[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]
Coin Hoards and Hoarding in the Roman World is the first collection of studies resulting from the Coin Hoards of the Roman Empire Project (CHRE). The project, led by Christopher Howgego and Andrew Wilson, is a partnership among forty-nine international institutions from twenty-six countries and is an exciting complement to previous works documenting coin hoards: the Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, the Coin Hoards series, Michael Crawford’s Roman Republican Coin Hoards, Kris Lockyear’s Coin Hoards of the Roman Republic Online, and various regional indices.[1] Beyond documenting over 5.8 million coins in over 14,000 hoards found throughout the Roman Empire between c. 30 BCE and 400 CE and making these data accessible online, CHRE seeks to analyze this massive amount of data to improve our understanding of the empire’s monetary systems and hoarding habits, and to integrate this information into conversations about the Roman economy.
As such, the project is being undertaken in several phases. In the first phase (2014-2018), data were recorded about each hoard. A conference was held in September 2016 to discuss the results of this phase and potential research directions, and this volume of collected studies is the result. In the next phase, data will be recorded about each coin in the hoards.
The volume is divided into three parts. “Part I. Approaches” contains two sections. First, an introduction provides an overview of CHRE and the volume as well as wise cautionary comments on analyzing a coin hoard, which for this volume is defined as “any group of coins which appear to have been deposited together” (p. 4). Second, Kris Lockyer makes a compelling argument for using more sophisticated statistical analyses than bar graphs, averages, and distribution maps. While these techniques were not used in other chapters, they may help take into account other cautionary notes made in those studies.
“Part II. Regional Studies” provides several detailed overviews of the coin hoarding patterns in various regions. They often draw on past publications or other projects for their data sets of hoards and offer recommendations for future research. Significantly, these analyses often comment on bronze, silver, and gold coins instead of the common focus on only one metal, usually silver. The contributions are ordered geographically within the volume, but they are discussed here thematically.
Several contributors urge more interdisciplinary work combining insights from archaeology and numismatics. Using data from Britain’s Portable Antiquities Scheme, Eleanor Ghey argues that there was greater economic continuity into the third century than the archaeological data suggests. She also argues for greater attention to the landscape. On the one hand, geophysical survey suggests some hoards were deposited in settlements even though they seem to be in an isolated area today; on the other hand, various landscape features, such as high ground and waterfalls, contained clusters of hoards and so seem to have attracted the deposition of hoards. Next, Antony Hostein and Pierre Nouvel combine archaeological and numismatic data within the territory of the Aedui (modern Burgundy) to observe that larger hoards or multiple hoards are usually found at wealthier rural sites. They also note that non-recovery of a hoard in antiquity does not mean a site was abandoned. Future comparisons of the Aedui’s behavior with other well-documented tribes’ practices should prove more enlightening. In a study that further expands the relevant disciplines, Jerome Mairat combines archaeological and epigraphic evidence to define the borders of the breakaway Gallic Empire. He suggests that hoards may help to solve this puzzle in some areas (e.g. Raetia) although economics and politics do not always align clearly (e.g. in Spain).
Athena Iamovidou and Sophia Kremydi examine hoards from the modern state of Greece and determine that the hoarding patterns within ancient Macedonia differ from those in Achaea. These patterns differ over time, especially with respect to the habits for hoarding local and imperial bronze coins, and there appear to be differences between Macedonian burial and non-burial hoards. The scholars also thoroughly document that hoarding likely did not increase as a result of the Herulian invasion of Greece in 267/8. This last observation is a common theme among the contributions: an examination of time periods with frequent hoarding activity to determine how strong the connection may be between periods of violence and hoarding.[2] While Cristian Găzdac notes how military activity could affect the location of hoards in Dacia, he focuses on monetary changes to explain the increased frequency of hoards at specific times. On the other hand, Joshua Goldman’s analysis of hoarding in Palestine confirms the correlation between hoarding and the First Jewish and Bar Kokhba Revolts; in fact, it is so strong that it limits our ability to date the effects of monetary reforms in the region. Indeed, as Chris Howgego and Andrew Wilson point out in the introduction, monetary and military explanations for hoarding are insufficient, on their own, to account for all past hoarding behavior.
Ivan Bonchev adds other considerations to this debate in his examination of hoards containing provincial bronze coins in third-century Moesia Inferior. He suggests that after their production ended under Philip the Arab, these coins remained in circulation for some time as a result of coin shortages until the intense production of antoniniani replaced them. While his analysis potentially relies too heavily on coin wear, it brings coin supply and the acceptability of coins into the discussion of hoarding related to monetary reforms. It is also an intriguing method that could improve our understanding of the end of provincial bronze production elsewhere in the empire.
Finally, Thomas Faucher looks at the history of studying Egyptian hoards to determine profitable future avenues of study: finding published or excavated hoards in less well documented areas, greater attention to bronze coins and the context of hoards, and the cleaning and processing of excavated coins stored in museums. This discussion and these proposals seem particularly useful for considering how well the CHRE data actually reflect ancient hoarding practices throughout the empire. In this light, it is noteworthy that, while some regions are not discussed or considered deeply in the collection (such as Spain, Illyria, and North Africa), they are included in the online CHRE database.
“Part III. Longevity of Circulation” contains five studies on how long Roman coins circulated. First, Bernhard Woytek provides a good overview of the current debate about the late-first- and early-second-century restoration denarii and aurei. Combining the two dominant positions explaining the restoration coin types, Woytek argues that the mint workers, inspired by the images on the coins they started to recycle with Nero’s reforms, used the restoration coins to make connections with past emperors in order to position the reigning emperor within Roman history. On its own, this is a very attractive explanation, and it raises an important question about the extent to which the recycling shifted the ideological messages visible and noticed in the circulating coins, as well as a more speculative question about the extent of antiquarian and political interests among officials responsible for coin types.
Looking at the coins used shortly before and after the reforms under Nero, Domitian, and Septimius Severus, Benjamin Hellings offers three good warnings for examining coins in an archaeological context: the last coin in a hoard is just a terminus post quem; coins could be delayed in reaching a region, so hoard profiles should be compared before aggregating them in analyses; and the state often seems to have used old coin to make payments, so nuances in coin circulation can be hidden and budgetary changes may not result in changes to the amount of coins produced. Similarly, examining the Neronian and Severan monetary reforms, Kevin Butcher and Matthew Ponting show that some people hoarded based on their knowledge of the reforms and others did not, so hoards from the same time period can have different profiles. They also intriguingly and quickly propose that the antoninianus was actually equivalent in value to a pre-Severan reform denarius, not two denarii. I look forward to further discussion of this proposal, especially with regards to the value of all post-reform coins and to the antoninianus’s typical radiate portrait, which usually denoted the coin’s value was double that of another similar-sized denomination.
The last two contributions look at the end of Roman coinage. In northern Gaul, there were no bronze coins minted between 400 and 1500, despite a continued need for small change. Since Roman bronze coins are found in northern Gaul in archaeological contexts up to the twelfth-century, a growing number of scholars support the idea that Roman coins continued to serve as small change, even though they were no longer legal tender. Johan van Heesch nicely considers hoard profiles and archaeological contexts to plausibly argue that late-third and fourth-century bronze coins probably did not circulate extensively as small change during the fifth and sixth centuries, but gradually ceased to be used, with a slower economic shift near army camps. Similarly, Richard Hobbs convincingly proposes that flanged silver bowls were created from c. 325-425, possibly at mints, as a continuation of the silver coinage denominations for senatorial largitio in imitation of earlier imperial benefactions.
This volume contains a wide range of contributions with intriguing insights into where the CHRE project is headed or could head as it brings a wealth of newly assembled data to bear on the history of Rome and its economy. They also raise important questions and contribute to debates about coins’ ideological role, their economic role, and the effective use of numismatic data within an interdisciplinary analysis.
The volume is nicely produced with very few typos and many helpful images, tables, and graphs.
Authors and Titles
Part I. Approaches
- “Introduction: Coin Hoards and Hoarding in the Roman World”, Chris Howgego and Andrew Wilson
- “Simplifying Complexity”, Kris Lockyear
Part II: Regional Studies
- “Hoarding in Roman Britain: An Archaeological and Contextual Approach”, Eleanor Ghey
- “Hoarding in Burgundy, France: Micro-Study of a Region”, Antony Hostein and Pierre Nouvel, with the collaboration of Bernadette Soum and Ludovic Trommenschlager
- “Coin Hoards of the Gallic Empire”, Jerome Mairat
- “The Interface between East and West in Hoards from Southern Greece and Macedonia”, Athena Iakovidou and Sophia Kremydi
- “Coin Hoards from Roman Dacia”, Cristian Găzdac
- “Third-Century Hoards of Roman Provincial Coins from Moesia Inferior”, Ivan Bonchev
- “Coin Hoards in Roman Palestine: 63 BC – AD 300”, Joshua Goldman
- “Roman Coins from Egypt: What Next?”, Thomas Faucher
Part III: Longevity of Circulation
- “The Imperial Afterlife of Roman Republican Coins and the Phenomenon of the Restored Denarii”, Bernhard E. Woytek
- “Hoarding of Denarii and the Reforms of Nero and Septimius Severus”, Kevin Butcher and Matthew Ponting
- “Coin Supply and Longevity of Circulation: Three Case Studies from Hoards in North-West Europe”, Benjamin D. R. Hellings
- “The End of the Small Change Economy in Northern Gaul in the Fourth and the Fifth Centuries AD”, Johan van Heesch
- “Forms of largitio and ‘Denominations’ of Silver Plate in Late Antiquity: The Evidence of Flanged Bowls”, Richard Hobbs
Notes
[1] Michael H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coin Hoards (London: Royal Numismatic Society, 1969); Margaret Thompson, Otto Mørkholm, and Colin Kraay (edd.), Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards (New York: American Numismatic Society, 1973) (Online); and Kris Lockyear, Coin hoards of the Roman Republic Online, version 1 (New York: American Numismatic Society, 2013) (Online).
[2] This connection was first proposed by Michael Crawford in 1969 (“Coin Hoards and the Pattern of Violence in the Late Republic”, PBSR 37: 76-81).