on Nero’s

administration to repair the city quickly, and alleviate the social and financial pressure it

caused in the Roman population.50 Military expenditure was required for the pay of soldiers

and veterans of the Parthian war, but owing to the difficulties experienced in Rome, Nero was

forced to ‘postpone and defer’ their pay.51 Another fire at Lugdunum late in 64, to which

Tacitus tells us Rome sent 4,000,000 sestertii to assist rebuilding efforts, only compounded

the shortage of money.52 Lastly, Nero’s Greek style celebration, the Neronia, were celebrated

14

48 BMCRE I, xliv-xlv; M. Grant (1954), Roman Imperial Money (Virginia), 247ff. Walker’s suggestion is that overvaluation of eastern coinage against the denarius would provide a profit for Rome’s administration. Walker (1976) 35, 72, 140.

49 For the fire: Tac. Ann. 51.34ff; for the rebuilding of the city: Tac. Ann. 15.42.50R.F. Newbold (1974), ‘Some Social and Economic Consequences of the A.D. 64 Fire at Rome’, Latomus 33:

858-869; Duncan-Jones (1994) 100.51 Suet. Nero. 32.52 Tacitus says this is the same amount Lugdunum sent Rome after the fire in AD 64. Tac. Ann. 16.13.5.

in AD 65 and must have required yet more coin.53

Numerous monetary drains formed the basis of early opinions about silver

debasements under Nero; however, the debasements of AD 64 cannot be understood so

neatly. MacDowall’s assertion, that reduction of the denarius standard is a ‘direct

consequence’ of the fire in 64, remains the dominant opinion regarding the antecedents of

Nero’s reforms.54 Butcher and Ponting have argued that debasement of the denarius under

Nero was not designed for the retention of silver in the West alone, but also part of an

empire-wide strategy of standardization. When the weight and fineness reductions of the

West are compared with reductions in the East, it seems reasonable to suggest that the

denarius was aligned with the eastern coinages by using Antioch as the standard. Arguments

for the overvaluation of Eastern coinages for profit have been proved false. Butcher and

Ponting demonstrate that overvaluation for profit in the extreme case of Alexandria (where

overvaluation was the greatest, between 10 and 13%), the amount of profit would be low;

furthermore, we do not know the impact of that profit.55 It is possible Nero’s reforms were

intended to stretch the precious metal supply, but what seems probable is that the denarius’

debasement in AD 64 was to bring it in line with eastern silver standards—something Soutzo

suggested in 1898, which has long been overlooked.56

Word Count: 4,811

15

53 Tac. Ann. 13. The festival was celebrated with its own aes coinage in Rome. There is debate over the date of the festival and the role of coinage in helping us verify the year of the celebration. J.D.P. Bolton (1948), ‘ Was the Neronia a Freak Festival’, CQ 42, no. 3/4: 82-90; cf. D.W. MacDowall (1958), ‘The Numismatic Evidence for the Neronia’, CQ 8, no. 3/4: 194-194.

54 MacDowall (1979) 149.55 Butcher and Ponting note that the level of ‘profit’ is of course based on the level of overvaluation. They

suggest that the ‘significance of apparent “overvaluation” and “profit” be treated more cautiously than is often the case’. Butcher and Ponting (2005b) 119.

56 M.C. Soutzo (1898), ‘Étude sur les monnaies impériales romanes II. Le Système monétaire de Néron’, RN: 659-666.

Bibliography

Bolton, J.D.P. (1948), ‘Was the Neronia a Freak Festival’, The Classical Quarterly 42, no.3/4: 82-90.

Burnett, A., M. Amandry and P.P. Ripollès eds. (1992), Roman Provincial Coinage, Vol. I (London).

Butcher, K. (1992), ‘Rhodian drachms at Caesarea in Cappadocia’, The Numismatic Chronicle 152: 41-48.

_______. (1996), ‘Coinage and Currency in Syria and Palestine to the Reign of Gallienus’, 101–12 in C.E. King and D.G. Wigg eds., Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World. The Thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, 25.–27.3.1993 (Berlin).

_______. (2004), Coinage in Roman Syria: Northern Syria 64 BC to AD 253 (London).

Butcher, K. and M. Ponting (1995), ‘Rome and the East: Production of Roman Provincial Silver Coinage for Caesarea in Cappadocia under Vespasian, AD 69-79’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 14: 63-78.

_______. (2005a), ‘The Roman Denarius under the Julio-Claudian Emperors’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24: 163-197.

_______. (2005b), ‘The Egyptian Billon tetradrachm under the Julio-Claudian emperors — fiduciary or intrinsic?’, Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 84: 93–123.

_______. and M. Ponting (2009), ‘The Silver Coinage of Roman Syria Under the Julio-Claudian Emperors’, Levant 41, no. 1: 59-78.

Christensen, E. (1988), The Roman Coins of Alexandria (Aarhus).

_______. (2003), Coinage in Egypt: The Hoard Evidence (Aarhus).

Clay, C. (1982), ‘Die Münzprägung des Kaisers Nero in Rom und Lugdunum’, Numismatische Zeitschrift 96: 7-52.

Drinkwater, J.F. (1975), ‘Lugdunum, “Natural Capital” of Gaul?’, Britannia 6: 133-140.

Duncan-Jones, R. (1994), Money and government in the Roman Empire (Cambridge).

Duncan-Jones, R. (1987), ‘Weight-Loss as an Index of Coin-Wear in Currency of the Roman Principate’, in Depeyrot, G ed., Rythmes de la Production Monétaire de l’Antiquité à Nos Jours. Louvain-la-Neuve (Louvain), 237–56.

Giard, J.-B. (1988), Bibliothèque Nationale. Catalogue des monnaies de l’empire romain II. De Tiberè à Néron (Paris).

Gilmore, P. (1980), ‘The Latin Legend Tetradrachms of Nero’, Spink's Numismatic Circular: 210.

Grant, M. (1955), ‘The Mints of Roman Gold and Silver in the Early Principate’, The Numismatic Chronicle 15: 39-54.

Griffin, M.T. (1984), Nero: The End of a Dynasty (London).

16

Grueber, H.A. (1910), Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum, Vol. 1 (London).

Harris, W.V. (2006), 'A Revisionist View of Roman Money', The Journal of Roman Studies 96: 1-24.

Hollander, D.B. (1999), ‘The Management of the Mint in the Late Roman Republic’, The Ancient History Bulletin 13, no. 1: 14-27.

Howgego, C. (1995), Ancient History from Coins (London).

Kraeling, C.H. ed. (1938), Gerasa (New Haven).

Levy, B. (1995), ‘Tyrian Shekels: the Myth of the Jerusalem Mint’, Society for Ancient Numismatics 19, no. 2: 33-35.

Lo Casico, E. (1981), ‘State Coinage in the Late Republic and Early Empire’, The Journal of Roman Studies 71: 76-86.

MacDowall, D.W. (1958), ‘The Numismatic Evidence for the Neronia’, The Classical Quarterly 8, no. 3/4: 192-194.

_______. (1979), The Western Coinages of Nero (New York).

Mattingly, H. (1917), ‘The Mints of the Early Empire’, Journal of Roman Studies 7: 59-70.

_______. (1923), Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum (London).

Metcalf, W. (1989), ‘Rome and Lugdunum Again’, American Journal of Numismatics 1: 52-65.

Milne, J.G. (1914-1916), ‘The Currency of Egypt under the Romans to the time of Diocletian’, Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 7: 52-53.

_______. (1922), ‘The Coins from Oxyrhynchus’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 8: 158-163.

_______. (1971), Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins (Oxford).

Murray, O. (1965), ‘The ‘Quinquennium Neronis’ and the Stoics’, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd.14, H.1: 41-61.

Naville, L. (1920-22), ‘Fragments de métrologie classique’, Revue Suisse de Nunismatique 22: 42-60.

Newbold, R.F. (1974), ‘Some Social and Economic Consequences of the A.D. 64 Fire at Rome’, Latomus 33: 858-869.

Oddone, M and A. Savio (1989), ‘Indagine, Mediante, Analisis per Attivazione Neutronica Strumentale, del Contuenuto di Alcuni Tetradrammi Alessandrini di Nerone’, Rivista Italiana di Numismatica 91: 131-150.

Reece, R. (1969), ‘Analysis of some Early Imperial Alexandrian Tetradrachms’, The Numismatic Chronicle 9: 317-318.

Sharpe, S. (1838), ‘The Eagle and Thunderbolt on the Coins of Rome and Syria’, The Numismatic Chronicle 1: 187-192.

Soutzo, M.C. (1898), ‘Étude sur les monnaies impériales romaines II. Le Système monétaire de Néron’, RN: 659-666.

Sutherland, C.V.H. (1951), Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy (London).

17

_______. (1976), The Emperor and the Coinage (London).

Sutherland, C.V.H., and R.A.G. Carson eds. (1984), The Roman Imperial Coinage, Vol. I, revised ed. (London).

Sydenham, E.A. (1917), ‘The Mint of Lugdunum’, The Numismatic Chronicle: 53-96.

_______. (1920), The Coinage of Nero (London).

_______. (1933), The Coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia (London).

Walker, D.R. (1976), The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage, Part I: from Augustus to Domitian, BAR Supplementary Series 5 (Oxford).

Woolf, G. (1992), ‘Imperialism, Empire and the Integration of the Roman Economy’, World Archaeology: 23, no. 3, Archaeology of Empires: 283-293.

18

Figures: All images downloaded from Wild Winds (www.wildwinds.com). Images not to scale.

19

Figure 2: BMC 142, AR Tetradrachm of Tyre, Syria. 77/76 BC.

Figure 1: RPC 1428, AR Tetradrachm of Antioch, Syria 44/43 BC.

Figure 3: RPC 3620, Tiberus, AR Drachm of Caesarea, Cappadocia. AD 33/34.

Figure 4: RPC 4181, Nero, AR Tetradrachm of Antioch, Syria. 60/61 AD

Figure 5: RPC 5283, Nero Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria, Egypt. AD 64/65.