Table Of ContentR O M AN R E P U B L I C AN
C O IN H O A R DS
BY
M I C H A EL H. C R A W F O RD
R O Y AL N U M I S M A T IC S O C I E TY
SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 4
L O N D ON
1969
©jSÇOYAL" NUMISMATIC-SOCIETY I9Ö9
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
AT, THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, OXFORD
BY VIVIAN RIDLER
POINTER TO THE-UNIVERSITY
P R E F A CE
T HE value of coin hoards as a source for the history of the ancient world is
threefold—they contain the great majority oLsurvivmg examples of ancient
coinages, they provide essentia evidence for the dating ax^l ariangeir^enFof
these coinages, and on their nature and distribution depends a substantial part
of our understanding of ancient economic history* Έρτ the coinage of thé Roman
Republic, with its notorious difficulties over tKe dating and ascription of issues,
the second type of evidence is perhaps the most important. Thfc book attempts
to collect all Republican hoards about which anything useful can be ibid and is
intendedto serve as a preliminary^ to a full-scale study of^eJR^ublican coinage,
now bring prepared for publicationTTt includes an outline dating^cheme, which
should go some way towards making usefully available a rich, but much abused,
historical source;
In the first place, I should like to thank the Spedai Publications Committee of
the Royal Numismatic Society for accepting the book for publication. In the
writing of it the advice and discussion of friends has been especially welcome,
òf C. H. V. Sutherland, who has guided the work &öBr its beginning, of H. B*
Mattingly, P. Grierson, R. Â. G. Carson, T. V. Buttrey. Equally essential has
been the generous co-operation of all who have shown me material in their
-charge, in particular of those who have Shown me unpublished hoards and
given me permission to cite them—Professor G. Annibaldi, Dr. Ml Bernardini,
Professor F. E. Brown, Professor T. V. Buttrey, Professor C. Girjäicci, Dr. V.
Cianfarani, Dr. U. Ciotti, Dottoressa M. T. Curro Pisano, Dr. J . ^. Eagerlie>
Dottoressa A. S. Fava^ Dottoressa B. Forlati Tamaro, Professor G^ Foti, Dr. G.
Görini, Mme M. Karamessini-Oikonomidou, Signorina A. Magi, Dr^ L. Mar-
gagnato, Dr. D. Marrocco, Dr. L. Michelini Toccv Professor M. Mirabella
K^hmi, Γ*Γ~Μ N ^ l i, ] W ^ nr F PffovwjJJgn^^ E. Pozzi,
Dottoressa M. Rinaldi, Dottoressa B. Sciarra, Professor A. StàïïoTIXrrC: HrV:
Sutherland, Dottoressa A. Talocchini, and Dottoressa A. Tusa Cutroni.
I am also grateful ta^alLwhoJiave passed on to me infònnation about hoards
which th^iiave_seen._ I have thus beeifabìe to preserve the fecord of a number
of hoards now dispersed and to déâTsatisfactorfly with some inadequately
published hoards which I have not been able to-see myself. I hàverto thank
in this context 0r. T. Hackens, Mr. C. A: Hersli, Dr. M. de Castro Hipólito,
Μη G. Κ. Jenkins, Dr. C. M. Kraay, Dr. D. Schwarz, and Mme I. Varoucha-
Christodoulopoulos.
The travel which I have undertaken oyer the last six years in order to check
η PREPACE
published boards and to look for unpublished hoards has been generously
supported* in\ the first instance by the British School at Rome, and later by
ChrôJfs GoDe^e, Cambridge; alsirby the Ministry of Education;-OrieÎ^llegé,
Oxford; die Afrnqjd Historical Essay F*und of UnivCTtó^ of^Orford; the
Committee for Advanced Studies of the University of Oxford; the University of
Princeton; and the Faculty of^Classics^ the University.of Cambridge. The last
has aldo ^nade a subvention to cover the cost of the plates. To all I offer my best
thanks.
— The castsfor making the plates have been supplied by the British Museum,
the Ashmolean Museum, the Cabinet des Médailles, and the Kestner Museum,
Hannover. Finally,^theO^xford JJpivèrsity Press has devoted very great care
and attention to the production of the booL
M I C H A EL H. CRAWFORD.
CONTENTS
P R E F A CE
INTRODUCTION I
NOTE ON^USE OF INVENTORY η
TABLES I-XVIII II
NOTES TO TABLES 39
INVENTORY
PART L.HOARDS 43
PART II. OTHER COINJINDS 142
BIBLIOGRAPHY
J>ART I. PERfÒDICALS 148
PART- IL. BOOKS I$2
INDEXES
I. REPUBLICAN MONEYERS Ϊ57
II. PLACES OF DISCOVERY I59
III. COUNTRIES 163
IV. NON-ROMAN COINS 164
V; NhJSEUMS 166
VI. GENERAL j68
K EY TO PLATES j6o
ι •
P L A T ES 1-111 at end
I N T R O D U C T I O N
1
T HE Roman Republican coinage consists of about 600 separate issues, normally
distinguished by the name o^the magistrate responsible for their production.
Mp& of these magistrates were tresviri monetales, and their years of office are
hardly ever recorded* The andent literary tradition on the coinage itself, capst
^ensiv^jpreserved by PÌfey,^ self^titi garbled. The coinage^
is thus largefy undated, the earliest exception pang the issue of the quaestors
of 103 or 100 Β Jc., Piso and Caepio. Thereafter; dated issues occur; with increas
ing frequency, to beéome the rule rader the.
In order to date the Republican coinage, it is necessary to establish first a
relative order of issues which is as exactes possible. From those fixed points
which exist (some undated issues can be fixed very closely by their association
with dated Greek coins or by archaeological ejvidence) it is then possible to
derive a fairly^ccurate dating for the whole
Tbe^tvto main types of evidence for a relative? order of issues are provided by
the hoards and by stylistic considerations. B yw the more valuable evidence is
that df the hoards. Recorded in large numbers/from all oyer the Roman Empire,
they can readily be placed in sequence. The fnethod is straightforward. Of two
hoards with some issues in common, that much is later will contain issues which
do^not occur, in the other hoard and whjtéh are less worn. A relative order of
issues follows automatically. Stylistic analysis starts from the observation th^t
among pieces of the same issue there is usually considerable uniformity of style.
There is .thus a prhria-facie probability that some uniformity of style Sexists
between issues of the same period.
The first man fully to understand and make use of hoard-evidence was C
r
Cävedon^writ^^ the work whicl} he began
of assiduously publishing and analysing all available hoards he was foltewedrbjr
Th. Mommsen4 and M. Bahrfeldt. The latterà considered opinion towards the
endx>f his life is represented inthe arrangement df the issü« withmoneyers'L
and others' names in CIL} Unfortunately, this arrangement is hardly ever cited
either by historians or by numismatists, the former being perhaps unaware of
the quality of Bahrfeldt's work, the latter being perhaps unaware of CIL.
Κ. Pink, while praising Bahrfeldt for his work in establishing the content of the
1 Tor mil abbreviations see Bibliography. 3 Saggio, Ripostigli, and RipostigUo.
2 There remains the problem cf determining 4 GesckUkU, 411.
the mint or mints at which the coinage was struck. 5 i*, 741·
Ο 6625 Β
2 INTRODUCTION
œinage, none the less produced an arrangement entirely of his own.1 Based on
an attempt to impose a rigid pattern on the spasmodic coinage of the Republic,
it is almost«Kxrthkss*
IL A- Grueber,3 who followed Count de Salis, and E/A. Sydenham,4 who"
worked largely firm his own'collection, depended for the most part on stylistic
analysis for their results/ Although both paid lip-service to the importance of
hoard-evidence, the hoard-tables of both are necessarily inaccurate, since they
are unsuccessful attempts to make the hoards fit a preconceived arrangement of
the ^cinage. The most recent exponent öf àn arrangement of the coinage on
stylistic grounds is A* Alföldi, who pays no attention to hoard-evidence at alL5
The hoards, however, must be the starting-point for establishing a relative
order of issues, and any arrangement which ignores or contradicts considerable
hoard-evidence cannot be valid. The composition of hoards of dated Imperial
coins proves that any hoard may be expected to contain a representative selection
of issues strud^ before its deposition. Any krge hoard may be expected to con
tain all or almost all the issues struck in the century or so preceding its deposition
(a few very rare issues may be missing).6 The latest coins will be the Jeast worn.
When hoard-evidence is used to draw, up an order of Republican issues, the
method is objective, and the results are both self-consi^ent^nd in full agreement
with such sequences of dated issues as do exist. It is necessary first to take into
account the size of a /hoard and whether or not it is complete, then to consider
the commonness or rarity ofcthe issuesjOibe placed in order and the durées of
wear which they display. Hoards which are known to be complete can be used to
check the evidence of those which-are found in uncontrolled circumstances.
Some of these turn out to have had most of the later and finer issues removed
before being recorded, the rest are seen to have lost at most only a few pieces or
pieces taken at random. Thus the Villa Potenza hoard,7 which arrived at the
Museo nazionale delle Marche sealed in a pot, corroborates the evidence of the
Ossero? and Tölfa9^hoanis^C^mpletp hoards similarly confirm the correctness
of the criteria (mostly pagination) used for rejecting theìew extraneous coins ~
which sometimes become associated with a hoard between its discovery and its
being recorded. The evidence of several contemporary hoards is, of course,
stronger than that of one hoard, and it is encouraging that new hoards regularly
confirm and add precision to the existing picture. For instance, the Syracuse
1 The Tkimmuùi Momefaìet. only one monetary area. The assertion by M.
? JVC1952, 145.. Thompson (NC 1962, 309) that hoards were
3 BMCRR. regularly 'fabified' ia antiquity should be regarded
4/ÛRIL as a piece of special pleading.
5 Nederhmds Kmmitkixtorisck Jaarboek 1954, 7 No.
151· r ν · No. 31O.
4 The only other qoaHnVation which need be ? No. 317·
made is that hoards normally contain coins of
l^TRODUCTieN ^
hoard,1 which came to the Museo Nazionale di Siracusa m a solid maps covered
with corrosion, supports die suggestion that C. Censorinus «truck in die year
after M. dato and lb. Titurius Sabinus*
On the other hand, an arrangement of the coinage based on stylistic criteria
i* at least partially subjective and therefore^ypreliable.Eadi new attempt pn^
duces a major alteration of previous versions, without argument beyond an
invitation to 'see9 the inherent correctness of the proposed system and without
hope of convergence to ultimate agreement. In addition, reliance on style has led
to the commission of some extraordinary errom. It led Counlde jSalis to divide -
between the two mints of Rome and Italy issues which are inextricably linked
to ^ach other by series of shared dies.3 It led Sydenham to attribute to 40 B.c. a
coin proclaiming that it was struck by Octavian as consuL4 It led Alfoldi to date
Octavian's assumption of the tide Divi, jho 43 BX.,5 against the evidence of Dio*
and five years before the first certain appearance of the tide on Octavian's coins.7
An independent stylistic arrangement of the coinage is £ mirage. It is true
that some issues resemble "each other and may belong close together. ItisTako
true that the style of the Republican coinage changed over its life of nearly three
centuries. But it could both improve and deteriorate, it could favour first one
approach, then-another, then the first again. Several artists with very different
manners could' be employed at the same time.. An account of the style of the
Republican coinage will be possible only when the whole series is independently
datedi, Until ^eii stylistic criteria must be used with great caution, along the
lines suggested by the hoard-çvidence and without losing sight of all the other
sorts of evidence which help to arrange one part or another.of the Republican
coinage.
The clearest and most unequivocal evidence comes—albert rardy—irom die-
links. If two issues, sharing an obverse or revei^type, share also òne of mòre
dies, they are t$x be placed together. The issueswftn W and J/i furnish an ex
ample.8 Similarly, if two issues, though not linked, use their diesmthes^ejçay
as each other, and as no further issue does, they may reasonably be associated.
Overstrikes provide equally clear evidence, though less precse. The issue
overstruck must be contemporary with or earlier than the issue overstating. For
instance, the overstriking of a denarius of P. Nerva by L. Flaminius Ciri9 con
firms the arrangement suggested by the hoards.10 Similarly, if one' type demon
strably copies another, simple priority of the type copied is established. Thus
1 No. 233. 6 xlvii, 18, 4·
2 NC 1964, 142-3. 7 In the issue proudced by. M. Agrippa in
3 The issue with Trident is an example; , 38 B.C.
BMCRR, Rome 442; Italy 302. · NC 1964, 343·
4 CRR 132Ï. · NZ 1896,120.
5 Op. dt. (p. 2, η. 5>. ,e Table XI.
4 INTRODUCTION
die issue of TV CkxiH, dearly a crude copy of the denarii of C. Serydfi M.f,
must be latere
Important for the eariiet stages of the coinage is the evidence of weight stan
dards . There are periods, such as the Second Punic War^where die hoard-
cvidcacc suggests ^declining standard, and it is reasonable to arrange those issues
of which the position is not determined by the hoards according to this pattern.
Äraö^icuous^fe^ure^the denarius coinage of the late second and early first
centuries B.c. is ^he-extensive addition to the typaTirf^tir-inarks—numbers,
letters, or symbofc^-the purpose of which was to help the moneyers keep a check
on the dies.2 The systems of control-marks employed by the moneyers developed
considerably over the years, and their development sometimes enables issues to
be placed in their correct order. For instance, C. Marius Capito's system of
control-marks is clearly based on a misunderstanding of that of P. Crepusius,3
and his term of office must therefore be later.
Lastly, once the bulk of the denarius coinage is, as far as possible, arranged
in order, greater precision can often be achieved by considering the evidence"
for the contemporaneity of issues. Even without the help of die-studies, certain
issues can readily be seen to be of exactly the same date. For instance, C^Vibius
Panèa and Q. Titius each used for his bronze a type struck in silver by thetrther,-
and they seem to haveplaim^J^eirtypes together. Important, too, is the evi
dence to be derived from lookingatsuch things as disposition of legend, use of
titolature, etc. This sort of evidence long ago suggested, almost certainly rightly,
that M. Atilius Saranus, Q. Marcius Libo, and L. Semproatus Pitio formed a
collie of moneyers.
When a complete relative arrangement of the coinage has been built up, it
remains to assign dates as precisely as possible. Apart from the certainly dated
issues which oçcjir with increasing frequency in the first century B.C., there are
fortunately a number of other fixed points.
Aaga result of the work of H; Mattingly, S. G. Robinson, and R: Thonasen,4
the Homan coinage has been shown to have begun during or shortly before the
PyirhicTWar, and die didrachm coinage as a whole fits intelligibly into die period
between about 290 B.C. and the introduction of the denarius system about 211 B.C.
The evidence for this date is far greater in quantity than that provided by the
excavations at Morgantina,5 where die earliest coin*, of the denarius system were
found below a destruction leyel,_probably of 211 B.C. There are four hoards6
1 M. Thompson, R. Tbomsen, and M. H. tem of paired dies, with purposeless symbols on
Grsfrfbfd, The Agrbmm hoard, 129. the obverse.
* PBSR 1966,18. 4 Early Rofman coinage, with eariier biblio
* The complicated conelation, of symbols on graphy.
the obverse and number* on the reverse, in the 5 No. 552, cf. no. 72.
issue of P. Crepusius u replaced by a simple sys 4 Noi. fa, 64, 96, and 99.
INTRODUCTION
which associate tfce latest^eoinage of the didrachm system or the earliest coinage
of the denarius system with coins of Hieronymus or the Syracusan democracy^
bodrgroupe showing comparable degrees of wear. 1μ the face of thk evidence,
it seems pervase to date the creation of the denarius system at any other time
than during the Second Punic War. Of course, it cannot be assumed that a she
or part of a site which closes at a certain date will produce a sequence of coins
reaching right do\ro to that iiate. For instance, the coins found arNumantia1
have no evidential value whatever. TT^ coins from each of the Ûqee camps of
153/137, 133, and 74 B.C. are all of the same period, with the single exception of
an uncia of about no B.c. fromthe camp of 74 B.c. Similarly, tbe4atest coins
from Castra Çaecilia of 79 B.C. date from before 100 B.c.2 But there js a^vtry"
strong probabihtyjthat the latest Roman coins from below the destructionjevel at
Morgantina were struck only just before the destruction, since the various issues
afe represented by numerous examples, and none of these examples shows moré^
than slight wear. When the hoard-evidence is taken with this evidence from
JVTórgantina, à ^atgjor^ejntroduction of the denarius of about 2H ^xrseems
inescapable. The Mars/Eagle gold may then be identify wi^
described by Livy3 andthe introduction of moneyers* symbols on^ issues of the
r (
mint of Rome dat^ito 208 B.C.*-
In the second century B.C. there are no absolutely fixed pom
LHLicinius and Cn. Domitius are to be associated with the foundation of Narbo,
but the date for this given by Vellerns has beçn questioned by H. B. Mattingly.5
At the moment, this date, 118 ΒΛ:., still seems to me most likely to be correct.
If it is, the depositiotf of the San Giovanni Incarico hoard,6 which closes some
what earlierthanthe issues of L.Licinius and Cn. Domitius and comes from the
r
site of Fregellae, should be associated with the destruction of the town in
125 B.C.
The crucial point in the middle of the second century B.c. is the re-tariffing
of the denarius at 16 instead of 10 asses, which is separated from the close of
the §an Giovanni Incarico hoard by perhaps twenty years of coinage. Since the
official use of sestertii as units of account cannot antedate the re-tariffing, this
can be firmly dated before 140 B.c. by the occurrence <tf sestertii in a Senatus-
consultum of that year.7
In the first century B.c., dated issuesbecome more and more frequent and
thè assignment of the intervening issues to an exact year becomes steadily easier,
with the help of certain other types of evidence.
rpie Republican coinage is marked by a constantly increasing diversification
1 Nos. 557, 558, and 562. * Hommages à Albert Grenier ili, 1159.
2 No. 561. 6 No, 163.
* xxvii, 10, 11. 7 MusN 1957» °4; SIG3 674 with MRR ii> 643;
4 Table II.
