Thank you for the links to your coins. I shall peruse at leisure. I find CT book and the recent update absolutely invaluable. And so well produced. I'm lucky to have a few of the plate coins. And lucky to have two coins ex Jamesicus! There was an auction by AMCC on biddr.ch and Thomas came over to our Vancouver coin club to tell us about it. Interesting talk. Sorry to hear you are sick and tired. Good rest and healing.
Yes, there are so many examples of the names of coins changing over the years. And facts superseded. Obsolete factlets. Even as a beginner I've found examples of auction houses, books and forum posters getting major things awry! As you say, text is copied and recopied. Btu history changes as it always does. New coins are found. New archaeology. New ideas are overlaid and new stories threaded together. Thanks for XXI matter. I read your notes here: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac73xxi.html I'm not quite clear yet where the 20 sesterces to 1 aurelianianus pegging came in and phased out in actual history, if it did at all. The metal ratio makes a lot of sense. I wonder who invented Aurelianianus ? I can see why scholars might want to call the post-reform coins of Caracalla, Aurelianus, Diocletian by different names but I'm complete lost in the detail and footnotes right now. My book by "Coinage in the Roman Economy" by Kenneth Harl has one omission that I've noticed - there are bound to be many so I'm not taking it as gospel. Thank you!
Thank you for the kind thoughts and well wishes @JulianIX - I hope I didn’t come across as too Grumpy - I had a painful medical procedure last Friday, but I am now back to being my sweet, lovable, self!
This has been proven false. Doug's explanation is correct. You can read about XI and XXI in an academic article here: https://www.academia.edu/1263680/The_Alloy_of_the_XI_Coins_of_Tacitus From the NumisWiki: "but with a copper core and a 5% silver coating". This is stated incorrectly. The core is close to 4% silver and the coating is nearly pure silver, but so thin as to contribute only about another 1% to the total, making the XXI coins (at least they were intended to be) close to 5% silver when new. The fact there are rare "XI" coins with higher silver content than the XXI coins and therefore more valuable shows that 1 of these is not a multiple of a smaller unit (say, a sestertius). Here is a rare "XI" piece: 23 mm. 4.01 grams. Tacitus (275-276) CLEMENTIA TEMP Δ XI (not XXI) RIC 210, Antioch.
Since Valentinian brought out the existence of the XI double silver purity issue, I'll mention another bit of evidence that the XXI referred to purity rather than denomination. The coinage reform of Diocletian ended the silvered radiates and replaced them with the post reform radiates about the same size but without silver inside or out. The new, larger, silver bearing denomination which we call the follis included some coins marked with XXI which assay at the same level (4.7%). It was not long before the amount of silver in the follis was lowered and the marking was removed. There are quite a few markings found on some of the folles that I fail to understand but the XXI is one that is certain.
Ah illness can disrupt our bestest sweetest nature. I looked through the links. Your collection is amazing thanks for sharing them!
Thanks very much for all this information about the metal ratio Doug. It's very convincing. It's not surprise that auction houses and non-numismatic specialists would copy over outdated interpretations of symbols.
Thanks for that article. What a careful job they have done in analyzing the metal composition using different methods. Impressive. And the results seem very clear: silver composition of the XI type is in 8 - 10%. That's pretty good evidence combined with everything else known for XXI. Thank you.
It is probably worth noting that it isn't just XI and XXI but also that the Greek equivalent of IA and KA were used. Thus we have double value coins marked with IA.
Cat's out of the bag! Now I'll be on the hunt for one of these, and an XI one too. On the topic of XXI marks, here is my Galerius follis with that mark.
Yes. Above is an "XXI" equivalent with "KA". Tacitus (275-276) CLEMENTIA TEMP, Mars standing left holding olive branch in right, spear and shield in left. * in left field RIC 214. Tripolis mint. Sear III 11769v. Here is an "XI" equivalent with "IA". Tacitus (275-276) CLEMENTIA TEMP, Mars standing left holding olive branch in right, spear and shield in left. * in left field RIC 214. Tripolis mint. Sear III 11763. This has the same RIC number as above. This was before "IA" was recognized as having a different value than "KA."
Maybe I spent too much time reading foundations of maths and philosophy of science? - but personally - I try to use “proven” only about mathematical results (which in turn I try never to call "true" – merely valid or invalid) Regarding this XXI matter - the "meaning 5% purity" claim is highly plausible. However as I understand it, pretty soon after this, Carausius and then Diocletian both put out what amounts to “real denarii” at the theoretical standard of Nero, and these lesser XXI coins would, according to the 5% silver content, very plausibly go 20:1 against them. Thus there is a degree of plausibility in reading the mark instead as meaning 1/20th of a “real” denarius. Further, and going a bit further out on a limb, this “real” denarius, the argenteus, was apparently figured at 100 “new” denarii, and a denarius was traditionally figured at 4 sestertii. 100/20 x 4 = 20. That is where the 20 sestertius claim comes from I suppose? The argument does contain a few hypotheticals, and people are at liberty to reject it as they choose, but personally, I would not say it was “proven” wrong. Doug makes a strong point concerning the XXI mark on the later big billons. In that context it does look like a claim (or perhaps a lie!) about the metallic purity. But are we really forced to read it that way? Perhaps by that time many people had it in their heads that there was something like old money and new money, where 100 “new (book) denarii” were worth one old (silver) one. In that case XXI might have become more like the name of the new 100:1 money system. I respect the point that Valentinian and Doug seem to make – that it would in a strong sense be rational to read XXI as meaning 5% pure. However, as old age approaches I have come to fear that, when speaking of the opinions of the general population, strict rationality may not be all that important. Rob T
Suppose "XXI" meant "1 of these is 20 of some smaller unit." Then "XI" would mean "1 of these is 10 of some smaller unit" (and those XI coins would be of less value). But we know the "XI" coins have more intrinsic value than the "XXI" coins. Being both less and more would be a contradiction. So, "XXI" does not mean "1 of these is 20 of some smaller unit." Proof.
Yes - that seems to rule out the 20 sestertius possibility as a meaning - but the other: 1/20th and 1/10th "real denarius" possibility - still seems to stand(?) Still curious to know what value (denomination) you suggest for the Aurelian XX1 coin? The argument that it actually equated to "20 sestertius" thus 5 "new/book denarii" is perhaps still valid, even if the mark did not mean that........ Rob T
Ah! The 64-dollar question. I suggest an alloy: 20 parts copper and one part silver. In the late 1980's I began a draft of an article on the meaning of XXI and in my literature search found 21 different suggestions. I really didn't have anything to add in the way of new evidence (until the articles on alloys), so I abandoned the project. I don' think there is enough ancient evidence to resolve some of questions about the denominations and values from Aurelian onwards. Even the reform of Diocletian of c.293-4 and the Edict of Maximum Prices of 301 have lead to articles supporting different values for the "follis," post-reform radiate, and those pre-reform radiates still in circulation. Therefore, I am happy to use the modern term "aurelianus" to refer to the post-reform issues of Aurelian and following emperors. I use "antoninianus" or just "radiate" for the earlier common radiate coins. Surely the attractive coins of Philip were worth more than the radiates of Gallienus. But, I don't think we know what they were called and we don't know how they were valued relative to one another. There are good books and good articles that argue for one value or another. The casual reader may think that book or article, written by an expert, must have the truth. Don't be so sure. When Harl's good book, Coinage in the Roman Economy, was published in 1996 I had an interest in the subject and had already read almost all his sources. If you care about denominations, taxes, pay, etc. you should read that book. However, one criticism I had was his assertions on pages 246 and following about denominations in the late third and early fourth centuries were too assertive of one of several competing possibilities as if they were "the truth", without mentioning the alternatives. E.g. "In 276 Tacitus doubled the silver content of the aurelianus to 10% fine [close to true] and revalued it to 2.5 denarii [I disagree], but only Antioch and Tripolis ever issued the new issues [true], which were duly marked as coins of ten sestertii [I disagree]." I don't mind not knowing. We can have lots of fun, and scholars can spend ink on the route to tenure, speculating about such matters. Subscribe to Academia.edu and you can get weekly feeds with links to articles that add to what we know about ancient coins. The field is alive, active, and very interesting.
Thanks Valentinian. The first old coin in my family was a Victorinus radiate. After the war my Dad got a job in as a pay clerk in a limestone quarry. The week he was off on holiday, they dug up one of those many hoards from the period. He always regretted he only got one coin in the share out, (due to being away on the crucial day). About 50 years back when I started studying old coins I was faced with the question – shall I look at the Greek and Roman stuff, or should I look at all the rest? The Greek and Roman area looked pretty crowded to me, so I went for all the rest. With more spare time I on my hands in retirement, I am poking about amongst the stuff I missed, trying to catch up a bit. In that respect I am finding the comments by Doug and yourself enormously helpful, and am very grateful for them. Have not got the book – but it sounds like he was philosophically naive if so. If anyone checks out my own book on weight standards, then they will find I use bold text only once - at the start of the account. I say, everything you read below is my best guess. In the end, I judge maths can give us something like “the truth”, but in science and history we are, at root, always dealing with best guesses. The ‘5% fine’ argument put up by yourself and Doug looks a strong one to me. As you have spotted - my main complaint is not that it is wrong, but that it is that it is only part of the story. This poses a problem for me. You seem to suggest that - what I think is the really interesting problem - is one especially for professional scholars seeking tenure. For me that is exactly what is wrong with modern times. Study should be about individuals trying to get at the truth according to their own conscience. Many times I find bad professional scholars shaping their findings to match what their peers want to hear. Even good professional scholars often enough avoid saying things their dean would not want to read. For me all that tenure stuff undermines what scholarship is about. I have a draft paper in the stocks which I plan to lodge on Academia.edu in a week or two, open for discussion. At root I will be trying to argue that there were already links between Stoicism, intellectual relativism and fiat currency by the mid second century in Rome. And I will be hoping that some readers might see that these forces are paralleled by the linked rise of “post-modern” ideology and fiat currency in the 20th century. I hope to get your criticism! Regards Rob T
This question runs afoul of one fact hard to avoid. It is true that Diocletian and Carausius produced coins in Nero level silver. What your theory requires is that Aurelian anticipated those silver coins when he started marking coins of 4.77% (1/21st) years before the silver coins were made. I can not accept that as valid or even remotely possible.
Well it is surely a hard fact that the good silver restoration came later. I suppose 15 or 20 years later, but am open to correction on that Not necessarily. I think there are two possible scenarios A) Aurelian figured the XXI coins as worth 5 denarii from the get go. B) Subsequent rulers integrated the XXI aurelianus into a subsequent new for old <1 =100> system which seems to be mentioned in connection with Diocletian (XXI aurelianus valued at 5 denarii but sometime post Aurelian) Why? Actually I find both possibilities plausible, but that seems kind of irrelevant anyhow, as facts about our 21st century subjective reactions are hardly of great interest. If you will point out which theory you dislike (A? B? Both?) and maybe try to fill in a bit about the basis of your judgement, I will gladly comment further. Regards Rob T
