Ancient experts help: Five million coins a week?

I'm currently doing a review of a book for another web site.

I have difficulty from this statement made in the book:

"According to one estimate, it is possible that under Victorinus and Tetricus, the [Romano-Gallic] Empire was making around five to six million coins a week."

I find this difficult to grasp. Assuming that people were working 24 hours a day (which is highly unlikely), that is more than 714,000 coin a day and more than 29,000 coins an hour.

Being that the dies lasted about 20,000 coins, that's 500 dies a week (obverse and reverse together). That would be a lot of work for the engravers.
(I can't remember whether the obverse (anvil die) lasted longer about 20,000 coins and the reverse die (the hammer die) lasted about 10,000 coins. Or is it the other way? Either way, I will be conservative and say 20,000.)

I find this unlikely. Although coins minted in the Romano-Gallic Empire are sometimes crudely struck, I just don't accept the numbers. Any thoughts?

guy

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Hopefully Doug or Chris can shed like on this. I wouldnt know.

Would it say in the book "Roman Monetary System, The Eastern Provinces from the First to the Third Century AD"? Havent finished it myself.

 

I would have difficulty accepting that. I would believe the entire empire made that many a year, or maybe more, but for the Gallic empire to make that many? They had no economy that would need that many coins. Even if the author mistyped and meant year, that seems far fetched.

The ancients made many more coins than most collectors realize, but not that many in a week for a little provincial "empire".

Chris

 

My recent interest in medieval Indian coins pointed out to me a basic difference in the way 'numismatists' can work. Eastern collectors show more interest in weight standards and how the coins served as money while Western subjects seem better researched on types and dates with less attention to details of economics. I have not seen the question addressed of how many Gallic coins were made other than there are a lot of them still around.

Five million a week seems out of line on the high side but 5 million a year seems reasonable or low but that is not based on careful study. I'm also unclear on the question of die life on these coins. I was under the impression that they were made from pincer dies and I've seen nothing to suggest that one half outlived the other as is well documented on an anvil and punch system. Again, as a Western collector of coins, I never saw the need to look for questions of how and how many as much as what, when and where. Do remember that these coins were made by more than one mint and probably with several teams within a mint location so one person might be involved in making up to a few thousand coins a day. The question then would come as to how many teams/people were working at this rate. Working at 334 days a year that would mean three teams could make a few million coins a year so 15 teams (the most we have documented from the Constantinian period at Antioch) would be good for 15 to 50 million a year. I'd need to see evidence to accept more than that number but do realize that it is just a guess playing with numbers.

Observations: I have not noted any examples of two Gallic coins pointed out as being made from the same obverse die and a different reverse (or vice-versa). I have not seen very may coins offered that were pointed out as even being die duplicates of both sides. That means they used a lot of dies to make a lot of coins. I have not seen statistics applied to the period guessing how many dies were used. I do know a collector who believes in the theory that you can make a good guess at the number of dies by counting the number of dies seen in a large sample of coins. I'll have to ask him if he knows anything about Gallic.

 

I knew you would have a better answer than mine for us.

My first thought were simply that the few mints in the Gallic empire were small ones to begin with. The Western mints were always the smaller ones if you exclude Rome since the economy was not as robust as the East. You compared versus Antioch, but I do not think these mints had nearly the size of any of these Eastern mints. I do remember officiana marks being much less numerous, which would indicate their size.

Its a great thought about die life, but I would simply be careful. This analysis would be supposing that the same materials would be used. I would not be surprised at all if substandard die material was used, since it was not common material and I doubt the Romans would have been willing to tried with the breakaway empire die material to strike coins with. It could be useful, but am just warning that assuming die life equal to other documented Roman issues could be troublesome and misleading.

So basically Doug are you saying you would believe 5 million a month approximately? I am trying to figure out the scope of issues you believe the original author may have meant. Even given the soldier's pay, that number seems high to me, given that the economy of the area was less advanced than the East.

Chris

 

If it is a current book, that would be a wonderful idea. I would like to see what reference for the estimate is.

Sorry, I am just used to dealing with a lot of older books, in which asking the author doesn't help much, since he may have been dead since the 50's lol.

 

While 5 million a month strikes me as very high, I agree with the idea of asking the author if he is alive. I would like to know the details of this reference. There are some authors I'd ask and some I'd just write off. Only in ancient coins would anyone think of reviewing a book a hundred years old. The sad thing is a few of our standard references are approaching that age and I don't see new ones on the shelves soon. RIC V part one is 1927. Will the replacement make it by 2027? Will I be here to care???

 

Just another reason to purchase the books to support the hobby, no?

Sorry just teasing Doug about our disparate love of printed references.

Chris

 

That depends on whether the book and the author survived the publication ordeal. I hate to see books written by people who then lose interest in the subject and sell off their collection. Some take the profits and roll it into another specialty; others just slip off into the shadows.

Those who believe all printed books are worth owning need to come visit my attic.

 

Very true sir.

I always wished there were either a rehash of Kroh's review book, or a good website with reviews. At one time for Moneta-L I put together something but have never maintained it. Other sites I have looked at are seriously lacking. I just wished to have "standards" and "non-standards" listed by collecting area, along with commentary on usefulness and pricing and availability, ala Kroh.

If I had more ambition and willingness to learn how to run a website I would do it.

You are completely right, many books not written on the paper they are printed, and others if you knew how wonderful they were you would have paid triple what you did, and many in between. I would never dare say all numismatic books are worth the money or effort, but believe the ones that are good are worth the effort.

Chris

 

I never looked inside the Kroh book. I met Dennis on several occasions and would not spend money on anything he wrote. I've heard it was a good book.

 

I hear Mr. Kroh had a reputation somewhat like Mr. Gobl did I hear. I liked the book, though. I told you stright up what he thought, what was good and bad, and an estimate of the street price. Kolbe uses his descriptions a lot, (too much actually). If a book was bad, he said so, something you will not hear from a dealer.

I laugh to think of the review he had for one book. It was the most scathing short review in history, saying "he is dumber for reading this miserable waste of a tree" or similar. Classic.

I just find it dated, and would gladly pay $25 again for an updated version with books published in the last 20 years included.

 

Not a bad idea, but, respectfully, Ancient Doug and some others on this forum are a lot more knowledgable than the authors of the book.

Here's the book:



Here's my very rough draft. Please offer any and all criticisms. (Remember, this is for the non-numismatic site http://www.unrv.com/ . There are NO coin collectors on this site, but there are some eminent historians and authors...and I'm neither. :smile )




I have the privilege of reviewing the book The Frome Hoard. The Frome coin hoard was found by metal detectionist Dave Crisp in a field near Frome in Somerset, England in April 2010.

Crisp had been searching in the field because only two days earlier he had found some scattered fourth century silver coins (silaquae) there. About 100 meters away from this scattered hoard, he received an unusual signal on his metal detector and began digging. He got down to about 35 cm (14 in) when he found some coins and the top of a pottery jar. Realizing that this was probably a different intact coin hoard, he immediately covered the site and contacted the authorities.

This spectacular find, known as the Frome Hoard, has been the subject of great interest and research. The Frome Hoard is currently located at the British museum, London. Plans are in the works for the hoard to be on display at the new Museum of Somerset.

This book is a short (48 page), inexpensive ($10), but well-illustrated paperback by the British Museum. It appears to be a promotion for the hoard since “50 [pence] from the sale of every book will go to the appeal fund” for further conservation and study.

Here’s the book description by Amazon.com:

Here is the background of the authors:

The Frome Hoard was notable for several things. First, it was extremely large, consisting of 52,503 coins found in a single large ceramic jar 60 cm (24 in) tall and 45 cm (18 in) in diameter. The coins weighed around 160 kg (more than 350 lbs).

Second, it consisted of at least 766 coins from Carausius (ruled AD 286-293), a poorly documented usurper of the late third century. (Only 44,245 of the coins (84%) have been identified.) These coins span 40 years (AD 253-293), potentially giving researchers a unique perspective of life in Britain in late third century Rome. Interestingly, more than 50% of the coins were from the earlier Romano-Gallic Empire (AD 260-274) of Postumus, Victorinus, Tetricus, et al. The most numerous coins were from Tetricus I (24%), Victorinus (14%), Gallienus (11%), and Claudius II (10% + 2%) with additional Claudius II posthumous deification coins . No coin of Carausius’s assassin and successor, Allectus was found. This possibly dates the hoard to before AD 293.

Third, Dave Crisp quickly contacted authorities after he found the hoard, allowing for a more comprehensive archaeological assessment of the site. The coins were systematically removed in layers. A large group Carausius coins were found in a middle layer, for example. This gives some suggestion of how the coins were placed in the jar. It was also determined that the pot had been buried with some sort of plant material on the sides, possibly as protection for long term storage.

This sort of analysis could have been done since the hoard was undisturbed since burial and was later carefully examined by professionals. Thanks to Crisp, archaeologists have a better opportunity to assess the evidence from the hoard.

The size of the pottery jar and the orderly placement of coins in the jar have led researchers to some interesting theories. The book states, “We…suggest that it was most likely that the person or persons who buried this hoard put it in the ground without intending to come back and recover it. The hoard was found in an important agricultural area and is possible that it was a sacrifice made to bring a good harvest, a successful breeding season or even clement weather.”

Ritual burial and deposition of metal was common in the Bronze and Iron Ages. The book suggests that this trend continued into the Roman period. The book states that Britain has more coin hoards in proportion to its area than any other province in the Roman Empire.

The book also briefly examines other coin hoards in Britain. According to the book, the Frome Hoard is the largest hoard found in a single pottery container. The largest hoard was the Cunetio Hoard found near Marlborough in Wiltshire in 1978. It contained 54,951 coins, slightly larger than the Frome Hoard, but was found in two pots.

Finally, the book briefly touches on Dave Crisp’s initial find of unrelated scattered silver coins two days earlier within 100 meters of the Frome hoard. This hoard consisted of 62 scattered silver coins (siliquae) of the fourth century. This hoard ranged in dates from AD 337 to 394. This hoard included coins from Constantius II, Julian, Magnus Maximus, Theodosius I, Arcadius, and others. The latest dated coins are of Eugenius (AD 392-4).

I think there might be one glaring mistake in the book, however:
“According to one estimate, it is possible that under Victorinus and Tetricus, the [Romano-Gallic] Empire was making around five to six million coins a week.”

This is very unlikely. This may have been a typo. It might have been meant to read “around five or six million coins a month or year.” (Even that number seems high.) That is no small difference. This number has been contested at the excellent numismatic site cointalk.com.

In summary, the book is a nice introduction to the Frome Hoard, but it is not an in-depth scholarly review for the advanced historian or an expert numismatist. That said, I think it is well done. It is relatively inexpensive ($10) and 50 pence of every book sold goes to the research project. The illustrations in the book are fantastic.

I would recommend this book for anyone with a basic interest in Romano-British history or Roman numismatics. Hopefully, a more scholarly study of Frome Hoard will be planned for the future.

 

Roger Bland is an extremely respected scholar. If you write him a letter questioning the point place the reply in your copy of the book and you may double its value in a few years. I think 'year' seems about right but I'd really like to know if Roger Bland really believes otherwise.

 

Thank you, Ancient Doug. I just sent an E-mail to the British Museum directed to Roger Bland. I'll let you know what he says. (They already sent an automatic reply that they received my question.)

I don't want to belabor the Frome Hoard since we had numerous posts about it last year. I would, nevertheless, recommend these links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2OcAhG99NI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ol4elAKmRE

http://www.flickr.com/photos/finds/4771867250/in/set-72157624319051565/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/finds/sets/72157624319051565/show/

guy

 

I would have two thoughts to your otherwise excellent review:

Finally, the book briefly touches on Dave Crisp’s initial find of unrelated scattered silver coins two days earlier within 100 meters of the Frome hoard. This hoard consisted of 62 scattered silver coins (siliquae) of the fourth century. This hoard ranged in dates from AD 337 to 394. This hoard included coins from Constantius II, Julian, Magnus Maximus, Theodosius I, Arcadius, and others. The latest dated coins are of Eugenius (AD 292-4)

Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/t191803/#ixzz1XnGCoTvX

I think you mean (392-394)

Also, while I am sure everyone hear appreciates the reference to coin talk, I would simply say that you believe that number to be in error, and have tried to verify its veracity. Saying its "bandied about" on a coin chat website is, pardon me, but not very scholarly sounding, and I believe detracts from the otherwise nice review.

Just my thoughts Guy.

Chris

 

Thanks, Chris. This is the sort of criticism I need. :thumb:

Too often, sloppy writing and grammatical errors detract from someone's work.

I welcome any and all criticism. I made those suggested corrections already and I'm sure I'll be making many more in the future. :smile

Thanks, again. :too-cool-for:

guy