The
Romans did come late to coinage. Weighed out bronze was the initial medium of exchange resembling coinage. Bronze did figure in their first foray into actual coins. Around 326 B.C. their first coin, a struck bronze, was issued by Naples (cr 1 Ob.head of
Apollo, Rv forepart of man-headed
bull). This is due to the
Romans beginning to push their influence into southern
Italy, requiring some medium of exchange acceptable to the
Greeks. Their second issue, around 300, was also a struck bronze cr 2 Ob.head of
Minerva, Rv man-headed
bull)possibly also issued by Naples.
When they began seriously issuing currency around 280, bronzes figured prominently with silver didrachms, mostly based on souther Greek standards. Silver with struck and
cast bronzes were issued in number during the episode with Phyrrus (280 - 272) and during the first Punic War (264 - 241)/ Regular issues of silver and bronze continued down to the great reform around 211 (during the middle of the second Punic War). The bronze, far from being relatively
rare, was the
standard i.e the as.
The post 211 struck bronzes - as,
semis,
triens,
quadrans,
sextans,
uncia,
semuncia and, briefly, quartuncia - continued to be issued in quantity until the middle of the second century. We begin to see a dropping off in the issuing of bronzes following the destruction of
Carthage in 146. The following period is one of growing wealth and power among the aristocracy who
ran the state as a oligarchic business. The
Roman state issued currency to finance their budgetary needs (primarily warfare and building) and the aristocracy were the primary beneficiaries of these activities.
Looking at this overview, the relative shortage of
republican bronzes is not apparent until post 140's. We need to look for reasons other than shortage of issue.
The widening gap between rich and
poor from the 140's offers an explanation for this period only. The aristocracy simply didn't care that there was a shortage of bronze currency; they didn't need it and they didn't care if the
poor did. This shortage of bronzes is mentioned by the annalists and we only need to look at the
history of internal conflict during this latter period to understand that the shortage of bronze coinage was one symptom and, perhaps one factor, of the social malaise that led to the destruction of the republic.
The reason for the relative scarcity of surviving bronze against silver for the earlier period? Look at the pieces themselves. Large and of
good metal. They held their value for centuries and many literally circulated for centuries, becomming slugs or little more than. These poorer pieces can be bought at low prices comparable with similar size imperial issues. Better
quality surviving specimens are
rare. They were never hoarded like the silver. They show up in some
hoards; isolated pieces. Individual pieces, lost when new or relatively new are found with metal detectors.
It is possible that many pieces, whether in identifiable condition or mere slugs, would have been melted down in imperial times.
Anyway, your question is an interesting one, not dribble. The
republican bronzes are a much understudied issue. I have been making some small effort to study these bronzes and
hope to have time to do more in the not too distant future when I am able to travel again and see major
collections. Unfortunately there is little published material to build on compared to the coverage of the silver. My own
collection of around 1200
republican bronzes, about 600 of which are ases, is a useful
hands on resource and I have most of the published material but, unfortuantely, time is
still a little
scarce and my brain doesn't seem to
work quite as well as it used to.