Denarii Comunes Help

[Pendrakon]

Hi guys-
I am looking for denarii commune values past the 315 AD era. Anyone know of any type of list anywhere? I know that the large about 26mm “follis” of 295-300 were 5, 300-301 12.5, 301-307 24 or 25, and my Constantine ½ follis minted about 312, PACI PERPET, 16mm, 2.3Grams, RIC 356, at 12 communes= 24 or 25 (pictured). Is there a list somewhere that shows about how many denarii communes an AE3 of 325 was- or 335?
 

[maximinvs]

Interesting topic.

I accept that the post-301AD tariff of the argentiferous nummus was 25dc, and that this continued to be the case after the weight reductions of c.307AD and c.310AD. I don't accept 5dc from 294AD but that is another topic

The price of gold in tetradrachmae from papyri at this time is a good indicator for the tariff of the nummus, and the surge in prices after the defeat of Licinius certainly suggest that the tariff of the nummus had increased dramatically by 325AD (if not earlier), almost certainly to 100dc. The term 'centenionalis' probably first applied to the silvered AE3s of this period, even though the term is first attested much later. The reductions in the weight and silver content in 335AD is matched by a corresponding increase in the price of gold, confirming (imo) that the smaller post-335AD centenionalis were also 100dc, and that this probably applied all the way up to the FTR reform in 348AD.

Exactly when the tariff jumped from 25dc to 100dc is less clear. Some advocate c.324AD when Constantine demonetised Licinius' half-nummus of 12.5dc (e.g. Bagnall), others have suggested the c.316AD when the VLPP issues in the west show a short-lived leap in silver content (Barrandon/Callu).

Regards,
Ian

[Pekka K]

Prof. Bruun wrote 1978 an article in Italian:
NUMMI E CENTENIONALES. There he proposes
VLPP- type as 100 den. communis, while nummus
was 25 d.c.

Pekka K

[SC]

I would very much like to figure this out as it is extremely confusing.  Here is my understanding so far:

Like Ian I can not accept the theory given by Sutherland and Carson in RIC VI that the nummus of 294 was worth 5 d.c.  Carson corrects this in his later work Roman Coins to 10 d.c. which makes much more sense when you look at the weight and silver content of the coins.

I have problems with the radiate fractions in this period though.  Carson is not actually very clear in Roman Coins and covers the issue in two different sections where he says different things.  The post-reform radiate fraction was 2 d.c.  But he also says the pre-reform antoninianus circulated at 4 d.c.  I have a serious doubt that this means that there were pre- and post- reform radiates circulating at different values.  Just look at the CONCORDIA MILITVM coins where you get a nearly identical coin pre- and post reform, one with XXI in exergue and the other with mint mark instead.  There is no way these circulated with different values.  It would be like saying a US quarter with P was worth 25 cents but one with D was worth 50 cents!  Hoards show that pre- and post- reform radiates continued to circulate together.  So was there a re-valuation?  If so when and what??  4 d.c. to 2 d.c.?  If so when did the pre-reform ant go up from 2 d.c. to 4 d.c.??

Then there was the jump in the nummus value from 10 d.c. to 25 d.c.  Here I do not completely understand events of 300 vs those of 301.

I think that it is pretty clear though that the nummus was replaced by the centenionalis ("coin of 100") which first appears as the AE VLPP type (VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP) in 318.  I think that earlier dates for the appearance of the AE VLPP (not the earlier billon VLPP of Treveri) stem from confusion relating to the dating of the begining of the 1st Constantine-Licinius Civil War.  If you follow the 316 dating which stems from Bruun's 1953 work and is widely held today then things are fine.  If you follow the 314 date proposed by Kent in 1954 and still accepted by Carson as late as 1990 things are problematic - such as seeing dates for the VLPP that are too early.

But what did Constantine do to create the centenionalis?  Some works say he doubled the value of the coin but that would put the nummus of 317 at 50 d.c.  If this is true then there is another increase between 300-301 and 317 from 25 d.c. to 50 d.c. but if so I do not know when.  Or are the comments about doubling value not true and it was actually quadrupled from 25 d.c. to 100 d.c.

And then there is the problem of the East.  In 321 Licinius drops the module size of his IOVI CONSERVATORI coins and adds XII onto the field.  This is thought to mean 12.5 d.c.  So what did Licinius do?  First he clearly did not adopt the centenionalis of 100 d.c. in 318.  Second, he must have reduced a nummus from 25 d.c. to 12.5 d.c.  It is easier to accept a halving of the value instead of a quartering.  In any event we have a divided Empire with two different coin standards from at least 318 to 324!

From 324 to 348 the entire Empire uses the centenionalis.  Most authors assume that the name stays the same.  I have yet to confirm that.  When is the latest reference of a centenionalis?  What do the Codex Theodosianus decrees of 349 later say?

Anyway, regardless of the use of the name centenionalis I do not believe that the d.c. value remained at 100 d.c.  I agree with those who say that the last FEL TEMP REPARATIO Falling Horseman type which was intorduced in late 346 or likely early 347 and which bears the M mark was worth 1000 d.c.  Thus there are a few increases in there.  To 200 d.c.? To 400 d.c.?  Likely to 500 d.c. for the FTR issue with weight reduction preceding the M issue.

Anyway, that is where I am so far but I would love to hear more from Ian and others.
 
Shawn

[maximinvs]

I can only tell you my opinion here after lots of research, as we simply do not possess enough evidence to make a definitive reconstruction.

I believe that we can trace the increase in tariff of the argentiferous radiate back to the first reform of Aurelian back in c.272AD. He inherited the hugely debased billon antoninianus standard from Claudius, containing perhaps 2% silver and weighing 2.5-3g typically. They were probably still tariffed at 2dc but of course rampant inflation had eroded their spending power. Aurelian's first reform increased the weight and increase silver content to around 4%, something that would have been financially irresponsible unless the tariff was increased. I see the addition of the XXI around 274AD as a public statement on the silver content designed to prop up the perceived value of the coin. The new coin was clearly better than the old, but was it intrinsically twice as valuable as a Claudian or Gallienic radiate? Yes, close enough. The modern term 'aurelianus' has recently been used to describe the post-reform radiates of Aurelian, I think that is a good term in that it emphasises a different position in the monetary system. Sure, the new coin still carried a radiate portrait, but this does not prevent it being tariffed higher.

If we accept this (not everyone will) then the aurelianus held a tariff of 4dc until the eve of Diocletian's reform of c.294AD.
The post-294AD PRR contained no silver and logic would suggest a 2dc tariff. It is possible that the silvered aureliani continued to circulate too, but at half their original tariff, as suggested in the (admittedly undated) papyrus P.Ryl IV.607, which records an imminent reduction in the tariff of the 'italic money'. The Monetary Edict of Sept 301AD appears to have doubled the tariff of the nummus, but NOT the argenteus or aureus. The prices for gold in Egyptian papyri both before and after the Diocletian Edict on Prices' target='_blank'>Price Edict are SIMILAR, i.e. the tariff of the aureus did not double, and so it is almost certain that silver did not either. Note that the gold:silver ratio in the time of Augustus of 1:12 also held true at the time of the Diocletian Edict on Prices' target='_blank'>Price Edict 300 years later! What the Monetary Edict (yes, different from the Diocletian Edict on Prices' target='_blank'>Price Edict, which probably came AFTER the Monetary Edict in order to contain the resulting inflation imo) appears to have done is only double the tariff of the nummus, and by association the PRR may have doubled to 4dc. The Monetary Edict also refers to 'bicharactam pecunia...quattor denariorum' or a coin of 4dc. The list of prices in the Diocletian Edict on Prices' target='_blank'>Price Edict also statistically supports a 4dc coin. I believe that the argenteus was tariffed at 100dc on both sides of the Monetary Edict.

At the end of the day there is not a lot of real evidence, so the area is ripe for all sorts of imaginative reconstructions, e.g. Crawford's and Harl's reconstructions are....amusing.

Regarding the tariff of the nummus at the time of the reform in c.294AD, I believe 10dc is still too low. Consider a 3.8g aurelianus of 4% silver worth 4dc. A 10g coin of the same alloy could therefore be tariffed at no less than 10/3.8*4=10.5dc. Sure one can argue that some mints did not strike nummi at 10g, and that some mints did not strike at 4% etc etc, but the point is that a massive coinage reform like Diocletian's must surely have made profit for the State! Otherwise, why bother with a reform when the new coins would not give the State more spending power? I think the c.294AD nummus was probably 12.5dc (i.e. 50 sestertii) from the very start. That would give the State a healthy 20% increase in spending power for the same amount of silver...

If you want to read up on the extensive scholarship on this area, then treat everything prior to 1970 with a handful of salt. The discovery of new inscriptions from the Edicts at Aphrodisias in 1970 made much of the preceding work obsolete.

Regards,
Ian

p.s. love this topic!

[Pendrakon]

Hi guys-
It seems that this subject is a lot more complicated than I thought. Am I still correct in my understanding that the Romans used the coins we collect more like we use paper currency, however we still do not know exactly by time period what the exact value was? Thank you for educating me. I am now 60 years old. I started collecting Romans about 1980 and have tried to learn as much as possible about them.

When I was a kid I mowed lawns and had a small paper route. I converted most of my earnings to old US silver dollars that I purchased for $1 at local banks- now have a lot of them! I heavily purchased 90% silver coins and bullion gold starting about 1995. I stopped when silver hit about $10 and then when gold was about $600 or so.  Sure glad I did! Looks like history is about to repeat itself. 1000 years from now collectors will be looking for and digging up plastic containers of paper dollars! LOL!

[SC]

Ian,

Thanks for the info and views.  Very interesting.

Yes, I agree about the need to concentrate on more recent scholarship.  I also find that there is a great deal of good recent information about this issue in French that is little taken into account in English works.  I don't know if it is the same in German as I can't read it.

You have certainly given me some things to think about. 

I agree also that the idea that the State would make a profit on its coinage and not sustain a loss should be the default rule with any deviation from this having to be extremely well justified.

So the idea that Aurelian's reform of 274 was accompanied by re-tarriffing the ant from 2 d.c. to 4 d.c. is interesting.  Have you seen this in any sources or is it your idea?  By the way, you said c 272 but I mostly read of 274.  I have always wondered why, if it is 274 there are so many post-reform coins of Aurelian.  The only explanation I have seen is that little was struck 270-274 as there was a lot of the tiny ants still in circulation and then there was a huge issuance of new ants (aureliani) 274-275.

Also I guess if the pre-reform ants still had their silvering they could be easily distinguished from the PRRs if there was a brief period when they were tarriffed differently.  Obviously if susch a situation lasted too long you would have problems.  The silvering would wear off older coins and there would be arguments about their value plus people could make a large profit by doubling the value of their coins with a silver or tin wash.

(Aside: It appears to me that the Edict of Prices dates to 301 with the Monetary Edict being 300.)

Your theory about the nummus of 294 being worth 12.5 d.c. is also very interesting.  (Again is it yours or did you read it somewhere?)  It certainly makes it a simpler increase later to 25 d.c. - doubling vs. x 2.5.  It also means that Licinius reverts to the 294 value in 321 instead of creating a new value.

Instead of comparing the d.c. value of the nummus to the pre-reform ant, I had been lookingthe post-reform radiate.

A PRR of 2 d.c. at around 3 grams and 0% silver (at least 0% silver added).  It clearly made no sense to me to have this worth 40% of a 10 gram, 3-4% silver coin (RIC's 5 d.c.) whereas 20% was better (Carson's 10 d.c.). 

Looking just at the metal contect you are right that 12.5 d.c. seems to make more sense than 10 d.c.  However, what about the interplay between the AE coins?  A system with one coin worth 12.5 d.c., another worth 2 d.c. and some rare ones worth 1 d.c. seems rather awkward doesn't it?

Now what is the silver content of the nummus 294-300?  My sources say 2.5 to 4% though I will have to re-read Cope.  Some authors have settled on 3% which equals 8 scruples of silver added per pound of bronze.

In any event, and leaving aside the issue of the partially fiduciary nature of the AE coinage, lets look at the value of the metal.  I will use 1:100 for the AR:AE ratio which appears to be average around this period and use theoretical weight coins.

PRR, 3.0 grams, 0% silver (intentionally added) = 3000 mg of AE + 0 mg of AR = 30 mg silver equivalent (SE) in AE + 0 mg SE in AR = total 30 mg SE.

If we allowed for the silver that appears in the PRR that would have come from natural impurities and re-use of old alloy and take an average of 0.5% silver we get:
PRR, 3.0 grams, 99.5% AE, 0.5% AR = 2985 mg AE + 15 mg AR =  29.85 mg SE + 15 mg SE = total c.45 mg SE.
Though I doubt that this was taken into account by the Romans as it could vary so much.  (Note a 1/2% AR only increases the value by 50%.)

Then compare to two different nummus scenarios, 3% AR and 4% AR.

Nummus, 10.2 grams, 97% AE + 3% AR = 9894 mg AE + 306 mg AR = 98.94 mg SE + 306 mg SE = total c.405 mg SE

Nummus, 10.2 grams, 96% AE + 4 % AR = 9792 mg AE + 408 mg AR = 97.92 mg SE + 408 mg SE = total c.506 mg SE.

So, leaving out the fiduciary aspect, the metal in the nummus costs between 9 (45 mg SE vs. 405 mg SE) and 17 (30 mg SE vs. 506 mg SE)  times the value of the metal in a PRR.  My prefered scenario is 13.5 times (30 mg SE vs. 405 mg SE).

Obviously then the PRR was overtarriffed vis-a-vis the nummus as the nummus was certainly not worth 18 d.c. or 34 d.c. or 27 d.c.  This overtarriffing is, according to some authors, why the PRR is rather rare  - it was simply not accepted.  Apparently it is rarely found mixed in hoards.

Anyway, despite the clear extra fiduciary nature of the PRR, my calculations do support the idea of a higher value in d.c. for the nummus.

However, I am still left with this problem of the convertability 12.5 d.c. vs. 2 d.c.

Shawn

 

[maximinvs]

Hi Shawn,

The Monetary Edict is discussed in 'Diocletian's Currency Reform, a New Inscription' by Erim, Reynolds & Crawford (JRS 1971). Ignoring their flawed reconstruction of the monetary system (for example, it was not until 1979 that Crawford admitted defeat and finally accepted that gold was listed at 72,000dc per pound in the Diocletian Edict on Prices' target='_blank'>Price Edict, not 99,000dc as he maintained for close to a decade) the Monetary Edict fragments are well described and discussed. It is clear that the Monetary Edict took effect on the kalends of September in the year of the consuls Titian and Nepotian, i.e. 1st Sept 301AD. The Diocletian Edict on Prices' target='_blank'>Price Edict cannot be that closely dated as far as I am aware. At first, it was assumed that the Diocletian Edict on Prices' target='_blank'>Price Edict came first, however this has been questioned more recently (e.g. Cope, Giacchero, Bagnall). The Diocletian Edict on Prices' target='_blank'>Price Edict may well have come afterwards, perhaps close to the end of 301AD, and it would make more sense imo for the Diocletian Edict on Prices' target='_blank'>Price Edict to issued in response to inflation that would be expected as a result of doubling the face value of the nummus.

Regarding Cope and the percentage of silver in nummi:
For the Roman in the street, a coin with silvering meant that it was worth more than one without it. Could they tell how much silver was in the flan? It could be 2% or 4% and they would be none the wiser. If the State said it was 4% and as long as nummi weighed around 10g and came with a silvered surface then people would accept them as good money, irrespective of the silver content of the flan.

Cope analysed many nummi and found that the eastern nummi contained more silver (4%) than their western counterparts (2%) in the period immediately after c.300AD. He went on to suggest that tariffs were different between east and west. I think that Cope places far too much emphasis on the percentage. After all, the people using the coins couldn't tell if they were 2% or 4%. All that people could use to assess the quality of the coins was their weight and their silvered appearance. The difference in silver content between east and west may be no more than western frugality, not an attempt by the State to have separate tariffs.

King and Spaer ("A Hoard of Folles from North Sinai", NC 1997) show that this eastern hoard contained significant number of western nummi. Now, as a general pattern, hoards tend to focus on a single denomination. The presence of both western and eastern nummi mixed together in one hoard certainly suggests that they circulated side by side and, since they were the same size and silvered, that they presumably had the same tariff too.

Regards,
Ian

[maximinvs]

So the idea that Aurelian's reform of 274 was accompanied by re-tarriffing the ant from 2 d.c. to 4 d.c. is interesting.  Have you seen this in any sources or is it your idea?  By the way, you said c 272 but I mostly read of 274.  I have always wondered why, if it is 274 there are so many post-reform coins of Aurelian.  The only explanation I have seen is that little was struck 270-274 as there was a lot of the tiny ants still in circulation and then there was a huge issuance of new ants (aureliani) 274-275.

I believe Aurelian's main reform occurred in c.271AD (not 272AD as I said before), when he increased silver content to approx 4% and the weight standard to approx 4.2g. These are the 'period II' coins mentioned in RIC. They were a great improvement over the debased antoniniani of Claudius II and the earliest coins of Aurelian, larger and better made. They lack the XXI on the reverses, something which only happened at the time of Aurelian's second reform in c.274AD. Aurelian's second reform also introduced the silvered laureate fractions and the large laureate bronze pieces, as well as the first coinage for his wife Severina. So, two reforms by Aurelian, not one.

Now, I have not read up on some of the most recent scholarship (e.g. Estiot's work on Aurelian) so I cannot say if the above is still accepted. Hopefully someone who speaks French will chime in here....

Regards,
Ian

[maximinvs]

Your theory about the nummus of 294 being worth 12.5 d.c. is also very interesting.

Shawn,
Most reconstructions begin with a 25dc nummus on 1st Sept 301AD, as suggested by the fragmentary Monetary Edict. That edict says that debts to the fiscus would henceforth be paid with current coin but a doubled value. I follow Hendy ("Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy, 300-1450AD", 1985, a great book imo) here in believing this applied to the nummus, not the precious metal argentei or aurei.
So if the nummus was 25dc after the Monetary Edict, it must have been 12.5dc beforehand, i.e. 50 sestertii. I think most reconstructions agree with a tariff of 12.5dc on the eve of the Edicts. The tariff back in c.294AD depends on which 'reconstruction' you believe, if any. Crawford, Harl and Cope have all suggested different reconstructions, though none are convincing imo.

Regards,
Ian

[maximinvs]

However, I am still left with this problem of the convertability 12.5 d.c. vs. 2 d.c.

Me too!!! It would seem logical for the radiate to divide evenly into the nummus. I have argued before for a nummus of 12dc, as suggested by a fragmentary papyrus (PSI VIII.965) which records a tariff change from 12dc to something larger (see Bagnall, 'Currency and Inflation in Fourth Century Egypt', 1985, another great book).

But others have mentioned that the prices in the Edict above 25dc are usually multiples of 25, whereas those below are multiples of 4, and that the Romans changed their way of counting as the prices increased. Can't remember where I read this though...The coin at the top of this thread is an example of this. It carries a 'mark of value' of XII, presumably 12dc. There are others which carry XVI, i.e. 16dc, suggesting that they counted in 4dc increments.

Let me reiterate once more that we do not have all the answers here, just a few pegs in the ground.

Regards,
Ian