sutherland - the pourpose of roman imperial coins type

8/12/2019 Sutherland - The Pourpose of Roman Imperial Coins Type

1/11


2/11

C.H.V. SUTHERLANDTHE PURPOSE OF ROMAN IMPERI L COIN TYPES

It might have been supposed that the argument about the purpose ofRoman imperial coin types, thrown into a dismissive prominence byA.H.M. Jones nearly thirty years ago1, and accorded a reply by thepresent writer soon afterwards 2, might thereafter have subsided into areasonable and reasoned quietude. But it is not so. In an authoritativeand valuable article on the Aequitas type of Galba3, A.Wallace-Hadrillhas credited the contemporary numismatic study of the imperialcoinage with a view from which it (or at any rate the majority of itsparticipants) would certainly wish to be dissociated. He gives theimpression that they regard the primary purpose of that coinage ashaving been imperial propaganda, and propaganda moreover in thepejorative sense made infamous by Goebbels ; and he must be unawarethat few numismatists of the present day or, indeed, of some decadespast would wish to deny that the primary purpose of that (as ofvirtually all other) coinage was an economic one. This view has beenstandard for many years, for the basic purpose of currency must plainlybe economic ; and many studies have resulted from this position, for theearly empire and onwards. The quantitative problems of the imperialcoinage, its sources and patterns of distribution, and the part it playedin both social development and the growth of commerce, have

1. In Essays in Roman Coinage presented to Harold Mattingly (ed. Carson and Sutherland),pp. 13 ff. (hereafter cited as ERCHM).2. JRS, 1959, pp. 46 ff.3. NC, 1981, pp. 20 ff.Revue numismatique, 1983, 6 srie, XXV, p. 73-82


3/11

74 C.H.V. SUTHERLANDstimulated a steady stream of books and articles too numerous to listhere. How wrong indeed, it would be to take any other view in the lightof the plainly mercantile and economic origin and growth of thecoinages of the Greek city-states, from which the coinage of the RomanRepublic and Empire an unbroken series was lineally descended.Numismatists have sought to assess and to interpret a mass ofimperial coin types running into some thousands, a mass not to bepassed over lightly. If their efforts are still misunderstood, the reasonperhaps lies in the use of the word propaganda In recent times, it istrue, this word has acquired a bad meaning, the systematic spreading offalse report with the pretence of truth. It is true, also, that this badmeaning achieved a dominance during the Second World War, and thatit was indeed nurtured during the First ; and it is true, yet again, thatthe numismatic use of the word fell between those two events, whenMattingly was preparing the first volume of the British Museumimperial catalogue. But no one would imagine that Mattingly, a fineclassical scholar, was ignorant of the meaning of the Latin verbpropagare : in its metaphorical sense to procreate, and in itsfigurative sense, to extend, enlarge, spread 4. This neutral sense ofextended report was capable equally of good and bad connotation ; andas an example of the good we should remember the congregatio depropaganda fide of the Vatican of today. To become vulnerable to theinconstant forces in verbal semantics is to risk serious error in theinterpretation of history.If, then, the coinage of imperial Rome is regarded, as it must be,primarily as an economic factor, and if the types of that coinage areregarded as propaganda things that should be spread in thenon-pejorative sense, how should that propaganda be approached andinterpreted ? And what was the purpose of the extraordinarily widetype-variety ? Conceivably this variety has been a major difficulty in theeyes of historians. Realising, for instance, that the Julio-Claudiancoinage alone contains over 2 000 distinct varieties, the historian maybe tempted to emphasise, among this great mass, only those types andlegends which he selects as being specially relevant to his main study,and to neglect the rest. But this selective method can lead to falsegeneral deduction.The central interest of the historian of today lies, as it has for long

4. Thus, fines imperii propagavit (Cicero, Rep. 3.12, 21) ; termines orbis propagare (Tacitus,nn. 12, 23); propagatam civitatem (Velleius, 1.14, 1); augendi propagandique imperii(Suetonius, Nero 18).


4/11

PURPOSE OF ROMAN IMPERIAL COIN TYPES 75lain, in the written word of the ancient historians, the most valuable ofthem being contemporary, or nearly so, with the events they recorded :regarded as a whole, they are variously objective or subjective in theirnarration, generally strong on chronology, some of them with a markedpolitical bias, generally weak on socio-economic affairs ; and theancient historians were not heads of state. Secondly, he will value theevidence of the Roman poets : the history of the imperial world wouldbe the poorer without a Vergil, a Horace, or a Juvenal, even though theirrelationship with the establishment of their own day has to becarefully weighed. Thirdly, he will call in aid the great and varied bodyof inscriptions, including state documents such as official dedications orDiocletian's edict on prices, and ranging through personal high-levelstatements like the Res Gestae Divi Augusti down to lower-levelevidence military documents on bronze, statements (rich inchronological and prosopographical data) of personal careers, and thevaried mass of other and more modest commemorative statements andcommercial comments (e.g. objects of measure or weight) 5. With thismiscellaneous body of inscriptions there may be classed, for convenience, the papyri of Egypt, frequently valuable for their economic orcommercial evidence. Fourthly, he must at least take cognisance ofarchaeological evidence : he cannot disregard Nero's reconstruction ofRome, or the catastrophically frozen evidence of Pompeii, or thesignificance of the port of Ostia or of Hadrian's wall or of the greatamphitheatre of El Djem, now standing starkly alone on the verge ofTunisian desert. Nor will he overlook the distribution in trade ofcommercial storage-amphorae for oil and grain or wine, particularlythose now being increasingly found in wrecks around the Mediterraneannd even if he himself disclaims skill in the grammar ofarchaeology, he will be ready to rely on the expert judgements ofarchaeological scholars.The fifth main source of the historian's evidence must be held to bethe ancient coinage, a massive economic factor closely continuous forover seven Roman centuries. How has this branch of evidence been used this evidence of which the primary socio-economic raison d'tre isgenerally agreed ?It is instructive and useful at this point to note the remarks ofP. Grierson (no less respected as an economic historian than as anumismatist) published in 1951 6, five years before Jones's expression of

5. An excellent example of this last category is provided by Wallace-Hadrill s illustration (hisplate 12, 29) of the modius Claytonensis >6. Numismatics and History (Historical Association, General Series, G 19).


5/11

76 C.H.V. SUTHERLANDscepticism. Grierson laid down, as would rightly be expected, thatcoinage is primary historical evidence in its own right 7. With significantdifference Jones conceded only that numismatics is a science in its ownright 8. The difference is great. Grierson naturally allowed that there areperiods when, as well telling us what we did not previously know,coinage may do no more than confirm or illustrate or modify what weknow already, and when it does little more, from the political point ofview, than testify to the existence of something we already know betterfrom other sources 9. But he carefully emphasised the main point,which is that, as coinage is normally a prerogative of state, we cannaturally look to it to tell us something about the State itself 10.Finally, while urging the numismatist to make himself as good ahistorian as possible, he charged those historians who neglectnumismatic evidence with too exclusive a reliance on written evidenceand with a reluctance to deal with material of which they do not fullycomprehend the character and the limitations. It is easy , he wrote , to fall into the belief that written evidence, where it exists, is in itselfan all-sufficient guide.Possibly Jones did not agree with Grierson's views, for it would seemthat he required literary evidence as a backing to make coin-evidenceacceptable ; and he based this opinion on the argument that, as noancient author made any comment on coin types, these coin typesattracted no interest or attention in their own day12. Development ofthis position would find us with only a question-mark over manyimperial institutions which Roman historians did not mention althoughthey are otherwise evidenced. But he went further, holding that theintelligibility of the Latin legends on the imperial coinage would bevirtually nil in the East and only minimal in the West. To this I havepreviously replied in detail 13. It is of course true that Latin-inscribedcoins were not designed principally for the East, except by mints servinglegionary concentrations there ; but, if Latin was not generallyintelligible outside Italy in the West, it may be asked why Latin was thenormal language of public dedications in western provinces.

So far we have attempted only to clarify certain strands of argument :

7. Op. cit., p. 12.8. ERCHM, p. 13.9. Op. cit., pp. 6, 8.10. Op. cit., p. 6.11. Op. cit., p. 12.12. ERCHM, p. 14.13. JRS, 1959, p. 52 f.


6/11

PURPOSE OF ROMAN IMPERIAL COIN TYPES 77(1) coinage under the Empire had a primarily economic purpose ; (2)written evidence for history does not automatically exclude any other ;(3) the significance of imperial coin types must be weighed as a mass,and not in relation to isolated types selected for personally feltrelevance ; (4) the types of an imperial state coinage should tell ussomething about that state; and (5) propaganda can mean thedissemination of truth no less than of falsehood.It would be of interest to learn from the Roman historian of todayexactly which coin types of, say, the Julio-Claudian period should in hisopinion be labelled as false propaganda. There is no question thatP. Carisius established for Augustus the Roman colony of EmeritaAugusta in Lusitania, as his coinage records. Of the two other Spanishmints 14 what was false or even dubious propaganda in the comment onAugustus' relationship with Divus Julius, or his Parthian success, or hiscorona civica, or his clipeus virtutis, or on Mars Victor or the ludisaeculares? Was the mint of Lugdunum in any way misleading incelebrating Augustus' victories at Naulochus and Actium, or hissubsequent military activity on the northern frontiers, or C. Caesar'sinitial military campaign in Gaul in 8 B.C., or the celebration of C. andL. Caesar as principes iuventutis in 2 B.C., or Tiberius' advancement atthe end of the reign ? Or take Tiberius' own principte. The Lugdunumgold and silver with its almost unvaried emperor-priest concept ofPontifex Maximus ; or the aes with its references to Divus Augustus,Livia's recovery from illness, the birth of Drusus' twin sons, andCivitatibus Asiae Restitutis, followed by the mid-reign explosion of newtypes (one at least Moderatio echoing most probably a sour grapegrudgingly accorded by Tacitus) 15 and the end-of-reign uninformativetypes : where is the historian's ground for suspicion or scepticism here ?The same applies to Gaius with his interesting new range of familytypes, all accurate, and his Adlocutio Cohortium type, of which the onlyremarkable feature is the omission of the normal S.C. 16 Nor canClaudius' types be faulted. Most are factual (Imperator Recept, PraetorRecept, and types commemorating Antonia, or military success inGermany and Britain, or his marriage with Agrippina and his adoptionof Nero) ; some, following on the Clementia, Moderatio, Justitia andSalus of Tiberius, break newer ground with concepts such as Pax,

14. If we follow the conjecture (derived from L. Laffranchi, RIN, XXV-XXVI (1912-1918),pp. 151 ff. 161 ff.) followed by Mattingly, BMCRE, I, pp. CVIH ff.15. JRS, 1938, pp. 129 ff.16. Cf. my Emperor and the Coinage, pp. 19 ff.


7/11

78 . . V. SUTHERLANDConstantia, and Libertas personalised reflections of the imperialaspiration or achievement. Even with Nero the tradition of solidly basedcomment or frankly stated aspiration still held pretty firm. FromA.D. 54 onwards for ten years the gold and silver the sole coinagethen in production stated Nero's constitutional position in thesimplest terms ; and from 64 it was still an accurate commentary onpublic affairs. So too with his aes from c.62-3 : the types for hiscongiaria, for the port of Ostia, for the arch celebrating Tiridates' visit,for the closed temple of Janus, and for the quinquennalian games, wereunexceptionably historical, even though the economic basis of the wholemonetary structure was showing signs of strain, with gold and silverreduced in both weight and fineness, and an attempted reform of theaes abandoned. It was the period of the Civil Wars in A.D. 68-9 whichfirst saw a true manipulation of coin types, which in Spain and Gaulespecially became, quite suddenly, so many placards not inthemselves inaccurate being waved feverishly before the rebelliouswestern eye, with emphasis upon Genius P(opuli) R(omani), SalusGeneris Humani, S P Q R, Mars Ultor, Divus Augustus, and so on. Afterthis, perhaps nothing could ever be quite the same again. Even so,Galba, Otho and Vitellius, though tending at times to allow their cointypes to speak subjectively of their administration, in general employedaccurate factual types.

The new element of the subjective appraisal of a reign by typesselected on the emperor's behalf17 was to continue down into the thirdcentury side by side with factual types, and it was not until thenear- disintegration of the empire in the third century that the imperialtypes achieved such a degree of empty boastfulness as to show that thelong discipline of accuracy was for the moment broken. But it was notpermanently broken. The control of types in all metals under the FirstTetrarchy was as pure as it was rigid the rigidity being best seen inthe imposition of a single type, world wide, for the aes follis at 15 out ofthe 16 mints of the day, 18 the first such occurrence in the course of theimperial coinage.Historians may well be tempted to feel, after a survey of the normallyunvaried sequence of Greek coin types, that there is some disadvantageousault in the normally varied stream of imperial types. But it has to

17. Wallace-Hadrill, op. cit., p. 21, note 8, is correct in saying that our ignorance of the processof selection is an irrelevance. What cannot be doubted is that the types of the imperial coinage musthave been selected with the emperors wishes in mind.18. Cf. ERCHM, pp. 174 ff.


8/11

PURPOSE OF ROMAN IMPERIAL COIN TYPES 79be remembered, first, that the high-value units of the Greek currenciesplayed an essential part in inter-city, i.e. international, trade andtherefore had to bear a relatively simple and easily recognised type,often with little or no legend. Secondly, the types of Greek city-statecoinages played a minimal part in the informing of their own citizens.The average Greek city-state was a very small unit with no more, forAristotle, than an ideal 10 000 citizens. The Roman empire, bycontrast, even under Augustus stretched from Lusitania to Armenia,from Gallia Belgica to north Africa. It would be foolish to suggest thatthe imperial coinage was a mini-newspaper with a world-circulation :too much of it would too often be out of date. What must be said is thatit was much easier for the members of a Greek city-state, with a limitedsurrounding territory, to learn of the internal affairs of their communityby social intercourse than it ever was for the inhabitants of a worldempire, cives and others, to know what was going on in Rome, the heartof the empire. Even if type-variety had not been so vigorously developedduring the Republic it would surely have been so under the Empire,which was held together by the central administration of Rome. Andwhen respect for that administration was damaged, as under Nero,centrifugal forces were at once apparent.It is not accurate to regard a series of frankly informative imperialtypes as a Regierungsprogram, to use Wallace-HadriH's phrase 19. It wasnot a programme (i.e. for the future) but a record of things done, a sortof res gestae, which until the third century was continuously if alsodecreasingly concerned with factual achievement. Whereas Joneswrote 20 that it was questionable whether the elaborate messages whichsome numismatists deduce from the coin types were intended to beconveyed by them , Grierson's statement21 that we can actually look tothe coinage to tell us something about the State itself is to bepreferred. Any competent ruler of a large and civilized empire willnaturally wish (if only for his own advantage) to render an account ofwhat he has been doing for those whom he rules exactly as Augustusdid with his monumental Res Gestae set up in different parts of theempire in Latin and Greek. The imperial coinage, within its limits didthe same. False propaganda should have no place in this discussion. Thecoinage was, apart from its primary economic role, a simple andcontinuous exercise in self-justification.

19. Op. cit., p. 37.20. ERCHM, p. 15.21. Op. cit., p. 6.


9/11

80 C.H.V. SUTHERLANDTwo further considerations flow from what has already been said.First how much of the content of an imperial coin type was intelligible

to those who looked at it ? For, if it was not intelligible, there wasabsolutely no point in devising so great a variety of coin types, whetherthey were true or false propaganda. I have previously suggested 22that the comparatively simple content of imperial types would haveallowed most of those with a basic knowledge of Latin to form anadequate idea of their meaning, given the general ability of the time inthe interpretation of pictorial symbolism23. No great imagination wasneeded in this interpretative process, for the elements were few, clear,and uncomplicated, even when on a large scale. An excellent example oflarge-scale symbolism was to be seen in the triumphal monumenterected at La Turbie, high above Monte Carlo, to celebrate Augustus'conquest of the numerous tribes of the hills and mountains inland, fromwhich the safety of travellers along the coastal road from Italy to Spainwas at risk. Above the towering building, circular and colonnaded at thetop, stood Augustus' statue ; below, on the sides of the massive, squarebase, were great inscriptions, specifying the conqueror and theconquered ; and for those who knew no Latin there were the sculpturedsymbols of conquest Victories, captives, and laurels. The combinatonf elements was simple and grand, possessing great impact : usedwith power and economy, symbolism could be vivid on whatever scale,and we must not underestimate its influence through coin types.

Nor must we underestimate the significance of the sheer mass ofimperial types. The mass stands entire, as something to be understoodau fond, and not simply to be dipped into for relevant- seemingillustration. It was an economic necessity ; it circulated over very wideareas ; it was complex in its monetary structure ; and it was constantlyvaried in its types, and also its legends. Who dictated that variation?This is the second, and not unimportant, consideration.We must agree with Wallace-Hadrill 24 that little is known of themechanics of the choice of imperial types. Historical sources tell us onlya single thing. According to Statius 25, the procurator a rationibus under

22. JRS, 1959, p. 53.23. For which see the important chapter by J.M.C. Toynbee in ERCHM, pp. 205 ff. It should beemphasized that the full intelligibility of an imperial coin comes from the joint observation of thetype and legend of both obverse and reverse.24. Op. cit., p. 21. Rather curiously he suggests that we have at least some access to the mindof the designer . If by this he means the mind of the craftsman involved in the cutting of dies, thisis as true of a coin as it is of any other work of art. But to suggest that a designer, in this sense,played any part in the choice of imperial types would be beyond belief.25. Silv ae, 3. 3, 103-5.


10/11

PURPOSE OF ROMAN IMPERIAL COIN TYPES 81Domitian controlled the organisation of the mint of Rome, includingsupply of bullion and volume of coinage. He could in addition havecontrolled the coin types : more likely, perhaps, this was theresponsibility of his colleague the a studiis. Each would be in necessarilyclose touch with the emperor. Earlier in the principte, however, attimes when a multiplicity of mints existed, the position would have beendifferent. Under Augustus after 27 B.C., for example, when there wereprobably three imperial mints in Spain, at least one in Gaul, one atRome, and one each at Ephesus and Pergamm, to say nothing ofephemeral mints elsewhere, it can be seen that, while in a nuclear group of mints (e.g. the two uncertain Spanish mints, or thecistophoric mints of Ephesus and Pergamm) there are clearly commonelements in the types chosen, all mints nevertheless made their owneffective choice of types. They often showed marked differences, butthey all looked to the greater glory of the emperor and the empire. Theonly means by which this very remarkable effect (whether more or lessuniform) could have been achieved was surely the agency of therelevant provincial legati, who would be in regular touch with theprinceps or those of his civil servants responsible for the range ofsubject-matter deemed proper for coin types. When mint-centralizationdrew nearer26, instructions could be given that much more easily inRome itself. The central point at issue is that the types of the imperialcoinage must have been chosen by people very near to the princeps, towhom the types now came to look so steadily.One more relevant point, of another kind, should be mentioned. Eversince the 1930s 27 it has been the convention to refer to concepts such asthe imperial dementia or iustitia or constantia fides as the imperial virtues a convenient term for expressing those elements inadministration which emperors would wish to be recognised by theirsubjects. Virtues, however, is a word with occasionally self-congratulatory overtones, and the conception of imperial coin types asillustrating the canon of imperial virtues has probably contributed tothe sceptical view of coin types now sometimes held : to claim a virtue,it may be said, can too easily be a disingenuous act. We should probablydo better to think of the virtues more neutrally as qualities TheRoman empire was not very old when it finally developed the concept of

26. It is not yet agreed among numismatists when the task of coining gold and silver wastransferred from Lugdunum (certain for Tiberius and by analogy for Augustus) to Rome (certainfor Nero and probable for Claudius). Mattingly put the transfer under Gaius.27. See Wallace-Hadrill, op. cit., p. 20, note 2.


11/11

82 C.H.V. SUTHERLANDoptimus princeps. Nero's reign hastened that development, andDomitian's completed it. The Roman world was not blind to thedesirability of government both efficient and ethical. Coin types couldat least help to tell people if they were getting it, for they werestatements of self-justification which could be judged against anindependent knowledge of the facts.The emperors did not write history themselves, but they did see to itthat Jones's disdainful two or three words were produced on somemillions of coins, with types to match. This great corporate material isfully available for use today.

sutherland - the pourpose of roman imperial coins type

Documents