I know this is an old tired subject for most of you and I did search the ancients forum posts and then got confused with wiki stuff as it seemed contradictory. So, here goes: the first coin below is dated 141 BC and is clearly marked with XVI or 16 and I assumed this was 16 asses. Next is a coin dated 115-114 BC and is valued with an X or 10 asses. Question is when did the devaluing of the denarius (from 16 to 10 asses) occur?
I hope someone has the answer because this has troubled me also. I don't think the denarius reverted back to a value of 10 asses did it?
Just another point: reverting back from 16 asses to the denarius to 10 asses to the denarius would not be a devaluation; it would be just the opposite.
My understanding is that the "X" is a mark of value equaling 10 assess. Here's 2 coins also with the X. One with it in front and one behind the head of Roma: Decimius Flavus 150 BC. AR Denarius (17.8mm, 3.46 g, 5h). Rome mint. Helmeted head of Roma right; X (mark of value) to left / Diana Lucifera driving galloping biga right, holding reins and whip; FLAVS below, ROMA in partial tablet in exergue. Crawford 207/1; M. Atilius Saranus 148 BC. Rome Denarius AR 16mm., 3,48g. Helmeted head of Roma right, behind, SARAN and below chin, X / The Dioscuri galloping right, below horses, M ATILI and in exergue, ROMA. nearly very fine. Babelon Atilia 8; Sydenham 398b; RBW 905; Crawford 214/1b. Former Savoca When the value went from being with 16 to 10 assess though is a good question for Kenneth Harl's book Coinage in the Roman economy. If this isn't answered by later today, I'll dig up my copy and see what he says about the matter.
I couldn't help myself and grabbed the book. I'm not seeing anything saying they were with 16 assess. Harl says, "From the start Romans probably called their silver coins "denarii" (or "pieces of ten"), because the Roman di-drachm was tariffed at ten assess, the reckoning for Roman denominations down to 141 BCE." Edited: Akeady got it right
The denarius was retariffed from 10 to 16 asses in around 140BC. This is the time the XVI inscription appears. The XVI didn't last long, a barred X is often used and many later coins revert to X, but the value stayed at 16 asses. Pliny mentions the retariffing (NH xxxiii, 45) "and it was decided that a denarius should exchange for sixteen asses". The topic is dealt with in Crawford's "Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic" from pages 144 to 148 - here's a snippet: ATB, Aidan.
The economic rationale referenced in Kenneth Harl's Coinage in the Roman Economy and and the reference from Pliny with some additional context: "At a later period again, when Hannibal was pressing hard upon Rome, in the dictatorship of Q. Fabius Maximus, asses of one ounce weight were struck, and it was ordained that the value of the denarius should be sixteen asses, that of the quinarius eight asses, and that of the sestertius four asses; by which last reduction of the weight of the as the republic made a clear gain of one half. Still, however, so far as the pay of the soldiers is concerned, one denarius has always been given for every ten asses. The impressions upon the coins of silver were two-horse and four-horse chariots, and hence it is that they received the names of "bigati" and "quadrigati."" - Pliny Natural History 33.13
After people got used to the new exchange rate, many just reverted to the old standard X because it was familiar. People prefer consistency to accuracy and 'denarius' came to mean 'standard silver coin' even though the ten part was obsolete.
Maybe, but what reason would a celator have for putting a X on the coin? He must have known that it referred to the value of the denarius. And there was a stretch of maybe 25-30 years when there was no as value used at all. Why all of a sudden reintroduce a meaningless value?
@JBGood , I love the mystery of this transition: X or 10 Asses, to XVI or 16 Asses, to * for 16 Asses, then X or * for 16 Asses! Yeah, the Denarius transition from 10 As to 16 As was murky - X to Ж (sideways). The AR Sestertius had IIS (2 Asses and a Semis), and the AR Quinarius was a V (5). Although we think it an odd transition, if you lived the times, I am curious how all of that devaluation was communicated or executed in everyday life... Mine: 1) Here is one that is X or 10 Asses in 146 BCE JUST before it turned to XVI RR AR Denarius C Antestiu Rome 146 BCE 3.97g 19.0mm Helm hd Roma R X C ANTESTI - Dioscuri gllpng R puppy-dog running ROMA TRANSITION to XVI or 16 Asses RR L Julius 141 BCE AR Den Roma Dioscuri XVI RR L Julius 141 BCE AR Den Roma XVI Dioscuri galloping S 100 Cr 224-1 Here is a 138 BCE Denarius reverting BACK to X, albeit for 16 Asses... RR C Renius AR Denarius 18mm 3.8g Roma 138 BC Helmeted hd Roma r X - C RENI ROMA Juno driving biga goats r whip reins scepter Cr 231-1 Here is a 136 BCE with a Crossbar-X 16 Asses: RR AR Denarius 3.85g L Antestius Gragulus 136 BCE Rome mint Roma Jupiter quadriga tbolt Cr 238-1 Syd 451 QUINARIUS - V on obv: RR Anon AR Quinarius 211-210 BCE 16mm 2.14g SE Italia mint Roma V ROMA Dioscuri Cr 85-1a SYD 174 RSC33b ex RBW SCARCE SESTERTIUS - IIS on obv: RR AR Sestertius After 211 BCE 12mm 1.0g Rome mint Roma r IIS - Dioscuri riding stars in ex ROMA Sear 46 Craw 44-7 RSC 4
I have another "observation of my collection", so this is an empirical type question and not one based on other facts. I buy denarii when and if they come up for auction. I am not buying based on any criteria except visual appeal and price. So, in reviewing my collection of 66 denarii I have reasonable representation (65 of them) for the time period of 148 BC through 270 AD the time roughly when the empire was falling apart and the antoninanus and other denominations displaced the denarius all together. I have a 63 year gap between 211 BC (when this denomination was first produced) until 148 BC. Is this because of "rarity" and these coins do not come on auction frequently or is this an artifact of lower production during this period? Thoughts?
Hmmm... other experts will need to weigh-in on this. I am NOT an expert and very much a Layman as this is a Hobby for me. I am not a scholar, rather collect to take my mind away from my everyday vocation. However, I can comment based on my collecting findings: 1) Denarius started in 310 BCE: It has been argued that the DiDrachm name for PRE-Reform (211 BCE), is incorrect. In fact, the Romans would have called their AR - 10 Asses Coins a Denarius. Denarius is a derivative of Ten in Latin. Ergo, the Pre-Reform AR 10-Asses would be a Heavy Denarius. They were first minted in 310 BCE when Rome was building the Via Appia (first major highway in Italy) and Aqua Appia (first major Aquaduct in Italy) projects. In reading Kenneth Harl's book, it was used to pay for the BUILDING of Via Appia and Aqua Appia. These were the first major projects that Rome embarked, creating their first "super-highway" and first major Aquaduct program. The Censor Appius Claudius Caecus built the Aqua Appia in 312 BCE as well as built the Via Appia. Busy dude. I have posted this earlier, but this was the time that Rome was REALLY getting itself on the map! Legions, Road Systems, Aquaducts, Concrete, Incorporation of Allies and Citizens... HUGE innovations that made Rome a World Empire. I also have more Heavy Denarii from the PRE-Reform period of 310-211 BCE... here is the First AR Coin minted by Rome. Roman Republic Anon AR Heavy Denarius / Didrachm 7.3g, 21mm, 310-300 BCE Helmeted Bearded Mars Horse head, Grain behind / Romano Crawford 13-1 FIRST Silver Coin of Rome. Tarriffed at 10 Asses 2) Pre 148 BCE Denarius rarity: Personally, I do no have a lot of difficulty finding earlier dated Denarii than 148 BCE. However, perhaps lower mintage, and perhaps fewer collectors make them obtainable by me. I usually capture mine from various auctions and/or VCoins and MA-Shops,. Some of POST-Reform (211 BCE) from pre-148 BCE RR AR Denarius 214-208 BCE Roma R X behind - Dioscuri R ROMA linear frame stars Sicily RARE Cr 68-1b RR Anon 211-208 BCE AR den 20.9mm 3.7g Rome Hd Roma R X - Dioscuri riding spears, stars ROMA tablet Cr 44-5 Syd 167 RSC 1a Scarce RR AR Denarius 149 BCE Pinarius Natta Roma X - Victory Biga whip NATTA ROMA Cr 208-1 Syd 390 RR Anon 189-179 BCE AR Den Roma Luna Biga Sear 69 Cr 158-1 RR P Cornelius Sulla 151 BCE AR Den Roma Biga Sear 84 Cr 205-1 RR VF L Saufeius 152 BCE AR Denarius Roma Biga Sear 83 Craw 204-1
There's certainly a period with very little silver, but not as long as 211 to 148 BC - as Alegandron illustrates, there are many issues of denarii in that period (and also many issues of bronze denominations only). With the end of the Second Punic War, the need for precious metal coinage was reduced, as it would have been mostly to pay for military operations. For this reason, I presume the Romans reverted somewhat to bronze coinage. The period with little or no silver minting seems to have lasted maybe fifteen or so years - I have the Harl book, but have yet to get far into it, so instead throw in a couple of snippets from Crawford. Silver coin production really ramped up again when the Macedonian silver mines were reopened from 158 and silver replaced bronze as the main medium of exchange. ATB, Aidan.
“Very helpful! Thank you.” JBG @JBGood My pleasure! I find the History of the Roman Republic much more fascinating than the Empire. It was during the Republic and their struggles that defined the Roman State and their values to become one of the greatest institutions in Human History.
There are quotes from good books above. Do not think that they are necessarily the correct answers. Harl wrote a book I recommend (but, with some caveats). Many of his assertions are stated as if they are known facts, when actually there is still much scholarly dispute he has not represented. I spent many weeks in major numismatic libraries reading and copying articles on topics like this Republican mystery and the denomination of the tetrarchal follis, etc. If anyone says the answers are known for sure, they have not read widely. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Last year I studied how Republican coins are dated (the methods, not just the results). There are two relevant pages on my site. Begin here: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Repub/TimelineTable.html At the place on that page (141 BC and the following coins) where the changing denomination marks are discussed (X to XVI to a horizontally crossed X back to X) I discuss the uncertainty scholars have about what really happened and when. You can bet that in the next few years another scholarly article will come out with a somewhat different interpretation of events. Unfortunately, there are no relevant ancient documents other than the coins themselves. There are few easy answers. That's part of the fun of ancient numismatics.
Thank you very much Valentinian. The information from your site was very helpful. Probably the most noteworthy statement I found was "...sources show authors prefer to avoid the issue, presumably because they do not have a convincing answer." This is in reference as to why the X was reintroduced after the XVI and the X with the bar and then no value mark at all. Hard to imagine what the celator had in mind, but imagine we can and imagine we do.
I have not looked much at this particular problem, but I think Doug is correct to suggest we tread with great caution here. I have recently been looking at Roman descriptions of their own weight standards and all sorts of strange things crop up. For instance in the mid 2nd century AD Maecianus apparently still used the word “as” to mean libra - that is to say c. 327g – several centuries after that was true. That usage seems to derive from aspects of Roman inheritance law. In the late 4th century AD I was surprised to find the way Epiphanius was using “nomisma”. I kind of expected it to be a (gold) coin, and of c. 4.5g. The way he explains it, it looks more like a talent of 20+ KG………. I just put a GB “pound” on a scale and it came up at 8.7g. Not Offa’s “pound” then (probably c. 373g?) or even the weight of a “pound” of Offa’s pennies (probably 350g?). Perhaps I should start calling them “staters”? : - ) Rob T
Or is it, simple answer (too simple maybe), because at that time period they're mostly Roma/dioscuri and you find them less appealling to you ? Q
