Undertype for Republican bronze overstrike

[Andrew McCabe]

Hi

Could someone assist me with identifying the undertype to the pictured RR bronze - with a date if possible. The overtype is a Roman Republican anonymous Sextans, weighing 2.61 grams.

This is part of research I'm doing on the anonymous bronzes of the Roman Republic and what is unusual about this overstrike is that "conventional wisdom" says that such light Sextantes (amounting to a very light As of some 15 grams) date from the late 2nd century or first century BC; also overstrikes are extremely rare amongst such light and (assumed) later types, as compared with during the second Punic war when they occur in their thousands. So a type and date for the undertype would help a lot.

NB: there is clearly a horse on the undertype!

[Lloyd Taylor]

Nice overstrike on a Carthaginian AE: Head of Tanit left/Horse standing right, foreleg raised over struck with the Roman obverse over the Punic reverse. The raised foreleg of the horse is clearly visible and this is an important point for id/date of the under type. The top rear of Tanit's head with its distinctive locks is visible on the Roman reverse. A precise date is difficult with Carthaginian issues at the best of times, but very late third century through very early second century BC is most likely date for the under type. That said it is probably this one in my view:
AE 1/2-shekel, 220-201 BC, Carthage  2.70- 3.90 gm 6h hd Tanit /horse hd reverted, right foreleg backwards  [A 96 bis, M 232-3b 239, Cop 397] referred to on the web page noted below.

To see the under type in its correct orientation the Punic reverse (Roman obverse) die axis is 1h while that of the Punic obverse is 7h (all with reference to the coin orientation as in your photo)

A bit of study of the Punic examples around the start of the second century give you more confidence in this assessment: http://www.magnagraecia.nl/coins/Punic_map/Zeugitana_map/Zeugitana.html

[Andrew McCabe]

Nice overstrike on a Carthaginian AE: Head of Tanit left/Horse standing right, foreleg raised over struck with the Roman obverse over the Punic reverse. The raised foreleg of the horse is clearly visible and this is an important point for id/date of the under type. The top rear of Tanit's head with its distinctive locks is visible on the Roman reverse. A precise date is difficult with Carthaginian issues at the best of times, but very late third century through very early second century BC is most likely date for the under type. That said it is probably this one in my view:
AE 1/2-shekel, 220-201 BC, Carthage  2.70- 3.90 gm 6h hd Tanit /horse hd reverted, right foreleg backwards  [A 96 bis, M 232-3b 239, Cop 397] referred to on the web page noted below.

To see the under type in its correct orientation the Punic reverse (Roman obverse) die axis is 1h while that of the Punic obverse is 7h (all with reference to the coin orientation as in your photo)

A bit of study of the Punic examples around the start of the second century give you more confidence in this assessment: http://www.magnagraecia.nl/coins/Punic_map/Zeugitana_map/Zeugitana.html

Thanks Lloyd, this is exactly the level of details I wanted; the undertype as below. Why were the Romans using such light coins for a Sextans when logically during the second Punic war they should have been striking Unciae or Semunciae over them, and Sextantes usually weighed 6 or 8 grams? I don't have the answer. Mostly undertypes are more closely aligned to the Roman system of weights. The overtype is however engraved in fine style and it's clearly an official issue - the obverse portrait is finely sculpted by an expert engraver with convincing petasus and drapery. I'll look at a few hundred more examples and think a little more!

[Lloyd Taylor]

Why were the Romans using such light coins for a Sextans when logically during the second Punic war they should have been striking Unciae or Semunciae over them, and Sextantes usually weighed 6 or 8 grams?
I don't have the answer. Mostly undertypes are more closely aligned to the Roman system of weights. The overtype is however engraved in fine style and it's clearly an official issue - the obverse portrait is finely sculpted by an expert engraver with convincing petasus and drapery. I'll look at a few hundred more examples and think a little more!

My sugested answer to your question:

Just a hunch, but I suspect that these coins are not pure bronze, but very debased billon, with less than 12% silver.  They age and patinate as bronze, so that today a chemical analysis would be required to determine composition. However, when struck they would carry a silver sheen. The Romans would have been aware of this metallic compositional factor and struck them accordingly with a higher denomination than the weight (if pure bronze rather than billon) would suggest. To determine the truth of my supposition would require a chemical analysis of one of these coins.

[Andrew McCabe]

My sugested answer to your question:

Just a hunch, but I suspect that these coins are not pure bronze, but very debased billon, with less than 12% silver.  They age and patinate as bronze, so that today a chemical analysis would be required to determine composition. However, when struck they would carry a silver sheen. The Romans would have been aware of this metallic compositional factor and struck them accordingly with a higher denomination than the weight (if pure bronze rather than billon) would suggest. To determine the truth of my supposition would require a chemical analysis of one of these coins.

I wasn't aware that the Carhaginians struck bronzes with small proportions of silver. There is a generic issue with 2nd Punic War types being struck lighter when struck as overstrikes rather than from fresh metal. I had always put it down to military / economic necessity but by your suggestion the undertypes may have been more valuable than we suspect. It does sound very odd, however - why include low levels of silver in a coin that cannot be seen and thus not valued by recipients? So it doesn't strike me as at all likely. But if anyone has references to silver being included in the alloy of Carthaginian bronzes it would be appreciated.

[Lloyd Taylor]

My sugested answer to your question:

Just a hunch, but I suspect that these coins are not pure bronze, but very debased billon, with less than 12% silver.  They age and patinate as bronze, so that today a chemical analysis would be required to determine composition. However, when struck they would carry a silver sheen. The Romans would have been aware of this metallic compositional factor and struck them accordingly with a higher denomination than the weight (if pure bronze rather than billon) would suggest. To determine the truth of my supposition would require a chemical analysis of one of these coins.

I wasn't aware that the Carthaginians struck bronzes with small proportions of silver......

Not so much that they were struck as bronze issues, but were struck as highly debased silver as the second Punic War depleted the treasury.  The debasement is systematic and progressive to the point that the last clearly identified billon issues (identified in the numusmatic trade as such) contain only 15% silver.

Lorber, Catherine C. A Hoard of Punic ‘Horse and Palm’ Billon Tridrachms in Meadows, Andrew and Ute Watenberg (ed) Coin Hoards: Greek Hoards Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication 35, London (2002), pp 275-290 illustrated. details some of the data relevant to this and includes reference to the analysis of L. A. Carradice and S La Nice The Libyan War Coinage: A New Hoard and Evidence of metal Analysis, NC 1993, p.42

The point is that this debasement appears to have continued beyond this point and what that numismatic trade today sometimes attributes to be bronze coinage is in fact billion. Here is a recent example I acquired described as AE https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-60562 However, it has a silver sheen in parts where the patina is removed  and is clearly very low grade silver. It is described appropriately as billon in other references (including the website to which I referred in an earlier post).  This issue postdates those described by Lorber and is most closely aligned (by design/typology) with the under type of your "bronze" coin. The silver content is probably around 12%.

So although we have Punic coins described today as bronze they are more correctly described as very low grade silver and circulated with the the value and appearance of silver coins.

At what point does very debased silver become bronze? In an economy under stress debasement can proceed to the point where silver is around 5-8% before the coin looks unequivocally bronze on striking and in early circulation.  At such point the silver content serves no useful purpose to distinguish the coin as a higher value coin than a pure bronze counterpart. 

[Lloyd Taylor]

It does sound very odd, however - why include low levels of silver in a coin that cannot be seen and thus not valued by recipients? So it doesn't strike me as at all likely. But if anyone has references to silver being included in the alloy of Carthaginian bronzes it would be appreciated.

This is a popular misconception. At the time of striking and in circulation the silver is highly visible as a silver appearance and sheen on the coin.  However, over a period of 2,000 years it ages and as bronze developing a typical patina of bronze coinage.  I have worn late second Punic war billon coin with less than 15% silver content that appeared as a bronze and was sold as such. It had a smooth brownish green patina indistinguishable from a bronze coin.  I cleaned it and with nothing more than two wipes of a silver cleaning cloth the flat dull brown/green patina disappeared, replaced by a silver surface.  These coins appeared silver after striking despite low silver content.  Don't be fooled by their appearance as bronze 2,000 years later.

[Andrew McCabe]

It does sound very odd, however - why include low levels of silver in a coin that cannot be seen and thus not valued by recipients? So it doesn't strike me as at all likely. But if anyone has references to silver being included in the alloy of Carthaginian bronzes it would be appreciated.

This is a popular misconception. At the time of striking and in circulation the silver is highly visible as a silver appearance and sheen on the coin.  However, over a period of 2,000 years it ages and as bronze developing a typical patina of bronze coinage.  I have worn late second Punic war billon coin with less than 15% silver content that appeared as a bronze and was sold as such. It had a smooth brownish green patina indistinguishable from a bronze coin.  I cleaned it and with nothing more than two wipes of a silver cleaning cloth the flat dull brown/green patina disappeared, replaced by a silver surface.  These coins appeared silver after striking despite low silver content.  Don't be fooled by their appeaance as bronze 2,000 years later.

Lloyd, would you have a reference that describes the silver content of these billon coins? You mention "late second Punic war billon coin with less than 15% silver content" so I guess it's a known phenomenon; in looking for understrikes I could then specifically look out for these billon issues.

thanks

Andrew

[Lloyd Taylor]

Carradice and La Niece report analysis as low as 14.1% AR.  I have read of 10-12% AR content in Punic billon, but cannot recall the reference.  I'll dig around and see if I can locate it. My supposition is that debasement may have continued to below 10% but this is undocumented as far as I know.

Low cost test: Can I suggest that you take one of these coins ( say a low grade example) and where the patina is thin, perhaps even the edge, give it a clean with a silver cleaning cloth to remove the patina and see if a silver sheen is exposed on the underlying metal in the process.  If so then you will have some indication that you may be dealing with highly debased silver, in which case chemical analysis may be warranted. Looking at the over type I cannot but think that is was engraved to a higher than normal standard for bronze and this may be an indication that it circulated with a higher than usual value (for the equivalent size bronze), by virtue of a small silver content and the resulting silvery appearance.

[Lloyd Taylor]

Another piece of relevant background information pointing to the continuing debasement ....
http://www.harlanjberk.com/departments/articles/details.asp?inventorynumber=17&linenum=2

CARTHAGINIAN 'HORSE and PALM' BILLON COINS

The following is an excerpt from Harlan J. Berk, Ltd. 88th Buy/Bid Sale:

The following billon coins are among the finest specimens from a North African hoard of about 250 pieces. This variety, with the reverse type of a horse superimposed on a palm tree, has not received the focused attention of numismatic scholars, though examples have been published in collections, and representative specimens have been illustrated as appendages to various specialized studies. In some references the horse and palm tree billon is dated as early as the First Punic War (264-241 B.C.), or to the Libyan War (241-238 B.C.). However recent metallurgical analyses have shown that these horse and palm coins, with a silver content of only 15-15%, are more debased than the coinage of the Libyan War and therefore later (Carradice and La Niece, NC 1988, pp. 42, 46).

The hoard contents can be broadly classified into three groups. The first features a large Tanit head on the obverse and often a pellet under the horse on the reverse (lots 218-220). Similar pellets appear on the gold and electrum coinage studied by Jenkins and Lewis; die linkage indicates that for the billon, at least these pellets are issue markers. A second variety features a smaller Tanit head on a distinctive flan, cast in a double-sided mold so that the edges are beveled on both sides and join at a ridge (lots 221-226). The principal special feature of this group is the sign of Tanit which appears on both sides of a small number of specimens 9lot 222). A third variety features a variant obverse type in place of the traditional Tanit head - a younger woman of less "Punic" aspect, with straight hair loosely rolled on the back of her neck (lots 215-217). The Tanit head, of course, was based on Sicilian models but had many decades to evolve; the new type may reflect more recent Greek inspiration. Jenkins, Essays Mildenberg, pp. 134-135, has pointed out that the young head type occurs on Carthaginian coins recovered from South Italian hoards and on South Italian coins struck for Hannibal, which he associates with the last phase of the war in Italy when Hannibal was bottled up in Bruttium, 209-208 B.C. Carthage apparently placed this same head on very debased currency intended for domestic use, while simultaneously producing fine coinage for shipment to Hannibal in Italy.

We are currently studying this hoard in detail for purposes of publication. We have identified about a dozen different subvarities. We hope that our study will establish the sequence of issue and perhaps enable us to propose more precise dates, as well as tracing the development of mint technique and perhaps clarifying the weight standard.

These coins were struck for domestic use in Carthage at the end of Hannibal's war and after. The treasury was totally exhausted by the war and the population of Carthage needed money to transact commerce. These coins were minted for that use. They are mostly type III, 205-202 BC.

Copyright @ 1997 by Harlan J. Berk, Ltd. - http://www.harlanjberk.com - E-Mail: info@harlanjberk.com

[Andrew McCabe]

Another piece of relevant background information pointing to the continuing debasement ....
http://www.harlanjberk.com/departments/articles/details.asp?inventorynumber=17&linenum=2

CARTHAGINIAN 'HORSE and PALM' BILLON COINS

Thanks Lloyd, I've quite a few pictures of these Roman over-types and have today found other lightweight pieces with Carthaginian undertypes. I'm going to research this more. I'm grateful for your ideas and suggestions on this matter.

Andrew