Thanks for the response and those intriguing possibilities. In his Coins and Archaeology (1969), p.13 the archaeologist Lloyd R. Liang mentions a few interesting items about serrated coins. According to Dr. Liang, during the Second Punic War Carthage issued both gold and silver coins which were serrated. He states that it appears the marks were made by chiseling after being struck so in these instances the coins made may have been notched to show that they were not plated. A prudent precaution when Carthage began losing its war with Rome and its coinage was debased. He also mentions the serrated coins of Seleucid Syria under Antiochus Vi and has one pictured and there are four of these coins pictured in Sear's Greek Coins, Volume 2 (1998 edition) #'s 7081 thru 7084. Dr. Liang believes the Roman denarii were made by filing rather than by chiseling. There may be more than one reason depending on who issued them and the time they were issued. One denarius I have, issued in 79 BC by Ti. Claudius has the edges so uniformly serrated I wonder if Roman moneyers employed a serrating machine. There has got to be a good reason (or several different ones)for mints making the extra effort to produce these coins. I wish we could find out why.
Interesting to see you cite Laing's book. I have read it and thought it terrible and riddled with easily contradicted nonsense. On my web-page here I wrote:
http://andrewmccabe.ancients.info/Hoards.htmlNOT USEFUL
Coins and Archaeology, Lloyd Laing,
London 1969
Riddled with basic numismatic errors. Valuable as a source of amusement if nothing else. There is a tendency to make straightforward statements of facts that are not established facts, for example "during the life of a single
obverse die three
reverse dies at least would have been used" or "There was six different systems of putting sequence marks on
Republican coins and these systems are related to each other chronologically. One can use the sequence marks to arrange the coins within each series into chronological order". There are no sources or evidence quoted for such gems ("three
reverse dies at least???") and after a while one wonders what is fact and what is
his own supposition.
Still, he loves the subject and that shines through the text even if much of it is indeed supposition. I am curious when I see it offered for sale on the internet as to what the buyer will make of it.
Here is what I suggest instead:
IMPORTANT
Those with a deeper fascination about archaeology and
hoards should obtain at least one primer on
hoards and archaeology, of which the following two are my favourites, and RRCH provides a lot of fundamental evidence about which coins have been found where, and with which companions:
- Coins and the Archaeologist, John
Casey and Richard
Reece, 1988.
- Understanding
Ancient Coins, an Introduction for Archaeologists and Historians, John
Casey 1986Either of these two books is an appropriate starting point for a proper understanding of coins and archaeology. The first is a set of papers on the interpretation of coin finds (in
England, though relevant to all eras), the second is a much shorter introductory book covering the same ground, a
good foundation
work.
USEFUL
-
Roman Coins and Archaeology collected papers, Richard
Reece,
Moneta 32, 2003; The coinage of Roman
Britain, Richard
Reece, 2002
Although
Reece’s
work is based mainly on English excavations and hence on Roman Imperial coinages, the numismatic and archaeological techniques are relevant to all eras. He has developed many novel concepts, for example that small bronze finds often come from discards in periods of demonetisation and/or low commercial activity, rather than being losses in a busy commercial environment.