[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
The book under review has its origins in a roundtable held at the University of Fribourg in 2016 and is the inaugural volume of the new series Aegeum, which aims to shed new light on the economic repercussions of Roman expansion in the eastern Mediterranean. It is a welcome addition to the thriving efforts in combining Greek and Roman numismatics and history, focussing on the intricate relationship between Roman expansion in the Aegean and the coinage minted and used there during the second and first century BCE.[1]
This expansion did not immediately result in the introduction of ‘Roman’ coinage or a tight control over circulating coins by the Romans. Still, research has shown that many of these ‘civic’ coinages were not mere products of individual minting authorities. Instead, they exhibit (sometimes very subtle) signs of Roman influence on their quantity, metrology, iconography, circulation behaviour, etc.
The book is divided into 11 chapters, followed by a list of abstracts. The majority of the chapters have a specific regional focus, while the contributions of Andrew Burnett and François de Callataÿ discuss issues of wider geographical scope.
Andrew Burnett’s chapter, ‘Overview and Some Methodological Points’, is a sharp-witted introduction to some of the current approaches and trends within the field of late(r) Hellenistic and early Roman Provincial numismatics. His thought-provoking essay centers on two main points. The first section discusses the role of quantity and quantification in identifying and interpreting coins presumably minted under the influence of the expanding Roman empire, while the second section argues for a comprehensive approach to these coinages. Until now, the size of a coin issue was not only used as a marker of Roman influence but also to interpret these coins as currency for military needs. While Burnett acknowledges that this can indeed be the case, he provides several examples to illustrate that other (non-military) explanations for coin production are plausible as well. In the second section, he presents a useful framework for analysing the diverse patterns of currency in different regions of the Roman Empire. This framework takes into account different factors such as the establishment of different provinces, the introduction of the denarius as currency there, the end of local gold and silver production, the circulation of local bronze coins, and the introduction of Roman accounting. The subsequent contributions do not use this model in detail, but explore certain aspects of it with different accentuations.
De Callataÿ provides an overview of the coinages that were in one way or another produced to serve Roman interests during the Mithridatic Wars, but which maintained their ‘civic’ appearance.[2] He then compellingly demonstrates that the phenomenon of ‘pseudo-civic’ coinages did not originate with the Romans but had earlier precedents. For instance, Athens minted New-Style silver coins in support of the Romans in the later second century BCE, and some cities in Aeolis and Ionia struck wreathed tetradrachms in the middle of the second century as part of Attalid support for Alexander Balas, pretender to the Seleucid throne. While not all of his examples may be equally convincing, de Callataÿ even traces the existence of ‘pseudo-civic’ coinages back to Alexander the Great, who himself adopted this system from the Persian kings.[3]
The remaining contributions have a decidedly regional scope and vary not only in their approach to the numismatic evidence, focussing on different aspects such as iconography (e.g., Dalaison), metrology (e.g., Meadows, Delrieux), circulation patterns (e.g., Meta, Kremydi, Delrieux), etc., but also differ in their objectives. While certain chapters present and discuss new research (e.g., Meadows, Carbone), others summarize recent scholarship (e.g., Amandry). The contributions in the book are arranged geographically from west to east without following familiar numismatic conventions.
Albana Meta focusses on silver drachms minted in Apollonia and Dyrrhachion and bronze coins of Illyrian cities. She offers a brief overview of coin production in these cities and links both the production rhythm and the distribution of coins in the later second and early first century BCE to Roman military activities. Subsequently, she associates bronze coin production in the area with the Roman presence, which spurred the creation of local markets with a need for small change. She also surveys silver and bronze coins minted in the second half of the first century BCE in Apollonia, Dyrrhachion, Byllis and Amantia, which in many cases adopted Roman (influenced) denominations. Her contribution addresses many of the aspects laid out in Burnett’s framework, but leaves aside arguably important ones. She engages only superficially with the denarii minted in Illyria during the Roman civil war (e.g. p. 72. 73), for example, although this phenomenon and its relation to local coin production would have certainly merited a more detailed treatment. And while she references Woytek’s important monograph Arma et Nummi, she does not further engage with his detailed arguments regarding the attribution of other denarii to Illyrian mints (e.g., RRC 441, 446, 452)[4] and their influence on the local monetary landscape.
Sophia Kremydi discusses different aspects of coin production and coin circulation in Macedonia and Thessaly. Of particular note are her observations regarding the chronology of the so-called pseudo-Rhodian coins, typically dated to the time of the Third Roman Macedonian War (171–168 BCE). She convincingly shows that these coins most likely were produced from the earlier second century BCE and thus emerged in a different context. She further discusses the chronology of silver and bronze coins of the Thessalian League, the Macedonian districts and cities. This is followed by an analysis of circulation patterns in the second and first century BCE in Macedonia and Thessaly that can partly be explained by Roman interventions. While the production of silver coinage ended in the middle of the first century BCE bronze coins continued to be produced albeit with an iconography and in denominations that clearly indicate Roman impact.
Andrew Meadows’ contribution shows persuasively how certain mints in Asia Minor adopted Roman minting practices and aligned their weight standards to Roman denarii and their fractions. Concurrently, other mints continued to produce coins on the Attic and ‘cistophoric’ standard (this phenomenon is also explored in Delrieux’s chapter on Caria). Meadows draws a basic distinction between Roman denarii and quinarii minted al marco, meaning that a certain number of coins was produced from a certain amount of bullion without attempting to control the individual weight of each coin, and Greek coin production al pezzo, meaning that the weight of every individual coin was adjusted to a certain standard. In the case of the proconsular cistophori of Pergamum, Ephesus, Apameia and Laodiceia, production transitioned from ‘Greek’ al pezzo to ‘Roman’ al marco during the First Mithridatic War. In addition, Meadows observes a reduction of the weight standard likely influenced by the Roman denarius. Through several case studies he shows that this was not an isolated phenomenon but a trend that can be observed in different mints from the time of the Mithridatic Wars on.
Fabrice Delrieux outlines the monetary history of Caria from the second to the first century BCE. Commencing with a detailed historical overview focussing on the relation between Carian cities and the Romans, he shows that the number of silver mints steadily decreased until the end of the first century BCE. He meticulously traces the often subtle Roman influences on local coinages. These influences are reflected in onomastics (moneyers named in the nominative), the position of coin legends (on the obverse rather than the reverse), and the alignment of local weight standards with the Roman system.
Based on numismatic and epigraphical evidence, Lucia F. Carbone traces the introduction of Roman coinages in the provincia Asia. In her elaborate and rich contribution, she chronicles the transformation of a ‘relatively closed’ currency system in the second and first century BCE into a more open currency system marked by a growing presence of Roman silver currency from the 40s BCE on. This increase is reflected not only in hoards and single finds, but also in the growing number of inscriptions in which denarii were more than a unit of account. Conversely, Roman bronze coinages played a relatively minor role in circulation and the assarion served exclusively as a unit of account. However, local bronze coin production became more and more standardised in such a way that the fabric of the Greek tetrachalkon corresponded to what later became the module of the assarion. These developments were according to Carbone not the result of a top-down policy but part of a protracted process that intensified in the first century CE.
The papers collected in this book address the relationship between Rome and the coinages of the Aegean from different perspectives, based on different source material, and in different depth. Despite these differences, the book is remarkably coherent and most of the chapters can, in one way or another, be evaluated against the framework outlined by Burnett. Unfortunately, the book does lack a final chapter synthesizing these various views and thus enabling a clearer understanding of different regional trends and developments. Additionally, the inclusion of an index could have further helped in making connections between different chapters more readily visible. The book is carefully produced and edited[5] and contains many helpful maps and figures[6]. This is an important book, in that it provides a dependable overview of different numismatic discussions and approaches, often dispersed across less accessible and specialized journals, evolving around the relationship between Rome and the Aegean in the second and first century BCE. It is to be hoped that this fine volume will attract readership beyond the numismatic world and foster further research and discussion with other fields of the Altertumswissenschaften.
Authors and Titles
Nathan Badoud: Introduction
Andrew Burnett: Overview and Some Methodological Points
François de Callataÿ: Le financement des armées romaines en Méditerranée orientale: aux racines perses du modèle
Albana Meta, L’arrivée des Romains en Illyrie méridionale et son effet sur la production et la circulation des monnaies
Sophia Kremydi: From the Antigonids to the Romans: Macedonia and Thessaly in the 2nd and 1st Centuries BC
Michel Amandry: Rome et les monnayages de Grèce centrale, Attique, Péloponnèse et Crète
Evgeni I. Paunov: Thrace and both Moesiae
Andrew Meadows: The Penetration of the Denarius and Quinarius Standards into Asia Minor in the 1st Century BC
Fabrice Delrieux: Rome et les monnayages grecs de Carie aux IIe et Ier s. av. J.-C. De la tutelle rhodienne à l’avènement du Principat
Lucia F. Carbone: The Introduction of Roman Coinages in Asia (133 BC – 1st Century AD)
Julie Dalaison: Le monnayage des cités de Bithynie au Ier s. av. J.-C.
Notes
[1] Cf. also the recently held conferences “Coinage of the Roman Provinces before Provincial Coinage. The Richard B. Witschonke Collection” (https://numismatics.org/witschonke/) and “Rome and the Coinages of the Mediterranean, 150 BCE to 64 CE” (https://tinyurl.com/RacomRome). The following titles could be added to the bibliography, some of them issued after the publication of the book under review: E. Haug, Local Politics in the Late Republic: Antony and Cleopatra at Patras, AmJNum 20, 2008, 405–420; S. Zoumbaki, Sulla’s Relations with the Poleis of Central and Southern Greece in a Period of Transitions, in: A. Eckert – A. Thein (eds.), Sulla. Politics and Reception (Berlin 2019) 33–53; P. Marchetti – C. Papageorgiadou (eds.), Réflexions sur la circulation des monnaies romaines républicaines en Grèce et dans les Balkans = Reflections on the Circulation of Roman Republican Coinage in Greece and the Balkans, IHR Digital Publications 3 (Athens 2020); V. E. Stefanaki – C. Carrier, Les monnaies crétoises du premier tiers du Ier s. av. J.-C.: état de la question et perspectives de recherche, in: R. Cantilena – F. Carbone (eds.), Monetary and Social Aspects of Hellenistic Crete, ASAtene Suppl. 8 (Athens 2020) 245–259 (and other contributions in the same volume); F. Hurlet – C. Müller, L’ Achaïe à l’époque républicaine (146–27 av. J.-C.): une province introuvable?, Chiron 50, 2020, 49–100; G. Galani, Imprints of Roman Imperium. Bronze Coinages in the Republican Eastern Provinces (Stockholm 2022).
[2] Some contributions of more recent date could be added to the discussion addressing the nomenclature of these ‘pseudo-civic’ coins and the relationship between Roman and local minting authority: cf. e.g. P. Thonemann, The Silver Coinage of Antioch on the Maeander, NumChron 179, 2019, 49–80 using the term ‘surrogate Roman coinage’ and A. Ellis-Evans, The Late Hellenistic Tetradrachms of Parion and Lampsakos, AmJNum 32, 2020, 93–125, esp. 117–120.
[3] De Callataÿ denies that such a practice existed in mainland Greece in the Archaic or Classical period but the large-scale production of staters in Sikyon in the later fifth century BCE is probably connected with the financial requirements of Sparta and its allies during the Peloponnesian War (see C. M. Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London 1976), 99 and J. Warren, Financing the Peloponnesian War. The Peloponnesian Perspective, in: C. Alfaro – C. Marcos – P. Otero (eds.), XIII Congresso Internacional de Numismática. Madrid – 2003. Actas – Proceedings – Actes. In memoriam Carmen Alfaro Asins I (Madrid 2005), 317–320). Some of his case-studies are disputed: despite pointing out that the situation is far from clear, de Callataÿ implies that the tetrobols of Histiaea were minted for Roman rather than Macedonian needs (p. 47–48). But see now C. Gatzolis – S. Psoma, Coinages Issued to Serve Roman Interests and the Case of Histiaia, in: J. Fournier – M.-G. G. Parissaki (Hrsg.), Les communautés du nord égéen au temps de l’hégémonie romaine. Entre ruptures et continuités (Athens 2018) 63–77, arguing that these coins were indeed initially minted in support of the Macedonian king and his allies (esp. 72–77).
[4] B. Woytek, Arma et Nummi. Forschungen zur römischen Finanzgeschichte und Münzprägung der Jahre 49 bis 42 v. Chr., DenkschrWien 312 = Veröffentlichungen der Numismatischen Kommission 40 = Veröffentlichungen der Kleinasiatischen Kommission 14 (Vienna 2003).
[5] There are some typos and omissions: e.g. nearly all of the bibliographical entries for ‘The Numismatic Chronicle’ lack the number of the respective volume. Read ‘Fig. 34–35’ for ‘Tables 8 and 9’ (p. 155), ‘φιλοκαίσαρες’ for ‘φιλοκαίσαροι’ (p. 268), ‘Gschnitzer’ for ‘Gnischnitzer’ (p. 288).
[6] Sadly, not all of them are easy to read and not all the coins are printed to scale: e.g. Fig. 2 of de Callataÿ’s article is missing the lower right part and the coins in this article fig. 9–16 are not to scale, Fig. 4 of Paunov’s chapter is larger than the 31 mm given in his description, Meadows fig. 5 is nearly impossible to read, fig. 25 has an original size of 15.5 mm.