Hi all I'm just curious, what is the acceptable weight range for a Roman Republic Denarius? I ask because I'm toying with buying a late Roman Republic Denarius (between 100BC and 30BC), and there is a Denarius I really like, but it is only 3.61g. Is that an acceptable weight? AC
The time range of 100 to 30 BC covers the imperatorial period (49 to 31 BC) where denarius weights can be much lower than other periods of the Republic. But 3.61 should be ok regardless.
Roman Republican denarii are notoriously variable in weight, so I looked for an open access bar chart plotting that variation - for a decent sized sample - via google. And did not find one. Can anyone else? I am coming to the conclusion that the Romans themselves had some rather strange opinions on matters to do with weight, and that almost seems to be reflected amongst modern scholars of their times too........ Rob T
Amateur's opinions here - some of the later Roman Republican denarii run a little light, at least based on my small collection. A weight of 3.61 would be fine with me. Below is a light RR denarius I recently got. It is only 3.13 grams which would generally lead me to suspect a fake. However, it is very, very worn. Also, it is part of a gigantic issue of denarii issued in 46 B.C. for Caesar's double triumph - many of these are poorly-struck on ragged flans and sometimes they run light. And yet the variation is pretty wide - 46 B.C. issues of T. Carisius, Mn. Cordius Rufus and C. Considius Paetus in my collection (6 specimens) run from 4.01 to 3.17 grams - which is quite a variation. They are all circulated (VF at best). This is the lightest: it's a dolphin, but just barely: Roman Republic Denarius Mn. Cordius Rufus (46 B.C.) Rome Mint RVFVS•S•C, diademed head of Venus right / [MN•COR]DIVS Cupid riding on dolphin right. Crawford 463/3; Cordia 3; Sydenham 977. (3.13 grams / 18 mm)
I see the Roman Republican system quite modern. Moneyers were able to contract out or manipulate weights, purity and workmanship to some degree. These men could campaign for higher office by producing well made full weight coins or they could skimp and figure out how to make more coins from less metal and hire artists with lesser skills for a lower price. Troubled times (war) requiring more coins on short notice also would encourage lowering of quality. Today, we see people adding sawdust to shredded cheese and telling us that it is to prevent clumping. We have used technology to lower qualities and raise profits. So did some moneyers. We add additives to cheapen product and then package less in a box that looks like it should hold more. When did you last see a half gallon of ice cream? We modern types did not invent such shenanigans; the Romans were good at it.
For RR denarii the weight varies, though at the lower end of the scale they seldom go below 3.1g, and seldom go above 4g
My understanding of the situation owes a lot to discussion with Ross Glanfield. As things stand I am inclined to accept his view - in the general case RR denarii were tariffed at 6 to the uncia for value, but struck at 7 to the uncia in fact. So a fiat component of value, on the average, of about 14%. Further, I suspect what was going on was disguised by al marco minting, with very loose control at the level of the individual flan. Which would sort of confuse people at the time (and now!). The thing I am specifically working on is a parallel and perhaps linked Roman misunderstanding of measurement of small gradations of weight – which (at least at a popular level) – also seems oddly deficient. Related to that - does anyone know of an English translation of the Distributio of Maecianus? I can figure out the gist of what he is saying, but there will be important nuances I am missing. Isidore and Epiphanius both exist in English translation, for Favinus there is at least a French translation, but I only found the original Latin for Maecianus Rob T
I enjoyed Kenneth Harl's Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 B.C. to A.D. 700 I scooped this up from Wikipedia (yeah, I know, @dougsmit ), so that I did not have to rewrite his comments. According to Harl, the Denarius actually started around 312 BCE in Campana, to help finance the Via Appia and the Aqua Appia, having a weight around 6.8g. This was dubbed "Heavy" Denarius, as the Romans would have most likey called them DENARIUS as they were tarriffed at 10 Asses. Subsequent Denarii from approx 269 BCE down to 211 BCE were minted in Rome. The Reform of 211 changed the Denarius to approx 4.5g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denarius
While I am a firm believer in the al marco system, I am far from clear on how it affected the use and hoarding of the coins. How many (by %?) Romans payed any attention to which of the ten coins in their possession they spent and which they saved. Did they favor coins of one type as 'better' or did they reach blindly in a bad and take out a coin. Some hoards are the cash boxes of a business. Some are life savings. Neither of these situations would yield a completely random selection of weights unless all concerned just selected coins blindly.
I ask that question when I buy a coin on line. Go to acsearch and look for the coin you want. That web site will give you several coins. You can then use a spreadsheet and calculate an average and standard deviation for the coin. (PM me if you have questions.) I looked at my coins in that date range and found: number - 54 avg wt - 3.79 grams Standard Deviation - 0.19 grams You should expect 95% of the coins are 3.2 to 4.4. In fact the coins ranged from 3.23 to 4.15.
A wonderful resource for researching Roman Republican coinage can be found at Coinage of Roman Republic Online (CRRO): http://numismatics.org/crro/ It is indexed by Crawford number so just type in the base number of the series and it will bring up a list of all of the subtypes in that series with links to museum specimens around the world. At the bottom of the page, notice there is a "Quantitive Analysis" that gives you averages for weight, axis and diameter. For a large issue, such as Cr. 352, the averages are going to be pretty solid. http://numismatics.org/crro/id/rrc-352.1a
Thanks. A big range in the case you point to (3.09g to 4.28g) and it looks like 3.6 to 4.2 is pretty typical. Surely this looks nothing like most earlier Greek silver, which is much better weight controlled? Odd then that there is so little relevant comment on the web, as far as I can see. What it does seem to resemble is the Imperial Mauryan issues of c. 350-180 BC in India. A tight average close to 3.43g, but individual coins straying from 3.1g to 3.7g. And in that case too, the 25% debasement suggests a big fiat component of value. Its an interesting question. My own guess would be that most Romans did not care at all, they selected blindly (as far the good silver issues went during the main RR period). Thus all the talk about selection is maybe just a 20th century numismatic obsession? I am content to be proved wrong if anyone has evidence. But, so far, the matter of variation seems largely ignored. Rob T
Thanks everyone. Some good tips here. I'm not keen to post a picture... well, because, I want it! It's a Denarius from 90 BC, depicting a Pegasus on one side, and a bearded and diademed Mutinus Titinius on the other. It's certainly not in mint state, but it's not so incredibly worn that it would have lost significant weight from wear (i.e. not like the one posted above). I have done a search on acsearch, and 3.61g is certainly within the range - but it is on the lower end, and they're far more frequently found in the 3.8 to 3.9 range, but can be as little as 3.3
Here is my non-mint state Pegasus QUINarius from 90 BCE... RR Q Titius AR Quinarius 90 BCE Winged bust of Victory, PEGASUS Sear 240 - Marsic War Personally, I would not be as concerned about the weight, @AussieCollector . This was the start of the Social War. The Romans were fast and furious on pounding out monies for the War! Frantic time for Rome. This was not a war against a foreign enemy, this was a war against their Allies... who knew the Roman leadership, and knew exactly how to fight Roman-style... they were the other half (Allied Legions) of the Roman Legions!
Am not sure this affected things. As far as I heard, all the nominally c. 3.9g RR denarii were pretty variable in weight. My mind was anyhow going down the opposite track. That the most effective military force in Europe was for a while the Romans, and the most effective in India the Mauryas. Meanwhile it seems both were unusual in the way they planned their monetary set up – perhaps with fairly hefty tax on money - unseen amongst their opponents? "The sinews of war are infinite money." - Cicero Rob T