Why do we see more gold coins for the later Roman periods than earlier?

Yes - perhaps you are thinking of Perry Anderson? - I quote from p. 93 of his "Passages from Antiquity to Fuedalism"

“The new coinage inaugurated by Constantine combined an elite gold standard for the use of the State and the rich, with constantly depreciated copper units for the needs of the poor, without any intervening scale of denominations between the two, so that virtually two separate monetary systems were created—a faithful tally of the social polarization of the later Empire."

Anderson exaggerates a bit but still - its broadly correct I think

Rob T

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

No sir, I am referring to references like "Sogdian Traders" that refer to hundreds of source documents about the trade on the Silk Road, how the Sogdians ran it, and how the Romans, Persians, and Chinese along the route interacted. Most Roman silver on the Silk Road stayed on the western section mainly, since those people knew which Roman coins were good or bad. Once Roman silver became debased, trade was mainly done with pure ingots of silver The eastern end and China mainly used Persian, since this is what they knew. Much of the Roman silver coinage entering into the Silk Road "destined" for China ended up being restruck as Persian. Source material in China was explicit that tariffs due were payable in "Persian silver".

Of course gold coins could be found, gold had a value just like jade. Remember, though, the Chinese had centuries of using silver sycee, and gold was not very common as a trade material. The silver for the sycee in China came mainly from "tribute" of the Burmese and other SE Asian communities, and Silk Road payments and tariffs. For Persian collectors like me, the sad fact is most of these coins entering China never left unless as part of a silver sycee.

China had massive trade with the west for millenia. If such trade with the Greeks and later the Romans were done in gold then such an article would be so common as to not be worthy of comment. Gold coinage was always valuable as gold, and as such could be traded anywhere in the known world, such as hoards found in Scandinavia, the massive amounts found in India, etc. Just because they were found somewhere in small quantities does not mean they were the basis for a continuing trade. For that, if source material is available, that is a much more reliable source than a spot find. If, like India, Roman gold coins were so common as to inspire local imitations, I could buy the argument, but not one off small finds.

 

Curious if anyone has found a satisfactory answer on this apparent dichotomy?[/QUOTE]

I also think that the most likely explanation was that aureii were melted down to make solidi. The disparity between aureii to late Roman gold in auctions is reflected in my collection with a 2:5 ratio. With that being said, it is not always the case in auctions. CNG's 114, for example, seems to have had more aureii than solidi. We should also be careful to distinguish between Roman solidi and Byzantine solidi. In the auctions I have been monitoring, Roman solidi seem to be scarce compared to the abundance of Byzantine solidi.

While I do love aureii, solidi can also provide impeccable portraits.

Here's one of mine.

Valentinian II (AD 375-392)


As @Magnus Maximus said, the same can be said for siliqua.

Constantine I (AD 307-337)

 

I am afraid it is passages like this I was thinking of

The major Wuqia hoard was 947 Sasanid coins plus 13 gold ingots totaling 1.3 KG. That is way more value in gold than silver. And indeed silver use seems to have had limited foothold in China prior to the Tang, according to Peng

Also the late siliqua were generally good silver as I understand it

But it you can cite specific relevant Sogdian text I would be interested to read it

This idea does not work for me. 2nd century gold will predominantly be buried and lost in the 2nd century, 4th century gold in the 4th etc. Our evidence is buried in little sealed time capsules - indicating what had been going on at that time.

Rob T

 

Here is a rare light miliarense of Theodosius II I acquired a few years back for quite a sum of money. For reference, I was a broke college boy just trying to get through Clinical chemistry when I bought this



Theodosius II AR Miliarense. Thessalonica mint, 408-423 AD. D N THEODOSIVS P F AVG, pearl-diademed, draped & cuirassed bust right / GLORIA ROMANORVM, Theodosius standing facing, head left, holding spear & shield; star in left field, COM in ex. RIC X 392; RSC 20 var (mintmark), 4.25 grams.
Type coin for Wildwinds and Beast Coins

 

That is the one, thanks.

 

Constantius II, Roman Empire
AR siliqua
Obv: D N CONSTAN-TIVS P F AVG, pearl-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right
Rev: VOTIS XXX / MVLTIS XXXX, all within wreath
Mint: Sirmium
Mintmark: SIRM
Date: 357-361 AD
Ref: RIC VIII 15
Size: 3.31 gr, 22 mm wide

 

Thanks. Note that if the gold coining pound is figured at 72 x 4.45g then this at 3.31g is pretty much spot on for 96 to the pound, apparently fixing gold silver
at 1 : 18

The only safe way I know to try find intended issue weight and rule out clipping - is to weigh the coins from hoards in mint state, those which went straight from the mint into the ground. And you test for mint state by looking for residual die polish (“lustre”).

Second best is to look at individual specimens with residual die polish. Which this lovely piece seems to have…….

Rob T