Richard Reece, Coin Collection From Rome

A Collection of Coins from the Centre of RomeAuthor(s): Richard ReeceSource: Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. 50 (1982), pp. 116-145Published by: British School at RomeStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40310785 .

Accessed: 11/08/2013 06:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

British School at Rome is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Papers of theBritish School at Rome.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.143.2.5 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 06:55:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bsr

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40310785?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


A COLLECTION OF COINS FROM THE CENTRE OF ROME

In May 1969, during a visit to Italy to collect information on Roman coins from known sites, I visited the Palatine Antiquarium and was shown the remnants of the coins from the Forum, the Palatine and associated sites by Dottoressa I. B. Dondero, who was in the process of working her way through the material in order to catalogue it. Most of the coins were in a highly corroded state, and the process of cleaning and identification was necessarily slow. These coins came back to mind during a later stay in Rome in which I worked on the coins from the excavations by the British School in the so-called Schola Praeconum. The coins from the recent excavations formed a deposit belonging to the second quarter of the fifth century (Whitehouse et al. 1982, pp. 53-101 above) and they brought back memories of the many similar coins from the Forum deposits. The Director of the School, Dr. David Whitehouse, undertook to examine the possibility of joint work on the Forum coins, and approached the Soprintendente, Prof. A. La Regina, and the custodian of the coins, still Dott.ssa Dondero, with the very happy result that a programme of work was agreed by which the coins might be lodged at the British School for a full final examination.

The work of cleaning and identification was done during three two-week periods after Christmas in 1979, 1980 and 1981 by myself with two student assistants each time, and the final report was constructed at Easter 1982. The coins came from ten deposits and they have been kept, and are published, in these groups. This report is divided into two main sections, a summary of the coins (I), and a first essay in interpretation (II), in an attempt to keep quite separate the putting of these coins on record, so that others may use them for research, and the thoughts of one person on what they might represent.

PART I THE COINS

A first summary list of the coins and the groups to which they belong was published by Dott.ssa Dondero in 1952 in the rather short-lived periodical Antichità. As this is rarely found outside Rome it will be best to include some of the details on the groups and their possible find-spots. The groups are referred to throughout this report by the numbers first given to them by Dott.ssa Dondero, shown here always in lower case (deposits i to x) . Group i 'Monete trovate sul pavimento della Basilica Emilia.5 The coins of this

group were always very badly corroded and often fused into lumps which had to be prised off the marble flooring of the Basilica. These lumps remained as corroded blocks and could only be separated with difficulty. One block proved on first cleaning to be a discrete hoard enclosed in a layer of mineralized fabric. This was exposed as far as possible, photographed and recorded, but then cleaning was continued. This group is referred to as the Bag Hoard. It seems certain that the hoard and its container must have been burned for the carbonized



A COLLECTION OF COINS FROM THE CENTRE OF ROME 117

fabric to have been so completely mineralized by the corrosion products of the enclosed coins. The remains of the bronze stains on the marble flooring make it virtually certain that the provenance of this group is beyond criticism. As would be expected, however, some later coins were found in the same area in the upper deposits and some have been included.

Group ii 'Monete della Basilica Emilia di cui si conosce in massima parte il punto preciso e la data del ritrovamento.' This group is only generally associated with the basilica although it contained further corroded lumps obviously prised off the floor. Some earlier deposits must also have been dug into to account for the number of Greek and especially republican bronze coins which also showed fire damage, and in some cases were concreted together in groups which also included charcoal.

Group Hi 'Monete della Basilica Emilia delle quali non si conosce il punto preciso del ritrovamento.5 This third group may probably be quite safely taken as belonging to the Basilica and its immediate environs.

Group iv 'Monete di cui si ignora la provinienza.' This has always been recognised as a somewhat mixed group, so that any further information must come direct from a study of the coins.

Group v 'Monete provenienti dal Foro Romano.' The find spot cannot be further specified and it should be noted that a slight confusion over the catalogue numbers published (nos. 1324-1364) might make it difficult to be completely certain of the coins in the original group. As preserved in their trays they form a completely coherent group with the numbers 13024 to 13264.

Group vi 'Monete provenienti dalla Fonte di Giuturna.' This group has always been regarded as belonging to the latter part of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth.

Group vii 'Monete provenienti dalla Cloaca Massima.' This is a widely spread group which runs from the Republic through to the Byzantine period and beyond.

Group viii 'Monete rivenute nei vari scavi eseguiti al Velabro.' The very varied nature of this group suggests that it belongs mainly to surface clearance of several sites in the dip between the Palatine and Capitoline hills rather than to the detailed investigation of one particular monument.

Group ix 'Monete del Palatino.' This small group is noted as coming from 'località diverse del colle' and is spread through all the periods from the Republic onwards.

Group x 'Secondo gruppo provenienti dal Palatino.' These coins are now in chronological order and apparently belong to the excavations of Boni on the Domus Flavia and Domus Augustana, although there are other coins included 'di cui si ignora la provenienza precisa'.

The coins were stored in trays, in boxes, and some in plastic bags. In all cases the numbering of the coins was clear; all such numbering has been retained, and has been translated back into find groups from the original publication for the



118 RICHARD REECE

purposes of this report. No attempt has been made to collate the original publication with those identifications presented here, so that everything in this report is the direct result of first-hand observation; all coins listed existed in the groups specified at the time that the listing was done. Some sets of coins were already cleaned and these had only to be finally listed; others needed minor cleaning; some coins, such as the concreted lumps from the Basilica Aemilia, needed full chemical cleaning, and in these cases either zinc and 15 per cent Sodium Hydroxide or 10 per cent sulphuric acid were used. The cleaning and listing were done in the order that the coins were supplied by the Soprintendenza Archeologica, and were duly returned after examination, so that parts of different batches were seen in varying order, and there was never a time when any one group was to be seen spread out complete.1 This involved the detailed keeping of records as work proceeded, the originals of which, though perhaps illegible to any other workers, will be deposited in the library of the British School for record purposes. The original lists were collated as soon as possible after batches were complete, and final lists for each deposit were eventually obtained for all coins from Greek imports to the Byzantine issues of the sixth century. Medieval coins have been the subject of a separate study which is not yet complete.

Where coins could be fully identified they have been referred to standard texts : for the Republic, Crawford's Roman Republican Coinage, for the earlier Empire, Roman Imperial Coinage, and for the later Empire, Late Roman Bronze Coinage. Full details will be found in the references at the end of the report ; the relevant work is cited at the heading of the relevant chronological section of the catalogue. A careful decision has been taken to print the lists as they were constructed rather than to allow a process of tidying up'. This does involve a very small amount of incon- sistency, but in no case does this lead to the possibility of confusion, and it has the great virtue of truthfully representing the original observations rather than the doubtful vice of printing what ought to have been observed and recorded. Thus in some cases the reverse types of coins were described in full, 'VOT PVB gateway' for an issue of 425 to 455, whereas in other cases coins were compared to the works of reference and listed as 'As Late Roman Bronze Coinage 847'.

Coins up to 294 are listed by emperors. After 294 the coins are listed by mints in short chronological groups according to Roman Imperial Coinage, volume VI, 294 to 313, volume VII, 313 to 330, and from 330 onwards by Late Roman Bronze Coinage.

With ten different groups within this report a difficult decision had to be taken as to providing ten separate coin lists, one per group, which would have involved considerable duplication, or one consolidated list which would have erased all the information on the different groups. A compromise has been worked out which I hope combines flexibility, brevity, simplicity and clarity. Thus one list has been made, and each category of coin, for example the Neptune As of Agrippa, has been

lfrhat is why the catalogue does not use references to Roman Imperial Coinage VIII: that volume became available only after two years' work had already been done using Late Roman Bronze Coinage for coins of the period. Conversion of the references from LRBC to RIC VIII would only have been possible with all the relevant coins available for inspection again.




listed once only - Tiberius RIC 32. These coins occurred in several different deposits, and the reference number is therefore followed by the group in which the coins occur (in Roman lower case numerals) followed by the number of specimens (in arabic numerals in brackets). Thus 14 coins of Agrippa were seen; they are of RIC Tiberius numbers 32 and 34; of number 32 we have ii(l) iv(8) v(3) and of 34 v(2). This sums up the information that in deposit ii there was one coin of Tib 32, in iv, eight of those coins, in v, three, and that Tib 34 only occurred - two specimens - in deposit v. The punctuation of these lists is important : commas separate coin types such as different reference numbers, whereas semi-colons separate larger groups such as denominations, mints, reverse groups, etc. Thus the absence of punctuation means that all the substance relates back to the last mentioned reference number or description.

Apology must be made for the poor section on the Greek coins. This must be taken as simply a notice that such coins do exist for further study. My expertise was simply inadequate to deal with the coins, and I hope that someone will make good the deficiency at a later date. For the fifth century, none of the works of reference comprehensively covered the monogram issues of small module which span the regular coinage of the Imperial mints and the less well regulated coins of the Vandals and the Ostrogoths. The monograms which were legible have therefore been reproduced as seen even though some of these can clearly be related to the lists in Late Roman Bronze Coinage, The coins described as Vandal are of the module and style which I have come to expect in great numbers in the coins from both the British and Italian excavations at Carthage. Thus a coin described as a 'Vandal Angel' is not simply the result of failing to recognise the difficult issues from the mint of Rome in the fifth century which often portray Victory, it is a considered judgement that such coins are best paralleled in Carthage, and may therefore be of Vandal or African minting in the years 450 to 540.

With these apologies, explanations and directions I present the Catalogue.

CATALOGUE

108 Greek Athens bronze owl iii, Carthage early 3rd C BC horse and palm tree ii, KYE Bronze ii, Mamertini as BMC 25 iv, Mars in Corinthian helmet ix, Naples silver - head with dolphins ii(2) iv(2), Ptolemaic large bronze v, South Italy - horse's head iii, Thasos copy of tetradrachm - silver plate on copper core - head of Bacchus r iv, Thunderbolt v, as BMC (Italy) Uria 6 v, bronze - otherwise uncertain ii(20), iii (9), iv(46), v(14), viii(4), ix(l).

892 Republic Cesano No 1378 p 126 Aes Grave Eagle/Octopus iv Sydenham 38 iv, 52 iv, 109 iv Crawford 18/4 v(2), 26/3 ii, 38/5 vii, 38/6 vii, 38/7 vii, 41/9 v, 56/2 iv(3), as 56/2 ii, 56/3 vii, 56/4 v(3) vii (1), 56/6 v, 98A/1 ii (2), 174/1 ii(3), viii(l), 176/1 ii, as 197 ii, 201/1 ii, 201/2 iv, 204/2 ii, 206/7 ii, 216/2a v, 219/2 ii, 232/1 ii, 232/4 ii, 240/2a ii, 244/2 ii, 256/4a viii, 257/4 viii, 261/1 ii, 266/1 ii, 266/2 v, 270/1 ii, 273/1 ii, 275/1 ii, 281/1 ii, 285/1 ii, 285/2 ii(3), 286/1 ii(2), 289/1 ii, 291/1 ii, 301/1 ii, 304/1 ix, 332/1 iii, 340/1 ii, 341/4.a.viii, 342/7.b.ii(2) iv(l), 346/3 ii(2), 346/4.b.ii, 348/1 iii, 361/l.c.ii, 363/l.a.ii, 432/1 iv, 476/l.a.iv, 476/I.b.iv, 494/23 iv, 535/1 iv(3 + 1 halved) v(2) x(l). Anonymous issues : Denarius illegible ii, Sextans illegible v. Plated denarius obverse as Crawford 500/3 reverse as 505/3 ix.



120 RICHARD REECE

Republican coins otherwise illegible: Denarius ii(7) iii(2) iv(l) v(l); Plated core of denarius ii(l) iii(l) iv(l); Victoriatus ii(l) v(l); Quinarius ii(l) iv(l), plated quinarius iv(l), As ii (446) iii(7) iv(12) v(153) vii(2) viii(I) x(5), halved asses iii(l) iv(13); Semis ii(l) iii(3) iv(l) vii(l); Triens ii(l) v(2) ix(l); Quadrans ii(3) iii(2) iv(l) ix(l) x(l); Sextans iv(2); Uncia iv(l) viii(l); Uncertain fractions ii(117) v(10).

27 B.C. to a.d. 294 Roman Imperial Coinage I-V 91 Augustus 18 iv, 79 vii(l) ix(l), 74(iv), 75 vii, 80 ii (2) iv(l) vii(l), 84 iv(2) viii(l),

88-9 ii, 94 x, 98 iv, 144 x, 180 iv(4), 181 iv(2) viii(l), 182 iii(l) iv(3), as 182 ii, 185 iv, 186 iv(l) x(l), 189 iv(3) viii(l), 190 iv, J92 iv(3), J95 v, 196 iv(2), 198 iv, 201 iv, 202 iv(2), 204A iv, 205 iv, 209 iv, 210 iv, 21 1 A iv, 215 iv(2) vii(l), 216 iv, 217 ii(l) iv(l), 218 iv(3) viii(l), 219 iv(2) v(l); Sestertius OB Cives Servatos iv, illegible ii; Dupondius illegible ii; As Moneyers otherwise illegible iii (2) iv( 1 1 ) viii( 1 ), Nimes otherwise illegible iv, illegible ii(3) v(2) ; Quadrans caduceus iii, altar vi, illegible i.

23 Divus 1 iv(2), 2 iv(l) vii(l), 3 iv(2) vii(2), 6 i(l) iv(12) vii(l) ix(l). Augustus Pater

24 Tiberius 15 iv(l) vii(l), 16 iv, 18 vii, 20 iii, 25 ii(l) iii(l) iv(l), 26 iv, 28 iv, 39 iv(3) x(l), 40 iv(8) ix(l); As- altar type iv.

14 Agrippa (Tiberius) 32 ii(l) iv(8) v(3), 34 v(2). 16 Caius 30 iv(l) viii(l), 32 iv(l) viii(l), 38 ii(l) iv(2) ix(l), 40 iv(l) vii(2), 42 iii,

44 iv, 47 iii ; As of Carthago Nova iv, Quadrans illegible iv. 52 Claudius 60 vii(l) ix(l), 62 iv, 64 iv(3) v(l), 66 iv(5) v(3) vii(l) x(l), 67 iv, 68 ii(l)

iv(l) v(l) viii(l), 69 iii(l) iv(4) v(l) x(l), 72 ii(2) iv(4) vii(2), 74 ii(l) iv(7) v(4) ix(l), 82 x, 84 iii.

6 Nero 139 v, 169 ii, 206 ii, 318 iii, 426-8 v, As illegible ii. 4 Galba 35 vii, 60 v(l) x(l), 64 vii. 16 Vespasian 522 vii, 527 iii(l) vii(l), 545 vii, 554 viii, 555 ix, 557 iv, 567 iii, 582 iv;

Dupondius illegible v; As illegible iv(l) v(2) vii(l) viii(l) x(l). 8 Titus (Vespasian) 664 ii.

(Titus) 94 ix, 122 vii(2), 123 vii, 129.b.ii, 133 vii, 135 iv. 19 Domitian (Vespasian) 710 v; As illegible ix.

(Domitian) 232 iv, 242 vii, 278A iv, 301 iv, 335 iv, 367 vii, 385a iii(l) viii(l), 393 v, 421a iii, 434 v; Denarius illegible ii; Sestertius illegible vii; As illegible ii(3) vii(l).

1 Anonymous Quadrans RIC ii no. 6 ii. 3 Nerva 60 v, 62 v, 87 viii. 10 First Century As illegible ii(2) ; Small bronze iv (1 -h I counter marked) ; Quadrans

illegible iv(6). 16 Trajan 395 iv(l) x(l), 410 v, 476 i, 527 vii, 570 vii, 695 ii; Denarius illegible iv;

Sestertius illegible ii(l) v(l) viii(l); Dupondius illegible viii; As illegible vii(3) x(l).

24 Hadrian 600 v, 605 vii, 616 vii, 654 v, 669 viii, 676 vii, 682 vii, 716 ix, 795 vii, 824 vii, 970 vii; Sestertius illegible ii(l) v(l); As - Restitutori illegible vii, illegible ii(l) iv(4) vii(2) viii(l); Greek Imperial bronze - semis size iv(2).

1 Sabina Sestertius illegible v. 27 Antoninus Pius 648 ii, 694.b.iii, 809 viii, 822 viii, 830 vii, 834 iv, as 842 but As vii, 862a iv,

909a ii; Contorniate with rim - illegible ii; Sestertius illegible i (3) ii(l) v(l), halved v; Dupondius illegible i; As illegible iii(2) iv(2) v(2) viii(2) ix(l). (Marcus Aurelius) 1270 vii.

5 Faustina I (Antoninus Pius) 1 155 vii, 1 159 i, 1 167 ii; Sestertius illegible v; As illegible ii. 17 Marcus Aurelius (Antoninus Pius) 1238 vii, 1264 ii, 1305 iv(l) v(l), 1361 viii.

(Marcus Aurelius) 145 vii, 834 vii, 839 vii, 959 ii, 960 v, 1226 viii, 1247 vii; Sestertius illegible v; As illegible ii(2) v(2).




8 Faustina II (Antoninus Pius) 1389 viii, 1409 v; Sestertius illegible iv(l) v(l); As illegible vii(3) viii(l).

3 Lucilia (Marcus Aurelius) 1741 ix; As illegible v(l) vii(l). 9 Commodus (Marcus Aurelius) 1588 vii.

(Gommodus) 302 iii, 318 vii, 425 vii, 509 vii(2), 533 v; Sestertius illegible i(l) iv(l).

1 Crispina (Gommodus) 679 vii. 24 First to Second Sestertius illegible iii(3) v(l) viii(l); As illegible iii(5) iv(4) v(3) vi(4)

Century viii(l) ; halved As illegible iii (2). 2 Second Century Denarius illegible ii; Sestertius illegible ii. 4 Septimius Severus Denarius illegible iv; Sestertius illegible ii; As illegible vii(l) ix(l). 2 Julia Domna Sestertius illegible ii ( 1 ) vii ( 1 ) . 6 Caracalla 500 iv, as 506 vii, 532 viii, 533 v; Sestertius illegible vi; Dupondius illegible

iii. 1 Elagabalus 280 iv. 1 Julia Soemias Plated denarius obv. type 2 rev. Salus - note p. 164. ix. 10 Severus Alexander 397 x, 456 iv, 515 iv, 525 viii, 538 v, 601 v, ?626 v, 648 ii(l), v(l), vii(l). 2 Julia Mamaea 676 v( 1 ) ix( 1 ) . 2 Maximinus I Thrax 67 ii, 78 iv. 9 Gordian III 301 viii, 302 ii, 305 iv, 307a ix, 308 viii, 332 iv; Sestertius illegible i; As

illegible iv(l), viii(l). 8 Philip I 150 vii, 158 ii, 160 vii, 167 vii, 169.b.iv, 177 viii, 194 ix; As illegible vi. 3 Philip II 255a ix, 256 iv, 268 iv. 3 Trajan Decius 11 vii, 120 ix, 124 viii. 2 Trebonianus Gallus 105.b.viii; Sestertius illegible ii. 3 Volusian 253 ix, 256 iv(l) vii(l). 9 Third Century Sestertius illegible v, with rim iii; As illegible ii(2) v(2) ix(3). 1 Valerian I 160 ii. 29 Gallienus As 157 viii(l) ix(l), as 159 but e ii(2), 160 v, 163 v, 165 ii, 178 ii(2), 180 viii,

207 v, 208 ii(4), 221 viii, 258 i, 282 v, 284 i, 617 v; illegible ii(4) iii(2) v(l) vi(2).

3 Salonina 5 ii, 12 ii, 28 ii. 21 Claudius II 15 ii, as 38 iii, 48 v, 66 v, 178 viii, 261 ii(3) iii(l) iv(2) v(l), copy as 261 ii(l)

v(l); illegible ii(2) iii(3) v(l) viii(l). 1 Tetricus II 270 ii. 14 Aurelian 53 viii, as 53 viii, as 56 ix, 79 iv, 139 i, 140 ii, as 142 viii, 147- description

as 149- ii, 154 viii, 184 v, 257 vii, 362 v; illegible v(l) vi(l). 1 Severina 7 As iv. 2 Tacitus 89 ii; illegible iii. 6 Probus 158 ii, 185 viii, 203 ii, as 731 i; illegible iii(l) v(l). 1 Carus 75 ii. 1 Carinus Illegible iii. 1 Numerian 409 viii. 6 Diocletian Pre-reform radiates illegible ii(4) iii (2). 22 Radiates Regular post-274 i(4) ii(5); Regular illegible ii(4) iii(4) v(l) vi(2) viii(l);

Barbarous illegible vi.

294-317 Roman Imperial Coinage, Volumes 6 and 7 6 294-305 1 Ticinum As 36.b.viii. 6 Rome 76.a.vii, 77.a.iv, as 77.a. - nomm. - viii, 77.b.i, 78 i, 88.b.iv. 1 Carthage *27.b.ii. 2 Cyzicus 15.a.x, 16.b.v. 8 Alexandria 46.a.x, 46.b.i(l) x(2), 48.a.ii(2) x(l), 48.b.ii.



122 RICHARD REECE

13 Mint Uncertain *Follis otherwise illegible ii(l) iii(l). Radiate fraction VOT XX ii(4) iii(2) iv(l); VOT X ii. Radiate fraction otherwise illegible i (2) v(l).

31 ""Folies' (3) Otherwise fractions (28).

6 305-313 16 Rome 162 ii, as 196 iv(l) vii(l), 2O2.a.ix, 208 ii(2) x(l), 209 ii, *238 iv, *239 ix,

as 258 i(3), *281.c.v, as 348.a.i(l) ix(l). 3 Ostia 14 viii, *58 i, *60 iii. 1 Carthage As 51.b.v. 1 7 Mint Uncertain Galerius reverse illegible ii.

Soli Invicto Gomiti i(l) ii(4) iii(2) viii(3) ix(l). Iovi Conservatori ii(4) ix(l).

37 'Folies' (32) *Fractions (5)

7 313-317 1 Lyon Soli Invicto Corniti illegible iv. 1 Aries 71 ii. 7 Rome 12 vii(l) viii(l), 19 viii, 27 viii, 40 vi; Soli Invicto Corniti illegible v(2). 1 Aquileia Soli Invicto Corniti illegible v. 1 Antioch 7 ix. 1 Alexandria Iovi Conservatori illegible iii. 4 Mint Uncertain Soli Invicto Corniti i(l) ii(l) v(l); Iovi Conservatori ii.

16

7 317-324 2 Trier 372 ix, 400 viii. 2 Aries 125 ii, 200 ix. 4 Ticinium 142 ix, 162 ii, 167 ii, 174 v. 24 Rome As 104 ii(l) v(4) vi(2), 106 i v, as 106 v, 110 ii, 111 ii, 112 v, 116i(l) vii(l),

120 v, 123 ii(2), 190 v, 209 vii, 225 ix, 232 ii, 238 ii, 247 vi; D N Constantini Max Aug illegible i.

1 Aquileia Virtus Exercitus illegible v. 2 Thessalonika 101 ii, D N Constantini Max Aug illegible i. 2 Heraclea 48 ii, 52 iv. 1 Antioch 36 iv. 18 Mint Uncertain Victoriae Laetae Princ Perp ii(2) iii(l) iv(l).

Virtus Exercit ii ( 1 ) iii ( 1 ) vi ( 1 ) . Caesarum Nostrorum i(l) ii(5) iv(l). D N Constantini Max Aug v (2) ix(2).

56

7 324-330 2 Aries 264 ii, 309 i. 3 Rome 322 v; Providentiae Augg illegible iii(l) v(l). 1 Aquileia Providentiae Augg illegible v. 1 Thessalonika 128 vii.




3 Heraclea 74 ii, 106 v; Providentiae Augg iii. 2 Constantinople As 35 ii, 140 viii. 1 Bronze Medallion Gonstantine I reverse uncertain ii. 7 Mint Uncertain Providentiae Augg i(l) ii(2) iii(l).

Salus Reipublicae ii; Securitas Reipublice ix. Lines of legend iii.

20

330-348 Late Roman Bronze Coinage - Part I 330-335 1 Trier Gloria Exercitus 2 Standards viii. 1 Aries 375 ii. 22 Rome 531 vi, 535 vi, 536 vii, 540 ii(2) ix(l), 541 ii(l) ix(l), 542 ii, 544 ix(6),

546 vii(l) viii(l), 548 v; Gloria Exercitus 2 Standards iii(l) viii(l); Urbs Romaii(l) v(l).

2 Siscia 745 vii, 747 viii. 1 Thessalonika 838 vi. 5 Heraclea 898 viii, 904 iv, 909 vii, 917 vii; Gloria Exercitus 2 Standards iii. 5 Constantinople 1010 v, 1015 ii; Gloria Exercitus 2 Standards iii(l) x(l); Urbs Roma ii. 1 Nicomedia Gloria Exercitus 2 Standards ii. 2 Cyzicus 1232 v, 1233 ii. 2 Alexandria 1430 ii, 1431 ii.

335-341 2 Aries 412 v; Gloria Exercitus 1 Standard vi. 6 Rome 564 vii, 567 vi, 571 vii, 575 ii, 580 ii, as 581 vi. 1 Aquileia Gloria Exercitus 1 Standard vi. 2 Siscia 782 ii; Gloria Exercitus 1 Standard i. 1 Thessalonika 848 v. 2 Constantinople 1036 ii; Gloria Exercitus 1 Standard x. 2 Nicomedia 1142 viii; Gloria Exercitus 1 Standard i. 2 Cyzicus 1273 vi; Gloria Exercitus 1 Standard x. 64 Mint Uncertain Gloria Exercitus 1 Standard i(8) ii(ll) iii(5) v(6) vi(22) viii (6).

Pax Publica iii; Quadriga vi(2); Virtus Augusti ii(l) vi(2).

82

341-348 1 Aries Aeterna Pietas iv. 2 Rome 642 viii, 643 viii. 1 Aquileia 701 ix. 1 Siscia Victoriae DD Augg QNN vi. 7 Constantinople 1052 ii(2), 1056 viii; Populus Romanus ii(l) v(l) vi(l); VOT XX MULT

XXX iii. 3 Cyzicus VOT XX MULT XXX i(l) vi(l) viii(l). 4 Antioch 1398 ii; lust Ven Mem v; VOT XX MULT XXX iii(l) vi(l). 141 Mint Uncertain Victoriae DD Augg QNN i(7) ii(10) iii(20) iv(l) v(6) vi(33) viii(16).

VOT XX MULT XXX i(19) ii(4) iii(12) vi(6) viii(4). lust Ven Mem ii(l) vi(2).

160



124 RICHARD REECE

348-350 Late Roman Bronze Coinage - Part II 1 Trier 35 ii. 1 Aries Fel Temp Reparatio Hut i. 1 Rome 591 v. 1 Siscia 1140 viii. 1 Constantinople 2022 vi. 1 Cyzicus 2485 ii. 9 Mint Uncertain Fel Temp Reparatio- Phoenix ii(l) vi(3); Hut ii; Galley i(l) ii(l) vi(2).

15

350-355 9 Aries 429 ii, 438 viii, 455 viii, Fel Temp Reparatio Fallen Horseman type 3 i(2)

v(2); type uncertain ii(l), iii(l). 28 Rome 653 ii, 654 viii, 657 iv, 662 vi(l) viii(2), 664 ii, 667 ii(l) v(l), 674 viii,

676 viii, 677 viii, 680 vi; Magnentius Two Victories i(2) iii(l); FTRFH type 2a iii(l); type 3 i(3) viii(l); type 4 i(l) v(2) viii(l); type uncertain ii(l) vi(l) x(l).

3 Aquileia 896 ii, 925 viii; Magnentius Two Victories iii(l). 4 Siscia 1206 ii, FTRFH type 3 i(3). 6 Thessalonika 1681 ii(l) v(l) viii(l); FTRFH type 3 i(l), type 4 i(l); type uncertain

iii(l). 2 Heraclea FTRFH type 3 i(l) viii(l). 7 Constantinople 2029 ii, 2039 vi; FTRFH type 3 i(5). 4 Cyzicus FTRFH type 3 i(2) iv( 1 ) ; type 4 i( 1 ) . 3 Antioch FTRFH type 3 i(I) ; type 4 i(l) ; type uncertain iii(l). 771 Mint Uncertain Magnentius Two Victories i(3) ii(5) iii(6) iv(3) viii(l);

Magnentius Salus Chi-Ro iii(l). FTRFH type 3 i(50) iv(13) v(3) viii(6) ix(3); type 4 i(9) iv(4) v(l) viii(9); type uncertain ii(117) iii(182) iv(25) v(4) vi(280) vii(l) viii(43) x(l). type 3 overstruck on Urbs Roma obverse on reverse iv.

837

355-361 1 Trier Spes Reipublice iii. 3 Aries 458 iv; Spes Reipublice iii(2). 14 Rome 684 viii(2), 687 vi(5) viii(2), 689 vii, as 689 ii, Spes Reipublice v(l) vi(2). 1 Siscia 1228 viii. 2 Cyzicus 2502 ix, 2503 ix. 1 Alexandria Spes Reipublice iii ( 1 ) . 348 Mint Uncertain Spes Reipublice i(29) ii(48) iii(83) iv(17) v(7) vi(139) viii(24) ix(l).

370

361-364 1 Lyon 268 ii. 2 Aries 470 iv; Julian VOT X/XX i. 22 Rome 695 iv(l) viii(l), 696 ii(4) iv(l) ix(l), 697 viii; Julian VOT X/XX i(l)

ii(6) iii(l) v(2) vi(l) viii(2). 2 Siscia 1267 vi; Julian VOT X/XX vi. 1 Sirmium 1619 i v.




71 Mint Uncertain Julian VOT X/XX i(5) ii(17) iii(25) iv(l) v(2) vi(10) viii(2) ix(l); Isis i(l) ii(l) iii(3) vi(l); Jovian VOT V i(l) ii(l).

100

364-378 1 Trier Securitas Reipublicae iv. 1 Lyon 305 iv. 17 Aries 481 viii, 483 ii, 507 ii; Gloria Romanorum iii(l) v(l) vi(l); Securitas

Reipublicae i(l) ii(l); Gloria Novi Saeculi i(3) ii(l) iii(4) iv(l). 55 Rome 700 viii, 705 ii, 711 viii, 713 ii(l) vii(l) viii(l), 721 ii, 724 ii, 725 ii(3) iv(2)

vi(l), 726 ii, 730 ii(6), 733 vi, 736 ii(3) vi(l), 737 ii(l) ix(l), 738 viii; Gloria Romanorum i(2) vi(l) viii(l) x(l); Securitas Reipublicae i(10) ii(3) iii(l) iv(l) v(l) vi(2) viii(2) ix(l).

28 Aquileia 968 iv, 973 ii, 1012 ii, 1016 ii, 1039 ii(2), 1040 ii, Gloria Romanorum i(6) vi(l) viii(l); Securitas Reipublicae i(8) iii(l) iv(l) vi(3).

43 Siscia 1271 viii, 1272 vi, 1273 v, 1279 ii, 1287 vi(l) viii(2), 1302 ii, 1303 ii, 1304 ii, 1328 ii, 1333 ii, 1334 ii(2), 1344 iv, 1373 ii, 1377 vii, 1485 ii(2), 1503 ii; Gloria Romanorum i(4) ii(l) iii(l) vi (2); Securitas Reipublicae i(ll) iii(2) v(l) ix(l).

1 Sirmium 1634 iv. 20 Thessalonika 1719 ii(2), 1722 ii(2), 1725 ii, 1796 ii; Gloria Romanorum i(3) ii(l) iii(4)

vi(3); Securitas Reipublicae i(3). 1 Heraclea Securitas Reipublicae iv. 6 Constantinople 2066 ii, 2113 ii; Gloria Romanorum i (2); Securitas Reipublicae i(l) iv(l). 1 Nicomedia Securitas Reipublicae i. 1 Cyzicus Securitas Reipublicae i. 5 Antioch Gloria Romanorum iii(l) viii (3) ; Securitas Reipublicae viii. 1 Alexandria Securitas Reipublicae vi. 870 Mint Uncertain Gloria Romanorum i(50) ii(83) iii(86) iv(39) v(2) vi(43) viii(8) ix(l).

Securitas Reipublicae i(65) ii(118) iii(169) iv(38) v(4) vi(123) viii(38) ix(3).

906

378-383 1 Arles Concordia Auggg i. 4 Rome 766 v; Concordia Auggg i(2) ; VOT XV/XX i. 1 Aquileia 1058 vii. 2 Siscia Concordia Auggg i; VOT Uncertain i. 1 Thessalonika 1816 ii. 1 Heraclea 1960 iv. 2 Cyzicus VOT V iii; VOT Uncertain i. 1 Antioch 2741 vi. 92 Mint Uncertain VOT X iii(2) ; VOT XV/XX ii(l) iii(3) vi(3) ; VOT Uncertain i(4) ii(16)

iii(23) iv(5) vi(22) viii(3); Concordia Auggg ii(l) iii(5) vi(l) viii(l); Virtus Romanorum ii(2).

105

383-388 8 Rome As 775 ii, 782 ii(l) viii(l), 789 ii, 790 ii; Two Victories viii(3). 3 Aquileia 1084 iv, 1086 iv; Two Victories v.



126 RICHARD REECE

1 Siscia As 1560 iii. 28 Mint Uncertain Reparado Reipub ii(l) iv(l) ; Magnus Maximus Gateway iii; Two Victories

i(2) iii(8) iv(2) v(4) viii(5); Virtus Exercitus i(l) ii(l) iv(l) viii(l).

40

388-392 2 Rome Salus Reipublicae i(2). 4 Aquileia Salus Reipublicae i (4). 1 Siscia 1575 vi. 3 Thessalonika 1854 ii, 1862 i, 1865 ii. 3 Constantinople 2183 ii; Salus Reipublicae iii(2). 1 Nicomedia Salus Reipublicae i.

14

392-408 247 Rome Urbs Roma Felix i(57) ii(66) iii(94) iv(7) v(3) iv(7) viii(8) ix(2); Priscus

Attalus826ii(l) iii(2). 155 Mint Uncertain Victoria Auggg iv(6) vi(4); Salus Reipublicae 1(11) ii(3) iii(2) iv(4) v(2)

vi (16) viii(9) ; Victory Uncertain ii(45) iii (51) ; Gloria Romanorum type 19 ii(l) iii(l).

402

408-423 7 Rome Victoria Augg v(l) vi(l) viii(5).

425-455 6 Rome As 847 viii, as 856 viii, as 868 mm */-/RP viii; VOT PVB Gateway vi;

VOTXXiv(2). 1 Constantinople Cross in Wreath v.

7

Fourth to early fifth century 2210 Mints Uncertain Reverses illegible i(57) ii(583) iii(637) iv(121) v(43) vi(576) vii(l) viii(128)

ix(64).

455-540 1 Ravenna Victoria Auggg as 586 viii. 28 Monograms

Marcian Uncertain ix; Completely Uncertain iv(l) v(10). 167 Kingdoms Vandal - Hahn 14 plate 42 - XLII on As of Vespasian v; Vandal Angel

v(5); Angel with wreath v; Cross in hairy wreath v; type uncertain v(19); type illegible v( 140).

5 Athalaric BMC Vandals as 65 vi, 69 pi VIII No 24 iv(2). Theoderic BMC Ostrogoths as 42 ff viii(l) ix(l).

201




rXl v. PvTv. i^v. [\Lv. IFNv. K \j or CloC v(3|.

TKk KL P^u. 1/W Byzantine 498-650 Dumbarton Oaks 1 Anastasius D.O. 23.j. v. 10 Justinian I D.O. 217.1. viii(2), 286.d.3. ii, as 330 v, 331 v(2), 363-2. iv, 370.2. iv,

follis iv, V nummi x. 6 Justin II D.O. 206.2. vi, 207 v(l) vi(l), 217 v(l) vi(l), XX Nummi ix. 2 Maurice Tiberius D.O. 294 ii, as 294 v. 2 Constans II BMC 311-20 iii(l) ix(l). 1 Heraclius D.O. as 263 v. 1 Sixth to Seventh XX Nummi otherwise uncertain v. Century

23

Bag Hoard, Basilica Aemilia, Groups i or ii This group of coins was completely enclosed in a mineralised 'bag* woven of thread similar to a coarse linen. No coin later than the issue Urbs Roma Felix ( ?a.d. 408) could be identified. No mint marks were legible. House of Constantine Two Victories (1); VOT XX MVLT XXX (2); Fel Temp Reparatio

Fallen Horseman (6); Spes Reipublice (5). House of Valentinian Securitas Reipublicae (5). House of Theodosius Two victories ( 1 ) ; Urbs Roma Felix (4) . Illegible coins (40). Corroded fragments Many molten droplets and fused lumps (36).

A small hoard of 71 bronze coins of the Rome mint, 345-8, associated with the Palatine material - group x - will be the subject of a separate short article in Coin Hoards.



128 RICHARD REECE

PART II INTERPRETATION AND COMMENT

One of the most important points about the collection which really needs to be settled before any commentary can begin is its integrity. While there is no reason to suspect any additions to the collection from other areas of the city, or from outside Rome, the position on coin removed from the group is unfortunately a matter of complete uncertainty. It is generally assumed, and the execrable condition of the majority of pieces in the group fully bears this out, that the better pieces were removed to other collections, but in the absence of documentation it is best simply to regard the group of coins under consideration as probably the remnant of a once larger and finer collection.

Once it is admitted that the collection is incomplete then certain restrictions must be applied to any commentary, although many points will be unaffected. Thus there is little point in discussing the relative numbers of silver denarii and sestertii and asses since the silver and larger bronze coins will probably have been preferentially selected out of the collection. There will probably be a bias against silver and larger coins, and in favour of smaller coins. But it would be unreasonable to suspect any selector of going conscientiously through the asses of Augustus selecting out those of just one set of moneyers, so within the moneyers' asses of Augustus the relative numbers of different sets of moneyers might have some basic archaeological value and validity.

The ratio between the larger coins of the early Empire up to 250, and the smaller coins of the later Empire is almost certainly suspect, and biased against the earlier coins. But, again, it would be highly surprising if any selector before the present time would have gone through the Two soldiers with Two standards' issue of the House of Constantine selecting out only the coins struck in the mint of Nicomedia, so that, while the relationship between the large issues of Julian and the smaller issues of 330-5 may be badly altered, within either issue the mints represented may well be an accurate sample of what was originally found. As a final example, it would be unreasonable to accuse a selector of taking poorly preserved 'folies' of the time of Diocletian in preference to finer asses or dupondii of the High Empire, so that when these survive in reasonable numbers the absence of such 'folies' is unlikely to be due to a selector.

With these points in mind attention may be drawn to some of the interesting points on the list. This must obviously be a selection, since it would be possible to prolong the report indefinitely by commenting on each type of coin as it occurs. Matters of comparison will, for the most part, be left on one side while the basic nature of the list is established.

While most of the coins found can be classed as casual losses it is doubtful to what extent the few Aes Grave and early cast coins can be so described. Most of the finds can be assumed to come from usual types of archaeological layer such as the fills of pits and trenches, construction deposits, flattened rubbish heaps and so on. In many cases the exact nature of the layer in which each coin was found would add only a limited amount to our knowledge of the use of the coin. In the case of these large lumps of cast bronze it would be of the highest interest to know in what context they had been deposited and what the chances could have been that such




deposition was accidental. The later republican coins give a general sample of the bronze produced between the late third century and the middle of the second century b.c. There seems to be a gap between the issues of about 200 and 160 b.c., and this might be attributed to the difficulty of identifying the series marked by symbols when the coins are in worn condition. This explanation will not hold, since the issues of c. 180 b.c. onwards with letters are also apparently missing.

The gentle flow of bronze coins continues from about 160 to about 130 b.c., when silver begins to be more commonly found. This simply represents the more common minting of silver and the comparative rarity of bronze. There seems to be no simple connection between the commonness of the bronze republican issues as listed by Crawford from the Paris collections and the survival of such coins in these deposits. Certain issues of the later second and first centuries b.c. may appear to be more than usually common, such as the three prow issue of C. Vibius Pansa, 342, and the jugate heads of C. Censorinus, 346. It must be true that the unusual designs described mark these coins out as easier to identify on worn examples than normal, and it is impossible to allow for this bias. The republican series ends with the Caesarian bronze of issue 476 and the early bronze issues of Octavian, 535, and these issues lead straight on to the Augustan issues.

From Augustus to Claudius the coins represent a general selection of the dupondii and asses commonly available with an admixture of sestertii and small set of moneyers of Augustus, nor on one particular reverse such as Minerva, for change. The types are varied, thus there is no very obvious concentration on one Claudius. The Minerva reverse is the most common, whether in Rome, or Spain, or Britain, but in Rome it takes its place as the best represented in a series of reverses whereas outside the City it seems to be the basis of the bronze coinage. The long reign of Augustus provides 55 larger coins and 35 quadrantes, the four years of Gaius provide nine larger coins and seven quadrantes, and a theoretical 13 years for Claudius, 31 larger coins and 21 quadrantes. It is clear that Gaius is well represented here in the centre of the administration; there is no suggestion whatsoever that his coins are rare due to any withdrawal as a result of damnatio memoriae, and if this is not in evidence at Rome it would seem a most unlikely suggestion to explain the absence of coins of Gaius from military sites in Germany or Britain. In this collection, which is almost certainly biased against large coins, quadrantes show up quite well, in better numbers for instance than in the coins dredged from the Tiber (Reece 1981). Their numbers are still not large enough, even in this sample biased in their favour, to represent small change as we know it in our use of modern money; this must therefore be one more piece of evidence against a money market based on the smallest coins available. With a value of 1,600 to the gold piece, not far from the value of the Diocletianic denarius, the quadrans counts as 'change necessary for equity' rather than 'money useful for shopping', and resembles the modern Jp rather than the Victorian farthing.

The lack of coinage of Nero cannot be completely explained by noting the restriction of his period of issue of bronze coins to the years 64-8, for his six coins compare unfavourably with the 16 for the four years of Gaius or the four for the year of Galba. While the high quality of his coins may have counted against him in the process of selection which we are assuming, it is strange that few of his common



130 RICHARD REECE

asses or small denominations have been noted. The most obvious characteristic of the coinage of Domitian is the way that it is well spaced out through the reign, in marked distinction to similar coinage in Britain which clumps around the issues of a.d. 86 with the titles COS XII CENS PER. The knowledge that coinage at the source is equally spaced, but that in one remote province it is clumped does suggest a means of examining the whole problem of supply, and strongly argues for the full and detailed publication of coin lists from as many widely spaced areas of the Empire as possible.

The coinage of Hadrian is of a very general character and completely avoids the Provincial issues except for an illegible RESTITVTORI type which could, of course, have related to Italy. The investigation of the distribution of these series would obviously be of interest and, as a first hypothesis put forward mainly for attack, it might be suggested that the series were intended for the provinces, rather than as about the provinces. Following on this line it is worth noting the absence of Britannia asses and dupondii of Hadrian and of Antoninus Pius when both are well known in Britain itself.

Septimius Severus, like Nero, is rather conspicuous by his absence. That this is more than accident or purposeful selection is suggested by the excellent coins of Caracalla, especially of the Circus Maximus in almost perfect condition (RIC 500), a very rare find. The one coin of Elagabalus shows the reverse of Roma, and this follows on the line of the sestertius of Caracalla. While the absence of obvious provincial issues has been noted, it would be interesting to examine the issues concerned with Rome if only there were comparable material in the Mediterranean area, and a background against which to compare.

The series of bronze coins of Severus Alexander are again well spaced out through the reign, while those of Gordian III are concentrated around 241-2. They follow the general pattern of the early third century in forming a series of sestertii and asses without the introduction of silver, so that the battle of the denarius and the new radiate is unseen in these deposits. This may, as always, be due to selection of silver, or silvery coins out of the group, but the prevalence of bronze does follow the general Italian pattern. Base silver radiates appear around 250, but do not become common until the sole reign of Gallienus after 260. All of Gallienus' 29 coins are radiates, and all but one belong to the mint of Rome; the import belongs to the mint of 'Asia'.

The general pattern of radiate coins is thin. This is surprising, since the coins are most unlikely to have been selected out of the group and their absence today must reflect an absence of loss. All the consecration issues of Claudius II are of the Altar type, not the eagle, and two of these coins are copies, the only coins in the group which can be classed as Barbarous Radiates. The presence of only one coin from the Gallic Empire, Tetricus II, underlines the affiliation of the Claudius copies to the Mediterranean series rather than to the prolific copies of North Gaul and Britain.

With the reign of Aurelian two features are worth comment. Large bronzes, called Asses in RIC, make a last brief appearance; while their existence is well known their appearance as site finds, perhaps diagnostic of general use, is note- worthy. Among the radiates the proliferation of mints now becomes obvious with




the following representation: Rome - 4, Milan - 4, Ticinum - 1, Siscia - 2, and Cyzicus - 1. For Probus there are three coins of Rome to one of Siscia, and the one coin of Carus is of Ticinum. In general this coinage of the late third century is rather scrappy and disjointed; larger deposits will be needed to explore the problems of circulation and use in any great detail.

Most features of the fourth century are best dealt with later in comparative detail. For the moment I shall restrict myself to direct comment on the presence and absence of certain coins. In the period 294 to 305 the balance of 28 fractions (all radiate) to only three 'folies5 is surprising from the viewpoint of the North-West provinces, but normal from the viewpoint of Carthage. As I suggested earlier I do not believe that the absence of the larger denomination can be solely due to selection out of the collection ; rather, the differential distribution of denominations is a real phenomenon which demands plotting and explanation. We may be seeing here a continuation of the pattern by which silver denarii of the early third century are more common on the frontiers and sestertii of the same period are more common in the Mediterranean area (Reece 1973). This factor of 4: 1 works very well whether with denarii : sestertii or 'folies' : radiate fractions, perhaps too neatly to inspire confidence. Whatever the reasoning the phenomenon is short lived, because the decline of the 'follis' meant the quick elimination of its fractions; by 320 bronze coinage was once again uniform.

Two bronze medallions, one of Constantine I and one of Constantine II, should form a high point in this report were it not for their very poor condition, and the illegibility of their reverses. In any case the writer's bias is to regard the un- common as of far less interest than the common simply because it appears far less often, and can therefore give far less information of an archaeological nature. Later in the House of Constantine there is no evidence that any of the commonly represented issues with the reverse of the Fallen Horseman (Fel Temp Reparatio, 348-55) are irregular even though one is overstruck on an issue of Urbs Roma (330-5).

The coinage of the fifth century could provide much ground for comment if only the examples were in good condition, or legible, or at least with discernible types. Unfortunately this is not the case. While Late Roman Bronze Coinage has blazed a trail through the darkest parts of the jungle, it has done so at the expense of separating out the clear and regular issues from the imperial mints from all competing material. This is an excellent first step in the understanding of the coinage of the period, but it is not of the greatest use when faced by an indiscriminate mixture of small module coinages of the fifth and early sixth centuries. Work on these coins has reinforced an impression produced by working on the coins from Carthage, that a survey of all coinage in use in the Mediterranean area during the later fourth to mid-sixth century is urgently needed.

The last issues in this group, for which complete confidence could be claimed, were all closely related issues with the reverse Urbs Roma Felix, and the three coins of Priscus Attalus (409). I would strongly agree with Carson and Kent's observation on the similarity of these issues, and would therefore willingly accept their date of c . 408 for Urbs Roma Felix. As will be seen later, these coins have considerable chronological significance for these deposits. The issues after 410 seem,



132 RICHARD REECE

with one single exception, to belong to the mint of Rome. In no case am I completely sure of identifications, though in all cases I have only quoted references where the balance of probability was strong. With the near ubiquity of Victory on the fifth- century coinage of Rome it is quite certain that many fifth-century coins have gone unrecorded, or have been listed as uncertain, since in the absence of a legend complete identification is virtually impossible.

I mentioned in the introduction to the catalogue that my description of some issues as 'Vandal' was firmly based on the similarity of these coins to the great number found in levels of the early to mid-sixth century at Carthage. Their presence in Rome, together with coins of Athalaric and Theoderic makes the mixture of issuing authorities certain, and the problems of attribution of uncertain specimens highly problematic.

Byzantine issues are sporadic. Folies are rare, and the usual denomination is the XX nummus piece. This contrasts with Carthage where even XX is a high denomination, and with the Danube frontier where most of the coins of the sixth century are folles (Reece 1977). There is the usual gap in Byzantine coinage until the anonymous issues of the ninth century; these will be dealt with in the separate publication on the medieval and later coins.

These notes, which have followed through the catalogue in commentary, come now to the Bag Hoard, and that in turn will lead on to a discussion of the deposits, and a comparison of the coinage in Rome in the fourth century with finds from further afield.

The Bag Hoard This group of 100 coins was found among the large lumps in groups i and ii

which came, without any doubt, from the floor of the Basilica Aemilia. While the number 100 is questionable, because the estimation of the number of fragments is totally subjective, its status as an uncontaminated group is unassailable. As mentioned above, the hoard, in its bag, must have been burned for the carbonised fabric to have been able to resist decay for long enough to become totally mineralised. It is theoretically possible that mineralisation could have happened to the fibres simply through the process of quick corrosion of the copper coins, perhaps in an organic and acid medium, with the resulting inhibition of bacterial action which the copper salts in solution might be expected to cause. Such high concentrations of copper salts presuppose a remarkable process of corrosion, and I know of no case where such complete mineralisation has been reported. The latest coins in the hoard have the reverse Urbs Roma Felix, and I have already mentioned my reasons for accepting Carson and Kent's date for the coins of c. 408. These coins are not, generally, very common; they are relatively unimportant in the 'Schola Praeconum' group which belongs to the second quarter of the fifth century, and their presence in this group, and the absence of any later coins, leads me to claim a date for the group soon after 408. Although I have a very strong antipathy to the attachment of historical dates to archaeological material I can, in this one instance, find no reason to hold out against the generally held view that the burning of the Basilica Aemilia is due to the sack of Rome by Alaric's Visigoths in 410, and I accept this date for the hoard.




Scepticism might suggest that any later sacking, such as the Vandal attack in 455, is at least logically as strong a possibility as the sack of 410, since the vital piece of positive evidence is the latest coin in the hoard, c. 408, and that this piece of evidence cannot, by its very nature, adjudicate between any of a series of later possibilities. Though I incline naturally to the sceptical view, it is in this case demonstrably unlikely to be right, since the negative evidence of what is not in the hoard is almost stronger than the positive evidence of what is. From the 'Schola Praeconum' group we know the likely composition of a group of coins of the years 425 to 450. This group of coins is internally well dated on positive evidence (issues of 425 to 455) and is in complete agreement with the dating of the fine pottery. A hoard burned in a Vandal sack of 455 ought therefore to resemble this group of coins, and the Bag Hoard does not. If the Visigothic sack of 410 had gone unrecorded in history the basic evidence of this hoard would still have suggested a conflagration in the Basilica Aemilia after 408 and before the middle of the fifth century.

The deposits or groups A summary of what is recorded about the groups has been given in the

introduction. In each case this can be no more than a suggestion as to where each group was found, and no chronological guide-lines ought automatically to be inferred. With a firm date for the Bag Hoard it is possible to see the Basilica Aemilia groups (i, ii and iii) as basically large, scattered hoards of the year 410. The overall composition of these groups, allowing for some byzantine and later coins in the topsoil of the area, and a hoard of republican asses in group ii which had also undergone a fire, is similar. To help in comparisons the coins from all the groups have been listed by chronological periods in Table 1 ; they have been re-grouped, in a manner that will be explained later, and reduced to a common 'coins per thousand' of the total imperial coins found, in Table 2. The features of similarity include a minimal representation of coins of the periods before 259, a low but constant tail of coins from 259 to 350, and a sudden enormous increase of coins after the year 350, reaching a peak with the issues of 364 to 378, but containing respectable numbers of Urbs Roma Felix and, in groups ii and iii, the rare coins of Priscus Attalus.

This scattered hoard is unique in that the find-spots of its component parts can still be inspected on the pavement of the Basilica; first hand inspection shows that the coins were probably concentrated in the south aisle, and in between two columns dividing the aisle from the nave a particular concentration is centred on a rectangular set of iron stains, which could suggest the base angle irons of a substantial wooden chest. The Roman purpose of the hoard is at present beyond me, as is the erratic distribution of coins over the floor. While the first point might well be elucidated, the second cannot possibly lead to more than historical fiction.

With the warning that at least three of the groups are basically scattered hoards deposited at one moment in time, whose composition is totally determined by the coins in circulation at that time, though possibly modified by selection, we may look at the other seven groups. It would be good if there were some method by which we could test the 'normality' of the Rome groups as judged against other groups of coin finds throughout Italy, or the Mediterranean coastal regions in general.



134 RICHARD REE CE

Table 1 . Coins from the ten deposits by periods of issue

i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Total

27 B.C.-A.D. 41 2 13 8 106 9 1 13 7 4 4 167 41-54 - 4 2 26 10 - 4 1 2 3 52 54-69 - 31 - 3 - 2 - - 110 69-96 - 7486 - 12 33 1 44 96-117 1 2- 2 4- 5 3- 2 19 117-138 - 2- 64 - 10 2 1 - 25 138-161 5 7346- 462- 37 161-180 - 3-2 7- 9 2 1 - 24 180-192 1 - 1 1 1 - 6 - - - 10 193-222 - 2 1 3 1 1 3 1 2 - 14 222-238 - 2-35-1 1 1 1 14 238-259 1 4- 7- 1565- 29 259-275 3 23 10 4 14 3 1 9 2 - 69 275-294 5 179- 2 3- 3 - - 39 294-317 12 26 7 6 8 1 3 9 6 6 84 317-330 6 27 6 5 16 4 3 2 7 - 76 330-348 44 55 52 9 29 98 14 31 13 - 345 348-364 126 215 311 72 27 450 2 109 8 2 1322 364-378 171 254 270 89 10 185 2 62 7 1 1051 378-388 14 27 44 12 6 27 1 14 - - 145 388-402 19 52 56 10 2 21 - 9 - - 169

Total 1 410 745 785 375 170 795 100 280 64 21 3745 Greek - 24 11 50 17 - - 4 2 - 108 Republic - 619 18 52 179 - 8 6 4 7 893 402+ 57 69 98 15 204 13 - 19 9 1 485

Total 2 467 1457 912 492 570 808 108 309 79 29 5231

A suitable background has been constructed from a selection of sites around the Italian, French and Spanish coasts of the Mediterranean and this may be used for comparison (Reece forthcoming). The coins on this set of sites have been arranged in just such an order as Table 2. The diagram on which I prefer to show the similarities and differences is the picture of cumulative percentage. This may sound technical, but it would be difficult, if numbers have to be used, to think of a method with less complication or obfuscation. I shall go through the method in detail, with apologies to readers who will need no such guide. Since I have restricted my use of numbers to the absolute minimum, and tried to use no abstruse mathematical or any statistical methods at all, I hope all readers, even the most arithmophobic, will try to follow my line of argument.

The diagrams shown on Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 show lines of symbols which start out from the bottom left-hand side of the picture and climb up to the top right. Each site starts without coins at the beginning of the first period (0 per cent, bottom left) and builds up its holdings until at the end of the last period it has its full complement (100 per cent, top right). There are roughly 20 periods to cover the 100 per cent, and the simplest site might therefore have about 5 per cent of its coinage in each




Table 2. Coins from Table 1 divided into two groups and expressed as coins per mil (per thousand)

a: Late Deposits b: General Deposits

Per Per i ii iii iv vi viii Mean Year v vii ix x Mean Year

27 B.c.-A.D. 41 5 17 10 24 1 25 14 0-2 53 130 63 190 109 1-6 41-54 - 5 3 12 - 4 4 0-3 59 40 31 143 68 5-2 54-69 - 4 1 - - - 1 0-1 18 20 - 48 22 1-5 69-96 - 9 5 31 - 11 9 0-3 35 120 47 48 63 2-3 96-117 2 3 - 8 - 11 4 0-2 24 50 - 95 42 2-0 117-138 - 3 - 24 - 7 6 0-3 24 100 16 - 35 1-7 138-161 12 9 4 16 - 21 10 0-4 35 40 31 - 27 1-2 161-180 - 4 - 8 - 7 3 0-2 41 90 16 - 37 1-9 180-192 2 - 1 4 - - 1 0-1 6 60 - - 17 1-4 192-222 - 3 1 12 1 4 4 0-1 6 30 31 - 17 0-6 222-238 - 3 - 12 - 4 3 0-2 29 10 16 48 26 1-6 238-259 2 5 - 27 1 21 9 0-4 - 50 78 - 32 1-5 259-275 7 31 13 16 4 32 17 1-0 82 10 31 - 31 1-9 275-294 12 23 11 - 4 11 10 0-5 12 - - - 3 0-2 294-317 29 35 9 24 1 32 22 1-0 47 30 94 286 114 5-0 317-330 15 36 8 20 5 7 15 1-2 94 30 109 - 58 4-5 330-348 107 74 66 35 123 111 86 4-8 171 140 203 - 129 7-2 348-364 307 289 396 282 566 389 372 23-3 159 20 125 95 100 6-3 364-378 417 341 344 349 233 221 318 22-7 59 20 109 48 59 4-2 378-388 34 36 56 47 34 50 43 4-3 35 10 - - 11 1-1 388-402 46 70 71 39 26 32 47 3-4 12 - - - 3 0-2

of the 20 periods so that at the end of period 1 its holding was 5 per cent, period 2 - 10 per cent, and so on in a straight line across the diagram.

On Fig. 1 this is most nearly seen in the line of circles which represents the mean of Mediterranean sites. There are kinks in the line, but, in general, it pursues a fairly even course from 0 to 100 per cent. This demonstrates that the general rule for sites in the Mediterranean area is to have a roughly equal spread of coinage throughout the 21 periods under study between 27 b.c. and a.d. 402. The limits of the values from which this mean is derived are shown as single dots either side of the mean values, and they show that all the Mediterranean values assembled lie in a broad band which follows the simple line which adds 5 per cent per period to the running total. As most of these groups of coins derive from museum collections, the excavated coins from Luni (Frova 1973, 833-82) are added to the diagram to test its reliability. Although the Luni values are always on the low side of the range until the later fourth century, they are within the spread of Mediterranean values in general, and follow the same general trends. On to this diagram the total values for all the ten groups from Rome have been plotted as one line. The shape of this curve is completely different from the Mediterranean spread of values, from the Mediterranean mean, and even from the coins excavated at Luni. The rise upward from 0 per cent is very slow, and the first major advance does not come until the beginning of the fourth century.



136 RICHARD REECE

Fig. 1

But we already have assurance that three of the Rome groups are not general groups of site-finds spread out over 400 years, but scattered hoards whose deposition reflects only one instant, and whose composition reflects at best one of the four centuries of the complete period. The next stage is therefore to spread out the Rome groups on a diagram similar to Fig. 1 so that they may be seen individually. On Fig. 2 the three groups from the Basilica Aemilia have been given the same symbol, but the other seven groups have been given individual symbols. The three first groups hang closely together, but they are also joined by groups vi and viii from the Lacus Iuturnae and from the Velabrum. The other groups approximate, in varying degrees



Fig. 2

of divergence, to the general band sketched out for Mediterranean background values, and revolve around the mean of those values. The immediate suggestion must therefore be that we have in the ten Rome groups three groups which are virtually a scattered hoard of the year 410, and two other groups of very similar composition, which are presumably to be explained as deposits which accumulated quickly at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth centuries, and which therefore share the same composition and characteristics as the hoard groups while being deposited over one or two decades rather than in one day. The five other groups seem to be of much more general composition, some with more early coins



138 RICHARD REECE

in them, and others with more late, except for group iv, the general Forum group, which shows a shape much more like the groups of around the year 400. Its position in the middle of the diagram is due solely to a large number of coins of Augustus and Tiberius. If these are left on one side the whole curve would move down to the area of the hoard groups, and its shape would then make it indistinguishable. I therefore propose to treat it as a late group into which a number of early first- century coins have found their way.

This reasoning accounts for the way that Table 2 has been presented. The late deposits have been grouped together, and the 'general' deposits have been left together as a collection of individuals rather than a coherent group. The mean values have been found for the two groups and these have been put on to Fig. 1. The result seems to repay these calculations for the late groups follow the lower line well away from the general and expected run of background sites while the 'general deposits' run smoothly through the spread of background values interweaving with the background mean. The late groups can now be seen quite clearly to have pulled down the Rome Total line out of all normality; when these are extracted the line for Rome springs back into its expected position.

We have succeeded in separating out four deposits, one generally from the Forum, one from the Cloaca Maxima, and two from the Palatine, which bid fair to be the equivalent of general coin lists from individual sites excavated in the centre of Rome. Because there is no record of where the coins came from within these sites, there is nothing further that we can do in the way of detailed site explanation. These groups are now on record for future use, and some comments on their general composition will be made below.

The three groups from the Basilica Aemilia have already had enough attention, which leaves us with three groups labelled Velabrum, Forum Uncertain, and Lacus Iuturnae. All three of these groups have few early coins, except for the anomalous and isolated clump of Augustan coins in the Uncertain group ; all suddenly expand about the year 350; all have the unusual Urbs Roma Felix issues of a.d. 408: and all have one or two issues which take the deposits on into the later fifth and sixth centuries. In each case, however, the centre of gravity of the group lies around the year 400, with some later additions. I have explained in detail my reasons for choosing this date in the earlier section on the Bag Hoard. The two areas represented can derive little in detailed commentary from these coin lists except to say that there seems to have been a process of accumulation of worn coins, and perhaps therefore also other rubbish, around the year 400 or a little after. Activity measured by coin loss did continue, but on present comparative evidence it was sporadic. For the Lacus the implications are rather more precise, for here is a monument with well defined area and depth whose fill included a large amount of pottery, glass and metal fragments, very well recorded by Boni in his excellent report of 1901 (Boni 1901).

The best known of the pottery is the type collection of Forum ware, a glazed Roman fabric which has been variously dated from the later medieval back to the sixth century (Potter and Whitehouse 1981). My feeling, since being introduced to the pottery, is that it is part of the North Italian-Danubian tradition of glazed pottery of the fourth and early fifth centuries. While the latest coins in the group,




of around 580, give a firm date by which the Forum ware was probably deposited, this assumes that the pottery is a later part of the deposit than the majority of the rubbish, for which the bulk of coins give a clear indication of c. 400. Perhaps it is best to say that the coins make it quite clear that the majority of rubbish deposited in the Lacus was in place by about 420, that the majority of material illustrated and described in the report agree with this date, that Forum ware would fit perfectly well here, but that the deposit clearly remained open until about the year 600. Unfortunately all this reasoning may be completely pointless, for Boni makes it quite clear in his report that he found one coin in the fill of the Lacus, a coin of Honorius with the reverse Gloria Romanorum, to be dated around the year 400. He mentions the finding of no other coins, gives no indication that a further coin report is to be expected from any source whatever, and if any credence is to be attached to what I regard as an excellent report for its time, the labelling of group vi of the Rome coins would seem to be in error. The new move of Forum ware towards what I regard as its true date may therefore be a most remarkable accident, and the matter must therefore be left open for the moment.

General comments It remains to look briefly at the relative numbers of coins in the different

deposits at different periods, and then to examine the origins of the coins which arrived in Rome in the fourth century.

The results of Table 2 are shown in Fig. 3. The deposits are divided up into the late deposits and the general deposits, the columns collecting together the mean values of the two groups in coins per thousand have been adjusted according to the number of years in each of the time periods, and the two sets of results have been drawn out directly in two diagrams. The characteristics which have already been described now become visible : the difference in the representation of coins up to 300; the general appearance of fourth-century coins in the general deposits, and the great peak of the late deposits in the years 348-64 and 364-78. There is disagreement between the two groups as to the period of greatest supply. According to the late deposits, the years 348-64 marginally overshadow 364-78, and no other periods bear comparison. The general deposits suggest that a peak of coin supply was reached in 330-48, and that coin supply to Rome thereafter dwindled. Since the late deposits have such a specialised nature showing only the coinage in use c. 400-50, random finds in the future will presumably resemble the general deposits.

If this suggestion is accepted, that the diagram for the general deposits most closely approximates to the actual coin loss in Rome, and thence to the actual coin supply in Rome, the late deposits can be seen to have a remarkably biased composition. The coins of 330-48, which should be the highest, are poorly represented in comparison with the periods immediately after. This suggests to me that there is discrimination at work against the earlier coins and in favour of the later issues. Whether this discrimination is clearcut enough to suggest a demonetisation of earlier issues is uncertain, but it is quite clear that the number of coins in circulation around the years 400-10 in the centre of Rome was artificially low in coins struck before about 353 compared with the general run of losses in the same area. That suggests to me a change in monetary policy in the years during which the issues



140 RICHARD REECE

Table 3. Coins of the fourth century by mints

v

c c §> £ .2 •§ - 8 1 Í a ^ 1 - Ji n I

1 * 1 c

1 1 ! ¡ í J 1 1 ! J r 1 1 ! I i -

! n

i 1 OQ4

1 6-1 2-8 18 13 31 12 305

11123 3- 1 11 32 21 53 9 317

- 2 - - 2- 24- 4 1- - 2 2 - - - 1- 38 18 56 14 324

2- 3 1 132 12 8 20 9 30Q

_ 1 1-22 2 - 1 5 5 1 2 - 2 42 61 103 20 335

2- 6 12-1-222 11 64 82 12 34j

1 - 2 11 7 - 3 4 - 19 141 160 17 348

- 1 1- 1 1 1-1 6 9 15 5 350

9 - 28 3 4 - 6 2 7 - 4 3 - 66 771 837 38 355

- 1 - 1 5 - 36 13 1 2-1 51 419 470 15 3g4

_ 1 _ 1 17 _ 55 28 43 1 20 1 6 1 1 5 1 181 870 1051 126 378

1- 4 12-11 21- 13 92 105 9 383

10 72-3-3 1 26 28 54 16 392

247 247 155 402 - 408

7 7 - 7 - 423

showing the Fallen Horseman were struck (350-c. 356), though a much closer study of a larger number of fully identifiable specimens is needed to amplify the point. Comparison of the coin loss at Rome with the wider coin loss elsewhere is outside the scope of this report, but will be the subject of work in progress to be published in the Cyprus Numismatic Report.

The final diagram, Fig. 4, brings together in two rather different ways the information given in Table 3. For this table the coins of the fourth century have been divided up into short chronological groups and listed according to the mints which produced them, where the mint-mark is legible. Since the number of coins with legible mint-marks was small all the deposits have been summarised as one. In one or two cases the results are slightly misleading in that it is the type shown on the coin which allows the attribution to a mint rather than the reading of a mint- mark. Thus the issue Populus Romanus was struck between 341 and 348 only at Constantinople, and the recognition of this type, however worn, makes Con- stantinople the best represented mint at this period; and the issue of Urbs Roma




CO

6



142 RICHARD REECE

Fig. 4




Felix, unique to the mint of Rome around 408, gives all the legible coins of the period 392-408 artificially to Rome. But allowing for these imperfections the table is of use and potentially of interest.

Fig. 4a gives the actual numbers of legible mint-marks, period by period, separated out into only two groups of Rome and elsewhere. The variations visible here bear no obvious resemblance to the variations overall when the similar issues which are unattributable are added in. Fig. 4b takes the total of legible mint- marks in each period and simply expresses the relationship between Rome and other mints as a percentage of the total. This picture can perhaps be interpreted more safely in that there is a general tendency away from a large representation of Rome early in the century, to a very small contribution in the middle of the century, and then gradually back to Roman predominance, partly upset from 364-92, by the end of the century. The period 324-30 breaks an otherwise very smooth decline; in consolation it is worth noting that this is an abnormally badly represented period in the coinage in general, and that may account for the 'irregularity'. Fig. 4a makes it quite clear how tenuous any interpretation is since the evidence is so sparse and fragmentary. Yet this evidence is based on a quite remarkable sample of over 5,000 identifiable Roman coins, a total which no published excavation (where the find- spot of each coin is published) can equal, and which few site collections outside Conimbriga, the German and Danube Frontiers, and Britain can surpass. In other words, poor though this sample demonstrably is, it is the best that there will be (apart from Carthage) in the Mediterranean area for the immediate future, for all competitors will be from only general provenances.

This becomes even more tantalising when the actual mint representation on Table 3 is examined, for those figures represent a succint summary of an enormous number of supplies, transactions, movements of coin, goods and people, Imperial directives, applications of laws, and individual lawlessness. But the summary is so intricately succinct that it cannot be convincingly separated out into its component patterns.

It might be thought that the number of coins from any mint found at Rome would be a fairly simple function of the distance of the mint from Rome. Thus Aries at the mouth of the Rhone has better representation than Lyon, well up on the Rhone, or Trier with no direct access to the Mediterranean. It is true that Aries is better represented than Lyon, but, forgetting for the moment the nonsensically low figures, Trier is better than Lyon, and the relationship between coins from Aries and Lyon forms no simple function of the distance from Rome. To all intents Aries is represented, Lyon and Trier are not. Aquileia and Siscia are well represented, but what are the distances of these two mints from Rome ? How is the distance from Siscia to the sea to be compared with the voyage down the Adriatic and round Calabria, and is the sea voyage from Aquileia to be preferred to the land route which, in miles, is only a fraction ?

Perhaps sense may be seen in the closely spaced mints of the sea of Marmora, Heraclea, Constantinople, Nicomedia and Cyzicus, for all four are virtually the same distance from Rome measured in any way. Constantinople is always the highest, but then it is the second capital and traffic between the two cities may be expected to be unusually heavy, but there is no such simple explanation for the



144 RICHARD REECE

closeness of Heraclea and Cyzicus and the disparity of Nicomedia. It might be suggested that this represents also the output of the different mints, that Nicomedia was a smaller producer, or that the produce from Nicomedia went predominantly into the great and populated land mass of Asia Minor. Neither suggestion succeeds when the representation of these mints is examined in sites other than Rome, such as Cyprus or Carnuntum.

The whole process of supply of coinage in the fourth century is as yet un- explained. Michael Fulford and I have purposely taken up opposing stances in the hopes of producing testable theories, or at least, discussion. One line (Reece 1978) suggests that all coinage is produced by the state for its own purposes and that the only means of distribution of copper coin in the fourth century is state payment. In its first step, on this model the distribution of coinage reflects directly imperial policy and action. The second line (Fulford 1978) suggests that coinage is part of the general exchange of goods and services and accounts and the movements of coins from mints of origin to points of deposition is basically reflective of the flow of trade, but in reverse. We may well be working towards a compromise in which the initial step, and for some sites (such as those on the frontier), the major one, is state supply of state functionaries' needs, while once released by this mechanism into circulation the general movement of the coin 'pool' is due to trade and the movement of goods and people. I cannot conceive of provincial mints, even in the fourth century, sending supplies of coin to the mint City of Rome, and I must therefore assume that home needs were met by direct payment from the City mint, and that all other coins arrived at Rome without direct official organisation. Does the preponderance of Aries over Trier then suggest a Mediterranean basin trade area?

Richard Reece

References (General) Boni, G. (1901). Il sacrario di Jutarna. Notizie degli Scavi 1901, 41-144. Dondero, I. Bricchi- (1952). Elenco del materiale numismatico. Antichita fase, ii, part iii, 3-9. Frova, A. (ed.) (1973). Scavi di Luni 1970-71 (Roma). Fulford, M. J. (1978). Coin circulation and mint activity in the Later Roman Empire. Archaeological

Journal 135,67-114. Potter, T. and Whitehouse, D. B. (1981). The Byzantine frontier in South Etruria. Antiquity 215,

206-10. Reece, R. (1973). Roman coinage in the western Empire. Britannia iv, 227-51. Reece, R. (1977). Coinage and Currency. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 14, 167-78. Reece, R. (1978). Coins and Frontiers: or Supply and Demand. In J. Fitz (ed.), Limes, 643-6

(Budapest). Reece, R. (1981). Roman monetary impact on the Celtic World. In B. Cunliffe (ed.), Coinage and

Society in Britain and Gaul, 24-8 (London). Reece, R. (forthcoming). Roman coinage in the western Mediterranean, a first survey. Opus

forthcoming. Whitehouse, D. B., Barker, G., Reece, R. and Reese, D. (1982). The Schola Praeconum I. PBSR 50,

53-101.




References {Catalogues) BMC Catalogue of Coins in the British Museum (Greek - Roman - Byzantine). Sydenham E. A. Sydenham, The Coinage of the Roman Republic, London, 1952. Crawford M. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, Cambridge, 1974. Roman Imperial Coinage H. Mattingly, E. A. Sydenham, C. H. V. Sutherland and R. A. G.

Carson, Roman Imperial Coinage i-vii, London, 1923 ff. Late Roman Bronze Coinage R. A. G. Carson, P. V. Hill and J. P. C. Kent, Late Roman Bronze

Coinage, London, 1960. Dumbarton Oaks Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection,

Washington, D.C., 1966 ff.

Acknowledgments My first sight of the Rome coins came as a result of an idea of Sig.ra Anna Fazzari, then secretary to the Director of the British School, and of my introduction by her to Dott.8sa Dondero. All discussion concerned with the second view of the coins was carried out by Dr. David Whitehouse. and he, on behalf of the British School, made work and storage space available, allowed us accommodation during the work, and guaranteed the safety of the coins. Prof. La Regina, Soprintendente, took the bold and vital decision to allow the coins to be examined at the British School, and Dott.88a Dondero made the most important decision of all by allowing us to complete her work of many years.

The first two weeks of work were supported financially by the Faculty of Archaeology, History and Letters of the British School, and the travel fund of the Institute of Archaeology in London, and the second and third seasons of work were assisted by the British Academy.

The only way in which this work could be accomplished in the time was by working hard, and my three teams of two assistants a year put in rather more than the required four hours a day, without any financial gain, and still seem to have considered themselves the ones to benefit. In the first year Tim Quine and Jon Colombo covered a very large amount of the cleaning necessary while sorting most of the cleaned coins into rough groups ; in the second year Stuart Saw and Matthew Brown continued the cleaning and the identification, and in the third year Richard Champion and Philip Perkins finished the cleaning, and continued the listing. Without the facilities of the British School the work could not have gone forward at anything like the rate that it did, and especial thanks are due to Sig.ra Luciana Valentini for the equanimity with which she viewed our inroads on the numismatics sections of the library. Finally, Simon James redrew the figures for publication with his customary clarity and accuracy.



Richard Reece, Coin Collection From Rome

Documents

Transcript of Richard Reece, Coin Collection From Rome