What's in a "nummus"?

I’m recataloguing my collection and am searching for a consistent terminology for LRB’s. I think I’m going to dispense with the AE1, AE2, AE3, and AE4 designations and opt for a more general terminology. “AE follis” might work, but I understand that current nomenclature is moving to the “nummus” as a preferred term to the “follis.” But what’s in a nummus?

QUESTION: Is pretty much every bronze coin struck in the 4th century a “nummus” by contemporary numismatic discourse? City commemoratives? POP ROM donatives? AE1-4 sizes? Centenionales? Or is the term nummus more restrictive than that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Ah. Yet another example of silly re-assigning. It's a hard word to translate but means roughly money, cash, coin, usually used in the context of a small amount. It's not a denomination, just a descriptive word. But then 'follis' is much the same. It just means 'bag'. Since we dont know the names of these denominations any word will do just fine, but I tend to stick with the more traditional myself.

 

I will not admit to being silly. I will admit to being lazy. I think I'm wanting to dispense with trying to eyeball a coin and think, "Is that really an AE3 or an AE4?" Since it's my own internal catalogue, the issue probably won't have any significance outside of my own fevered brain.

 

Well, I wasn't trying to imply that you were silly. I apologize if it was taken that way. Also, another alternative is to simply give the diameter of the coin as AE22, AE17, etc.

 

No offense taken. And to be clear, I wasn’t saying that I’m not silly. I was just stating that I will not admit to it. ;-).

And a bit more silliness: The word “follis” is etymologically related to the word “fool.” Seems the follis gets its name from the bellows used in a Roman mint, and the bellows also becomes associated with being a “windbag,” or fool.

I guess a fool and his money are soon united.

 

there is some reference to nummus in contemporary sources. Below is a reference and the coin which was reduced to half (note the right field marks)

"Dionysius to Apion, greeting. The divine Fortune of our masters has ordained that the Italian coin (to Italikon nomisma) be reduced to the half of a nummus. Make haste, therefore, to spend all the Italian coinage (argyrion) that you have in purchases, on my behalf, of goods of every description at whatever prices you find them. For this purpose I have dispatched an officialis to you. But take notice that should you intend to indulge in any malpractices I shall not allows you to do so. I pray, my brother, that you may long be in health. (Verso) I received the letter from the officials on the eight of the month Pharmouthi."

see Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300- 1450 p. 464

 

That's an interesting passage and illustrates one aspect of the word. Context and translation is of course paramount, but it would seem that the word could possibly have given rise to a coin name, but most likely slang, such as 'buck', 'quid', etc. I might suggest in the above context the best English interpretation would be 'pittance'.

A few associated words to better understand the context of 'nummus':

Nummarium: Hmm. Modern translation might be 'unscrupulous financially'. Like a Wall Street Wolf.
Nummarius: Wealthy.
Nummularius: Money Changer.
Nummuliorum: Petty Cash, or plainly, 'Chump Change'.

Considering all this and what I posted above, if one were to use 'nummus' as a denomination it would only correctly be relevant to the smallest of the denominations (the so-called AE3/4 or perhaps the 'follis' fractions.

 

I prefer the AE1 to AE4 system since you can avoid people thinking they have something different when their 17mm coin is cataloged AE16. Nummus means nothing beyond 'coin' and some coins are bigger than others but were still the basic coin of their period. Inventing names is bad enough (antoninianus) but worse is (mis)applying a name scavenged from history when we are unclear on how/when that name was used in every circumstance (centenionalis).

However we do it, there will be problems. Coins struck without collars will vary in diameter and systems like AE 1 through AE4 can not be applied with dogmatic fervor. I have one falling horseman which is usually AE2 that was hit extra hard and spread to 25mm making it technically an AE1. I prefer to call it an AE2. I have no problem with the use of AE3/4 for those coins that straddle that border. Part of me would like to have conventions like using AE3 for the two soldiers/two standards type and AE4 for the one standard style (which is smaller) but we have enough confusion as it is and I can live with the conventions in use for over a century as long as we realize that we don't always know what the coins were called and should not let that bother us.

 

One day hopefully it will all get sorted out. I have seen increasing use of the term "nummus" in auctions and sales for both coins in the range of AE1-AE4 and as a substitute for the word "follis".

What bugs me is the rarity of AE1 coins which seem either to be non-existent or just never come up for sale. Also, there is confusion in the usage of the words "centenionalis" or "majorina" for some of the LRBs, especially the larger pieces.It would be nice to time travel and ask a merchant or soldier what they called their pocket change but that will never happen.

 

I am confused... I have an AE1, but I always thought that it was pretty common. I apologize for ignorance of Later Roman Empire... I spend my time reading/focusing on Republican Era.


RI Julian II CE 360-363
AE1 (27mm) - maiorina
- Diademed Bust Right
- SECVRITAS REIPVB 2 stars Apis Bull stg R ANT-Gamma 2 palms
- ANTIOCH
- RIC 217 LRBC 2641

 

Well, they are fairly common as they go, but the large AE1 denomination is fairly rare in relation to the smaller coins. Even the AE2's are somewhat rare using the same comparison. One might use a scale of say common, less common, even less common!

 

Since nobody's posted it:

AE1 >25mm
AE2 21-25mm
AE3 17-21mm
AE4 <17mm

I agree with Doug that this traditional system (give or take, where appropriate) is the best option overall: it conveys a decent amount of information very economically. Giving the exact measurement draws differences where they aren't relevant, and just saying "follis" or "nummus" doesn't convey any information at all.

 

Welp. I'm beginning to rethink my rethinking; the AE1-4 system is beginning to make better sense as the preferred cataloguing approach. And since I'm measuring all diameters anyway, it won't be that hard to assign them.

One follow up question: This system typically does not describe tetrarchic folles. When does the AE 1-4 system "kick in"? The reign of Constantine?

 

doubtful, for they didn't have pockets yet

 

What I think is interesting/important about the Æ1-4 system is that it was not developed with LRB's specifically in mind. It was created, as I understand it, at a time when the names of the earlier Imperial denominations were in a state of uncertainty not unlike our spotty knowledge of the 4th & 5th century coins' values/denominations/names. The system as it originated called the obviously largest circulating denomination "Æ1", what we now call the "sestertius", next largest were the "Æ2's", the "as" & "dupondius". The "Æ3" was what we now call a "semis" and the "Æ4" was the "quadrans" or so it seemed to make sense at the time and such are the names the coins were subsequently called.
As I understand it, at the time this system was hit upon to ease descriptions of earlier Roman coins, LRB's were considered "beneath the notice" of the typical upper class collector. Then, as LRB's gained more acceptance as "real Roman coins" - which was around the same time the earlier denominations had been sorted-out and demystified - the "Æx" system was applied to the mass of various sizes of LRB's to sort them out for practical purposes.
I see our names - "follis", "centenionalis", "majorina", "nummus" etc, to really be not much more valid or invalid in the absence of written records to interpret than the Æ1-4 system (many now add "Æ5" to the list for those really tiny later pieces)
Personally, I like to use the system David Sear uses in the millennium RC&TV series which divides the Æ3's of the 4th century into rational groups. The "centenionalis" (introduced ca. 319) marked a real departure from the sadly diminished Diocletianic "follis" in that the centenionales did not employ the typical pagan reverses of the Tetrarchic-era pieces. I'm guessing that in real life, ca. 320 or so, the late-issue (small) Æ3 folles probably circulated side-by-side with the similarly sized centenionales for a time and were probably valued the same.
As the centenionalis inevitably shrunk via inflation/economic necessity in the mid 4th century a real departure from that denomination was launched ca. 348 in an Æ2 module which can be called "majorina" including almost all the varieties of FEL TEMP REPARATIO when first introduced (the Æ3 "Phoenix on globe/mound" and "Emperor on galley" types are assumed to have been intended as half majorinae.) The majorina denominated coins also shrank rather quickly so the by the time Julian took over from Constantius II, another reform was due. He eschewed the Christian "sensibilities" of the age and many think his clearly pagan-reverse SECVRITAS REIPVB Apis bull Æ1's were a relatively short-lived attempt to revive the early Diocletianic follis. He also restored the Æ3 to a significant size (as continued by the House of Valentinian I and later) compared to the miserable tiny, mainly Æ4-module SALVS REIPVBLICE tail-end specimens of the majorina system. Thereafter "centenionalis" is typically used for the Æ3 size coins, "majorina" = Æ2 for the larger types, "nummus" = Æ4's of all description.
We still don't (and may well never know) exactly what the Romans called their various changing and shifting denominations - we create these systems for our own convenience in description.

 

When you measure your coins and include the size, you don't really need to worry about if it is called a follis or a nummus or an AE3 etc.. For instance --

Constantius II
A.D. 326
18mm 3.5gm
CONSTANTIVS NOB C; laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right.
PROVIDEN-TIAE CAESS; campgate with two turrets, star above.
In ex. PLG
RIC VII Lyons 233

 

What a generous reply from @lehmansterms! For my cataloguing, though, I’m now experiencing option paralysis. Victor’s elegant solution–just skip it such classification entirely–is very attractive. But then for my LRB’s, my cataloguing scheme will have a blank beside TYPE–a necessary criterion for other early coins such as sestertii, dupondii, etc. (See image of my scheme below, featuring a coin bought from Victor.) I am much too anal-retentive to leave the TYPE entry blank. But I guess that’s just my own hang-up.

I’m very grateful for all this input, if only for the education I’m getting in denominations and historic attempts to classify them.

 

Could you live with "LRB" for TYPE?

 

Hmmmm...maybe. But I would probably just stay with the equally generic "AE nummus" unless I returned to the AE1-4 system.

Of course, I'm completely aware that what I'm after now is a system that has less to do with the coin referent in the real world and more to do with my own internal obsession with classification. I don't need a numismatist; I need a therapist.

 

to muddy it further, perhaps LRB's should be called argentiferous bronze coins, since they usually have carefully measured amounts of silver and a silvered surface. For more on this see --
Cope, L. H. “The Argentiferous Bronze Alloys of the Large Tetrarchic Folles of A.D. 294-307.” The Numismatic Chronicle 8 (1968) : 115-149.