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

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Restitutor, May 21, 2020.

  1. Restitutor

    Restitutor Well-Known Member

    Following auctions for some time now and I always find it interesting how we seem to have far more gold coins hit for the later Roman period (300 CE and after) versus the Augustan-Antonine periods.

    As the empire was declining by the 300s onward, I would expect to see more bronze and silver from this period and less gold, and more gold in say, the time of Trajan. And yet we seem to have a surplus of, for example Theodosius II gold coins by comparison.

    Curious if anyone has found a satisfactory answer on this apparent dichotomy?
     
    NicholasMaximus and ominus1 like this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. ancient coin hunter

    ancient coin hunter 3rd Century Usurper

    Good observation. I would theorize that earlier aurei were melted down in great numbers. Another factoid is that silver coins were less plentiful after 300, so gold became a circulating currency in greater numbers, especially with the new denominations of semisses and tremissises. Plus, large numbers of gold coins were needed to pay off barbarians and the Persians so they wouldn't attack. Attila received a king's ransom.
     
  4. svessien

    svessien Senior Member

    A constant challenge for the empire, was to provide sufficient amounts of prescious metals to make money of, in order to make the economy work.
    Today I read about Publius Cornelius Rufinus, who was punished for owning more than 10 pounds of silver plate. This was 300 BC, and I suppose this law was repealed, but I take it this says something about the attitude towards hoarding metals.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Cornelius_Rufinus_(consul_290_BC)

    During the later empire, they would need every gold coin they could find. And there were new weight standards, so the old aureii wouldn’t be fit for the monetary system.

    Also, remember that the most effective way to announce who was the emperor, was to put that persons portrait on the coins. That would mean melting down old coins in order to make new ones.
    I find it more puzzling that there is such a lot of older Roman coins left.
     
  5. ominus1

    ominus1 Well-Known Member

    ...good question....i'd reckon like svessien said of meltdown and those with older gold Roman coins don't want to sell...
     
  6. Restitutor

    Restitutor Well-Known Member

    The thought of beauties such as these being melted down is very painful, but the explanations on all counts make a lot of sense. Do we know why silver coins were less plentiful in the later years if, like gold coins they were being melted down for new versions?

    The story of Rufinus is exceptionally interesting - I wonder was he punished truly just for having the plates, or was it more of a ‘we are all guilty of having plates too but only you were foolish enough to be caught’ sort of a situation. Also lends weight to the age old Roman commentary on how their ancestors were more noble and selfless than the present generation.
     

    Attached Files:

  7. Evan Saltis

    Evan Saltis OWNER - EBS Numis LLC Supporter

    I feel like it would be a safe bet that your Theodosius II gold coins were once coins of Trajan.

    Like restitutor said, I hate to imagine it. But, its reality, and that means those older gold coins are just that much more special and historic.
     
  8. kevin McGonigal

    kevin McGonigal Well-Known Member

    His trouble may have come from violating what was a sumptuary law, rather than some kind of underhanded monetary maneuver. Rome had these kinds of laws in the Republic, often aimed at conspicuous consumption as un-Roman like, rather than currency manipulation or even hoarding. it was not so much the possession of silver plate, or gold jewelry as its ostentatious display that would get noticed and noted.
     
    svessien likes this.
  9. kevin McGonigal

    kevin McGonigal Well-Known Member

    I suspect that it had something to do with simply the amount of gold versus silver ore from the mines. What would be interesting to know is what the price ratio of gold to silver was as the Empire tottered to its decline. It was about 12 to one in the early Empire. If silver became harder to get out of the ground while the extraction of gold ore remained a constant that would have raised the price of silver and made the silver coinage more valuable relative to gold. Whatever the reason was, it affected the Eastern Empire long after the West had collapsed. Silver coinage was something of an anomaly throughout most of the Byzantine Empire and rarely formed more than a token coinage, except toward the end when "the gold of that country was no good", according to an Islamic merchant travelling about the later Empire. There is a good deal about the coinage and monetary policy of the Ancient World we simply do not know.
     
    Magnus Maximus, svessien and DonnaML like this.
  10. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    I like both ideas, the older ones were intrinsically more valuable so Gresham's Law applied, AND they had a greater need for them later in the empire. Early in the Empire Romans RECEIVED tribute. It would have been repugnant for them to PAY tribute.
     
  11. Finn235

    Finn235 Well-Known Member

    Not unlike the currencies of the modern world, Roman coin was historically backed by the "Full faith and credit" of the Empire. All bronze coins and even most silver had more purchasing power than their bullion value because they were recognized as legal tender. That's why the barbarian tribes imitated denarii in good metal and made imitations of various coins, rather than just making their own designs.

    Once the empire began to falter, the full faith in anything that wasn't gold collapsed. Thus, gold production rapidly outpaced the increasingly scarce siliqua, and in the West, production of bronze essentially stopped altogether. To fund this, it is likely that any old aureii or even Constantine-era solidii were melted down to make new coins.
     
    ancient coin hunter likes this.
  12. Pishpash

    Pishpash Well-Known Member

    I have a celtic gold stater thought to have been part of a tribute to Julius Caesar. The tribe sent some and then discontinued. Presumably these staters were recycled when they got to Rome.
     
    Magnus Maximus likes this.
  13. ancient coin hunter

    ancient coin hunter 3rd Century Usurper

    Re: The question about silver...

    Trajan acquired the silver mines of Dacia, however I would guess they were exhausted after 100 years or so. Also, Spain in earlier days was a source of silver but those mines ran dry, too. So it was harder to come by silver bullion, especially as was mentioned above during the Republic and early Empire when the Romans were paid tribute whereas in later days they were paying tribute, starting out with the Goths in the mid 3rd century when Trebonianus Gallus had to payout an incredible amount of silver to make them stop attacking the empire.
     
  14. svessien

    svessien Senior Member

    E98C3FAC-A10B-4C08-BC3A-480F56A9E63B.jpeg

    Well, I’m sitting here going through my late Roman silver coinage while watching a docu about Septimius Severus.
    This is a silver siliqua of Honorius. It,s 12mm and 0.84 grams (shaved edges).
    Compared to the silver coinage made 200 years before, it’s not a sign of progress.
     
    ancient coin hunter likes this.
  15. Magnus Maximus

    Magnus Maximus Dulce et Decorum est....

    Very good question! I’m afraid I don’t know the answer though.

    Late Roman silver is the red headed stepchild of the ancient numismatic world. Most designs are “boring” when compared to earlier denarii which puts people off. That said, they show the last gasps of sophisticated portraits before the collapse of late antiquity in the 400’s.

    It should be said though that late Roman silver coins are very pure, with most siliqua well above 95% silver. I’ve heard some theories that silver coins at the time were used by weight rather than individual coins. I don’t know if I believe that, but it’s certainly food for thought. I read somewhere(I can’t remeber where) that an average comitatensis received about 2 Siliqua per day, so that should give us an idea about how much these coins were worth.
    Here was my latest Siliqua purchase :

    Magnus Maximus
    AR Siliqua
    383-388 CE

    1.96 grams
    0DC7A3E2-EFEC-41FB-975A-CBE70B17F14E.jpeg
    5F212388-F557-4C77-841C-DD807A6CC0BD.jpeg
    I have 3 coins with the same obverse die match. See
    https://www.cointalk.com/threads/magnus-maximus-siliqua-3-0.352421/
     
    Pishpash likes this.
  16. EWC3

    EWC3 (mood: stubborn)

    Interesting question, and I do not really know

    Looks to me like a rather narrow elite were in control in the later empire, (with perhaps an impoverished middle class pushed down by the billon hyper-inflation). So only gold coins would match their affluent lifestyle. Thus gold might be more monetised into coin to meet that need, with silver more held in plate and the like – which was perhaps the opposite of earlier times.

    But also, if the early 4th century 3.4g AR really was a “siliqua” – that puts the gold silver ratio at 1: 18

    Which is way high for gold in the ancient world – so surely the empire would be sucking in gold for payment - or even directly in exchange for its silver – most especially from Sasanid Persia who surely were anyway sucking on silver for their own currency.

    I always assumed alluvial gold from central Africa was permanently a big source of new metal – routed though Egypt prior to the medieval period – so I assume that would be a big source during late Rome too? Does anyone have facts to back that?

    Rob T
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2020
  17. ancient coin hunter

    ancient coin hunter 3rd Century Usurper

  18. 1934 Wreath Crown

    1934 Wreath Crown Well-Known Member

    But isn't that true of all (mainly gold) coins. Due to the scarcity of the metal even modern coins were melted down and re-minted. This was very common during the reign of Queen Victoria where many of the older coins were melted.

    A particularly rare issue is the George V 1917 sovereign which was used for WW1 debt repayments to the US and were promptly melted down. The few survivors became instant rarities in spite of an original mintage of more than 1 million.
     
  19. svessien

    svessien Senior Member

    I don’t think you will find many siliqua over 3 grams. They vary significantly in weight. The siliqua of the Constantines are 2 to 3.5 grams (yes, seriously), mainly 2.2-2:5. Around 400 AD, we’re down to about 1.7. The next 30 years it almost halves from that.
    The siliqua comes across as a most of all unstable denomination.
     
  20. EWC3

    EWC3 (mood: stubborn)

    Interesting - can you cite a rigorous study? Most of the siliqua I have seen in the UK are badly clipped of course.

    If Julian shifted the official siliqua down to 2.25g thus gold silver down to 1 : 12 At the same time closing a lot of copper mints. Perhaps that was a short lived attempt to re-balance the social order?

    Rob T
     
  21. svessien

    svessien Senior Member

    Nope, sorry. No rigorous study. And as you say; many are clipped.
    You can take a look at the variation here:
    https://www.acsearch.info/search.ht...s=1&thesaurus=1&order=0&currency=usd&company=
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page