Did the Ancients care??

[jonkag7]

Hey all, I've got a question for you that I've been stewing over for quite a while.

My question is: did the people in the ancient cultures of the coins we collect care about the coins they used? To be more specific: did they notice the emperor on the coin, the legend, the infamous propoganda? or did they just say "a denarius is a denarius, and it pays for dinner." Do you think that the ancients cared for the workmanship or strike on the coins, like we do 2000 years later?
I guess the only answer I have for myself is, do I know who is on the nickel and what it says? do I care if there is a new state quarter out? Although I think it is somewhat different, as so many new types of coins were put into circulation back then.
Please help me out and discuss your thoughts! Is this a really dumb question? does anyone care?

Cheers,
Jonathan

[moonmoth]

Consider ancient coins as propaganda. 

Almost all Roman imperial coins had some sort of message from the state on them.  Why?  I think we can assume that those who made the coins thought that at least some of the people looked at them and took in their messages.  It's like advertising today.  It's all around you, and there are those who will say people are so used to it that they ignore it; but companies and politicians still pay millions to do it, because they get results.

[Howard Cole]

Jonathan,

The answer to your question depends on a lot of things.  How often did the person handle coins?  If not often, I bet they looked at it; if a lot, most likely a coin is a coin.  Was the coin something new and different?  If so, people look at it; if not, they pass it on as another run of the mill coin.

Remember also people didn't travel as much as today.  Most people never went more then 20 miles from where they where born.  So even with all the different coins being minted, they usually stayed in the local area (that is how we can tell where some coins were minted without a name or city symbol on them.)  Most likely a person only saw the local coinage or maybe some from a neighboring city, unless they were a merchant or trader.

You also have to remember that there were even coin collectors back then (we are a race of packrats).  So some of the ancients would have looked at the workmanship.

So the answer to questions, depended on the person and the coin.

[Francisco B]

Hi everyone:

I also think that the roman coins minted in imperial mints contained propaganda messages. Probably, during I, II centuries, these messages were mainly addressed to the people in the Urbe (Roma). After, The army was the addressee of the propaganda, since, as it is know, mints were settled close to army in the Empire borders.  Others many people in the empire did not know to read and, also, they normaly used provincial coins. Thanks

Francisco Bellido

[jonkag7]

Thanks everyone, all that has been said definitely makes sense. Keep up the discussion.

Jonathan

[Robert_Brenchley]

People probably handled coin a lot less, and had to remember a lot more different coinages. Remember the stories abojut the widow with two lepta, and the woman who lost a silver coin, searched the whole house, and threw a party when she found it. Stories like that would only have worked if they were realistic.

Then people had to remember a lot more different cons in many situations; loads of foreign coins circulated in medieval England, despite attempts to ban them, and they all had different values. I think people had to have paid more attention to them back then.

[dmay]

Andrew Burnett in Coinage in the Roman World (Seaby, 1987), notes the incident recorded in Arrian's Discourses of Epictetus where a man when offered a coin bearing the image of Nero declined it because it was rotten (sapros).  Instead he took a coin of Trajan even though the Neronian coin was more valuable (p. 67).  Base on this evidence (and several other examples), Burnett writes, ". . . it is assumed that people would look at their coins, and make a moral judgement about their content" (p. 67).  I not certain a blanket claim such as this one can be made about moral judgments, but the example he cites does seem to indicate some people paid attention to the coins and the iconography their carried.  One other indication that people paid attention is the drilling of a hole (or holes) in coins. [This practice is one that has always fascinated me because it reveals at least a small (but darkened) window onto a previous owner of the coin].  That one would wear a coin would indicate that attention was paid to more than just the economic value.  It is often easy to decided whether the individual valued the obverse or the reverse.  It made a difference where the hole was placed. 

David May

[mwilson603]

Remember also people didn't travel as much as today.  Most people never went more then 20 miles from where they where born.  So even with all the different coins being minted, they usually stayed in the local area (that is how we can tell where some coins were minted without a name or city symbol on them.)  Most likely a person only saw the local coinage or maybe some from a neighbouring city, unless they were a merchant or trader.

At the risk of being seen to question someone with Howard's knowledge and experience, lot's of late Roman bronzes found here in the UK are from official mints other than London.  In fact, I have nothing but anecdotal evidence and personal experience, but I would say that most found in the UK are actually NOT from London so must have travelled quite a distance.

Surely even if the coinage only travelled by reason of the armies carrying their pay with them, that pay would have been spent in the areas they were stationed at.  That means that once in local circulation, the coinage would more than likely have been used by the business that had taken it, to pay other locals/workers, and transact other local business.

I think that as there was an official monetary system, most people would have handled coinage from other areas fairly regularly, however I am not as convinced that they took a huge amount of notice of the coinage other than nominal value the coin represented.  My reasoning for this is the sheer amount of poor strikes, off-centred strikes, double/triple/flip strikes, brockages etc that we find.  If people took notice of the coinage as much as the emperors would have liked to think, then these types of coins would have not made it into circulation.  Also the amount of barbs entering circulation would also have been severely reduced, as if people took notice of the coinage those would have been easily spotted and refused to be accepted.  Considering that we see coins like all of the above with circulation wear proves that they were indeed used for extended periods of time.

One other indication that people paid attention is the drilling of a hole (or holes) in coins. [This practice is one that has always fascinated me because it reveals at least a small (but darkened) window onto a previous owner of the coin]. That one would wear a coin would indicate that attention was paid to more than just the economic value. It is often easy to decided whether the individual valued the obverse or the reverse. It made a difference where the hole was placed.

I have another take on this practice.  Today, some people carry money in a purse, some a wallet, others pockets, money belts etc.  In the Far East they learnt centuries ago that having coinage with a hole in allowed them to string the coins together and keep them more secure.  After all, if the lace broke it would be easier to notice all of your coins falling off.  If a coin fell out of a money pouch when you were going about your business, you may well not notice.  I think that the “hole drillers” mainly did it to allow them to “string” their coinage together.  The location of the hole can be easily explained with ensuring that the identity, and therefore the nominal value, of the coin is retained.  E.G. If, as Mr May quotes from Andrew Burnett, sometimes the value was attributed to the emperor rather than the coin type, then the owner may have decided that the drilled hole should deface the reverse and keep the obverse intact.  Again, if you look at some of the drilled coins found, there are bad strikes, poorly centred coins, and there have even been fourrees found that are drilled.  Surely if the drilled coin was being used as a status symbol, then using a copper cored coin would be socially suicidal?

Just my opinions and very happy to be told I'm talking rubbish 

[moonmoth]

A fourree with a hole drilled though it would be an obvious fake, so perhaps not a useful coin to carry on a string.

I am sure that many holed coins were worn as tokens or amulets.  The pattern of wear sometimes indicates prolonged fingering, and the types are significant.  Others may have been holed to ensure they weren't taken for good currency.  Yet others, to sew onto clothing as decoration.  (Two holes in a coin are not needed for stringing.)

I have some examples of various possibilities here:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/holed_coins.html

[mwilson603]

Yet others, to sew onto clothing as decoration. (Two holes in a coin are not needed for stringing.)

I do a lot of SCUBA diving.  When you wear a weight belt with lead weights, you want to stop the weights moving on the belt.  To help achieve this the weights have 2 slots in them so that you thread the belt through the weight and the friction of the belt across the weight stops the weights from moving too much.  I think a double holed coin could be used at the end of a string of coins and would stop the coins from moving on the string too much.  Again, all just hypotheses, but obviously possible.

[moonmoth]

Well, I don't quite see how restricting the motion of one coin would hold the rest in place better than a much easier knot in the string.  But also consider that boring a hole through silver takes away some of the silver.  Would such coins be accepted as full weight?

[mwilson603]

I'm not an expert on this at all so don't know the answer to your question on currency acceptance over weight, but as we know silver coins used to be clipped frequently then I guess the answer has to be yes.  Obviously clipped coins would also be underweight.

As for explaining my string comment, I have (very quickly) rigged up some cardboard "fourrees" and suspended them in the way I see it working.  This method would allow quick access to small change, and the weight of the coinage was keep the friction on the string to stop the coins from slipping off.  The bottom "Fourree" has had the string threaded through from the top, back up through the second hole, and then the string brought back around to go through the loop.  I'm sure the picture explains it more eloquently than I can 

regards

Mark

[Howard Cole]

Remember also people didn't travel as much as today.  Most people never went more then 20 miles from where they where born.  So even with all the different coins being minted, they usually stayed in the local area (that is how we can tell where some coins were minted without a name or city symbol on them.)  Most likely a person only saw the local coinage or maybe some from a neighbouring city, unless they were a merchant or trader.

At the risk of being seen to question someone with Howard's knowledge and experience, lot's of late Roman bronzes found here in the UK are from official mints other than London.  In fact, I have nothing but anecdotal evidence and personal experience, but I would say that most found in the UK are actually NOT from London so must have travelled quite a distance.

Surely even if the coinage only travelled by reason of the armies carrying their pay with them, that pay would have been spent in the areas they were stationed at.  That means that once in local circulation, the coinage would more than likely have been used by the business that had taken it, to pay other locals/workers, and transact other local business.

Yes, what you write is true for Roman coins, and area that I do not actively collect.  I was thinking of Greek and Asian coins, were what I wrote as true, since the armies were usually made of local citizens called to duty for a specific action.  The mass standing army, like the Romans had, did not really exist in these areas.  Many Greek and Asian (not Far East) coin locations are identified by where the coins are found.

As for Roman coins, because of the centralized authority controlling the issuing of the coins, only a few styles would have been in circulation at any one time. So a person would have to just take a quick look at the obverse and reverse to see if the coin was current (unless it was silver or gold then the content of its metal becomes important).   With an illiterate population, the inscription plays less importance and the images become very important.  If the devices look correct (or at least close), the coin would be accepted, allowing for the circulation of unoffical coins.

Roman coin values were guaranteed by the central government, which ruled a large area.  Thus allowing for a larger area of circulation.  This can not be said for Greek or other Asian coins, were the coins value would be only guaranteed by the city-state or authority that issued it, like in Egypt.

[mwilson603]

Yes, what you write is true for Roman coins, and area that I do not actively collect. I was thinking of Greek and Asian coins, were what I wrote as true, since the armies were usually made of local citizens called to duty for a specific action. The mass standing army, like the Romans had, did not really exist in these areas. Many Greek and Asian (not Far East) coin locations are identified by where the coins are found.

Ah, now that is an area I now nothing about.  Lot's of the posts mentioned Roman so I probably took your words out of context 

As you have expertise in Asian coins, many of which are made with holes in, what are your views on the reasons for the drilled holes in many ancient coins?

[Mark Farrell]

Sorry, Mark, but I'm leaning to the moonmoth side of the discussion. I've got two holed coins, one of Marcus Aurelius/Philippopolis and one Otacilia Severa/Imperial As that have drilled holes precisely above the head on the obverse. While I can imagine many possible reasons why coins could be drilled -- and bearing them on a cord is not a completely implausible one -- the orientation of the holes-to-busts means these were drilled to be worn, perhaps as an amulet or necklace.

Ancients were perhaps more unlikely to view their leaders with as much suspicion as we do ours, and it is simply more plausible to me that these were worn because of some "connection", real or imagined, with the person or deity depicted.

Were someone to drill coins for stringing on a cord, I'd imagine the hole would be more centered, much as in your example, if for no other reason than humans tend to organize things in a somewhat symmetrical fashion. Certainly there are many, many ancient coins that have holes in them. Most of them are punched instead of drilled, and the punches are more randomly scattered about the face of the coin. When I see these, I can imagine them being hammered into wood (or skulls, it was a rough world, grin).

But when I see a drilled coin, with the hole carefully placed so a coin hangs to orient a bust upright, I think to myself "jewelry".

Also, I'd point out that illiteracy is not a binary proposition, but is absolutely on a continuum. To assume that all local, "uneducated" ancients could not map a string of letters to an idea is a proposition I find hard to believe. Just because an occupant of ancient Cilicia could not have read Homer is not a reason to assume that he could not have mapped the string of text "BASILIOS" to the idea of "king". Even functional illiterates in this country can still read a stop sign or tell the difference between a grocery store and a hardware store based on pattern matching.

Anyway, just my opinions (of course).

Mark

[slokind]

In some places in the foregoing, "the ancients" are talked of much as "the child" is talked of in Education textbooks, as a sort of generic entity.
The ancients differed from us, and all our friends and non-friends, in one respect only: they died earlier.  Some of them were doubtless fascinated by things they saw (including the coins they spent), and many were not, and most were fascinated fleetingly and occasionally.
Pat L.

[basemetal]

My opinion, based on simple human wants, needs and desires which have not basically changed much from then to now, is that people "knew" their coins much as we do our metal an paper currency today.
Though of course there were collectors in every age, most people I think (quite subjective) thought in terms of  copper, brass, bronze, silver, gold and size.   They were much more concerned with having 3 silver coins and one brass as opposed to the opposite.  They, like people today, thought in terms of what the coin or coins could buy.   I'm betting that someone who never or rarely got a silver coin, did indeed look at it, fondle it, heft it and take it out and look at it again and again.  But I don't think they often thought:
"I've got one denarius of Trajan and one of Vespasian.  I sure love those Vespasian silver coins."
They more thought I've got two denarii and so I can buy _________.
One difference may have been newly minted as opposed to very worn coins, especially in the basemetal groups.  A newly minted coin may have had greater acceptance-maybe in the marketplace.  I can imagine that a farmer from outside Rome offering 4 sestertii slugs might have had a lower opinion thought of him by a money changer or a merchant, but not to the extent that it would not have been accepted. 
Then as now crisp new money may have implied some sort of prosperity, even if of the pimp kind.
Also the rich may have surprisingly, not cared so much about the many silver coins they had as much as being able to "bet a bag of a  thousand on the Thracian" to paraphrase the Sparticus movie.
To use a further comparison, a high roller with a wad of $20 dollar bills is more concerned, as is his audience, with having the big roll as opposed to having more tens than twenties and so forth.
What we modern collectors, very much including me, have trouble getting past is that the coins we love so much were as common as our paper and metal coinage is today.   
You get that magic time travel machine and go back to the reign of Titus with 10 or 15 one ounce gold bars.
"By the gods Saltronius!  There is some barbaric fool outside the Amphitheatre trading good gold for those brass coins that Titus gave to everyone during the grand opening. He'll give you a fat piece for only 4 of them! If you have 5 or 6, come on!
Let's relieve the fool of his gold before he comes to his senses!"

[Howard Cole]

Back to localized coinage.  Mark, even with the many different mints of Roman coins in England, I take a bet that very few are from Asia Minor, Near East or North Africa.  Also I will bet that a lot of these are localized in both where they are found and when they where used.  For example, maybe a few mints in Gallic Europe were used for one payroll for a certain period of time.  These would be the accepted coins in that area where the army payroll was issued.  I am not even sure the locals would have looked at the mint mark, but would have been more concern with whom was the emperor on the coin and what are the reverse devices.  Many mints issued similar coins, with only the mint mark differing.  So, much more important would be the time period in which the coins were issued and what were the devices on the coins in that area, then the mint mark.

As for gold and silver coinage, they would have traveled, but would have been treated as bullion outside the area of the issuing authority.  This is not true for copper coins, since there intrinsic value is almost always below there face value.  I don't believe copper coins would travel much outside the area of guarantee by the issuing government.  If it did, it would have been heavily discounted in trade, because it would have to be taken back into the issuing authorities area to be used again at full face value.  This is the problem with coins today.  Try to exchange foreign coins at a bank and see what happens.  They will not accept them because of the shipping cost to get them back to the country were they can be exchanged for the desired currency.  It is much cheaper to ship paper money and exchange it, then coins.  Of course, the larger bills also have a better exchange rate then smaller denomination bills because of the lower cost of transport for a given unit of value.

So even in England, with all the different mints providing coinage, I still bet there were only a few given types at any one time.  The locals would get use to that type and when it changed they would notice the change but soon get used to it.  Just like the changes going on in US coins, like the change in the Jefferson bust on the nickel or the addition of color and larger portrait on bills.  We notice it at first and then ignore it.

[jonkag7]

Those are some really interesting ideas that I've never even heard of, especially with the string and holes business! What I was thinking was that maybe it was possible that to a certain extent most people just thought of each coin by its denomination. But, I also think it's quite possible that some citizens would take interest of a new/beautiful/interesting coin and keep it, much in the same way that we would keep a gold dollar, or a $2 dollar bill.
My second thought was about the Republican coinage's extreme propoganda, and how it affected the senate. I'm talking about all the moneyers who put messages on their coins that they were the best person for the senate, or their family was most influential, etc. (especially those that specifically depicted senate chairs). I believe since the Republic was much smaller and more centralized, it probably would have had a somewhat greater affect than the Imperial coinage for the reasons that people have previously pointed out (i.e. localized minting, provincials). Is this on a right track, is this plausible? Thanks for the input and great info.

Sincerely,
Jonathan

[moonmoth]

Let's produce a coin for this thread.  This one is made very interesting by the carefully bored hole, which is symmetrical to the moon and stars, and the pattern of wear - more worn above (in this orientation) and less around the hole.

The moon and stars had a  astrological significance.  If this coin were worn around the neck, and regularly fingered over a long period of time, it would produce just the pattern of wear that you see.

I would not want to claim that coins were never strung together.  It's a very reasonable suggestion and there is some evidence to support it.

However, I do suggest that there were also other reasons for making holes in coins, and wearing them as jewellery and as lucky charms was one of them - as, indeed, it has been throughout history and still is today.  The "ancients" were just as intelligent and just as complex as we are (as Pat has implied). Leading to the conclusion that there have always been some people who have looked at, and paid attention to, their coins.

[mwilson603]

Let's produce a coin for this thread.  This one is made very interesting by the carefully bored hole, which is symmetrical to the moon and stars, and the pattern of wear - more worn above (in this orientation) and less around the hole.

The moon and stars had a  astrological significance.  If this coin were worn around the neck, and regularly fingered over a long period of time, it would produce just the pattern of wear that you see.

However, I do suggest that there were also other reasons for making holes in coins, and wearing them as jewellery and as lucky charms was one of them - as, indeed, it has been throughout history and still is today. 

This is a great discussion and I have enjoyed putting forward an alternative possibility, although I do agree that your statement of "many reasons" for holing the coins is absolutely correct.

I still think that looking at some of the holed coins we find that wearing them as jewellery, amulets or charms is probably not correct in those instances.  I refer to the forrees and poorly struck coins of course.  You mention that there is evidence to back up this theory and I would be interested in hearing that although out of this thread if my crackpot theory is now boring people    I read in another thread that many of you have a scientific bent, and as such please allow me to put some indirectly supportive evidence in front of you.

Money on string is an ancient practice in many places across the world. Look at thing like strings of shells from the Indian ocean and Africa, and strings of bead money from Europe and North America.  In North America, the Chumash Indians are thought to have developed a monetary system based on discs cut from purple snail shells that originates some 12,000 years ago.  It is also estimated that glass beads were used as currency some 9,000 years ago in Europe, and I am sure to some extent, the practice of keeping money on strings continued.  (And for string read leather lace or silken rope etc.) 

In fact, in much of the area now known as the UK and Ireland, the Celts used to utilise ring money.  These were rings of silver, gold and sometimes gold or silver plated metals, that were worn on strings, or wires.  This currency seems to have been at a peak about 2,500 years old, and that would put it just a few hundred years before the initial Roman invasions of this area.  I still believe that it is eminently possible that the traditions of carrying your money in this way transferred, and continued, in some way.

I thank you for listening to my "insane" mutterings on this and a final note for Howard.  Lots of the coins found in the UK were minted in Hereclea, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople, although obviously more found from the nearer mints.  (Strangely, personal experience has not shown me much coinage from London, and I haven't had one from Amiens or Ostia.)  As I say that is just my experience from buying uncleaned coins from local metal detectorists so may not extrapolate in the same way across the country, but I think it is pretty much the norm for this area.

[Cleisthenes]

Strabo (64/3 B.C - 24 A.D.), the Greek historian and geographer, mentions this issue of bronze coinage from Smyrna specifically when, discussing the city, he says ". . . there is also a library; and the 'Homereum', a quadrangular portico containing a shrine and wooden statue of Homer; for the Smyrnaeans also lay especial claim to the poet and indeed a bronze coin of theirs is called a Homereum" (Strabo, Geographica XIV, I.37, transl. by H.C. Jones, The Geography of Strabo, VI [Loeb, 1960], pp. 245-247).

Jim


Ionia, Smyrna. Circa 125-115 B.C. AE 23mm/ Homereum (7.95 gm). Eymelos and Ippyroy, Magistrate. Obv: Laureate head of Apollo right Rev:  MYPNAI N - EYMH O I/ I YOY, the poet Homer seated left, holding staff and scroll. Milne 221.

[moonmoth]

I still think that looking at some of the holed coins we find that wearing them as jewellery, amulets or charms is probably not correct in those instances.  I refer to the forrees and poorly struck coins of course.  You mention that there is evidence to back up this theory and I would be interested in hearing that

Earlier in this thread, I gave a link to my page on holed coins.  In that page, there is this link to another page (not mine) which has some very relevant photos.

http://www.ancientcoins.biz/pages/holed/

One is of a set of coins strung onto a fibula.  This is much like the idea of putting coins on a string. Coins treated this way are likely to have holes punched through, maybe centrally and most likely quite crudely.  Apart from considerations of speed and convenience, this would not remove an silver and thus would not reduce the value of the coin.  So, as to stringing coins, I won't say it didn't happen, but there isn't much direct evidence of it as a regular practice in the Empire - mentions in literature, for example. 

(Your comment about clipping is not completely valid.  There is plenty of evidence that clipped silver coins have not normally been regarded as of equal value with unclipped ones.)

Two coins on the page from this link have metal loops through their holes, and I have seen others elswehere too, with neater hoops obviously designed for decorative purposes.  Those illustrated here look as though they might have been used decoratively, but they are too crude to be fine jewellery.

Elswhere I have seen coins with several holes, and I have one with three holes.  These must have had yet another use, like the holed fourrees. 

And yet another coin with another possibility.  This scene shows the founding of a colony at Patras, for the veterans of the Battle of Actium.  The hole is too small for practical use for a metal loop or a string.   I suspect that this coin has been pinned to a lintel and used as a luck piece, touched as the occupants moved in and out.  The founding scene would be displayed in such a case, and the head of the pin or nail would be countersunk into the coin and would not catch on skin or fabric.

[PeterD]

Lots of the coins found in the UK were minted in Hereclea, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople, although obviously more found from the nearer mints. 

Apart from the short time that London and the 'C' mint were open, all coins had to come from outside of Britain. In the time before Galienus started opening new mints, supplies mainly came from Rome and Gaul, as would be expected. Even so, coins from eastern mints are frequently found, even some drachmae.

When Septimius Severus arrived to sort out the northern tribes in the early 3rd century, he brought with him large numbers of denarii from eastern mints. So much, that hoards up until 270 contain as much as 50% eastern denarii.

For later mint distribution, I quote 'Coin Hoards from Roman Britain', Durrington, hoard II. This covers Constantine I, II and Constantius II. This is a largish hoard, but the figures are typical for the LRB period.
London 1103
Trier 1029
Lyon 89
Arles 81
Rome 22
Ticinum 46
Aquileia 23
Siscia 75
Sirmium 6
Thessalonika 20
Heraclea 3
Nicomedia 2
Irregular 18

[PeterD]

In more modern times, particularly in the Middle East, it has been the custom to sew coins onto dresses, particularly bridal dresses. In Jordan, I saw dresses covered with Victorian gold sovereigns.