THE
COINS FROM OXYRHYNCHUS
By
J.G. MILNE
The
coins found during the six seasons of excavation at Oxyrhynchus
by Drs. Grenfell and Hunt were all examined and so far as
possible identified year by year. A detailed list of the
individual specimens may perhaps be replaced by a summary
of the evidence which the finds afford and some of the conclusions
which may be derived therefrom in relation to the history
of Graeco-Roman Egypt.
It
must be remembered that these coins all came from the
rubbish-mounds, and therefore represent the casual
losses of the Oxyrhynchites in their daily life. Naturally
no gold coins were turned up, and very few of the debased
silver tetradrachms of the first and second centuries
A.D. ; a man who lost a valuable piece of money would
search diligently till he found it. But bronze pieces,
and the late third century tetradrachms which were
little better than bronze, might be dropped and never
missed before they were swept up with other rubbish
and tipped out on the dust-heaps. The finds may accordingly
be taken as fairly representative of the coinage of
lower values circulating in Oxyrhynchus.
The
most convenient division of the material for consideration
will be in four groups—(A) Ptolemaic ; (B) Roman to
the time of the "reform" of Diocletian, covering the
period during which a special currency, based on the
the tetradrachm as the standard unit, was struck for
Egypt ; (C) Roman from Diocletian to Justinian, when
the Egyptian monetary system was supposed to be assimilated
to that of the rest of the Empire ; (D) Byzantine from
Justinian to the Arab conquest.
(A.) The Ptolemaic finds do not possess any features of
special interest. There were in all 62 coins of this
period, of which 2 were silver tetradrachms. The classification
of Ptolemaic bronze is so uncertain that it would be
of little value to group the speceimens under reigns
without full descriptions of the types : but there
is a fairly clear distinction between the issues of
the third century B.C. and those of the two following
centuries : and only 7 of the coins found are referable
to the earlier period. On the other hand, there are
9 examples of the easily identifiable issues of Cleopatra
VII : and the 2 tetradrachms both belong to what is
generally accepted as the last regular series of Ptolemaic
silver. Like the papyri, the coins found suggest that
the rubbish-mounds explored did not begin to accumulate
till the later part of the Ptolemaic rule.
Only
one coin from outside Egypt belonging to this period
was found—a small bronze coin of Kos of the third century
(type B.M.C. 86-98). This is quite natural
: foreign bronze would not be current under the Ptolemies,
and there would be no merchants from overseas at Oxyrhynchus
to drop their own coins. It is perhaps only by chance
that this one coin belongs to a place which the relations
of the early Ptolemies were particularly close, and
which was for a time under their sway.
(B) The
Roman coins of the first three centuries, so far as
they are identifiable, belong to the following reigns
:—
|
Billon |
Bronze |
|
Billon
|
Bronze
|
Augustus |
— |
14 |
Commodus |
2 |
2 |
Tiberius |
1 |
4 |
Caracalla |
— |
1 |
Caligula |
— |
2 |
Sev.
Alexander |
6 |
3 |
Claudius |
1 |
25 |
Gordian
III |
1 |
— |
Nero |
8 |
3 |
Philip |
8 |
— |
Galba |
— |
1 |
Gallus |
4 |
— |
Otho |
1 |
— |
Valerian |
4 |
— |
Vitellius |
1 |
— |
Gallienus |
8 |
1 |
Vespasian |
— |
26 |
Claudius
II |
9 |
—
|
Domitian |
— |
11 |
Aurelian |
55 |
—
|
Trajan |
1 |
20 |
Tacitus |
3 |
—
|
Hadrian |
3 |
48 |
Probus |
69 |
—
|
Antoninus
Pius |
3 |
37 |
Carus
& sons |
32 |
—
|
M.
Aurelius |
1 |
10 |
Diocletian
& colleagues |
143 |
—
|
As
has already been note, the bulk of the finds belonging
to the two
first centuries of Roman rule, during which a bronze
coinage was regularly issued at Alexandria for local
currency, are of this bronze. The few billon tetradrachms
are fairly evenly spread over this period : the exceptional
number of examples of Nero is explained by the enormous
issues of his reign, which form the chief part of hoards
for over a century. The proportion of bronze is really
larger than appears from the figures above, since all
the early billon coins could be identified, while there
were 115 bronze which were too worn to be assigned
to any reign, though they were clearly Alexandrian
of the first or second century.
In
addition to the billon and bronze coins, a large number
of leaden pieces occured. These I described fully in Num.
Chron. 1908,
pp. 287 ff., and the conclusioins
there stated have been generally accepted—viz
: that these pieces were a token coinage of low value,
issued
approximately between 180 and 260, to replace the bronze,
which ceased to appear in any quantity after the former
date. The tetradrachms still circulated, and there
must have been something to represent the lower denominations,
obols and chalki, which are shown by the papyri to
have been in regular use. If these tokens, of which
over 300 were found, are included with the coins, they
bring up the average of specimens between Commodus
and Gallienus to that of the earlier and later periods.
After
Gallienus, the tetradrachm rapidly deteriorated in
intrinsic and also in current value : and this depreciation
is reflected in the much greater numbers that occurred
in the mounds. A tetradrachm was no longer worth looking
for, if lost.
It
is important to notice that during this period very
few coins other than Alexandrian seem to have circulated
at Oxyrhynchus. It has been supposed that the Roman
imperial coinage was current in Egypt : but, although
it was probably legal tender, there is no evidence
from finds, apart from one or two hoards from the vicinity
of Alexandria, that it was used in any quantity. The
mounds of Oxyrhynchus only produced two sestertii of
Severus Alexander and one of Philip to represent the
imperial issues before the time of Gallienus : the
depreciated bronze denarii of that and later reigns
were commoner, two of Gallienus, two of Aurelian, seven
of Probus, five of Carus and his sons, and nine of
the pre-reform issues of Diocletian and Maximian having
been found. It would appear therefore that it was only
late in the third century that imperial coins began
to drift into Egypt : and this may be connected to
some extent with the breaking down of the isolation
of Egypt as a province.
This
isolation, which was due to the deliberate policy formulated
by Augustus, is marked by the absence of colonial and
provincial, as well as imperial, Roman coins. Even
if there had been a difficulty in securing the acceptance
in Egypt of the ordinary issues of Rome with their
unfamiliar standard and acceptance in Egypt of the
ordinary issues of Rome with their unfamiliar standard
and appearence, it might have been expected that coins
more closely resembling the Alexandrian—e.g. the
tetradrachms of the Syrian mints, which in size, finess
and style are almost identical with those Alexandria—would
have passed current. But I am not aware that any examples
of these have been found in Egypt : and Syrian bronze
coins of this period, all of bronze : one of Nicaea
of Antoninus Pius (Recueil 78), one of Cyprus
of Caracalla (B.M.C. 62), and one of Damascus
of Philip (B.M.C. 23). These were probably
chance importations : the first-named was pierced,
and in view of the reverse type—Dionysos Ktistes—it
may possibly have been worn as an amulet by its former
possessor.
All
the coins found belonging to the next period are bronze,
of the following fulers :—
Diocletian
(post-reform) |
19
|
Constantine II |
50
|
Maximus |
41
|
Constantius
II |
145
|
Constantinus
I |
11
|
Constans |
57
|
Galerius |
10
|
Constantius
Gallus |
24
|
Maximin |
18
|
Julian |
6
|
Severus |
2
|
Jovian |
2
|
Maxentius |
1
|
Valentinian
I |
19
|
Licinius |
63
|
Valens |
13
|
Licinius
jr. |
23
|
Gratian |
15
|
Constantine
I |
240
|
Valentinian
II |
15
|
Martinian |
1
|
Theodosius |
51
|
Crispus |
17
|
Arcadius |
23
|
Delmatius |
2
|
Honorius |
9
|
In
addition to these 34 barbarous imitations of late fourth
century coins, and 1 Axumite coin, should be mentioned.
The
first point of interest in relation to this period
iis in the mintages of the specimens found. The "monetary
reform" of Diocletian assimilated the currency of Egypt
to that of the rest of the Empire : and the mint of
Alexandria, in common with those of the other provinces,
struck a uniform coinage, with Latin legends and based
on the Roman standard, which might pass anywhere in
the Roman world. the coins were regularly marked with
the name of the mint from which they issued : and thus
it is possible to trace to some extent the circulation
of money between the various provinces. Nearly all
the fourth century mints of the Empire are represented
at Oxyrhynchus : naturally the Western issues are the
more scanty. The inflow of coin from outside Egypt
did not however assume importance immediately upon
the reform : this can best be shown by a classification
of the identifiable specimens under their mints in
chronological groups for the period of apporximately
110 years from the reform to the death of Arcadius.
The first five groups (A to E) cover roughly ten years
each, the last three (F to H) roughly twenty : the
longer spaces have been chosen in the later part, because
the material is more scanty, and also the sequence
of issues during the latter half of the fourth century
has not been studied so exactly as that of the Constantinian
house, and there are more convenient limits at wider
intervals.
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
Total |
Alexandria |
82 |
10 |
25 |
23 |
50 |
39 |
11 |
23 |
263 |
Antioch |
1 |
5 |
18 |
24 |
27 |
9 |
4 |
18 |
106 |
Nicomedia |
— |
— |
22 |
30 |
18 |
9 |
2 |
3 |
84 |
Cyzicus |
1 |
1 |
7 |
16 |
17 |
10 |
2 |
12 |
66 |
Constantinople |
—
|
—
|
— |
14 |
11 |
9 |
5 |
8 |
47 |
Heraclea |
—
|
—
|
5 |
8 |
3 |
1 |
—
|
—
|
17 |
Thessalonica |
—
|
—
|
4 |
16 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
37 |
Rome |
—
|
1 |
39 |
13 |
6 |
2 |
5 |
— |
66 |
Siscia |
—
|
—
|
4 |
9 |
1 |
—
|
—
|
1 |
15 |
Aquileia |
1 |
—
|
1 |
6 |
1 |
1
|
—
|
2 |
12 |
Arles |
—
|
—
|
13 |
2 |
1 |
—
|
—
|
— |
16 |
Trèves |
—
|
1 |
4 |
2 |
—
|
—
|
—
|
2 |
9 |
Tarraco |
—
|
1 |
1 |
3 |
—
|
—
|
—
|
— |
5 |
London |
—
|
— |
1 |
—
|
—
|
—
|
— |
— |
1 |
Totals |
85
|
19 |
144 |
166 |
141 |
85 |
34 |
70 |
744 |
It
will be seen from this table that in the first decade
after the reform comparatively few coins from outside
mints occur : but they rapidly become more numerous,
and by the end of the reign of Constantine the local
issues form only a small proportion of the whole. This
evidence agrees generally with that of the hoards which
have come under my observation : for instance, in a
hoard from Denderah (Petrie, Denderah, p.
36), dateable about 310, coins of the Alexandrian mint
are 70% of the whole : in one of about 326 from Antinoe,
47% : in one from the Fayûm (Journ. Intern. XVI,
pp. 2 ff.) of about 345, 25% : in one of about 360,
44% : and in one of about 400, 35% (The two last will
be published shortly in the Journal of Roman Studies.)
Evidently
it took some years after the monetay reform of Diocletian
to break down the bar (whether legal or customary)
against the importation of coin into Egypt. Similarly
the Egyptians continued to reckon in drachmae instead
of in denarii, and it was not till about twenty years
after the change that the new standard became predominant.
But thereafter the importation grew rapidly, and soon
only about a quarter of the money circulating in Eygpt
was of local issue : later the influx diminished, and
a larger proportion of the coins is of Alexandrian
mintage.
It
would be interesting to discover the economic causes
which led to Egypt becoming a coin-importing country
under Constantine : but they can hardly be conjectured.
The main export of Egypt during the Roman rule was
corn : but this was largely collected in the form of
taxes and sent to Rome without any equivalent return
in money or kind : and there is no evidence to suggest
that there was any change in this matter in the fourth
century. Neither is there anything to point to a revival
of trade in other respects at this time : fromthe middle
of the third century all the indications are that economically
Egypt went rapidly down hill. And it is hardly likely
that the imperial government subsidised Egypt. The
problem is on e for which I cannot find a satisfactory
solution : I have previously suggested (Journ.
Intern. 1914, p. 36) that the hoarding tendency
of the Egyptian would lead to an inflow of coin, but
this, though it may have been a contributory factor,
does not adequately explain the position shown by the
figures given above.
Whatever
the explanation of the situation in the fourth century
may be, in the fifth everything points to a complete
economic collapse. There is not in the finds from Oxyrhynchus
a single coin of recognisable official mintage belonging
to the period between Honorius and Justinian. the only
pieces that may be ascribed to this time are barbarous
imitations of the issues of the Theodosian house, mere
bits of bronze with degraded types, often reduced to
a jumble of lines, and meaningless legends, sometimes
nothing but dots and dashes. I have suggested (in a
paper to appear in the Journal of Roman Studies)
that these bits of bronze represent the "myriad of
denarii" which was the unit of reckoning in Egypt at
this period : the depreciation must have been sumewhat
parallel to that in Russia at the present day, as a
late fourth century papyrus gives an equation of 2020
myriads of denarii to the gold solidus. Obviously it
would not be worth while to spend any trouble over
preparing a coin of such low value, which can hardly
have had more meaning than a counter : in fact, the
composition of hoards of this period suggests that
the pieces of metal in them were treated as counters,
since they consist of coins of various periods and
countries, many worn to illegibility or clipped to
fragments, with an intermixture of bits of bronze or
even lead which show no stamp nor any sign of ever
having been meant for coins.
The
only thing about these barbarous imitations which suggests
that they may have been issued officially is the fact
that they struck not cast. In the early part of the
fourth century large quantities of cast coins were
in circulation in Egypt, and the moulds from which
they were made are frequently found : I described two
groyps from Oxyrhynchus in Num. chron. 1905,
pp. 342 ff. These were probably the work of forgers,
who would find it a profitable occupation to make counterfeit
coin when the coin had an appreciable value above its
metal contents. But in the conditions of the fith century
it would have been a waste of energy for an Egyptian
forger to cast, much more to strike, anything purporting
to be a bronze coin.
(D.) An
attempt to rehabilitate the Egyptian bronze currency
was made under Justinian, when a special issue was
made at the mint of Alexandria. The normal piece was
of 12 nummia however continued to be struck till the
Arab conquest. the specimens of this series found at
Oxyrhynchus were
Justinian |
10
|
Maurice |
7
|
Justin II |
7
|
Arcadius |
14
|
Tiberius |
5
|
Heraclius |
149
|
[57
examples could be be definitely identified.] |
|
Coins
of this type supplied practically the whole of the
bronze currency of Egypt during the last century of
Roman rule. Anastasius had previously reformed the
imperial bronze coinage by the introduction of the
large follis of 40 nummia and its subdivisions : and
a good many specimens of his issues and those of Justin
I and Justinian are found in Egypt : these are from
outside mints, as the mint of Alexandria did not strike
these denominations. But it is rare to come across
any examples belonging to reigns later than Justinian,
and it would appear that after that emperor had revived
a special coinage for Egypt the old monetary isolation
of the country was renewed. The only non-Alexandrian
coin of this period found at Oxyrhynchus was an early
follis of Justinian.
The
specimens classed as "barbarous" are pieces of 12 nummia
of the same general type as those of Justinian and
his three successors, but have unintelligible legends.
The are probably to be referred, as in the British
Museum Catalogue, to the reign of Focas, which is otherwise
unrepresented in this series : the work of the mint
at Alexandria had steadily degenerated, and some coins,
particularly of Maurice, are only saved from being
classified with the "barbarous" ones by the fact that
the legend retains enough fragments of the emperor's
name to show what the engraver had in mind. Heraclius
introduced a new design, and with it an improvement
in execution. An alternative would be to assume that
the "barbarous" group was struck after the Arab conquest
: but, while it is not improbably that the Arabs would
continue to strike, as they certainly used, coins of
the Byzantine types, they would more naturally have
imitated the new design of Heraclius rather than the
old one which had been abandoned for over 30 years.
Some rude imitations of the coins of Heraclius, which
may be Arab, have occurred elsewhere in Egypt.
The
standard unit of reckoning during this period in Egypt
was the gold solidus, fractions of which were expressed
in carats : and the relationship of the bronze to the
gold has not been determined.
The
Arab conquest virtually marks the limit of the finds of
coins in the mounds of Oxyrhynchus : only 20 Arab pieces,
all of an early period, were discovered.
|