THE
ROMAN COINAGE OF ALEXANDRIA
By J.G. MILNE
The
Nature of the Currency. During the last few years several
hoards of tetradrachms struck at Alexandria under the Roman emperors,
have come into my hands from different sources in Egypt: and the
statisfics as to the composition of these hoards which I have
been able to collect provide some material of interest as bearing
on the activity of the Alexandrian mint at different periods.
It should be premised that, from the time of the conquest of Egypt
by Augustus to the monetary reform of Diocletian, the tetradrachm
was the most important coin ordinarily circulating in Egypt. It
was nominally of silver, but actually very debased: the earliest
examples struck under Roman rule, in 21 A.D., contain about 50
percent. of silver; the latest in 296 AD., less than1 per cent.
The deterioration in fineness, which proceeded at varying rates
through this period, was associated with a diminution in size
and weight: the first coins are about 1 inch in diameter and weigh
on an average about 180 grains-the last about 3/4 inch and 9o
grains. No other silver, or nominal silver, was struck at Alexandria,
except for an issue of didrachms under Claudius, which are extremely
rare: and no external silver coinage circulated in the country.
A certain amount of Roman gold was brought in, but was probably
used mainly by the Roman officials: there is no trace of its occurrence
in the records of ordinary commercial transactions. Bronze coins
of lower denominations than the tetradrachm were issued regularly
till about 180 A.D.: after that date the depreciation of the tetradrachm
appears to have caused the abandonment of a bronze currency. In
consequence of, the importance of the tetradrachm, it was the
coin usually hoarded in Egypt: it is rare to find large hoards
of bronze, or any considerable admixture of bronze with tetradrachms.
And, as the tetradrachms were always dated, bearing the regnal
year of the emperor under whom they were issued, these hoards
shew, not only the approximate date when they were formed, but
also what length of time coins remained in circulation.
The
Hoards. The following brief description of the hoards included
in the tables, will serve at the same time to indicate certain
points which affect their value for statistical purposes. Hoards
i, ii, and iv were found in the Fayum by Messrs. Hogarth, Grenfell,
and Hunt in 1895-6 the two first at Umm-el-Atl, the other at Kom
Ushim. I contributed an account of the coins to the volume on
Fayum Towns published by the Graeco-Roman Branch of the Egypt
Exploration Fund in 1900 (see pp. 64 ff.). These three hoards
are the only ones of which I can say with certainty that they
reached me just as they were found, without any loss or addition.
Hoards
iii, v, vi, vii, and viii were obtained by Messrs. Currelly and
Frost at Tell-el-Maskhut? in 1905. These five are probably
uncontaminated : they were purchased from the native finders,
without the intervention of any dealers, and there was every appearance,
in the condition of the coins, that those in each lot had been
found together. It is possible that any one of the lots may only
be a part of an original hoard, since, if a discovery of coins
were made, and more than one man was aware of it, the find would
probably be divided; but the division would take the form of a
haphazard separation of the whole into shares without any selection
of individual coins, so that the ratio of the numbers of coins
belonging to different years would not be seriously affected in
the respective parts as compared with the entire hoard.
Hoard
xiv I purchased in Cairo from an Arab dealer: it was originally
in two lots. I described this hoard in the Archiv für Papyrusforschung,
ii, p. 529, where my reasons for treating the two lots together
may be found. So far as I could judge, this hoard was practically
uncontaminated.
The
remaining six hoards have come to me through Signor Dattari of
Cairo; and, as they have passed through several hands, and have
lost most of their history, I cannot feel at all certain how far
the coins which reached me represent what were originally found.
In no case, except that of hoard x, was there any internal evidence
of confusion: the coins were, in each instance, in generally similar
conditions of preservation, and ran in fairly even distribution;
but, as the former holders of the hoards may have chosen out some
specimens of the rarer types, such diminution of the numbers by
selection would decrease the value of the results derived from
them for statistical purposes.
Hoard
x appeared to have been made up from two distinct lots: the coins
of the first and second centuries in it may have belonged to one
lot, and in fact, when they reached me, there were many instances
in which coins ranging from Claudius to Commodus were corroded
together; but I did not find any third-century coins united to
any of an earlier date.
In
spite of this possibility of contamination, the total
number of coins of each year found is of considerable interest,
as shewing the relative sizes of the issues in different years;
though the comparison can only be made, with any degree of fairness,
between neighbouring years which are covered by an equal number
of hoards.
Variations
in Minting. I had hoped that it would be possible to carry
the comparison further, and, by determining the rate of wastage,
to construct a table shewing the original proportion of the coinage
belonging to each year. But, after a careful examination of the
statistics with Professor Petrie, I conclude that the present
evidence is insufficient for this purpose, though some approximate
results may be obtained. The chief difficulties are set forth
in the following paragraphs.
It
is fairly clear that, during the first two centuries of our era,
there was nothing like a uniform rate of coinage of tetradrachms
at Alexandria. None were issued from the time of the Roman conquest,
in 30 B.c., till 20 A.D.; a few were struck under Tiberius, but
mysteriously disappeared from circulation: then, in the second
to the sixth years of Claudius, fairly large numbers appeared,
and again, after a lapse of ten years, in the third to the sixth
years of Nero; two years followed without any silver coinage,
and then, after a very small issue in the ninth year of Nero,
came an enormous activity of the mint, which died away eight years
later in the third year of Vespasian. In the following thirty
years there are only seven of which any tetradrachms are known,
and the issues of all but two of these years must have been small,
as specimens are rare. Thereafter, for seventy years, we find
examples dated in every year except two; then comes another gap
of ten years, broken by one issue only; then, during the thirteen
years of the sole reign of Commodus, there are coins of every
year, and in some cases large numbers are found. In the reigns
of Septimius Severus and his sons, covering a quarter of a century,
tetradrachms occur belonging to most years, but in all instances
they are extremely rare, and very few can have been struck. With
the second year of Elagabalus fairly large issues begin once more,
and thereafter, till the reform of the coinage under Diocletian
in 296, there was a mintage of every year, except 251-2 and 252-3,
though the number of coins put into circulation must have varied
considerably from year to year.
Wastage
of Currency. As no uniform rate can be postulated, the alternative
way of defining the wastage would be to compare several hoards
covering a fairly long period, but ending at different points
during the period. The hoards described here, however, do not
give very good data for this purpose; and, so far as I can ascertain,
the majority of similar hoards found in Egypt share the same characteristics.
That is, most of them seem to have been buried within certain
very limited periods: the coins found in hoards usually end with
the middle of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the early years of
Aurelian, or the end of the issues of Diocletian. These dates
mark lines of general disturbance in Egypt-the Bucolic
war and revolt of Avidius Cassius, the Palmyrene invasion,
and the usurpation of Domitius - when it would naturally occur
that large quantities of treasure would be buried, part of which
the owners would never return to recover. But this narrow limitation
of the hoarding periods is unfortunate for our present purposes.
It
happens that these times of disturbance were almost coincident
with times of debasement of the coinage--there may indeed have
been some causal connexion between the two. The size and fineness
of the Alexandrian tetradrachm persistently diminished under Roman
rule; but the most sudden and marked depreciations were at the
end of the reign of Marcus Aurelius and in the tenth year of Gallienus,
while the issue of tetradrachms ceased entirely during the revolt
of Domitius. A man hoarding coins would probably select, from
amongst those that came into his hands, the specimens of most
intrinsic value, and keep these, passing back into circulation
baser pieces which were nominally worth as much. Hence any hoards
formed shortly after a sudden depreciation of the coinage would
tend to be composed mainly of the older issues, to the exclusion
of the new; and thus the composition of such a hoard would not
be a fair index of the actual circulation at the time of its formation.
It
is, however, possible to obtain from these statistics some evidence
as regards wastage during the years from 230 to 280 A.D. Professor
Petrie has kindly investigated the six hoards which cover the
greater part of this half-century, and finds that the period of
half-waste lies between 15 and 22 years, the mean being 18 years.
Taking this result, he states the following as the proportions
of the original issues left in successive five-year groups:-
After
5 years
|
82.46
%
|
After
10 years
|
67.8
%
|
After
15 years
|
56
%
|
After
20 years
|
46
%
|
After
25 years
|
37.9
%
|
After
30 years
|
31.2
%
|
After
35 years
|
25.7
%
|
After
40 years
|
21.2
%
|
After
45 years
|
17.5
%
|
After
50 years
|
14.4
%
|
After
55 years
|
11.8
%
|
After
60 years
|
9.8
%
|
After
90 years
|
3.05
%
|
After
100 years
|
2
%
|
But, while
this rate of wastage seems reasonable within the period from which
it is calculated, it does not suit the figures of the first century.
If the wastage of the coinage of Nero had been at this rate, the
issues of his later years would appear to have been almost incredibly
large: thus, in hoard ii, buried after 165 A.D., out of 4344 coins,
2380 belong to the years 63 to 68 ; and yet, according to the
wastage table, only one-fiftieth of the original coinage of these
years should have been in circulation when the hoard was buried.
That the number of coins of Nero present in this hoard is not
an isolated accident, due to some such cause as the man who formed
it having come on an earlier hoard, is shewn by the approximately
similar proportion of these coins in other hoards covering the
same period. Some explanation may be found in the probable tendency,
noted above, to reserve the oldest and best coins for a hoard.
But it is most likely that the wastage of tetradrachms in the
first century was actually less than in the third: for one thing,
the earlier coins were larger, which would make them less liable
to casual loss than the smaller later ones; also, in the first
century there was a considerable amount of bronze currency in
circulation, whereas in the third the tetradrachm was the chief
medium of exchange, and was the only official coin issued, so
that the comparative liability of waste of the later tetradrachms
would be much greater. That tetradrachms were actually lost more
frequently during the third century than during the first appears
from the statistics of the coins found in the excavations of Drs.
Grenfell and Hunt at Oxyrhynchus, which I gave in the Numismatic
Chronicle (1908, p. 303). These coins all came from the rubbish-mounds
of the ancient town, and represent the ordinary losses of daily
life; and the summaries for the three centuries are:—
First
Century |
11
tetradrachms |
80
bronze |
Second
Century |
8
tetradrachms |
104
bronze |
Third
Century |
307
tetradrachms |
5
bronze |
So
far, therefore, as wastage is determined by casual loss, the wastage
of the third-century tetradrachms would appear to have been far
greater than that of the first. There are, of course, many other
factors in wastage; but it is fairly clear that the rate discovered
for the third century cannot be taken as even approximately applicable
for the first; and it remains for further evidence to be adduced
in order to shew how fast the first-century tetradrachms wasted.
Irregularities
of Hoarding. In the comparison of the issues of different
years, the totals of several hoards are a safer guide than any
single hoard, as the proportions in any individual case may be
affected by accidental circumstances. For instance, in hoard xv,
the figures are certainly abnormal at two points. The man who
collected this hoard seems to have had a special fondness for
the coins issued jointly by Aurelian and Vaballathus, or by Vaballathus
alone,- possibly he was a Palmyrene,- and he accumulated 262 of
these, thus swelling the proportionate numbers for the first and
second years of Aurelian in his hoard far beyond those of any
other. Then, in the eighth year of Diocletian, he seems to have
secured a consignment of coins fresh from the mint, and to have
put them away promptly: the evidence for this is that a large
number of the specimens of this year in the hoard are quite unworn,
and further present several instances of fairly long series of
coins struck from the same dies; among the 117 examples of this
date, there are series of 12, 16, 18, and 22 coins from the same
obverse and reverse dies, which would hardly have been found together
if they had passed into general circulation; and, if the hoarder
added to his deposit in this year a special lot of freshly struck
coins, instead of such as casually came into his hands, the result
might again be a disturbance of the proportionate total for this
year as compared with adjacent ones.
The
Billon and Bronze. There may be similar disturbing factors,
not so readily discoverable, in other cases; but, subject to this
possibility, the totals given against each year furnish some index
to the activity of the Alexandrian mint as regards the issue of
tetradrachms. It may be worth while to repeat here two facts which
I have previously pointed out (Fayurn Towns, p. 68): firstly,
that when this mint was busy striking tetradrachms, comparatively
little bronze was coined; the chief issues of bronze in the first
century A.D. were in the reigns of Augustus, Claudius (latter
part), Vespasian (latter part), and Domitian, at which periods
little or no billon was minted; and in the second century, while
there was a steady, but not large, output of billon from the reign
of Trajan to that of Marcus Aurelius, there was a very considerable
amount of bronze issued; and, secondly, that, as a rule, the larger
the coinage of tetradrachms in any year, the smaller was the number
of distinct types used. The latter point deserves emphasizing,
as an historical argument in regard to the recognition of an emperor
at Alexandria has lately been founded on the fact that several
different types of his coinage of a particular year are known
to exist in different collections, from which it is assumed that
he must have issued a large number of coins in this year and have
been recognised for a considerable part of it. This argument is
quite unsound, in view of the principle just stated.
The
Tables. It seems desirable to publish these tables, in spite
of the imperfect nature of the conclusions, as the material will
be of service to any one who can secure more hoards and work them
out in a similar manner, especially if thereby the rate of wastage
in the first century can be determined and the gap between the
second and third centuries be bridged. I have entered all the
years from the beginning of the reign of Claudius, whether there
are any coins belonging to them or not, for convenience of reference,
placing a mark o in front of any year of which no tetradrachms
are known to exist. I have omitted the earlier years, the 7th,
11th, 14th, and 18th to 23rd inclusive, of Tiberius, when tetradrachms
were struck, to save space, as no specimens of any of these years
occurred in any of these hoards: indeed, so far as I have observed,
and my observation is confirmed by the much wider experience of
Signor Dattari, tetradrachms of Tiberius are never found associated
in hoards with those of later reigns. The dates are given by regnal
years and years A.D., which are not coincident: the regnal years
of Roman emperors were reckoned in Egypt on the local kalendar,
the year of which began on August 29th; and any fraction of a
year from the accession of an emperor to the following August
28th was counted as his first regnal year.
To
complete the record, it should be noted that some of the hoards
comprised a few coins which are not given in the table, as follows:—
Hoard
ii. 2 Ptolemaic; 1 bronze of Antoninus Pius ; 75 tetradrachms
of Nero of doubtful dates (ie. coins so misstruck that the date,
or an essential part of it, is off the flan).
Hoard
x. 2 Ptolemaic bronze ; 37 illegible tetradrachms.
Hoard xi. 5 Ptolemaic bronze ; 31 illegible tedradrachms.
Hoard xii. 78 illegible tetradrachms.
Hoard xiii. 2 Ptolemaic silver; 1 bronze of Claudius ; 62 illegible
tetradrachms; 20 of doubtful dates.
Hoard xiv. 4 illegible tetradrachms.
Hoard xv. 2 Ptolemaic bronze ; 4 illegible tetradrachms.
|