Ancient Idiots: Ask the Experts Anything....

The academic literature recognizes two sorts of counterfeiting at work in the Roman Imperial period: "endemic" counterfeiting and "epidemic" counterfeiting. Endemic counterfeiting is the normal background-level counterfeiting that we all recognize. Endemic counterfeits in the imperial era are typified by fourrées and casts. Epidemic counterfeiting, on the other hand, is foreign to our modern experience. The epidemics were stimulated by shortages of small change through demonetization, debasement and monetary reform. Examples of the epidemics include copies of Claudian aes in the 1st century, the so-called 'barbarous radiates' in the 3rd century and imitations of the 'fallen horseman' type in the 4th century. Like endemic counterfeiting, the motive for the epidemics is profit. The first round of counterfeits are often very good copies of the originals but as the epidemic unfolds, bad coins drive out the good and then worse coins drive out the bad. As copies are copied, the types deteriorate. At the same time, the module decreases, often down to 1/4 or less of the original. Archaeological evidence of illicit minting shows the melting of larger coins to produce smaller versions. This represents the counterfeiter's profit margin. In each case, the epidemics were ended rather suddenly with the minting of new official coins of decent quality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

These two statements seem to conflict. If the coins were made to serve where there was a lack of the 'real' thing, there is no requirement for a profit motive. Also, how do you distinguish between an epidemic counterfeit and an authorized branch mint set up to fill a need for coins 'in the field'? We have no records of branch mints being authorized but that does not mean that they all operated producing moneys of necessity without the blessing of the emperor.

 

@dougsmit I dont quite understand your objection so I will refer you to the literature for clarification. For the seminal discussion of 'epidemic counterfeiting' as an economic phenomenon see George Boon, 'Counterfeit Coins in Roman Britain' in Coins and the Archaeologist (2nd ed.), London: Seaby, 1988, pp. 102-188. See also Pierre Bastien, 'Imitations of Roman Bronze Coins, A.D. 318-363', ANS Museum Notes 30, New York, 1985, pp. 143-177.

 

That is the source. I don't think he regards Claudian aes or GalloRoman barbarous radiates as a source of profit for counterfeiters as much as supplying an otherwise unfilled need.

 

@Valentinian Obviously I read Boon differently. Hopefully those interested in this topic will not rely on us but read the references cited for themselves.

 

Hmmmm.... Having never seen the book, this smells a little on the high side of prefabricated ideology.

 

Right, that's the more conspicuously Latinate, polysyllabic term for it.

 

Hi all

This was an interesting thread, and since I have a question on my mind that I can't resolve I thought I'd give it a try and breathe new life into it. Hope anyone chimes in...

My question to the experts: if you have a life-time Alexander drachm or tet from Babylon, would it be fair to assume that the silver it was struck with came directly from the looted Achaemenid treasury that he found there? And would the same apply for gold/silver struck at the same time in, say, Susa? Or Persepolis? I know he found huge amounts of bullion in all three places, so it seems to me to be a logical assumption that any silver or gold struck around that time in these cities would come from this loot.
The reason I'm asking is simply because a coin directly struck from looted bullion/treasury would be a cool historic provenance. And Babylon especially, of course. Home of The Tower, the Hanging Gardens, and one of the greatest cities of its time...

Any facts, opinions, or other input is appreciated, expert or not. Thanks.

Dan.

I don't have a life-time ATG (yet), so this one will have to do for now; in the name of:

Antigonos Gonatas: Amphipolis 275-271 BC. Tetradrachm.
28 mm. 17,0 gr. Price 629A.

 

Unless the silver content is unique to a certain geographical area, I would think there is no way of knowing that a particular ATG lifetime issue came from the "loot" at Babylon or another source. Just my humble opinion.

 

While maybe not getting directly at the coins you are referencing... this does bring to mind a post about a coin that does have a history tracing back to the melting of “massive gold statues of Nike which were standing around the Parthenon on the Acropolis” at the end of the Peloponnesian War.

Read about @AncientJoe ’s amazing golden owls! https://www.cointalk.com/threads/white-whale-acquired-not-the-usual-athens.322018/

 

I don't know if the following has been superseded by more recent scholarship, but in "The Coinages of Demetrios Poliorcetes", Edward Newell writes:

"It will be remembered that some time in the course of the year 299-298 BC, Demetrius with his fleet was skirting the coast of Asia Minor escorting his daughter Stratonice eastward to her contemplated marriage with Seleucus. As Demetrius was passing Cilicia (since Ipsus in the hands of Pleistarchus, Cassander's brother) he seized the welcome opportunity, landed an expedition, and secured what remained of the famous treasure of Kyinda. According to Plutarch this treasure still amounted to some twelve hundred talents in precious metals. From Cilicia he proceeded to Rhossus in North Syria to meet Seleucus. Once arrived at Rhossus, Salamis lay only across the water from him. We may well picture Demetrius, if he had not already done so, hastily dispatching the ships carrying the precious bullion seized at Kyinda to the eminently safe harbor of Salamis. As already stated, that city possessed not only the nearest active mint of Demetrius but was also his strongest and most available fortress. It is, therefore, practically certain that the captured bullion would have been at the earliest possible moment transported to that stronghold for safe keeping and also minting. The gold coins, nos. 19 and 21, and the silver tetradrachms nos. 18, 22, 23, 24, we have every reason to believe, therefore, must have been struck from the Kyinda bullion." Pages 42-43 of the Obol 1978 reprint.

 

@Edessa, thanks for your resonantly valid point about the inexorable limitations of our communal knowledge. I only Wish I could reconstruct who said this on this forum, even just the last time, but people who collect this stuff have to live with ambiguity.
Good training for, well, life, but no less true of medievals. It's Completely Legal to allow real latitude for speculation, as long as you maintain the distinction.
Because, ultimately, how much is Really Known? As we all know, Not Enough.

 

Hello!

I have a coin my grandma found in pompeii apparently many years ago just after it was starting to gain interest.

Just wondering if anyone can tell me what type it is or if it is even from pompeii!

Thanks so much! Coin https://imgur.com/gallery/ZRaMIEn - This is the coin

 

Hi Rebeccalouise !
Your coin is modelled after a silver Tetradrachm of the Seleukid ruler Antiochus. You can still see part of the name to the left of the sitting figure (Apollo with arrow).
This clearly is no silver though, so it seems more likely this is a modern cast copy.
The same portrait/Apollo design does exist in bronze. But as far as i know only in a far smaller coin like the one below (16 mm, 3 gr)

 

It is a tourist cast fake of a Greek type. Even the tourist shops in Pompeii are more likely to sell reproductions of Roman types. It is unlikely there is any association with Pompeii at all. Old stories get muddled as the years pass.

 

..to be kinder, its most likely a cast reproduction of Antiochus..your grandmother bought at a tourist shop in or around Pompeii...still a neat item tho... (you'll notice a casting seam on the coins edge)

 

Fascinating! Do you have the images of the references coins, "The gold coins, nos. 19 and 21, and the silver tetradrachms nos. 18, 22, 23, 24."?

 

Thanks for letting me know!