Where did all the silver go?!

Afaik, by the end of the Severan dynasty, the silver content in Roman denari was brought down under 45%, Caracalla even forming a new coin called Antoninianus, and by the time of Gallienus, those coins had only 1-5% silver, while some simply coated with silver. Then, between the late 3rd-early 4th century, they made the short-lived Argenteus similar to the previous denari, and after that, from the mid 4th century to until the end of the empire they made the less common Siliqua, a coin of such a quality signifying the dying throbs of the empire!
So, my question is where did all the silver go during the later period? I see tons and tons of bronze follis and so much Aureus in comparison to siliqua (not the same ratio as denarius vs early gold coins). What happened to the denarius/Antoninianus, did they still circulate till the later period or hoarded by people just like how we hoard pre-65 American silver? or even if they melted all of the early silver to make siliqua, that still doesn't equal the amount of siliqua that they produced! or did the emperors simply use almost all of the silver to pay off the invaders? This also begs the question as to why the Byzantine never had a 'mainstream' silver coin (excluding hexagram and other issues which were not as common as denarius), whereas their copper/bronze follis/nummi/Aspron and gold were much common compared to their silver.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If you're really interested in this topic, I recommend reading the book below. Google Books has a preview.

The Metallurgy of Roman Silver Coinage: From the Reform of Nero to the Reform of Trajan

 

The lack of silver in circulation may have been brought about by a decline in discovery of and mining of new silver bullion. I have wondered about the relative stability of the prices of goods in the marketplace just as the amount of silver in the coinage was slipping. Not until the reign of Gallienus did the silver content fall to the point where the antoninianus was little more than a thin wash of silver and at that point there also seems to have been the beginnings of rampant inflation. It is possible that the reduced silver content of the coinage from the Second century AD on meant that it held its value because the value of silver had increased from the lack of new silver from mining, that is, with the increasing value of silver, a denarius of 45% silver under Caracalla actually had the purchasing power of an 80% silver denarius of Trajan. As for the disappearance of silver itself, some of it probably did go beyond Rome's borders to the barbarians and never returned to the Empire. Some was used for other purposes, decorative or votive, some buried and never recovered during times of more frequent disturbances, and some replaced in large transactions by gold as the Roman solidus was issued in much larger quantities than the earlier aureus. Without adequate and reliable resupply from mining the value of silver simply was too unstable to base a coinage on it and bronze and gold had to take its place in the later Empire and its continuation in the East as the Byzantine Empire.

 

In addition to the factors already mentioned, this Wikipedia article suggests that during the period of Rome's expansion, the primary source of silver was war booty and tribute. Italy had no significant geological deposits of silver. As suggested above, once the empire began to contract, the Roman mints had to rely on silver mines in the provinces which could provide some silver but not on the scale required for a silver-based monetary system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_currency

By contrast, Sasanian Iran, Rome's neighbor to the east, had access to very productive silver mines, striking enormous quantities of silver but relatively little gold or bronze.

 

I have read similar to what dltsrq said as well as that trade to the east, especially India, drained away the silver faster than it could be acquired.

 

I enjoyed this book as a great overview of Roman Currency:


https://smile.amazon.com/Coinage-Ec...rds=harl+roman+currency&qid=1598713982&sr=8-1

 

The Argenteus is called by some writers a Siliqua because both coins were around the same size and weight. Indeed they must be considered as restored Denarii. I wouldn’t agree that they were uncommon or of poor quality. The gold Solidus was the coin that survived into Byzantine times, not the Aureus.

The pattern of debasement from Severus onwards is that money was returned to the mint via taxes, melted down with added base metal and made into new coins. They wouldn’t have separated the silver, so over time the amount of debasement would have been quite variable. Debasement meant that the number of coins in circulation increased, leading to inflation.

Silver looking coins did remain in circulation for long periods, but none after the reign of Gallienus. So all that silver that had been in circulation was presumably spread around a vast amount of coins that contained only 2-5% silver.

Supposedly Constantine I raided church silver plate to mint his Argenteus/Siliqua coins. I don’t know if that was due to a shortage of silver, or he just didn’t want to pay for it.

 

I have this book and have read it cover to cover twice and constantly use it for reference. I also have the Butcher book and have not read it cover to cover. I suppose it is a better reference work but I find the Harl book more enjoyable to read.

 

Harl is a terrific book. Anyone interested in any aspect of ancient coinage, ie anyone reading these words, should buy it and read it cover to cover.

 

Snap.

 

Are you allowing for the fact that the coins you call antoniniani or aurelianiani (a term I hate) from Aurelian to Diocletian were 4.7% silver so ten of them had the silver of one 47% silver coin of half a century before? I would say there were as many as ten of these later coins for every Severan denarius so the missing silver is not all that missing. The people of that period did not consider those coins copper as many collectors do today but realized that silver is still silver even if it is not 99.99% fine.

 

What do you use to pay for raw silver or gold ingots? Did private enterprise owners mine Laurium silver mines on a money down and a percentage basis? Even slave miners cost money despite seeming disposable? The costs of refining...oh the list goes on. What did our medieval predecessors use for imported silver and gold? There must be records. It wasn't all booty.

 

I always assumed the Romans claimed provincial mines and took the ore as their own at a governmental level.

 

It makes sense if we think of the later billon coins as convenient "carrying cases" for small amounts of silver. Which would you rather deal with in a crowded market, tiny Greek silver fractions of 0.2 grams or Aurelian's post-reform radiates with roughly the same amount of silver in a reasonably-sized coin of 4 grams?

 

The Laurium silver mines outside Athens were lotted out to private enterprise--as I understand!

 

I looked up the Laurium mines and those were controlled by Athenians and closed in the first century BCE and per this source not used again until the modern era.

 

Nice article regarding the mines of Laurium:

https://coinsweekly.com/the-laurion-silver/

I wonder if you can casually see traces of silver if you visit the site.

 

I must admit I never thought of it this way.

 

I think the declining output in the silver mines is only part of the issue along with Roman state expenditures increasing to pay for the maintenance of the army and bureaucracy.
I remember reading somewhere that even Antoninius Pius debased the denarius by 10% during the 140’s( Rome’s golden years). Which is odd if you ask me!?!?

 

Unless silver was rising in value from declining returns from mining in which case the increased value of the scarcer silver would have allowed the denarius to maintain its value even with a reduced weight or fineness of silver.