COINS IN CONTEXT I

New perspectives for the interpretation of coin finds

Colloquium Frankfurt a. M., October 25–27, 2007

edited by

HANS-MARKUS VON KAENEL and FLEUR KEMMERS

VERLAG PHILIPP VON ZABERN · MAINZ AM RHEIN

KOMMISSION FÜR GESCHICHTE DES ALTERTUMS DER AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN UND DER LITERATUR · MAINZ

RÖMISCH-GERMANISCHE KOMMISSION

DES DEUTSCHEN ARCHÄOLOGISCHEN INSTITUTS · FRANKFURT A. M.

STUDIEN ZU FUNDMÜNZEN

DER ANTIKE (SFMA)

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON

MARIA R.-ALFÖLDI UND HANS-MARKUS VON KAENEL

BAND 23

VERLAG PHILIPP VON ZABERN · MAINZ AM RHEIN

Gefördert durch das Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Bonn, das Hessische Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kunst, Wiesbaden.

Redaktionelle Betreuung: Nathan T. Elkins, Stefan Krmnicek, David Wigg-Wolf

Bibliografische Information Der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen

Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über <http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrufbar.

ISBN 978-3-8053-4091-5

© 2009 by Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz

Alle Rechte einschließlich des Rechts zur Vervielfältigung, zur Einspeisung in elek-tronische Systeme sowie der Übersetzung vorbehalten. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung der Akademie und des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar.

Druck und Verarbeitung: Hubert & Co., Göttingen.

Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, chlorfrei gebleichtem Papier.

Printed in Germany

Sender or receiver? Contexts of coin supply and coin use

Fleur Kemmers∗

1. Introduction

How did Roman coins circulate and how were they used? What mechanisms brought them from the mint to the places we find them today? These questions would seem to be both obvious and fundamental to the study of Roman numismatics, but in most cases these topics are not discussed at all1. Some studies do exist, however, these are not based on material evidence but rather on assumptions about the Roman economy and its cash flow2. This contribution addresses this Forschungslücke and although it will not provide any definite solutions, it is hoped some new ways forward in numismatic research will be indicated.

First of all, I discuss, generally, current ideas on the use and supply of coins in the Roman world and on what points these ideas might be criticicized. I then propose a method of contextual analysis which, based on material evidence, could lead to an improved understanding of Roman coin use and supply. In order to illustrate this method and its potential, I will present a case study on coinage in the Severan period. Based on this case-study several alternative concepts of coin use and supply are explored.

2. Current ideas on coin use and coin supply

Without revisiting the well-known debate on the nature of the Roman economy – if that in itself is a useful term – it can be observed that, according to most scholars, the use of coins in the Roman world was of a strictly rational, economic

∗ The research on which this paper is based was funded by the Dutch Organisation for Scientific

Research (NWO). The author wishes to thank Prof. Dr. J. van Heesch (Brussels) for access to unpublished data on Belgian coin finds, Dr. J. Pelsdonk (Utrecht) for access to unpublished data on Dutch coin finds and Prof. Dr. O. Hekster (Nijmegen) for critical comments to the text. The interpretations and opinions expressed in this paper are the sole responsibility of the author.

1 A notable exception are two recent papers on coin transport: J. van Heesch, Transport of coins in the later Roman Empire. Rev. Belge Num. 152, 2006, 51-61 and R. Wolters, Geldverkehr, Geldtransporte und Geldbuchungen in römischer Republik und Kaiserzeit: das Zeugnis der schriftlichen Quellen. Rev. Belge Num. 152, 2006, 23-49.

2 Important work, but hardly based on material evidence, has been conducted by Howgego: Ch. Howgego, The supply and use of money in the Roman world 200 BC to AD 300. Journal Roman Stud. 82, 1992, 1-31 and id., Coin circulation and the integration of the Roman economy. Journal Roman Arch. 7, 1994, 5-21. Some theories are more specific, but usually concerned with use and circulation on one particular site, which is then used as a starting point for general observations. For example, see H.-J. Schulzki, Die Fundmünzen der römischen Straßenstation Flerzheim. Beih. Bonner Jahrb. 48 (Bonn 1989) and the excellent D.R. Walker, Roman coins from the Sacred Spring at Bath. In: B. Cunliffe (ed.), The temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath. II. Finds from the Sacred Spring (Oxford 1988), 281-358.

138 Fleur Kemmers

sort, while the supply of coins is thought to have been, in contrast, fairly primitive, driven by the state's need to make payments 3. To begin with the former, Aarts4 has recently argued that the use of Roman coins has been looked upon entirely in economic terms, despite the fact that theories of economic anthropology have been applied in both Iron Age and Greek numismatics and demonstrate that socio-cultural factors also dictated the ways in which coins were being used to a significant degree5. More precisely, the use of coins was not necessarily based solely on their monetary value, nor should rational decisions underlie the selection of when certain coins were used. The supply of coins to the provinces of the Roman Empire and its diverse population is usually thought to have been an ad hoc process – a randomized bulk of precious metal coins that was sent out as military pay to all enlisted men. The Roman state apparatus is perceived as having been insufficiently developed to have supplied coins according to popular demand and, instead, is thought to have distributed coins across the empire through mechanisms requiring the least amount of effort6. Based on these assumptions concerning use and supply – the two factors that are at the basis of coin circulation – scholars assume an integrated circulation of coins7. Coins moved freely across the empire, and penetrated all layers of society, thereby crossing boundaries of status, class, ethnicity and profession. As a consequence, the coin assemblage of the western Roman Empire, where no indigenous coinages persisted, is frequently thought to have been an almost homogeneous mass. Even if the initial supply of coins was differentiated, commerce and troop transfers would have thoroughly mixed them8. The concept of a homogeneous coin pool has met with harsh criticism from scholars involved with coin finds. For bronze coinages it has been repeatedly demonstrated that a strictly regional circulation is the norm. Once supplied to a region, bronze coinages did not travel out of it again. At the same time, this shows that the bronze coin supply was differentiated regionally9. In the case of precious

3 The debate more or less started off with the still seminal M.I. Finley, The Ancient Economy

(Berkeley 1973). For an overview of the reception of this work J. Andreau, Vingt ans d'après L'économie antique de Moses I. Finley. Ann. Hist. Scien. Sociales 50, 5, 1995, 947-960. For an adequate summary of the debate and the directions it has taken, see e.g. J. Aarts, Coins, money and exchange in the Roman world. A cultural-economic perspective. Arch. Dialogues 12, 1, 2005, 1-28, in particular 2-7.

4 Aarts (note 3), 8-14. 5 R. Seaford, Money and the early Greek mind: Homer, philosophy, tragedy (Cambridge 2004) and

S. von Reden, Exchange in ancient Greece (London 1995) for the Greek world and the contributions in C. Haselgrove/D.G. Wigg-Wolf (eds.), Iron Age coins and ritual practices. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 20 (Mainz 2005) for the possibilities of this approach in Iron Age numismatics.

6 Wolters (note 1), 47-49; C.J. Howgego, Why did ancient states strike coins? Num. Chronicle 150, 1990, 1-25 sees some evidence that the minting of coins could occasionally have been related to economic needs of the population (22-23).

7 Howgego 1994 (note 2), 20-21. 8 Howgego 1994 (note 2), 15-16; Wolters (note 1), 26-27. 9 Already noted in C.M. Kraay, The behaviour of early imperial countermarks. In: R.A.G. Carson/

C.H.V. Sutherland (eds.), Essays in Roman coinage presented to Harold Mattingly (Oxford 1956) 113-136. Further material provided by S.A. Hobley, An examination of Roman bronze coin

Sender or receiver? 139

Fig. 1: The traditional model of coin circulation in the Roman Empire.

metal coinages, Duncan-Jones in particular has tried to disprove the notion of homogenous coin circulation in all areas of the Roman Empire, arguing from a statistical analysis of hoards from all corners of the Roman world10. His evidence, however, is not quite as strong as that for bronze coinages.

All in all, current ideas on coin supply and circulation can be summarised in a basic model (fig. 1). In this model, the state supplied the army with precious metal coins. Through daily commerce, coins were disseminated into the civilian sphere, after the soldiers had changed their denarii into small change at nummularii. Civilians then paid their taxes to the state in precious metal for which they first had to change their bronze coinage back into silver at the same nummularii. The state could then melt or reuse the silver coins to pay the army, and so on and so forth. Several additions to this model have been made, allowing for provincial treasuries as intermediaries, payments to civil servants, deposition and hoarding of coins, etc., but in its essence the concept remains the same11.

From the above observations, however, it is clear that this model cannot remain unquestioned. In fact, it is rather remarkable that it still persists. One of the reasons

distribution in the western empire AD 81-192. British Arch. Reports Internat. Ser. 688 (Oxford 1998) and discussed in depth in F. Kemmers, Coins for a legion. An analysis of the coin finds from the Augustan legionary fortress and Flavian canabae legionis at Nijmegen. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 21 (Mainz 2006).

10 R.P. Duncan-Jones, The monetization of the Roman Empire: Regional variations in the supply of coin types. In: G.M. Paul/M. Ierardi (eds.), Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers II (Ann Arbor 1999) 61-83 and R.P. Duncan-Jones, Implications of Roman coinage: debates and differences. Klio 87, 2, 2005, 459-487 from page 471 onward.

11 Aarts (note 3), 11; K.W. Harl, Coinage in the Roman economy, 300 B.C. to AD 700 (Baltimore 1996) 244.

140 Fleur Kemmers

that it does might be that it is not based on a contextual analyses of coins; on the contrary, it is rooted in the study of coins as minted, rather than in the study of coins as found.

3. Contextual analysis as a way forward

Just like artefacts as pottery, brooches and iron utensils, coins can be studied as archaeological objects, following similar methods and approaches. Fundamental to this approach is the concept of context. The context in which an object is found fixes it spatially, chronologically and often functionally. The comparison – an equally important archaeological method – between different contexts and their associated objects enables observations on the use of these objects through time and space. Coins without contexts, or a study of coins which does not take their contexts into account, can surely yield interesting results, but by including the context entirely new research questions are possible12.

At the level of the individual site a context can be defined as an archaeological feature, like a posthole, rubbish pit or ditch. The stratigraphy of the site shows which contexts belong together chronologically, while in the horizontal plane one discerns which contexts were functionally connected. By analyzing coins in their context at site-level it is possible, for example, to determine which coins circulated together, how quickly coins entered circulation after their emission and in what ways coins were deposited13. All of this contributes to our understanding of coin use and circulation.

At the intra-site level, it is possible to analyse coins in a wider context by defining context as the functional character of the site at which the coin was found. In this way the find context of a coin can be classified as a "rural settlement", a "Roman town", a "ritual site", and so on. It is then possible to compare similar categories across regions or to compare different categories within a single region. This method allows scholars to determine questions such as whether coin use in Roman villas in Upper Germany differed from use in Roman towns, or whether the coin supply to Roman forts was the same in Britain as in Raetia. The traditional assumptions surrounding an undifferentiated coin supply and a rational, economic use of coins underlying the model of coin circulation and supply can thus be tested. This approach has been successfully applied to Iron Age coin studies by Colin Haselgrove14. In their inventory of Roman coins from Wales, Guest and Wells have also used this definition of context15, but since theirs is a broad overview

12 N.T. Elkins, A survey of the material and intellectual consequences of trading in undocumented

ancient coins: a case study on the North American Trade. Frankfurter elektronische Rundschau z. Altkde. 7, 2008, 1-13. http://www.fera-journal.eu (retrieved 14 October 2008).

13 The possibilities are explored in Kemmers (note 9), 130-146 and 165-172. 14 C. Haselgrove, A new approach to analysing the circulation of Iron Age coinage. Num. Chronicle

165, 2005, 129-174 and C. Haselgrove, The incidence of Iron Age coins on archaeological sites in Belgic Gaul. In: J. Metzler/D. Wigg-Wolf (eds.), Die Kelten und Rom: Neue numismatische Forschungen. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 19 (Mainz 2005) 247-296.

15 P. Guest/N. Wells, Iron Age & Roman coins from Wales (Wetteren 2007) 12-14.

Sender or receiver? 141

rather than an analysis, this was not used as a research tool. The work of Aarts16 on the function of coins in three selected regions in Lower Germany and Belgic Gaul, and Van Heesch17 on the circulation of coins in two civitates in Belgic Gaul, inspired in turn by Reece's groundbreaking studies in Britain18, was partly based on this definition of context as well. These studies focused heavily on diachronic perspectives, from the Late Iron Age to the Late Roman period, resulting in important observations on developments and changes in coin use and circulation through time, but without details on particular issues or reigns. By concentrating instead on a confined period, which allows for more level of detail, and widening the geographic scope to multiple provinces of the Roman Empire, it should be possible to detect contemporary differences in coin use, supply and circulation.

4. A case study on coin circulation and supply in the Severan period (AD 193-235)

In order to illustrate the contextual method of analysis, which focuses on a single period over a large area, some preliminary results of a larger research project on Severan monetary policy are presented19. Indications for a differentiated supply and use of coins, based on economic need and ideological potential, are investigated through an inventory of Severan coin finds in Upper and Lower Germany, Raetia, Belgic Gaul, Gallia Lugdunensis, Gallia Aquitania and Britannia. The Severan period (AD 193-235) was selected because the coin finds of this period have several advantages. In the first place this was the final period of a regular coin supply to the north western provinces20, but at the same time the amount of coins involved is not as staggeringly large as in the first and second centuries. Secondly, due to a strong debasement of the denarius at the onset of Septimius Severus' reign and the replacement of the denarius in favour of the antoninianus by the time of Gordian III, little pre-Severan silver coinage would have circulated in the Severan period. Severan coins also ceased circulating on a large scale in the 240s21. By including both military and civilian provinces in the

16 J.G. Aarts, Coins or money? Exploring the monetization and functions of Roman coinage in Belgic

Gaul and Lower Germany 50 BC – AD 450 (Amsterdam 2000). 17 J. van Heesch, De muntcirculatie tijdens de romeinse tijd in het noordwesten van Gallia Belgica.

De civitates van de Nerviërs en de Menapiërs (ca. 50 v.C. – 450 n.C.). Koninklijke musea voor kunst en geschiedenis, monografie van nationale archeologie 11 (Brussels 1998).

18 A comprehensive overview of his theories and methods: R. Reece, Site-finds in Roman Britain. Britannia 26, 1995, 179-206.

19 Research project "coins for the army: Severan ideology and monetary policy", funded by the Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) by way of the Innovational Research Incentives Scheme (VENI).

20 Among others, see van Heesch (note 17), 109. 21 On the debasement by Septimius Severus: H. Gitler/M. Ponting, The silver coinage of Septimius

Severus and his family (193-211 AD). A study on the chemical composition of the Roman and Eastern issues. Glaux 16 (Milan 2003) showing a reduction to 46 % fine. For the rise of the antoninianus, forcing denarii out of circulation: D. Hollard, La crise de la monnaie dans l'Empire romain au 3e siècle après J.-C. Synthèse des recherches et résultats nouveaux. Ann. Hist. Scien. Sociales 50, 5, 1995, 1045-1078 (in particular 1057-1058). However Severan denarii keep turning up in considerable numbers in hoards up to the reign of Postumus: van Heesch (note 17), 127-134

142 Fleur Kemmers

study, the question of how coins entered circulation if no army camps were nearby (ignored in the traditional model discussed above) might be solved.

At the time of writing a representative sample of coin finds from the two Germanies, Belgic Gaul and Raetia can be used for a contextual analysis. For each coin find the numismatic parameters of denomination, reverse type, reverse legend, issue and mint have been recorded, along with the archaeological information on its find circumstances (single find or hoard, name of the site, location of the site and functional context).

As can be concluded from figures 2 and 3, the coin finds are neither evenly distributed over the various functional contexts nor over the geographical contexts. As far as the geographical context is concerned, this difference is probably caused by the varying attention paid to coin finds in the modern countries involved and the accessibility of published finds. With regard to functional contexts, two factors could have been working simultaneously. Research interests in specific areas (e.g. military installations or temple-sites for example) will have affected the number of coins found: if military vici are not excavated, then they will not yield any coin finds. On the other hand, the nature of the settlement in antiquity could have been such that relatively few coins entered the archaeological record. This should not be taken to imply that few coins circulated in these settlements. Coin hoards pose a problem in their own right. Since every hoard reflects an intentional selection of the coins available to the hoarder, coins from hoards are not included in the analyses that follow.

Notwithstanding the observed difficulties in the dataset, which must be kept in mind when making any observations or comparisons, three aspects of coin use and supply are analysed in their functional context: denominations, issues and types.

As has been observed by numerous numismatists, the Severan period is marked by its lack of bronze coinage22. Although bronze coins were minted at Rome and are fairly common as site finds in the Mediterranean, they are rare north of the Alps. This has led to assumptions of inflation in the northwest, economic stagnation in these areas or economic isolation23. Figure 4, which shows the relative proportions of Severan denominations in the inventory, seems to confirm the overwhelming dominance of silver coinage over bronze coinage. Compared to the first and second centuries AD, in which period bronze coins are dominant site

for a discussion of this phenomenon. Because of their relatively high silver content, they will have been saved and withdrawn from circulation. The late hoards with Severan denarii are therefore to be understood most likely as savings hoards. As the research focuses on circulation, use and supply, these hoards are not taken into considerations. Only Severan coins in hoards with a terminus ante quem of 245 were included.

22 Among others R.A. Abdy, Worn sestertii in Roman Britain and the Longhorsley hoard. Num. Chronicle 163, 2003, 137-146; T.V. Buttrey, A hoard of sestertii from Bordeaux and the problem of bronze circulation in the third century AD. Am. Num. Soc. Mus. Notes 18, 1972, 33-58; id., Monetary circulation at Lyons in the third century AD Bull. Soc. Française Num. 36, 10, 1981, 125-126; R. Reece, Roman coinage in the Western Empire. Britannia 4, 1973, 227-251.

23 Inflation: M. Peter, Untersuchungen zu den Fundmünzen aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 17 (Berlin 2001) 124-125 and 204-205; stagnation: van Heesch (note 17), 105; isolation: Buttrey 1972 (note 22), 54-55 and van Heesch (note 17), 105.

Sender or receiver? 143

Severan coins in functional context

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

auxil

iary f

ort

legion

ary f

ortre

ss

militar

y vicu

s

cana

bae l

egion

istow

n

civil v

icus

nativ

e

villa

rusti

ca

temple

/ritua

l

cemete

ry

functional context

Num

ber o

f coi

ns

non hoardhoard

Fig. 2: The distribution of Severan coin finds over various functional contexts.

Severan coins in geographical context

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Gallia

Aquita

nia

Gallia

Belgica

Gallia

Lugd

unen

sis

German

ia Inf

erior

German

ia Sup

erior

Raetia

Province

Num

ber o

f coi

ns

non hoardhoard

Fig. 3: The distribution of Severan coin finds over various geographical contexts.

144 Fleur Kemmers

denarius

quinarius

sestertius

dupondius as

dupondius/as

antoninianus

aureusaes

n = 7666

Figure 4: The relative proportions of denominations among Severan coin finds (hoards excluded).

0

20

40

60

80

100

aes

precio

us m

etal

aes

precio

us m

etal

aes

precio

us m

etal

aes

precio

us m

etal

aes

precio

us m

etal

aes

precio

us m

etal

militarycivilianritual

Septimius Severus

Geta Caracalla Macrinus Elagabalus Severus Alexander

Figure 5: The ratio of aes coinage and precious metal coins per Severan emperor over various functional contexts (hoards excluded) (Septimius Severus n (mil.) = 956; n (civ.) = 1135; n (rit.) = 103. Geta n (mil.) = 86; n (civ.) = 131; n (rit.) = 19. Caracalla n (mil.) = 343; n (civ.) = 521; n (rit.) = 49. Macrinus n (mil.) = 19; n (civ.) = 42; n (rit.) = 11. Elagabalus n (mil.) = 574; n (civ.) = 691; n (rit.) = 53. Severus Alexander n (mil.) = 1036; n (civ.) = 1164; n (rit.) = 135.

Sender or receiver? 145

Denominations in villae

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Gallia Belgica GermaniaInferior

GermaniaSuperior

Raetia

Province

%

precious metalaes

n = 80 n = 37 n = 141 n = 50

Fig. 6: The ratio of aes coinage and precious metal coins of the Severan emperors in villa-contexts in different provinces (hoards excluded).

Denominations in civic vici

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Gallia Belgica GermaniaInferior

GermaniaSuperior

Raetia

Province

%

precious metalaes

n = 496 n = 334 n = 633 n = 120

Fig. 7: The ratio of aes coinage and precious metal coins of the Severan emperors in vicus-contexts in different provinces (hoards excluded).

146 Fleur Kemmers

finds, this is a complete reversal of the standard composition of coin finds. If, however, we look at the relative proportions of Severan denominations per emperor in their functional context, a different picture emerges (fig. 5). There are three distinct functional contexts: military contexts (including coin finds from auxiliary forts, legionary fortresses, military vici and canabae legionis), civilian contexts (coin finds from towns, vici, villas and rural settlements) and ritual contexts (coin finds from graves, temples and ritual depositions). In military contexts, bronze coins comprise up to six percent while only Elagabalus' bronze coins lag behind at barely two percent. In civilian contexts, however, bronze coins constitute roughly twenty percent of all coin finds. Again, Elagabalus' coins are the exception with only three percent. In ritual contexts, on average, fifty percent of all Severan coin finds are bronze. This is an interesting contrast which raises questions on the availability and use of Severan bronze coins. One could argue that this difference is not due to the functional contexts of coin finds, but rather to their geographical context, as military installations are mainly confined to the Germanies and Raetia. However, figure 6 shows that this explanation does not hold. Regardless of where a Roman villa is situated, the percentage of bronze coins in its Severan coin assemblage are between twenty and thirty percent. The same holds true for vici (fig. 7), but here the percentage ranges between twelve and seventeen percent. Only in towns are pronounced differences between provinces to be observed (fig. 8).

The examples above indicate that the ratio of Severan bronze coins to Severan silver coins is heavily influenced by the functional context of the site on which they have been found. Of course, one should not forget that Antonine bronze coins would have played a large part in Severan coin circulation and so this ratio is not very informative for topics like monetisation or price level. However, it does provide insight in the availability of coins for their potential users and the selections made by them. The clearest example is the comparatively large proportion of Severan bronze coins in ritual contexts. As has been observed by others, there was a tendency to give coins of small monetary value to the gods24. This example shows that conscious selection took place, even at a time when Severan bronze coins were not very common. It also discredits the notion that Severan bronze coins did not cross the Alps. They did not enter military circulation, but were in use in civilian and ritual spheres.

Turning to emissions, groups of coins with a common place, period or authority of minting, we enter the subject of how coins spread across the empire. An often discussed phenomenon of the Severan period is the appearance of coins issued at the imperial mints of the Near East in the western provinces25. A possible explanation might be that by means of trade and travellers the coins slowly spread

24 Aarts (note 3), 26; Walker 1988 (note 2), 284. 25 R.P. Duncan-Jones, The denarii of Septimius Severus and the mobility of Roman coin. Num.

Chronicle 161, 2001, 75-89; Ch. Howgego, The denarii of Septimius Severus and the mobility of Roman coin: A reply. Num. Chronicle 162, 2002, 339-342; R.P. Duncan-Jones, The denarii of Septimius Severus and the mobility of Roman coin: Further comment. Num. Chronicle 162, 2002, 342-345.

Sender or receiver? 147

Denominations in towns

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Gallia

Aquita

nia

Gallia

Belgica

Gallia

Lugd

unen

sis

German

ia Inf

erior

German

ia Sup

erior

Raetia

Province

%

precious metalaes

n = 113 n = 381 n = 18 n = 167 n = 704 n = 91

Fig. 8: The ratio of aes coinage and precious metal coins of the Severan emperors in town-contexts in different provinces (hoards excluded).

Mints (A.D. 193-217) in functional context

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Rome Imperial East Provincial East

%

military (n = 1379)civilian (n = 1609)ritual (n = 174)

Fig. 9: The relative proportions of coins minted in Rome, at imperial eastern mints and provincial eastern mints in the period A.D. 193-217 over various functional contexts (hoards excluded).

148 Fleur Kemmers

Issues of Elagabalus in Roman provinces

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Issue

%

Gallia Belgica (n = 224)

Germania Inferior (n = 272)

Germania Superior (n = 699)

Raetia (n = 152)

Fig. 10: The relative frequency of issues by Elagabalus in different provinces (hoards excluded).

Issues Elagabalus in functional context

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Issue

%

military (n = 556)civilian (n = 649)ritual (n = 51)

Fig. 11: The relative frequency of issues by Elagabalus over various functional contexts (hoards excluded).

Sender or receiver? 149

westward26. An alternative could be that the Eastern issues were part of the payments Septimius Severus made to his troops during his British campaigns from his private war chest27. Figure 9 illustrates the relative proportions of coins minted in the period AD 193-217 at Rome, at imperial Eastern mints and provincial Eastern mints in military, civilian and ritual contexts. Eastern imperial coins are significantly28 more common in military contexts than elsewhere, while the same applies for Eastern provincial issues in ritual contexts. In this last instance it could well be further proof of selection. Regarding the Eastern imperial coins, in the light of the evidence, the hypothesis that these coins were direct payments to the soldiers in the West seems quite attractive.

Another example is presented in figures 10 and 11. The relative proportions in four provinces of the various issues struck by Elagabalus29 do show minor variations, but not enough to propose a differentiated supply without coin drift afterwards. Most likely, the ups and downs in figure 10 reflect the relative output of the mint at Rome. If separated by functional context, however, there are much clearer differences between ritual, military and civilian contexts (fig. 11). Since ritual contexts show a preference for issues for the female members of Elagabalus' family some selection process might have been at work.

The final part of the case study is concerned with coin types. Although, numismatically speaking, every variation in either obverse or reverse legend or image creates a new type, for this example only a fundamental difference in the reverse image constituted a new type30. This approach is related to the opinion that coins could be used to communicate messages from the emperor to the receiver/user of the coins. Generally speaking, these messages will have been quite straightforward, as the majority of the potential users did not belong to the educated, intellectual elite of the empire. The notion that coins could be used as a

26 Howgego 2002 (note 25), 340. 27 Duncan-Jones 2001 (note 25), 85; R.A. Abdy, Romano-British coin hoards. Shire Arch. 82

(Princes Risborough 2002) 31-33. 28 At four freedom degrees and α = 0.05 chi-square should be equal to or above 9.48. As chi-square

in this example is 50.1, the uneven distribution is significant. 29 Issue 1: TR P COS; Issue 2: TR P II COS II; Issue 3: TR P III COS III; Issue 4: TR P IIII COS III;

Issue 5: TR P V COS IIII; Issue 6: the undated coins of Elagabalus; Issue 7: coins in the name of Julia Paula; Issue 8: coins in the name of Aquilia Severa; Issue 9: coins in the name of Annia Faustina; Issue 10: coins in the name of Julia Soaemias; Issue 11: coins in the name of Julia Maesa. The author is aware of the further differentiation possible in the undated coinages of Elagabalus and Julia Maesa, as set out by K. Pink, Der Aufbau der römischen Münzprägung in der Kaiserzeit II. Von Caracallas Regierungsantritt bis zum Tode Elagabals. Num. Zeitschr. 67, 1934, 1-17. As coin finds, due to their erosion and wear, are seldomly classified in accordance with Pink's Aufbau, this sequence was not used. R. Wolters, Die Wiener Schule und der "Aufbau." In: H. Emmerig (ed.), Vindobona docet. 40 Jahre Institut für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte der Universität Wien 1965-2005. Veröff. Inst. Num. u. Geldgesch. Univ. Wien 10 = Num. Zeitschr. 113-114 (Wien 2005) 95-106 for a critique on the Aufbau and why it has never been really integrated in the numismatic scholarly tradition (outside of Vienna).

30 Thus a coin showing Pax is of a different type than a coin showing Jupiter, but Pax standing left is of the same type as Pax seated right, etc.

150 Fleur Kemmers

Types AD 231-235 in the Roman provinces

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Jupit

erMars

Provide

ntia Sol

Spes

Other

Type

%

Gallia Belgica (n = 63)Germania Inferior (n = 39)Germania Superior (n = 143)Raetia (n = 35)

Fig. 12: The relative frequency of coin types of the years A.D. 231-235 in different provinces (hoards excluded).

Coin types AD 231-235 in functional contexts

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Jupit

erMars

Provide

ntia Sol

Spes

Other

Type

%

military (n = 101)civilian (n = 130)ritual (n=19)

Fig. 13: The relative frequency of coin types of the years A.D. 231-235 over various functional contexts (hoards excluded).

Sender or receiver? 151

means of communication is no longer disputed31, but the ultimate implication – that the messages could have been targeted at specific receivers – is usually shunned. Now propaganda is an anachronism for the Roman period and coins should surely be viewed in a wider context of imperial images and messages. Coins were not minted to distribute messages but to make payments32. Nevertheless, and in accordance with a growing body of evidence33, the Roman state might have tried to send meaningful images to certain target groups. A contextual analysis of type is a powerful research tool to verify this hypothesis.

Figure 12 shows the relative proportion of Severan coin types minted between AD 231 and 235 in four Roman provinces. Belgic Gaul and Upper Germany have similar frequencies of the different coin types, whereas for Lower Germany and Raetia the ratios are more varied. Looking at the same assemblage in a functional context (fig. 13), clearer differences can be observed. The types showing Jupiter, Providentia and Spes are as frequent in military contexts as they are in civilian contexts. However, the type depicting Mars is considerably more common in military contexts than in civilian contexts, whereas for the Sol type it is the other way around. In ritual contexts, Sol is by far the most common type found. The observed variations in the functional contexts are not an effect of the differences between the provinces. Within a single province an even stronger contrast between military and civilian contexts is visible, as is shown by figure 14 presenting the data for Upper Germany.

At first glance, the relationship between military contexts and coins depicting Mars, and his associated connotations of martiality, courage and war, might seem rather obvious, but then numerous questions arise. If coins with the image of Mars were preferably sent to soldiers in the period AD 231-235, why did these coins not spread in equal proportions to civilian settlements immediately next door? This seems to imply either that civilian coin circulation and military coin circulation were two different worlds or that the secondary users of coins tended to select coins on the basis of the images displayed on them. Taking this further, one should

31 E.g. C.F. Noreña, The communication of the emperor's virtues. Journal Roman Stud. 91, 2001,

146-168; R. Wolters, Die Geschwindigkeit der Zeit und die Gefahr der Bilder: Münzbilder und Münzpropaganda in der römischen Kaiserzeit. In: G. Weber/M. Zimmerman (eds.), Propaganda-Selbstdarstellung-Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreich des 1. Jhs. n. Chr. Historia Einzelschr. 164 (Stuttgart 2003) 175-204; H. Kloft, Funktionale und kommunikative Aspekte des Münzgeldes. In: G. Binder/K. Ehlich (eds.), Religiöse Kommunikation – Formen und Praxis vor der Neuzeit. Stätten u. Formen Kommunikation Alt. 6 = Bochumer Altwiss. Coll. 26 (Trier 1997) 243-270.

32 Payment should not be taken to imply military expenditure only, but can refer to payments for public building programmes, civilian employees, congiaria, etc. Howgego 1990 (note 6) demonstrates that the impetus to mint new coins was not necessarily related to payments strictu sensu, but still in his explanation of minting policy the decision to mint new coins was related to monetary affairs too, not ideological.

33 Kemmers (note 9), 219-24; O. Hekster, Coins and messages: Audience targeting on coins of different denominations? In: L. De Blois et al. (eds.), The representation and perception of Roman imperial power (Amsterdam 2003) 20-35. More general is P. Lummer, Zielgruppen römischer Staatskunst. Die Münzen der Kaiser Augustus bis Trajan und die Trajanische Staatsreliefs. Quellen u. Forsch. Ant. Welt 6 (München 1991).

152 Fleur Kemmers

Coin types in Germania Superior AD 231-235

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Jupiter Mars Providentia Sol Spes Other

Type

%

Military (n = 76)Civilian (n = 47)

Fig. 14: The relative frequency of coin types of the years A.D. 231-235 in Upper Germany in military and civilian contexts (hoards excluded).

consider what is actually reflected in the graphs presented so far: the supposed patterns of communication might just as well be patterns of perception.

Several general observations can be made by looking at the combined evidence from the case study. First of all, it is clear that a contextual analysis challenges commonly held ideas on the circulation of bronze and silver coins in the Severan period. Secondly, as with bronze coins, silver coin circulation across the empire is not one homogeneous mass. Another aspect that is made visible is the outstanding position of ritual contexts, where it is undeniable that selections not pertaining to monetary value took place. Furthermore, coins found in military contexts do differ in multiple ways from coins found in civilian contexts, even within the same geographical area. This difference leads one to wonder what caused it. Were different coins available in the two contexts or was a selection process at work?

5. Alternative ideas on coin use and coin supply from a contextual viewpoint

The key agent in determining how coins circulated could have been either the Roman state (the sender of the coins) or the people inhabiting the Roman Empire (the receiver of the coins). Given the observed patterns of Severan coin circulation, two alternative models of use and supply can be outlined. Neither of them is comprehensive, but they might be of use in focusing thoughts and ideas and directing further research.

Sender or receiver? 153

Fig. 15: A model of coin circulation in the Roman world in which the sender decides.

In the first model (fig. 15) the issuer of the coins (the Roman state) consciously sent coinage to selected receivers. For the Severan period this means that the army received silver coins as military pay, predominantly displaying message "a". These coins then kept circulating within the military sphere, which included the adjacent military vici, probably complemented with Antonine bronzes. Coins withdrawn from their daily circulation to transgress into the ritual realm were not randomly chosen but subjected to a careful selection process. A second strand of coin supply runs from the government to the civilian population, containing both silver and bronze coinage, predominantly displaying message "b". It is unclear through what mechanisms coins could be directly supplied to civilians, but we might think of pay for civilian officials, spending on public works in the provinces, loans to local

154 Fleur Kemmers

Fig. 16: A model of coin circulation in the Roman world in which the receiver decides.

elites or bankers as intermediaries34. Here too, coins circulated within the civilian sphere and selections were made regarding which coins to deposit in ritual contexts. In this model soldiers and civilians form two separate worlds without any interaction (at least as far as coin transactions are concerned).

34 Pay for officials: J. van Heesch, Some aspects of wage payments and coinage in ancient Rome,

first to third centuries CE. In: J. Lucassen (ed.), Wages and currency. Global comparisons from antiquity to the twentieth century (Bern 2008) 77-96 with further references; public works: D.B. Hollander, Money in the late Roman Republic. Columbia Stud. Class. Tradition 29 (Leiden/Boston 2007) 115; loans to local elites: Howgego 1992 (note 2), 27-28 and Aarts 2000 (note 16), 120-121; bankers: J. Andreau, Banking and business in the Roman world. Key themes in ancient history (Cambridge 1999) 49.

Sender or receiver? 155

The alternative model (fig. 16) supposes interaction between these two spheres, as it represents decisions made by the users of coins. For the Severan period, this model assumes the supply of silver coins to the army, mainly displaying messages "a" and "b". Part of the silver coinage was exchanged for bronze coins at nummularii and silver and bronze coins were then disseminated to the civilian sphere, probably through commerce. Civilians, however, showed a predilection for coins with message "b" (or the army was unwilling to let go of coins displaying message "a"). Upon paying their taxes, in silver coinage, the civilian population preferably gave away coins with message "a". Within the ritual sphere the model is the same as the previous one. This model is more similar to the traditional one, discussed at the outset of this paper. A primary criticism of the conventional model is aimed at the supposed payment of exclusively silver coins to the army, and hence the necessity of moneychangers35. In first- and second century military installations, the bronze coins found dwarf the number of precious metal coins. More importantly, however, there is increasing evidence that specific consignments of bronze coins were transported to the camps36, which would hardly be in the interest of nummularii. The idea that money changers did not play a significant role in the northwestern provinces in that period may be supported by the absence of epigraphic evidence for them. In the early third century, however, we do find almost exclusively silver coins in military contexts, we know of the enormous military pay-raise in the reign of Septimius Severus, and again that of his son Caracalla37, and we have the first epigraphically attested nummularii in the German provinces38. It could be that, from this time onwards, the military stipendium was no longer paid in a mixture of silver and bronze, but in silver coins only, creating a demand for nummularii.

A possible weakness of model 2 is that it is quite difficult to envisage a system of commercial exchange in which coins are included (or excluded) because of their pictorial themes. One wonders in that case whether "commercial exchange" is the right concept to use; as mentioned in the introduction, the use of coins might have gone beyond their monetary value. Equally difficult to understand is the strict separation of military and civilian spheres of circulation as sketched in figure 15.

35 Kemmers (note 9), 195-196. 36 F. Kemmers, Quadrantes from Nijmegen: small change in a frontier province. Schweizer. Num.

Rundschau 82, 2003, 17-35; F. Kemmers, Not at random: Evidence for a regionalized coin supply? In: J. Bruhn/B. Croxford/D. Grigoropoulos (eds.), TRAC 2004: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Durham 2004 (Oxford 2005) 39-49; Peter (note 23), 91-92.

37 M.A. Speidel, Roman army pay scales. Journal Roman Stud. 82, 1992, 87-106 argues for a doubling of military pay in AD 197 and a further increase by 50 % in app. AD 212.

38 B. Galsterer/G. Galsterer, Die römischen Steininschriften aus Köln. Wiss. Kat. Röm.-Germ. Mus. Köln 2 (Cologne 1975), catalogue numbers 327 (= CIL XIII, 8353) and 330 (= AE 1927, 67).

156 Fleur Kemmers

6. Further thoughts

Two final remarks might be made, which could be of help in directing both the interpretation of the data and future lines of research. In support of previous work on the distribution of Roman silver coinage39, Severan silver coins are not evenly distributed over the western Roman Empire. Since precious metal coinage is usually thought to have been an excellent medium for long distance trade, this seems quite remarkable. In my opinion, we should pay more attention to recent studies on the Roman banking and credit system40. This system seems to have reached a higher level of sophistication than commonly thought and it was not always necessary for traders, soldiers or government officials to carry around wagonloads of coin. For a number of purposes the virtual transfer of money might have been a very practical tool.

Secondly, in regard to the influence of functional contexts on the issues, types and denominations found, both the alternative models on coin circulation presented above represent extremes. It could well be that coins entered a region and were then disseminated to different contexts, for example, from army camp to canabae, to villa rusticate, or from town to civic vicus, to native settlement. From the moment a coin was minted to the moment it entered the archaeological record, multiple decisions had taken place; decisions which could have been made both by the sender and the receiver of the coins.

39 cf. note 10. 40 Hollander (note 34); D. Jones, The Bankers of Puteoli: finance, trade and industry in the Roman

world (Stroud 2006).