Ancient Idiots: Ask the Experts Anything....

My favorite coins are those I previously did not know existed but one day, there it was. Main specialties:
Septimius Severus and family from the Eastern mints and 193 AD from Rome.

Coins of technical interest (fabric, errors, anything 'different')

Tiny Greek silver (obol and under)


Archaic Magna Gracia coins with incuse reverse

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

And some more questions. with respect to the same time-period. I assume that the annual designs for each coin type, at least generally speaking, emanated from and were dictated by the Imperial administration. Given the variations among the different dies produced and used for minting those coin types (sometimes minor, and sometimes greater), is it safe to assume that the different mints, and/or the different officinas within those mints, and/or the different celators within those officinas, had a certain amount of individual discretion to vary the general designs emanating from the central administration? Do we know if all the seemingly endless variations in whether a particular bust was draped vs. draped and cuirassed, etc. -- which catalogs often classify as different types or sub-types -- emanated from the central administration, or were differences like that the result of local discretion as well?

Separately, do we have any idea whether or not the Imperial administration ever directed that design changes be made during the lifetime of a particular annual coin type? Or do all such variations reflect the discretion of mints/officinas/celators? For example, with respect to the Marcus Aurelius Caesar denarius I've mentioned before (RIC III 429a) -- the one with the wide variation within the type as to whether and/or to what extent Marcus Aurelius has facial hair -- Pangerl suggests in one of the essays in his 500 Years of Roman Coin Portraits book that the variation was not random or based on individual local discretion. Instead, he suggests that it was deliberate and chronological, changing over time from no little or no facial hair to something closer to a full beard, representing the Imperial administration's propagandistic effort to show Marcus as growing more mature. I wonder if there could possibly be any concrete evidence of when particular coins within the type were issued during the time-period when the type was being minted. Which goes back to my question regarding the length of time for which particular annual types were minted, i.e., at the begining of the year, during the year, or for even longer than a year.

Do we really have enough information to answer any of these questions?

 

Here’s a theory.

 

Query: Why does @DonnaML keep the site-issued avatar? Why does she not select a cool avatar pic for herself? She adds so much, but her avatar is so boring...

 

The answer is: sheer laziness. When I do get around to it, I'll probably just use a photo of my cat Ziggy to represent me. That's what I do on most sites.

 

I am sure there are a ton of books on ancient coins. Can I get a list of some more basic/generalized collecting books on ancient coins anyone can recommend? I am more interested in books for reference than websites.

 

To offer an answer to my own question, what I find so pleasant about using this site is that virtually everyone on it wishes to share what knowledge it is they have acquired. A love of learning accompanied by a desire to share it. I'll bet most posters here would make very good teachers.

 

For Roman Imperial coinage: why do we see reverse depictions of Roman gods so regularly, but not of former deified emperors? For example with the 5 Good Emperors I may expect to see more common coins of Marcus Aurelius with the deified Hadrian or Antoninus Pius on the reverse.

 

About a week ago I recall a similar discussion here on books. Use the search feature and find it and others from the past. Below is a link to my web page reviewing a few books available back when I was updating the site. There are many good books; not all of them are in print. A few are collector's items themselves.
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/book.html

 

From Forvm:


Here's a question to go with this...why does the AE13 and AE4 look so similar in size?

 

There are very few obverse depictions of gods. Coins honoring Deified emperors are rather common for the better rulers and not to be expected for the majority - especially those who were deposed by the next ruler. Here are ten (the number allowed by CT on one post).
Augustus by Nerva
Vespasian by Titus

Antoninus Pius by Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius by Commodus
Faustina II by Marcus Aurelius
Caracalla by Elagabalus

Claudius II by Quintillius
Carus by Carinus and Numerian
Constantius I by Constantine
Constantine I by three sons

 

It is easy to change avatars. Recently I picked the obverse of a coin I liked that I thought would show up when small like avatars are.

 

Good question. AE1, AE2, AE3, and AE4 are used to indicate sizes roughly, with AE1 being the largest size base-metal coin in the middle of the 4th C and AE4 being the smallest size. If you want to be more precise when describing an AE4 coin 13 mm in diameter, you can say "AE13" which is not on the same scale at all. It is an AE4 on the one scale, but that scale does not go above 4. If the number is larger than 4, say 28, then AE28 means 28 mm in diameter.

 

Thanks Doug! These are really cool examples. I realized though I typed obverse when I meant reverse... Long day I’ve corrected my original post!

 

I was under a different impression.

Somewhere I saw that AE1,2,3,4 are used for Imperial issues of those size ranges.

Provincials on the other hand, aren't given the 1-4 designations and instead are called AE-# regardless of their size comparison to an imperial coin.

So an imperial coin of 14mm is an AE4, but a provincial of 14mm is called AE14.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

What a nice idea for a thread.

I think I happily qualify as an ancient idiot (in doubt, just check my username).

So my question:

Was the denarius really the basic monetary in Rome as is suggested in most sources/books? Like, say, the dollar or the Euro today? Both officially and in the daily life of the average citizen?

Not only does its etymologically mean a 'tenner' (as in ten asses), suggesting the as as the original unit. But also, considering the purchasing power of a denarius and the average income of, say, a common soldier, wouldn't a denarius in his mind represent more like 50 or 100 todays dollar/euro and wouldn't he more likely think in terms of asses or even quadrantes?

Interestingly, I also just finished reading Suetonius' '12 Ceasars', who, whenever he mentions money almost invariably uses sestertii and, save one or two exceptions,never denarii.

- 'He (...) extracted an annual tribute of 40 million sesterces' (divus Julius 25.)

- 'Every infantryman (...) earned a reward of 24.000 sesterces' (divus Julius 38.)

- 'Suffice it to record that in less than a year he squandered Tiberius' entire fortune of 2.700 million sesterces, and an enormous amount of other treasure as besides'. ( Gaius Caligula 37. )

etc.etc.etc.

This could of course just be Suetonius' idiosyncracy, but the fact that he consequently uses sesterces even when talking about huge sums of money suggests that in his (and his contemperaries' ???) perception the sestertius and not the denarius or was the unit of (ac)counting.

Simply put, if I were to buy myself a domus with a view of the Forum would this set me back 5 millon denarii or 20 million sestertii?
And, if I was less fortunate and had to serve in the regiments would I earn 300 denarii per annum or 1200 sesterces?

Any thoughts anyone?

 

Sorry, the AE1-AE4 measurements means absolutely no sense to me.
I get it, but!

Whenever you describe a Bronze coin size, ANY OTHER time in Ancient History, you just state AE12 for 12mm, or AE20 for 20mm, etc. etc. WHY do LRB's have to be described by some odd range of size under those 4 categories?

WHY?
AE1 (actually AE30 as it is 30mm)

RI Julian II CE 360-363 AE1 AE30 30mm maiorina Diademed R - SECVRITAS REIPVB 2 stars Apis Bull stg R ANT-Gamma 2 palms ANTIOCH RIC 217 LRBC 2641

Versus:


RProv AE18mm 4.3g Elagabalus CE 218-222 Thrace Philippolis Snake tripod Moushmov 5423


or



Carthage Zeugitania Æ17 6.1g 350-320 BCE Palm Tree Horse Head SNG Cop 102

 

My next query: Why is @DonnaML SOOoooo LAZY???

 

That's what happens when one retires, I guess. Especially under present circumstances. But can we stop now, please? Even though I know you're just having fun? Thanks!

 

Please explain the deal about coins having the same die and therefore being fake.