← Back to work · All provisional translations

Zeitschrift für Numismatik, vol. 26 — 1908

Numismatische Gesellschaft, Berlin, 1908 · provisional German–English translation

The original page is shown on the left as scanned. The provisional English translation sits on the right; coin inscriptions, catalogue numbers, references, and plate labels are kept as close to the source text as the OCR allows. 571 of 588 pages translated. Showing pages 81-160.

Translation and OCR are research aids, not authoritative editions. Verify quotations, names, legends, numerals, tables, and plate references against the original page image. Some pages, especially title pages, contents, and front matter, may retain visible OCR or translation artifacts.

Jump to page

p. 81 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 73 No. na... Nominal | Silver | Gold | a, 12 | Ionia: section Miletus 1 gr| 0.981 Imh.-Blum. N0.38 13 | Ionia: coin exd. Miletus 5th century | 0.950 Lenormant a.a.0. 14 | Ionia: Teos Small coin | 0.960 “ S 15 | Ionia: Small coin Chios before Darius | 0.975 3 Ri 16 | Rhodes section 1.02 gr | 0.7396 | 0.0025 | Bibra, silver, 8.40 No. 11 17 | Rhodes Before Alexan the M.| 0.965 |0.003 | Lenormant.a.a.O. 18 | Lydia Out of line of Croesus | 0.980 | » ” With the Greeks Lower Italy and Sicily were The coins are just as well minted as in the mother country, which means that the following series of analyzes gives us Rauch'), Imhoof-Blumer'), and Bibra°) have given: 1 | Campania: Didrachm 6.2 gr 0.980 smoke No. 18 2 | Naples: y 7 gr 0.940 smoke No.16 3 n »“ 6.8gr| 0.9163 | 0.0036 | Bibra No. 4 4 ® “ 6.75 gr | 0.9302 | 0.0012 | Bibra No. 5 5 E “ 6.73 gr | 0.9255 | 0.002 | Bibra No. 6 6 “ » 7gr| 0.918 |0.002 | Imh.-Blum. No. 1 1) Z.£. N. 1874, pp. 32-42, 2) Mon. Grecq., 8. 472f. 3) Bibra, Silver Finds, p. 40ff.

p. 82 · zoom original

J Hammer: 24 25 name of the city sun Naples: Didrachm 7 gr Nola: ld STH Hyria: 5 Tgr Taranto: Dr > = 8gr = Didrachm = Obolos 0.72gr 5 Hemiobolion 0.35 gr = Didrachm younger: 7.2 gr > Tritemorion 0.49 gr Heraclea: drachma 3.8 gr n Diobolon 1.2gr “. . Obolos 0.75 gr n Trihemiobol. lgr Metapontum: Di- dram. 6.5 gr s Trihemiobol. lgr s Tetrobolone 2.0781 gr Didrachm 7.8 gr » >] 8 gr Thurii: Didrachm Posidonia: Silver 0.774 0.940 0.940 0.948 0.940 0.930 0.910 0.910 0.880 0.8845 0.930 0.920 0.920 0.9414 0.937 0.921 0.9608 | Gold 0.001 0.004 0.0063 0.0018 0.002 0.00507 Proof of literature Imh.-Blum. No. 2 smoke No. 17 smoke No. 15 smoke No. 11 Imh.-Blum. No. 3 Lenormant I, 189 smoke No. 26 smoke No. 27 smoke No.12 Bibra No.7 smoke No. 21 smoke No. 23 smoke No. 24 Bibra No. 8 | Imh.-Blum. No. 4 Imh.-Blum. No. 5 0.0209 horn silver. Hofmann, Number Z.XVI, 1-4 smoke No. 9 Imh.-Blum. No. 6 Lenormant I, 189

p. 83 · zoom original

p. 84 · zoom original

76 J Hammer: So overall just near 2 cities, Naples and Taranto, the fineness decreases towards the end of their coinage noticeably: 0.774, or 0.880. But here's another financial operation from Dionysius the elder. in Syracuse is thought to have existed until modern times varied explanations found has. Besides dem one Accusation that he took the money borrowed from the citizens from the Repayment with new ones Stamping provided and thereby deceptively the value an earlier drachma to two drachmas, which of course was only a very superficial thing Misunderstanding of that time completed transition from the Attic tetradrachm to Corinthian didrachm currency will be [Willers, in the Rhine. Mus. 1905, p. 3.], give him the pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomica') and Pollux') even further load, he has tin coins for commercial transactions in his allow states to be defeated, and Pollux gives further details, that this coin had the value of 4 Attic drachmas have, while them in fact was only worth 1 drachma. Very Six's statement seems to me to be unfounded the tin money of Dionysius us in the Syracuse bronze Coins with the head of Pallas weighing almost 8 att. Drachmas received be, since the economica is of a tin and not from a copper coin speak. A corpus delicti would like then Evans') in a new one found Syracuse. deca- dragon 'made of bronze and with very low Traces one a thin coating, which is not silver, probably However, it does contain tin. Same is with the stamps of one Decadrachm influenced by the style of the famous Euainetos 1) Econ. II, 21: ovx evroewv dE aoyvolov vououa Erowe tenderıreoon.... 2) Pollux IX, 79: rovs uevros Zugaxootovs xartıreom ort avr' apyvolov vouloaı Aıovvoıog zurmvayzaoev zul To VousudTtıov zeıtagas dguyuds Artızdg loyvsv avıı uuas. 3) Num. Chron. 1875, p. 28ff. 4) Num. Chron. 1894, p. 189 £f.

p. 85 · zoom original

} | 1. The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 77 and certainly antique'). That was reason enough for Evans to believe that Euainetos specially commissioned this stamp from the king to Embossing the inferior ones and fraudulent credit cut a coin. But how does Evans plan to deal with the Gabe settle with Pollux, who speaks of a vowsoudriov, that for 4 Attic drachmas instead of one, since his exemplary plar is a decadrachm? His piece is just an antique plate ation, as they often do in the Syracusan ranks') encounter. According to the text of the tradition, I can only agree come to the assumption, which ones already Hultsch’) pronounced that the coin in question is still silver money, but strong with tin (and copper) alloyed was, like that that her actual value only 1 drachma att. Silver's fraud, although they was issued at a tetradrachm nominal value. tetra drachmas are now also for the later times of Dionysius, after the start of decadrachm minting, proven'), Of course not one copy our “tin coins”, what at the very rapid oxidation of this metal in the ground may surprise. Or should the whole narrative be nothing more than that as a piece of rhetorical equipment be like it is in life of a tyrant just not was missing and also Polycrates of Samos, Hippias of Athens? (says Willers, Rh. Mus. 1905, p. 354). I would like to given the specific Information of the old ones not go so far, since there is also a pre- Transitional minting of credit coins in the eventful life of Dionysius, nothing at all improbable has in itself. c Silver alloy in the Greek coin series. Let's ask about the above metal, which has been confirmed to us in literature. 1) Hill, Coins of ancient Sicily, (Westminster 1903) p. 115/16. 2) See Graf's compilation, Vienna, N. Z. 1903, pp. 53-54, 3) Metrol. p. 662. 4) Holm, Sicily. History II, 8. 616f.

p. 86 · zoom original

78 J Hammer: deterioration of the numismatic holdings in ours collections, meet like that in the ranks of Greek cities- Coins of low grain are rare. Panticapaeum in the Taurian Chersonese has in the later Coined in alloy silver during the period of its minting. (Example: Oatal. Taur. Chers. p. 6 no. 11, Berliner Catalog I, p. 10 No. 13). The appearance alone indicates that the metal is of very low quality many coins from Olbia, Phanagoria, Gorgippia, the Colchian and Scythian kings our collection to where also the billon after the determination Sallets (Z. f. N. 1876, $. 59) only belonged to a more recent period, after Alexander's death. The drachmas and trioboles of Kallatis in Lower Moesia are often with verdigris covered, and Behrendt Pick") would like the reason this one strong copper additive in it see, that these Coins in the Wartime with Lysimachus fall (ca. 313 BC). Also from this Thracian king himself, and from one later, Mostis, have we have examples here from Alloy in gold and silver (Berlin catalog p. 302, No. 27 is fine counterfeit coin; p. 310 no. 88 – electron; 8,339 No. 13 — Billon). Of bad silver are then the coins of Illyrian King Ballaeus?’). From Myrina in Aeolis contains Brit. Mus. Cat. two trillion pieces (No. 14 and 15) that date back to the second or first BC century belong; out the same time also one under- . valuable tetradrachm by Macdonald, Cat. of the Hunt. coll. I, p. 309 no. 7. Far stronger than in these isolated specimens the continuous alloy of silver grain on the island of Lesbos on. The same is said to contain only 40°/, pure silver'), and seems 1) The ancient coins of Northern Greece. I, 8. 86. 2) See Num. Chron. 1880, p. 298. 3) Lenormant I, 197. Hill, Handbook, 8. 70,

p. 87 · zoom original

i E h ! 4 hours I 5 Ri E The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 79 represent the oldest attempt in ancient coinage history, less valuable metal intentionally also in the silver coin to introduce. The way we were supposed to be was without any profit at all. have seen, the electron coin for the coining state is not, especially here and in Phocaia. Man must involuntary think, that the lesbians with theirs. Billion money a correlate to their electron create and with that the profit also on wanted to expand this type of coin. This Billonstatere, the one weighing 15.292 gr, the other of 11.08 gr'). well, like we accept have to, to Silver money the out- Western states placed in a similar value relationship as the gold to the electron. And if I make a guess- can speak, then here too the billon may be seen as too °/, pure- taken, and the heavier Phoenician stater weighing 11,469 gr Silver or about 2 medical symbols, the lighter one, Persian Stater but to 8.31 gr or about half one Attic Tetradrachm must have been calculated. Of course this billon also about the compulsory course in plays an important role in trade beyond its own territory I've played, I'm amazed at the abundance of good silver money that's there. times from Athens etc. trading cities issued became, very questionable. That's why this coin ends with the year 440 B.C. BC, when Mytilene silver first appeared and silver coinage is resumed in Methymna’). 87. The silver money of Macedonia and the West Barbarian states. Under the numerous Silver coins the Macedonian Kings are the specimens of Amyntas III (389—369 BC) 1) Catal. Lesbos, p. LXII. 2) Brandis, p. 286; Catal. Lesbos LXIV. E. Babelon leaves this billon at the latest in the middle of the 6th century, Rev, num. 1895, 20; cf. Imhoof, Monnaies Gr. 277 and 279. Show the staters under consideration a strongly archaic character.

p. 88 · zoom original

80 J Hammer: on average out very bad material, what partially also with his predecessors Archelaus and Pausanias hits. So sets e.g. B. a piece of large silver from Amyntas, with the head of Heracles, together from'): 23.8 °/, silver 76.1 °/, copper 0.1°/gold. In complete contrast to that are Alexander's coins d. Gr., which the Attic not only equal in weight, but also shared the good reputation for fineness. We give some analysis: No. | Nominal Silver | Gold | Literature reference 1 | Alexander D. Gr. Drachma 4.15 gr | 0.991 track | Bibra, silver, p. 40 no. 20 2 “detradrach. 15... 0.992 10,003 | Imb.-Bl., No. 25 =Müller, N0.692 3 “ Drachma 4 "10.989 | 0.001 n:..00:.20 4 “ Tetradrach. 17 “| 0.984 | 0.004 “No.24 (Müller, No. 1370) 5 “ 15.9 .; 10,982 10,005 200, 28 (Müller, No. 570) “ Drachma 4.05 ., | 0.972 NOT u 5 4.08 “| 0.9885 | 0.0005 | Bibra, silver, p.40 no. 21 8 5 a 3:84..,10968..100021 1... 8; “22 9 “ e 4.1... .0.959..,.0.002 De, 28 10 = * 4#192.1709555 10,0017... "24 11 . ? 0.9674 | 0.0036 | Hussey, 8. 71 12 ss ss 3.44 "0.9685 | 0.00464 | 0.00677 copper, 0.00725 lead?) 1) Imhoof-Blumer M. Gr., 8. 117, 8.472 No. 22. 2) A.C. Christomanos, Journal internat, d’arch&ologie numism, VIII, 1905, p. 115 ff. No, I,

p. 89 · zoom original

ERREREEENNTEDROT The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 81 The Coins Alexander's offer us so in 2 pieces (No. 1, 2) the highest possible degree from metallic quality, the 'at all for antiquity' to 'reach was. Also from Alexander's brother, Philipp III, gives us Imhoof-Blumer (No. 28) nor the high analysis of a tetradrachm (16 gr) = 0.990 silver and 0.003 gold. The widespread coins of Philip and Alexander have their course also to the west, to Gaul and Spain, taken where we next to the local silver money Greek cities frequent imitations of these common types meet... Here some analysis Greek City coins (some of them replicas of Philippine money): No. Mint location gr Silver % | gold % Literature ı | Massilia 2.76 gr | 0.8899 | 0.0037 | Bibra, Silberf. p. 40 no. 25 2 5 2.9 “| 0.900 | 0.003 | Bibra, Silberf. p. 40 no. 26 3 “. .Obolos 0.9852 | — | Blanchet, Trait6I p. 39 no. 2 4 2 drachma, Blanchet, Trait6I, imitated by the p. 39 no. 3 Alpine peoples 0.658 _ | Lugdunum 1.53 gr | 0.9585 | 0.0012 | Bibra, $.40 No. 27 6 | Helmantuca 3.55 gr | 0.9289 | track »“ 8.40 N0.28 (Spain) Commonly known is that the coins of the locals Celtic peoples almost continuously out Billon exist. Already Savot') remarked of them, that they are often found in their grain ringed and not as pure as the neighboring coins countries and princes. About the reasons we already spoke 1) Thes, ant. Rome. XI, 1214. Journal of Numismatics, XXVI, 6

p. 90 · zoom original

32 J Hammer: above (8. 60ff.) at Gall. Coin gold, in any case we are not allowed to like Savot, blames the country's poverty on precious metals look if we know the accounts of the ancient writers'). For the Greek trading cities, Massilia was at the top in their overseas trade with well-forming cities and states a constant control and a natural means of coercion, only with full-fledged money (see the analyses) on the world markets to compete. This one barrier fell but for the inland tribes, and that's why the appearance, that the grain not only changes in time, but also with the development distance into the interior, especially to the north-west, constantly worsens?). The older pieces are always the better ones). Analyzes of coins (“& la croix”) from the finds of Goutrens (South: D&p. Aveyron, Blanchet, Inventory U, p. 543) showed exceptionally good grain: 0.987; 0.989; 0.994; 0.997 fine silver; some traces of gold. It wasn't that pure metal the silver bar, which ones came to light. So They were refined again before they were minted. One piece from the treasure of Auriol (mouth of the Rhone), with the type of helmeted head, resulted: 0.956 fine. [Blanchet, Traite, I, 39 No. 1, II, 544]. Find from Pomarez (Southwest: D6p. country): 0.896 f. [Ibid. No. 11; I, 571]. Coins the Elusates, out dem Sweethearts from Laujuzan (West of Toulouse — Dep. Gers) 0.650 --0.780 fine. [Even- there 18.38; II, 561). Arivos Santonos Coin (notched head) : 0.932 [No. 5]. » “Ateula Ulatos” : 0.922 [N0. 8]. 1) Strabo IV, 90; Caesar, b. G. III, 21; Diodorus V, 27. However, notices the latter, in Gaul none Silver found, but on the other hand we know about Aquitaine. Silver mines in the area the Rutaeni at the time of Kaiser Tiberius. Hirschfeld, Kais. Administrative Officers, 2nd ed. pp. 156-57. 2) Rev. num. 1841, p. 456. 3) Blanchet, Traite p. 45. 4) Ibid. p. 37.

p. 91 · zoom original

AR ZN 222 MUSEUMS TEA ; i N The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 83 Coin of the Carnutes (No. 5975 — notched head): 0.876 (Middle France) [No. 9]. “ indefinite : 0.976 (East) — [No. 10]. Next to the north (West) resulted in the coins Pictones (youth winged bust - reverse horse) with a Average weight of 3 grams and an average silver content of 1.29 grams = 0.430 fine, the rest was almost the same amount made of copper and tin. [Blanchet, p. 39.] The coins of the Aremorian tribes are at the lowest price. specimens from the find from Bedee (Dep. Ille-et-Vilaine) are composed of: 0.330 silver; 0.504 copper; 0.166 tin. [Blanchet, 8. 37, 38 — IL, p. 565.] Aremorian coin, similar to Henri de la Tour, Atl. pl. XXVI, 33 from the Jersey finds, :0.506 f. [P.40 No.12] Part of the previous one 0.2251. [No 2] Type of Osismii (No. 6541) :0.5021. P, 12] > “ Ouriosolites [No. 6598] :0.153L.,. 8] »“ = find v. Jersey (Atlas XXVI, 28):0.100f. [“ 17] » == Blanchet No. 6703, lyre under the horse : 0.223f. [“16]. In Rev. num. 1841, 8. 456/57 are two types of coins analysed, usually found on the islands of the channel become'). One game resulted in: 0.041 silver; 0.841 copper.; 0.116 tin; A second "30. 5 0.5027 “ 0166 A third?) 9120, 0.798 .,,...0020 , The ones with the Gallic relatives British Coins also show dependence and support in their alloy to the same. In Num. Chron. 1861, p. 5 there is a find “silver coins” published, which is due to the strong addition of copper 1) J. Evans, Coins of the ancient Britons 1864, p. 128. 2) Ibid. 6*

p. 92 · zoom original

84 J Hammer: were covered with verdigris. A similar find in Num. Chron. 1869, 8. 319. Also that metal the tetradrachms, which ones from the Celts were imprinted on the Danube is just as bad. From the find from Birk (Transylvania). 2 pieces analysed’): No. 1. Disfigured head: 0.3389 syllables; 0.5563 copper.; 0.0826 tin; 0.0035 gold; No.2. Diana head: 0.3118 silver; 0.5898 copper.; 0.0822 tin; 0.0031 gold. Ser Silver money of the Orient and Carthage. In the Asian coin rows one comes across Alexander's Train no serious deterioration of the coin metal. The two analyzes of media symbols reported by Lenormant?). result in: 0.940 and 0.930 fineness. Two more given by Bibra (Silberf. p. 40 No. 17 and 18). sink a little: 0.884 and 0.901 fine silver (+ 0.0035 and 0.0028 gold). A Persian satrap coin from Cilicia (Helmeted head — sitting. Zeus) was: 0.942 fine, a small coin from Tarsus (sitting. Zeus - lion, one bull occurring) 0.934 fine. The Analysis one very small coin from Aspendos (Slinger - 2 wrestlers) only resulted in: 0.709°). 1) A. Blanchet, in Rev. num. 1902, p. 162. 2) Mon. d. Vantig. I, p. 190. 3) Rauch, Z. £. N. 1874, 8. 36f. No. 28, 29 and 30.

p. 93 · zoom original

2 20 > TEA The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 85 Even after the founding of the Diadochi states, the Silver coins were used for a long time by the Seleucids and the Lagids good grain, as the analyzes by Rauch and Imhoof prove. No. King Nominal Silver Gold Literature 1 | Antiochus I, Tetra- Syria drachma | 0.990 smoke No. 5 2 | Ptolemy I Suter . 0.934 » R.E 3 | Seleucus I - (312/281) drachma| 0.983 | 0.003 | Imhoof No. 41 4 | Antiochus III (222/187) s 0.951 | 0.001 . “ 42 5 | Alexander I Bala i 0.910 | 0.010 .; “43 6 | Antiochus VI ha 0.946 10,006 r “44. But in agony of the two empires suffers style, weight and fineness of their coins in equal measure. All tetra drachmas of Philip of Syria and partly also the coins of the other last Syrian kings show through their appearance the low salary. Two of Philipp's analyzes revealed: 7 | Philip tetradrachm | 0.678 Smoke No. 6 8 3 2 0.646 | 0.0025 | Imhoof "," 45 In Egypt, under the miserable reign of Ptole Maios Auletes!) (80-51 BC) coined a billon, at that 1) Maybe you can with Svoronos (Coins of Ptol. I, p. 374) the preserved Egyptian lead coins at the time of the siege of Alexan- Dria by Antiochus IV (168 BC). His assignment the one from “Euergetes and Cleopatra” minted silver-plated copper coins No. 1427 «-y at the same time (“siege coins”) is, however, very uncertain, there within the Seira B No. The prevailing coinage that began in 1306/73 group the later Ptolemaic period, which ones through the city signs rı or ra, & or SA and kı as Cypriot, in the cities of Paphos, Salamis and Kitium, which indicates the allocation of the individual coins >

p. 94 · zoom original

86 J Hammer: the ignoble one Addition the biggest part formed and the continued progressive deterioration also in the brutalization of the building embossed comes to light. Only after his expulsion and re- insertion through Rome (55 BC) seems he made some efforts sung to better and made more carefully to have — probably in fear of a new uprising). The last one period of government of the Ptolemaic House ge- Also listen to those coins in our collections that have nothing further than a white-boiled copper and from the The actual copper coin is often only distinguished by its weight. divorce. The analysis one Shekels from Simon Macchabeus, the from 141-136 BC in Judea, revealed: 0.834 silver and 0.166 copper, shows the same composition as the silver of the same early Syrian and Parthian kings (Vienna. Num. Z. 1903, 187). After the Parthian lands under Arsaces I separated from had made the Seleucids independent, the kings began their own coinage, which ones relatively remained good until the end of the dynasty: No. | King Nominal Silver Gold Literature 1 | Arsaces I 0.946 Smoke No. 22 (250/48) drachma 2 | Mithradates I 0.892 ; 0.002 | Imhoof No. 48 a, to one of the kings Ptolemy V-XVI depends only on style and manufacture (cf. the Review of “coins the Ptolemaic through K. Regling in 2.1. N. XXV, 8. 376/27). 1) Catal. Ptolemies LXXX; Svoronos p. 439 no. 1836-40. 2) It is the group Svoronos No. 1847-1852, 1854-1870, which ones Svoronos in the reign of Cleopatra, Regling in the time of Auletes sets (Z.f. N. XXV, p. 393 £f.), T E IE SE

p. 95 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 87 No. King Nominal Silver Gold Literature 3 | Mithradates I (171/38) drachma | 0.923 | 0.0029 | Imhoof 4 n x 0.899 | 0.005 No. 49-62 5 | Phraates II | (138/28) “ 0.709 | 0.003 6 | Artabanus II (88/77) FE 0.728 | 0.002 7 no I 0.854 | 0.001 8 | Orodes II (4-8 AD) ", 0.798 | 0.002 9 e n 0.622 | 0.003 10 | Tiridates II (26 AD) = 0.611 | 0.002 11 | Gotarzes (40/51 AD) ", 0.755 0.002 12 % a: 0.805 | 0.003 13 | Mithradates IV | (130/47) hey 0.749 | 0.004 14 | Volageses IV (147/91) tetra drachma | 0.334 | 0.001 15 | Volageses V | (191—208) Drachma | 0.779 | 0.003 16 | Artabanos V | | (213/27) “10746 10,004 | A tetradrachm from the main mint of Seleucia on Tigris should under the last Arsacids : 0.625 been fine be!). Dem Appearance after are actually very few to recognize pieces from our collections as being of low quality’). 1) Lenormant, Monn. d. P'antiq. I, 191. 2) Cat. des Brit. Mus, Parthia, leads just very isolated pieces lower grain to: one drachma each of Sinatruce (77-70 BC) = 5 “ 2 63 8 & Hey 1 a R

p. 96 · zoom original

88 J Hammer: From the not yet definitely located Prince Kamnis- kires, which lasted at least until the year 81 BC. lived In addition to tetradrachms of better grain, we also have those in which type, Legend and Fineness equally yourself ver- worsen, and finally completely raw. [Sallet, Z.£.N. VII (1881), p. 206fl.; Allotte de la Fuye, la dynasty of the Camnis- kir6ss — Rev. num. 1902, 8.103 No.6.] The same development took place in the coins of the since around 150 BC. BC. self-employed Kings by Charakene at Shat-el-Arab (union of the Euphrates and Tigris). after- the silver initially yet remained reasonably well, it sinks around the beginning of our era very quickly, so that the In the few surviving tetradrachms there is only a miserable billon, one Alloy of some silver with bronze, later almost pure copper’). The fineness of these coins in the Far East actually gives good chronological clues. After Bactria broke away under the governor Diodotus Seleucid empires had made independent (256 BC), took it under his successors Euthydemus I, his son and co-regent Demetrios, his rival Eucratides a huge upswing, and extremely numerous gold, silver and Copper coins are the many times single historical witnesses these Greco-Bactrian rulers, who after the dissolution of the empire into several Parts ruled side by side. This metal their coins, that out the silver mines above Alexandria sub Caucaso and on the bend of the Indus, from the gold dust from the country the Bautai and out the sand of the spring streams of Oxo won became?), was initially completely pure. But there are silver coins from Straton I (165-160 BC). worse grain came to light, and in the same find No. 10; of Phraates III (70-57 BC) No. 11; of Orodes I (57-37 v. BC) = No. 175; of Phraates IV (38-2 BC) = No. 66; a tetra drachma of Volageses IV (147-191 AD) = No. 1. ' 1) Babelon, Journal internat. d’arch. num. I, p. 381 ff. 2) Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclops. under Bactria.

p. 97 · zoom original

| The fineness of Greek and Roman coins, 89 from Mathura (British India) were located yourself also raw ge- worked, bad Pieces by the Indian satrap Rajubul'). Of Apollophanes (140 BC) Coins still have this full weight, but the metal is strong alloyed silver and the execution barbaric?), At the turn of the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C. Come the kings the Sakas (Indo-Scythians) to rule about the previous Hellenistic princes - their silver money deteriorated yourself from the conqueror Maues at always stronger, and is closed Azaz and Gondophares times (1st century AD - under the The apostle Thomas is said to have introduced Christianity to the latter in B. have spread) often the worst billon °). From the electron or counterfeit gold coins of Carthage became already spoken above (p. 58). His silver money stayed well, as long as the rich returns from the Spanish mines are there high Expenses of the Roman wars covered (a pit of Hannibal should daily 300 @ Silver introduced have, Plin. n.h. XXXIII, 6; Even in Polybius' time it was Yield from the New Carthaginian mines was 25,000 drachmas daily (approx. 18,000 marks) — Strabo III, 148). But as with the un- happy turn of events of Hannibal. war and loss The time of trouble came to New Carthage, became the silver 1) Cunningham, Coins of Alexander's successors, Num. Chron. 1868-1873; spec. 1870, 8. 213-215. 2) Ibid. 1872, p. 177. 3) About the Indo-Scythian dynasts see Cunningham, Num. Chron. 1889-1894; also Sallet, The Successors of Alexander the Elder. Gr. in Bactria and India, Z. £. N. 1879, p. 273 ff.. From the later ones Indian silver coins, kärsha or kärshapana, which themselves on the Indo-Scytic connect, only that the Greeks Inscriptions completely from displaces the native one says Cunningham, 1873, pp. 200-202 a series of analyses, the remain fairly constant in their salary. The first batch of 104 pieces contains: 75.2-86.3%, on average 79.76% silver; no = Tue n“ :76 —83.3%, = 78.31% 5 n 3. ” ” 4 ” ” : 76 — 71.5% ” 76.77% ” »“ 82 pieces melted together 813.% 5 Thus, average content of these coins */, silver and '/, copper. ze ”

p. 98 · zoom original

90 J Hammer: gradually to Billon and finally to white copper with little over 10 °/, fineness. The one at Müller, num. de V’anc. Afrique II, p. 133 Fineness samples let er- know: a large number of Carthaginians. Silver coins included quite pure metal, Random samples of coins of type No. 84-91, 107-108, 116-123 (Müller II, 87f.) showed a fineness from 0.937—0.968. Against revealed The same way the coins of type No. 93 only 0.875 and No. 114 only 0.750 fine. Another large number of coins already externally concluded that there was a strong addition and resulted e.g. B. Type No. 102 only about half pure silver. From Pieces of type 94, 96, 98, 102, 111—112. Finally No. 103 and 104 offer an option see, that one could almost doubt whether they are silver or are to be regarded as copper coins. The chemical analysis of a this one last copies resulted: 11°/, silver; 86 °/, copper; 2°/, tin; trace of lead and Iron. In others Coins (II, 137) the lead is said to be significant form a percentage. According to the stamp - Demeter head in a very mediocre design leadership (African style) — belongs to the latter group certainly in the 3rd coin period of 201, perhaps only in the very last time Carthage. Livius (XXXI, 2) also tells us a little story about the “Punica fides” in paying war reparations. When in 199 B.C. The Carthaginian envoys were the first Rate the war compensation to Rome brought, be that money (bar) to the message the Quaestors back there- been shown. It had to be melted down, and there If the fourth part evaporated, it was given to the Carthaginians the condition was made that the departure be replaced; Gellius') adds still in affirmative indignation at, the Carthaginians have done that, although from Rome argentum purum putum' in wear had been determined. The little story doesn't need to be 1) noet. Att. VII, 5.

p. 99 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 9] found to be, just smells it very much strong after the others chikans, with those as is well known, Rome and especially his greedy officials persecuted the powerless people. Müller (I, p. 130, No. 348-352) mentioned bad di- drachmas, front: beardless head of Heracles with lion skin, back: lion r. AIBYON, which perhaps belongs to the Libyan Macae people belong, and which he because of their inferior material and semi-barbaric style in the 2nd century, i.e. h. at the same time with the bad coinage of Carthage. sg The silver money the Roman Republic. The addition of base metal is in Roman silver money in the republic just as vanishingly small as in the Attic coin, and therefore cannot be taken into account here either. brought become like there. If Zonaras (VIII, 26), Of course a very late source (d. 1118 AD), tells that the Romans who offered them after the Trasimeno defeat- would have turned down a gift from Hiero of Syracuse xairso 2» Axonuarig dvrss, WoTE TO Koyvgovv vönıoua Awıyds za) zaIao0V Yes, it can't be like that here be a lower grain than has been found until now just completely disappearing few bad alloyed specimens, Rather, there was the falsification of coins, which took place in the Republic often very considerable was, exclusively in it, that man The coin issues include a large number of plated pieces mixed'). Rauch') left out 87 family denarii and 8 quinarii ver- Melt down at different times, which have an average salary of 0.966. The highest fineness is that of Thompson I) See Graf, in Vienna. N.Z. 1903, from $. 66 on. 2) Magazine f. Number 1874, p. 32ff.

p. 100 · zoom original

92 J Hammer: and Fabroni found: 0.998; other samples from them are: 0.982; 0.979; 0.961; 0.902"). In detail still like following analyses dated Coins listed become (partly from Rauch's communications 3, p. 295 ff. No. 1-16, partly from Schiassi, p. 33): Type or formative No. HE time Silver Analyst | Oldest Silver money 1-4 Ianus head Quadriga 6.5, 6.75, 0.990 |Smoke No. 1-4 De and 3.25 gr 5|Roma head Dioscures old 0.986 \ N) 6 3 Biga with deer h 0.986 5 6 7—8 |Apollo's head Quadriga 5 0.958 5 “ 1-8 9|Tientulus Marc(elli) F. around 90BC| 0.988 |Schiassi at Mommsen 10|P. Whoops (sub- throwing the king Aretas) 58 B.C. BC | 0.986 4 \ 11 |Faustus, Sulla’s son [around 64 BC| 0.982 3 12'Gens Plautia EN 0.980 5 M 13|Gens Porecia = 0.977 L + 14/15 Gens Calpurnia —_ 0.972 |Smoke No. 9-10 16/Gens Domitia — 0.9865 |Sabatier p. 72; 17 Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius, Emperor 1) at Schiassi, 8.33. around 79BC in war against Ser- torius 0.955 No. 1 Schiassi at Mommsen

p. 101 · zoom original

CASE SHIRT LENFN I PEN End The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 95 Type or formative Cana time Silver Analyst 18|Lollius Palicanus around 45BC 0.954 |Schiassi | at Mommsen 19 Faustus (Cornelia g.) 0.952, 5 20 Julius Caesar 0.986 ;SmokeNo.11’ 21/2, , s 0.970 m 1a 1 Darcet found in Republican coins between 0.993 and 0.965 silver). The denarii from finest grain so only have 2 and 7 Thousand parts alloy, most others stand on the Fineness 0.990 and 0.970 and only in exceptional cases does this decrease same to 0.952 (No. 18), in another analysis to 0.902 down. Furthermore contains also the Roman Silver something Gold, which amply covers the reduced value of the addition. A serious one Lose weight this one high grain is one rarity, which so far only applies to the last period of civil society get with the legionary denarii des Marcus Anthony Triumvir has been established. This is where the deterioration ends the rush of the moment and the huge armor Decisive battle of Actium probably understandable, do yes also the Legion Aurei one bad impression and see almost as if cast out?). Included according to Mommsen (p. 756). these denarii almost '/, copper, with which Rauch's analyzes of the IIL, X. and XI. Legion roughly match, the ever resulted in a salary of: 0.838. Other samples from Schiassi: 0.874 and 0.855 by Akerman : 0.850. The sample from Bibra is better: 0.924 silver; 0.0712 copper; 0.001 gold (Silberf, p. 37, No. 1), but unfortunately Bibra never gives take a closer look at the coins. 1) Letronne, consid. p. 84. 2) Bahrfeldt, Addendums II, p. 15 No. 17,

p. 102 · zoom original

94 J Hammer: If, of course, Pliny n.h. 33.46 with reference to Anthony says: miscuit denario triumvir Antonius ferrum; miscentur era false monetae, so could he so not “alloy” through Addition from Iron mean, because it's impossible is, silver with to alloy iron; but actually there are among them Legion denarii of Anthony individual plated with one iron anima found. S. Mommsen, P. 385, note 60. Such a denarius had a silver content in the plating 0.180 - in a similar one from Tiberius: 0.200'). 8 10. The silver money the Roman Imperial period. I century. After already in the year 27 B.C. BC the division the Sovereignty rights between Augustus and the Senate fully had been drawn brought the year 15 BC. The final one Regulation in which the emperor had sole right to coin coins in gold and silver reserved and the Senate only the output Bringing the copper coin, who left it until the emperor Florianus (276 AD) coined. The silver coins become initially from Augustus up to Nero both in weight as good in fineness and careful misapplied. 50 emperor coins that melt the smoke had a fineness of 0.966. 1) Here are a few notes of alloys from earlier times: The description the antique. Coins the royal Mus. on Berlin III, p. 168 leads from No. 32 to quite a few coins from the Roman period - Campanian Embossing on which from heavily alloyed silver, in some cases almost entirely are copper; in Z.f. N..1883, 8. 10 is a find of Roman family coins the Romagna discussed, among which some pieces from the Carisia families, Marcia and Rubria are said to have been covered with copper oxide. 2) Z. f, N. 1874, 8. 32-34. |

p. 103 · zoom original

PRAY TERROR EREREBENRENELTEN The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 95 No. names of the emperors | Silver Gold Literature reference 1—4 | Augustus 0931. | 0.990 Smoke No. 17-20 3 4 0.9278 | 0.0214 |Bibra No. 2 6-8 | Tiberius 0.990 Smoke No. 21-23 9 Augustus and 0.989 Sabatier 8. 73, Tiberius No.3 10 = 0.981 0.0055 “>. 8878.,.2 11-12 u 0.980 Schiassi at Mommsen 13 R 0.978 Akerman “ 14-15 s 0.961 Schiassii “ 16 2 0.954 5 » Nero then resorted to the questionable method for the first time Coin deterioration through alloy and put it with that Reason for the unstoppable decline that occurred in the 3rd century emerged in all its terribleness. The insane one Waste in the pleasures of the emperor and the rabble, the expenses for the important ones wars and finally the one big fire of Rome in 64 led to financial difficulties enormous growth'). In addition, of course not unconsidered stay visible, that already Augustus “through the illogical one and impractical Coordination the both Primary metals* (Silver and Gold, Mommsen, p. 769) its coinage on one unfortunate base had put - and in one time, where immediately before Caesar the considerable gold stock the public coffers and his Gallic booty thrown into the market and thereby the value ratio of gold and silver reduced to 9:1 had. The value ratio, 1) Schiller I, 8. 359-60: “There were certainly major frauds of senior officials, from what yourself a Seneca not completely clean seems to have held.”

p. 104 · zoom original

96 J Hammer: that of Augustus set at 11.9:1 was (/“%@ Gold = 2>/,, & silver), had to with the enormous outflow of gold into the abroad!) postponed soon become and the gold in values rise. At the basics of Augustus you didn't dare to stir; So in the beginning they probably looked for things through moderate experimentation. gation a kind of regulator between the rising gold and the price of silver). But the coin deterioration of the 3rd century can in no way be excused The extravagance of many Roman emperors was enormous military events, tributes to the barbarians, etc. wore certainly most of the blame for this bankruptcy. There- against is the irregular weight loss of the aureus in 3, century. certainly essential been determined by that Striving to keep up with declining silver money. Nero's measures, through which actually the way to the credit coin was entered, found initially still in wrestler, later in the most outrageous and nonsensical way Imitation. After in the years 60-62 AD the Denarius on !/; % (3.41 g) reduced and also the aureus something lower deployed been was ('/s%), bot one further weight reduction of the small denarius hardly any more much advantage, the profit so had to go through intentional life yation can be achieved. Under Nero the same amounted to 5-10%, grew under the short regiment of Vitellius already up 20 °], °), improved somewhat under the Flavians, especially under the economical financial administration of Domitian, where the deliberate Alloy goes back to about '/. 1) In Num. Chron. 1898, p. 304 there is a find of 501 Roman ones Gold pieces from the time of Augustus to Vespasian were published in State of Pudukota in Western India was made. A directory of since 1787 in Hindustan found ancient coins can be found at Thurston, Madras Museum, coins No. 2. 2nd ed. Madras 1894. 2) See L&paulle, Rev. num. 1888, p. 396 ff. 3) Mommsen, p. 757f.

p. 105 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 97 the as ee: Silver ee resp. De. me a En aa ae | 2 analyses| Nero 0.943 Smoke No. 24-25 1 3 5 0.910 Akerman at Mommsen 3 5 Galba 0.921 Smoke No. 26-28 1 n Vitellius! 0.808 Akerman at Mommsen 1 5 Vespasian | 0.886 Smoke No. 29 1 5 S 0.878 u “ 80 1 R . 0.7982 | 0.0085 |Bibra “ 3 6 1 5 > 0.8008 | 0.0033 | “ we 1 3 > 0.881 Akerman at | Mommsen (1 R a 0.800 | 0.0065 | Höpfer at Sabatier 5. 73 No. 4 (5 5 Domitian | 0.914 Smoke No. 31-35 1 5 ® 0.925 Akerman at 7 Mommsen T : : 0.860 | 0.002 | Sabatier 8. 73 No.5 1 ; Nerva 0.917 Akerman at Mommsen 1 n Traian 0.928 5 # II century. Around the year 100 AD under Traian stands for the silver coin a 2nd turning point. This emperor apparently took a thorough coinage reform by grinding down the coins had older pieces moved in.!) But this is probably not the case The main reason for his reform measure was, rather it was he soon afterwards (already in the first years of his reign) reduce the fineness, like that that the alloy again on 1) Cassius Dio 68, 15, 3. Journal of Numismatics., XXVI, f

p. 106 · zoom original

98 J. Hammer. 20 °), rose. - turned 80 with the confiscation of the old coins a good deal made and Traian had no hesitation, this means for improvement his Finance plenty to turn. The fineness remained at this level up to and including lich Antoninus Pius. Marcus Aurelius was extremely good-natured and congenial in fiscal matters. At the bad location of the The resources of the empire soon became so scarce that that not just that Crown jewels had to be pledged, but also that Silver money after that already means that have become common delivered more valuable became'): the addition is about %,, under Commodus almost 30%. | Analyst or the a Sn | Sur Sol owl | Literature reference : 1 analysis | Traian 0.884 | | Smoke No. 39 5 S 0.862 4 German & 2 0.852 5 8 1 row 5 0.838 5 eBb i i 0.7916 |0.0031| 0.1931 Bibra “ 6 vs a 0.7854 | 0.003710.2067) “ “ 5 | 3 A loose Hadrian 0.867 smoke “ 40, 41, 44 | 2 5 0.824 > “ 42-43 2 ale < 0.9147 | 0.0022] 0.073 |Bibra “ 8 9. s 0.8087 0.0011 0.1880 , "," 17 | >, & 0.810 Akerman at Mommsen | 5 5 0.809 0.1904| Höpfer near Saba tier 8. 73 No. 6 4 Antoninus | 0.9328 | 0.0017 0.0635] Bibra No. 10 | Pius Y I : 0.813 Smoke “ 46 ii... " | 0.800 Be “.48 1) Mommsen$. 757; Schiller I, p. 652£.

p. 107 · zoom original

h 5 17 The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 99 EEE call number of the analyses u | | 1 analysis | Antoninus Pius 1 ” » l ” “ 1 N ” I... Faustina | | | major | | 1 ” ” 01', » 1 ” N 1 » ” | 1 ” n f 9 analyses] Marcus Aurelius 0 \ 1 analysis s 2 eels! Faustina 3 | minor 1 analysis 5 (1, L. nd Mare Au rel and Faustina minor | ” » ä L.Verus Analyzes) Commodus ID Ba u Silver | Gold 0.783 0.7673 | 0.0011 0.2087 0.748 0.7015 0.924 0.858 0.813 0.796 0.773 0.730 0.745 0.9359 0.721 0.705 0.797 0.782 0.739 0.681 0.720 Copper 0.272 0.009 | 0.0301 Analyst or Literature reference smoke “ 45 Bibrat, : 9 smoke “ 47 Höpfer near Saba animal p. 74 no. 7 Akerman at Mommsen Smoke No. 49 sl Akerman at Mommsen Hopper Smoke No. 52-59 Bibra, copper finds p.64 no. 1 Smoke No. 61-62 % “...60 Höpfer near Saba animal p. 74 No.8 Akerman at Mommsen Smoke No. 65.66, 68; 70.71 7*

p. 108 · zoom original

100 J Hammer: major Ay | Mer | Siher | Goa |Bupter | ererangae 4 analyses| Commodus | 0.710 Smoke No. 63, 64, '67, 69 1 analysis k 0.671 Höpfer near Saba tier 8. 74 No. 9 Ar, Pertinax | 0.900 Smoke No. 72 1.3 . 0.620 2 =. 1.6, Julianus 0.810 ; “ 14 III. century. a) until around 256 AD. A 3. Turning point occurs under Septimius Severus one, whose otherwise energetic regiment the coin not benefit came. In the majority of analyzes (see Table 8. 102) increases the alloy to 45 to 55 °/, and thus the silver money to the perfect coin pressed down. Yes followed Even with this sharp deterioration, no legal currency change: with each reduction in meal or grain or both at the same time the new one lesser coin of the older same placed, so that the two next to each other circulated or surrounded should run. In fact, such a reduction had to happen the denarius content in commercial transactions is a natural consequence have, that the silver coin significant among their previous ones market value fell, or the entire value of money fell. Therefore created well - circa 215 AD — Caracalla one new coin - after its founder, M. Aurelius Antoninus Caracalla, from us usual (Argentine Aurelianus or) called “Antoninianus”). About the value of this new coin and their relationship to ancient denarius are some hypotheses 1) The name comes from Kubitschek, Quinquennium 8. 73, in 3 forged rescripts (Aurelianus 9, 7; 12, 1; Probus 4, 5) for gold coins, and only in one, equally forged Aurelian (in the Bonosusvita 15, 8), He in my opinion En

p. 109 · zoom original

I The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 101 set up been. According to his average weight from "yes Roman. & would he about L1'/, Denarii evaluate. Mommsen, J. Evans et al. want a double denarius in it (binio), while Hultsch (p. 322) only rates it at 1'/, denarius or '/» Aureus can be released. I can present myself to decide on undecided. Actually Of course, this new coin only represents the value of about °/, Neron denarii, since they were from the beginning 0.500 has been finely minted; and there the government of course wanted to get their due here too, the answer is ninianus was just as much a credit coin as the denarius. The coin grain generally remains at the same level from .500 — until near the end of the year 256. In detail come Of course multiple deviations before, by some Pieces up to 75 and 80 °/, pure silver included, (see table p. 103 £. Elagabalus, Decius, Volusianus), while others to 30), decline without any fixed rule being apparent — rather heard it to the character this dissolute one embossing, that externally same pieces from the same emperor in Metal value fluctuates between 45 and 25 Pf. (Mommsen p. 792). Also the denarii of the Emperor Severus Alexander, who on the coins called restitutor monetae are no better than that of his predecessor Elagabalus, as the table shows. Under dem following Senate Empire will yet a Another step was taken, which also resulted in the provincial coinage be drawn into the general ruin. Gordian III (238—244) searched through Recording the bad, but at least the Antiochene tetra- drachmas (see below p. 113) into the Reichsgeld the latter too lift. But that was a drop in a hot stone poured. After a short time this was still pretty good for silver coins before. Actually must but the new nominal with the Image of the emperor with the crown of rays (empress over the crescent). can be traced back to Caracalla.

p. 110 · zoom original

p. 111 · zoom original

€ # : N Ä 1 The fineness of Greek and Roman coins, 103 number of the analyses 1 l 1 8 1 1 h) | BDA m u nn y Emperor Caracalla Elagabalus 5 » ” Severus Alexander Maximinus Gordianus Pius ı Pupienus Philip I Arabs 0.490 0.358 0.350 0.3377 0.455 0.002 0.589 0.490 0.0013 0.440 0.361 0.2817 0.500 0.4752 | 0.4742 | 0.0037 0.450 4,430 Analyst or Silver Gold | Copper Ilterattz statement 0.520 |(Antoninnianus)| Smoke No. 84 0.750 | = “94 0.4397 | 0.001 | 0.5526) Bibra, Silb.No.15 0.4341 | 0.0072] 0.5469] ,, “20 0.428 |(3 answers) Smoke No. 91/93 and 95/96 0.500 “. N0.97—99 u. No. 104 0.476 “ N0.100u.103 0.450 4,200 0.4066 | 0.0017| 0.587 | Bibra, Silb.No.17 Smoke No. 102 = “108 0.6564| Bibra, syllable. No.18 Smoke No. 106/7 0.4065| Bibra, Silb.No.19 Smoke No. 108 — 111% 118 N0,112,119 “113-117 ” ” 0.677 Höpfer near Saba animal p.74 No.10 ı Smoke No0.120 “N0.123-125 0.5031| Bibra, silver. No.21 0.5065) "," , copper p.64 No.8 Smoke No. 121 122 “ ”

p. 112 · zoom original

p. 113 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 105 b) From 256 AD until Diocletian's coinage reform. After Valerianus and his son Gallienus in time the communal Government relatively better had minted metal, what in particular on the Legion coins with the legend “Gallienus Aug.” applies’), begins the last one deep incision in coin deterioration, for example with the years 256 and 257 AD. The large need for money for the Persian War and at the same time for the campaigns in Illyria and Gaul is the immediate cause of this'). The The fineness of the silver coins drops to 20-25 °/. Finally from Vietorinus (until 267 AD), Tetrieus and Claudius Gothicus (268-270 AD). except for Diocletianus appears the silver just more than copper, that through the called the process of white boiling superficially the appearance should win from silver money; yes in the ranks from that time of Probus there are coins that are not even in silver, but only in lead (stannum – mixture made of silver and lead) stained are. Still officially existed the silver currency further, such as B. Zosimos (hist. I, 61) the Aurelian white copper coin '@oyvgıov v&ov', and also the names all belong to silver. This “denarii aerei” have now mostly lost their silver foam, and are in the color of The “small bronzes” are often indistinguishable. number d. ; ES Analyst or Shakrsen Emperor Silver Gold Copper eggs © | 1 | Valerianus | 0.2143 | 0.0153 | 0.7586 Bibra, $ilb. No.22 1 { 0.143 | Smoke No. 145 a 1 Gallienus | 0.180 | Dar » 200 1 e 0.118 Sr “3 t) In the time of the 30 tyrants, the soldier rule, it was natural- of particular value, that at least the soldier's wages are somewhat a lot of good money was made. 2) Voetter, Vienna. N.Z. 1900, p. 126.

p. 114 · zoom original

106 J Hammer: Emperor | Silver | Gold Copper | Analyst or Literature reference number d. Analyzes Gallienus | 0.1711 | 0.0018 | 0.8094 | Bibra, silver No. 23 1 0.0601 81881, Copper p.64 No.15 10 0.0538 Höpfer near Saba tier 8.75 No.13 0.056 Smoke No. 152/3 0.0502 0.922 | Bibra, copper p.64 No.14 “18 16 0.0489 0.9864, “- ., Postumus | 0.203 Smoke No. 156/9 0.1731 0.8183 | Bibra, copper P. 64 No.16 | (commaille) 0.1214 0.8642 | “P.64 No.17 0.0788 0.905 |Sabatier p. 79 No.15 Victorinus 0.022 Philipps’). Bibra, copper 8.67 No0.81 0.0176 p. 60 no. 30 4 ; 0.016 “60 29 a 0.011 a Marius 0.0515 67 87 'Tetricus | 0.015 “60 33 0.0076 0.0041 “67 84 0.0038 “6.8 | \ | ' un 08262. ...2600 2:81 | | | \ | P- ea 1) from Liebig and Kopp, annual report on chemistry 1859, 8.683£f. Ibid. also 1853, p. 725 analyzes by Girardin.

p. 115 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 107 Analyst or literary a Emperor Silver | Gold | Copper des (1 | Claudius 11 Gothius! 0.0793 0.847 Philipps near Bibra, copper., p. 60 no. 35 h' 1 £ 0.0422 0.8807 Bibra, copper., 8.56 N0.76 12 s 0.021 Smoke No. 160/1 lı 100186 0.816 | Philipps b. Bibra, copper, p. 60 no. 34 A. Mark], “Weight u. 1 |Quintillus | 0.03 from Tarraco | Silver content 1 x 0.023 “Rome the Antoni 1 ; 0.029 “ Siscia niane from 2 “ 0.008 "Oyzicus | Quintillus", 1 b 321 S 1 “ 1 “ 1 b£) Severina, 9 | 1 |) wife : Aurel. 1 | Taeitus 1 1 3 | Aurelianus 1 ” “ ” 0.0232 0.0225 0.052 0.0296 0.029 0.022 0.0208 0.0201 0.0098 0.058 0.0437 0.0592 in Vienna. N.Z. | 1902,8.146/7 j Bibra, Kupfer, p. 67 U No.85 and 86 Smoke, No. 162/4 Philipps near Bibra, Copper, 8.67 No. 77 0125.20 Bibra, copper, p. 56/57 No. 79-82 Bibra, copper, p. 67 No.79 18 “ ” “ ” Philipps near Bibra, copper., p. 60 no. 39

p. 116 · zoom original

108 J Hammer: “Pay d.Ana-| Emperor | Silver | Gold Kinter iR | lyse indication Philipps near Bibra, copper., p. 67 no. 80 1 5 0.044 = RV..,.08 4| Probus 0.052 Smoke No. 165/68 1 5 0.044 Akerman near Bibra, Copper., p. 68 no. 110 0.0382 Bibra, copper., p.64 No.19 0.0376 ee “ 3.08.,.18 0.034 ,, 00 0.0322 Philipps near Bibra, copper., p. 60 No.41 1 0.0224 T “00: “20 2| Carinus 0.050 Smoke, No. 169/70 I [ Diocleti anus out the 1st Pe- | riode 0.045 R a 1 5 0.020 A 11% 1 ® 0.015 Sabatier, p. 80 no. 20 1|(Maximia- nus her- culius 0.020 Smoke, No. 173 | 1 Migcitns | 0.049 | 2 In the bad embossing material is often found. one more Addition of tin and lead, there you yourself in time this one the dissolute coinage no longer took the trouble to do so Metal neat to clean. Part of the blame for this likes private counterfeiting wear, which just during the last period under the mint master Felieissimus reached its peak in ancient coinage history. Same probably came at the beginning of Gallienus' autocracy

p. 117 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins, 109 to the helm'), and remained in his position until the known bellum monetariorum at the beginning of Aurelian's reign. So Analyzes also revealed a variety of base additives wrinkled fluctuations: Emperor Silver copper | Zinc Tin Lead |Liter., Bibra, copper. f. Gallienus | 0.0101! 0.9252) 0.015 | 0.047 |track |S. 56 No. 73 Claudius Il| 0.0793| 0.847 |track | 0.0301 0.0267| , 60 “ 35 | Philips 5 0.0186| 0.816 0.0741 0.0811| "60" 34 Philips r 0.0422| 0.8807 0.0517| 0.0227| “56 No. 76 Aurelian | 0.022 | 0.8894 0.0505| 0.0321| "56 “ 81 x 0.0208| 0.918 0.06 “86. 82 Tacitus | 0.0592] 0.9146 0.0231 iron, | | p. 60 no. 39 5 0.044 | 0.8608 0.0363| 0.0487|8. 60 No. 38 Probus | 0.0224! 0.9068! 0.0139| 0.02 |0.0233| “60 "," 40 = 0.0322| 0.9465 0.0045| 0.0044| “60 "," 41 ; 0.034 | 0.9099) 0.0127, 0.0302) 0.0101) "56 “ 83 Reform of silver coinage by Diocletian and her further story. The first signs of better times appear below Aurelian (270-275 AD). If him too at the short one Reign in vain order in the alloy conditions had sought to bring and his silver money according to the grain is just as bad as that of his predecessors, he has little especially in the abuses of the mint officials and workers with strong hand intervened and all provincial coinage Minting canceled with the exception of Alexandria. His too 1) Vienna. Number Z. 1884, p. 406/7.

p. 118 · zoom original

110 J Hammer: successor Taeitus, the already in Aurelian's coinage reform been involved seems to be stayed to a comprehensive one No time for reorganization. Only became under him the illegal cial deterioration of the coin metal again forbidden, plating is prohibited and the coin in technical terms point of view more carefully defined. What these both for all three types of coins aimed for had, succeeded Diocletian at least for Silver. Since 292 hit he a denarius of pure metal at '/«s%, and from From then on, the silver became significantly pure in the following period. stayed. Just An analysis by Licinius revealed that the low level of: 0.300 and a modest alloy in a coin from K. Magnentius - 0.880 and Iovinus: 0.750. Emperor Silver Analyst | Emperor Silver Analyst Diocletian: 0.943 smoke, | Constantine 2nd period No. 174ff. IS: 0.990 smoke Maximianus Julian II: 0.940 Herculius: 0.900 Iovinus: 0.750 Licinius: 0.300 July Nepos: 0.940 Constantine Arcadius: 0.990 M.: 0.980 Honorius: 0.980 Constantius: 0.980 Justinianus: 0.980 5 0.970 Athalaric: 0.980 Constans: 0.940 Vitiges: 0.990 Magnentius: 0.880 Teia: 0.980 Magnus Heraclius Maximus: 0.990 (610/41): 0.926 Valentinian I: 0.990 Manuel Valens: 0.990 (1143/80): 0.9325 | Sabatier, 8.18 No. 14/15 8 11, The silver in the provincial coinage during the Roman imperial period. After we discussed the coin deterioration in the foregoing discussed on a grand scale, like them over the course of the imperial

p. 119 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. he over time, the entire monetary and commercial system was gradually undermined has, add us still the story the Greek silver coin during the time the suzerainty of Rome. In general In my opinion, the coinage rights granted by Rome were limited on the copper, and only a few cities of importance enjoyed it the right to mint silver. From Ephesus have us imperial Silver coins with Greek and Latin Legends: Tetradrachms ver- wrestled weight (and therefore according to the former Asia Minor tables Silver coin of 12.5 gr “cistophores* called) with “Diana Ephesia” from Claudius until Hadrian, Denarii from Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, finally Didrachms and Drachmas from Nero with the Inscription AlAPAXMON and .APAXMH. ?) Amisus in Pontus left behind us tetradrachms (cisto- phores) by Hadrianus, Didrachms and drachmas from him and from his wife Sabina, finally drachmas from Caesar Aelius, the Emperor Antoninus Pius and Caesar Marcus.?) On Cyprus began during the last one three years of During the reign of Vespasian, a large amount of silver was minted or billon, tetradrachms and didrachms, which are up to Domitianus continue. ?) In Cilicia coined Tarsus from Domitianus down to the Emperor Macrinus and Diadumenianus from time to time silver, whose initial weight of a tetradrachm 13.74 gr down to 4.05 gr of the last billon coins.') Mopsus gave under Hadrianus and Antoninus Pius silver tetradrachms, similar to those of Antioch; have as well we tetradrachms from Aegeae from the reign of Hadrianus (Cat. Oilicia, p. CXD. One very significant Silver stamping unfolded yourself to 1) Head, Hist. num. p. 498; Catal. Ionia p. 74 no. 209-211. 2) Recueil general of monn. gr. d’Asie Mineure, Paris 1904, p. 62 £f, 3) Catal. Cyprus p. CXXII and pp. 76-81. 4) Catal. Cilicia S. LXXXVII

p. 120 · zoom original

1:2 J Hammer: Caesarea in Cappadocia, from Traianus to Gordianus III that of Catal. Cappadocia (p. 92) recorded the last trillion. It are drachmas (2.85 - 3.498 gr) and didrachms (6.739 - 7.322:gr), under Traianus also light Tetradrachms from 10.173 - 11.47 gr. What now the fineness of these coins, are like that these temporary influences of the tendency emanating from Rome to deterioration of course not resisted. Two Samples') from Caesarea from the beginning of the 2nd century even already significant under the grain of the then main municipal silver money: Traianus: 0.625 fine; Hadrianus : 0.641 fine. Similar material point to the coins of Mopsus, Tarsus and Aegeae.’) In Cyprus there are among the Flavian emperors Silver also Billon. — That Ephesian Silver seems already under Nero the way stronger Alloy struck to have. In the places mentioned where the silver coinage in the third century yourself continues, are the coins of course not better than in Rome. Of Caesarea the Catal notes. Cappa docia, that the purity of the silver lasted up to Septimius Severus, what remark after the given Analyzes only apply to a limited extent. Above all but fluctuates the alloy into the tetra drachmas, which come from the two main mints of the East, Antioch and Alexandria emerged. The Roman one Ver- administration sat the silver money (in weight the old tetra drachmas), which was further coined in these provinces and mainly for the same determined was, into a solid ratio to actual value meter, dem Denarius. The Antiochene tetradrachms had now a maximum weight of 15.6 gr, the legal value was but just 3 Roman 1) Rauch, Z. £. N. 1874. 2) Eckhel, Proleg. 8.XXV ff. Z. f. N. 1888, 8. 80-81.

p. 121 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 113 denarii, as well the so-called cistophore in the weight of around 12.5 grams circulated. This made a silver under Augustus salary of 11.7 gr, under Nero of 10.23 gr, under Traian of 10.11 gr for an Antiochene tetradrachm. You wanted to so keep the same weight, so these tetra- drachmas in the 1st period approx. 25 °/,, in the 2nd approx. 34 '/°l, and in the 3rd approx. 35’/,°/, alloy received?). Two analyses, the Imhoof-Blumer No. 46 and 47 already show to a lot on: Vespasian: 0.565; Traian: 0.572 fine. But in time of the low point of the denarius, so since Septimius Severus, the given norm is completely ignored calm, so that from then on up to Trebonianus Gallus and Volusianus, under which the last Antiochene tetra- drachmas were struck, the salary was below that of the Roman Billon stands. Bigger still than in the Antiochene is the Confusion in the coins of Alexandria (so-called “Alexan” inside'), where to under Emperor Tiberius also the tetra drachma coinage the Ptolemies for the specific course in Egypt resumed. Meanwhile the Ptolemaic gold octadrachmon was through the Roman Aureus, which is three times lighter replaced. There but one remembers the traditional equation of 25 tetra- drachmas with 1 gold piece don't change wanted, a tetra drachma was therefore equal to a denarius, one was forced to the tetradrachms strong too alloy?), At first we did the Alexandrians still contain silver; a larger batch Alexandrians of the emperor Claudius I and which yielded Antonia when melted: 0.251 silver and 0.001 gold®). But it lasted this relationship not long: under Nero shows one such coin just more 0.155, under Otho 0.164, under Hadrian 0.165 fineness'). Completely in 3rd century, from the time 1) Pollux IX, 86; Mommsen, $. 38; Boeckh, metrologist. investigation. p. 71. 2) Mommsen, 8. 723f. Lenormant I, p. 204. 3) Vienna. Numismat. Monthly magazines 1867, p. 68. 4) Compare to No. 1 and 3 smoke, Z.£. N. 1874, no. 31 and 32; to No. 2 Imhoof-Blumer, Monn. Gr. No. 63, Journal of Numismatics. XXVI, 8

p. 122 · zoom original

114 J Hammer: Caracallas, they sink so low (in grain and weight) that the analysis of the white-boiled pieces, those only through theirs Thickness can be distinguished from the actual copper coin can, shows the following results: (Sabatier, Prod. p. 79, No. 17 and 21) Claudius Gothicus: 0.0381 silver; 0.8951 copper; 0.0265 zinc; 0.0276 tin.!) Diocletian : 0.0181 silver; 0.9138 copper; 0.0289 zinc; 0.0385 tin. After the rebel Domitius Domitianus “Achilleus” in At the beginning of the year 296 the last attempt was made Egypt he ruled by bringing out a better one Greek billon coinage gave a semblance of independence give, completes the series of Alexandrians’). General about the additional metals of the ancient silver coins. * In the analyzes cited, in addition to the main components Silver and copper mostly yet small quantities or at least Traces other metals, about the following be noted: Nickel?) and tin, as well as the always small, but never completely missing amounts of iron') come from added copper 1) A. Markl “The Provincial Courant under Emperor Claudius II Gothicus”, Vienna. Number Z. 1901, 8. 51ff. let from everyone vintage this one Kaiser Melt down 12 tetradrachms and tell us the result: nn mn ee TE LET TEE EEE PEARL Ten a ET SEE TEETEEn 20 PB PER Rn ED Ber UT SPEAR ne our acer er | 2 (at the "In-5 vintage | Gold % Silver - | LA 0.025 | 2,750 | 3.00 2,700 | 92,267 | 3,933 | 1025 — L.B 0.030 | 2,200 | 2,200 | 2,000 | 89,430 | 3,776 | 3,280 | 1,284 LT 0.040 | 2,100 | 2,250 | 2,000 | 86,789 | 2,439 | 8,632 = 2) Vienna. Number Z. 1871, p. 298. Schiller, Kaisergesch. H, p. 149. 3) Bibra only has once 0.31% — Valerian — found. Silverf. p. 37 no. 22. 4) Maximum salary on Iron in one coin from Thuri = 1.6% (Bibra p. 40 No. 9), by Augustus: 3.2% (8.37 No. 2). The latter piece is strangely composed: 1.27 gr = 92.78% silver, 18% carbon, 3.2% lead; 2.14% gold! copper | Tin Lead Zinc

p. 123 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 115 and are at the same time in the silver alloys occurred. That one after all modest salary of lead may partly from the close connection of this metal with the copper, partly wise also out the extraction of the silver from stay strong containing ores (Laurion) originate. Off the latter Reasons show the 5 precise analyses Attic silver money through Bibra (see above p. 71) all some lead, namely 2.1 lo: 1.03%%; 2.07%),; 2.13%%; 1.98%/,, and still he is stronger Addition in Alexander's money (8. 80): 3.68%; 3.05%)u; 2.87%; 0.86°o; 0.85%. Finally we meet too - as an unconscious improvement of the old silver money - small quantities of gold. Only rarely you will antique silver, be it coined or to others Processed for purposes, get your hands on what isn't at least traces from Gold contains.) And what the old one Quoted above |Nominal origin a a to the ee gr gr worth p. 80 no. 2! Tetradrachm | Alexander's 15 [0.045 12.7% | 2.3 121% ee a 17. \0.068 306.4 | 493 193 ee R 15.5: 0.0775, 279,253 21'/,} No) a a 2) 74 “11 Didrachm by | Taranto| 8 10,082 | 144.M| 8°%% 9% 85 "5! Drachma of Alexander I Bala 4 10.04 [723% 6/9. 118 Sestertius (?) of Augustus! 1.27 | 0.027 | 22.86&%| 1°/& a, 102" 4| Denarius of September Timius Severus| 2.75 | 0.0497! 49.4 | 21.43 |14& | 1) Bibra, Silberf. 8.74. 8+

p. 124 · zoom original

116 J Hammer: Silver coins sometimes through ignoble Addition goes off, will outweighed by the value of the gold, as the list on the previous page shows’). So, as far as the investigations show, just Copper intentionally, i.e. h. to Savings of the precious metal, added to the silver and generally so stronger the further we go in the history of silver coins descend. Content of ancient copper money. & 12, Greek coins. Already on the alloy of copper and tin (bronze) as the material most commonly used for this purpose in ancient times of art and crafts. Here are some Examples from Ledebur, Metallurgy, 2nd volume metal processing, L. Up. zıS, | Copper $| tinning | Lead | Iron Zinc % Bronze from Nineveh: | 86.8 12.7 | Dagger from Egypt: | 85 14 1 Arrowhead out “ 76.6 22.2 vessel handles of Mycenae: 89.7 10.1 Dagger from Cyprus: | 88.7 8.5 1.5 0.5 Chisel from Thebes: | 94 5.9 Fibula from Sicily: | 88.9 14 Roman spoon Bronze: 81.3 1.8 3.2 13 Handle the same: | 66.9 6.8 10 15.8 Tübingen Bronze: 88.0 10.7 0.4 1) The kg of gold at 2784 X, the kg of silver according to the thaler foot from Calculated in 1857 at 180 “M, denarius = 70 9.

p. 125 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 417 [Incidentally, I refer to the numerous analyzes at Bibra, the bronzes and copper alloys of the old and oldest peoples. ] A similar composition to the bronze devices the coins also show from those I first the pre- list the analyzes found individually; where several in time to- If there are copies that belong together, I add the passage cutting results. Bibra's meritorious work comes first - unfortunately very much so indefinite — 22 copper coins from Greek cities, the he around 400 BC BC (?) Be en nn mi a i Literature Bibra, copper alloys, p. 82 no. 1 until 22 No. | gr |Copper metal| tinning | Zinc. | Lead on 2 a In l 16:8 95.16 2.87 0.3 0.83 2 | 48 | 9753| 0.8 0.62 3 7.5 89.39 9.7 0.86 4 28 93.96 4.84 0.70 d 1589 85.62 11.43 0.33 2.02 6 4.55 90.92 7.86 0.70 7 35:1 9080| 8.76 8 4.9 87.94 | 10.91 0.84 5 a5 | 006 1.58 10 1.15 92.38 6.59 0.96 11 22 81.26 16.8 0.81 | 252 19007 0. 444 1.2 13 1.18 89.45 10.0 0.43 14 5.1 9215 6.35 1.81 15 4.58 31.1} 8.11 0.44 16 4.8 92.42 6.44 0.25 0.51 He 5.02 86.72 12.33 0.73 18 2.03 89.85 9.43 0.72 19 1.99 | 91.2 | 7.2 0.36 20 3.22 87.08 10,12 0.7 1.2 21 21 31:07 8.31 0.09 2 | 50 | 8326 | 152 0.91

p. 126 · zoom original

118 J Hammer: The average salary is: 90.19 °), copper; 8.48 °/, tin; 0.83 °/, lead; 0.22 °j, iron, to which there are also some insignificant additions of other metals, such as nickel (0.19 °/,), traces of zinc, silver, antimony, arsenic, Cobalt and sulfur.e We recognize from it, that in these older Greek coins just tin as an intentional addition comes into consideration. The following 27 copper coins, also different Greek cities belonging, become from Bibra to 300 until 150 BC BC. currently > gr |Copper%| Ziung | Lead | Zinc% | Literature 7.6 85.82 7.34 6.67 0.07 | Bibra, copper 7.18 | 89.83 6.87 0.86 0.64 alloys, 10.47 | 89.15 8.5 1.82 8. 82/83 5.9 88.99 9.03 0.95: 0.28 No. 23-44 10.4 85.01 | 13.65 0.76 | 0.48 8.8 82.78 | 10.36 ET 5.9 90.76 8.65 19 87.29.) 11.29 0.8 9.0 84.11 | 10.83 4.39 1.35 | 82.32 | 10.84 6.0 goodbye German 2.88 4.76 | 94.31 2.8 1.76 11.5 78.97 | 14.79 5.62 8.05 | 85.5 1.31 6.40 5.9 -|,87,71:| 11.88 8.97 | 86.59 | 12.05 5.9 77.03 | 744 | 14.86 4.8 | 85.75 | 13.06 | 0.88 5.87 1:81.52 | 11.84 6.7 85.16 12.09 0.15 6.2 86.13 | 13.02 1:22 5:69 86.18 | 5.68 7.54 1 2 3 & h) 6 1 8 B) a N8 »- © DH SOV-ÄJou.” DD m 189) 1

p. 127 · zoom original

p. 128 · zoom original

120 J Hammer: No. | Place of minting or -Mr |Copper%| Tin % | Lead % Literature 18 | Syracuse:Agathocles 81.35 | 14.08 3.72 zinc 8.86 N0.96 “ Y 83.11 |: 12.79 Bibra “86 “ : Younger 83.02 6.08 “86 Oarthago 94.86 2.01 “86 “ 92.06 3.71 “86 Olbia: older times | 90.0 9.82 p. 104 “ 94.0 5.89 “104 » 98.0 170 “104 : Younger 90.67 3.34 “100 91.92 0.7 “100 93.66 0.68 “5,400 93.94 2.48 2.12 zinc p.100 Bosporan. Kings | 92.14 6.8 Bibra, ", Macedon. Kings: Philipp Il | 85.35 “ e.g 83.8 “Alexanderd.Gr.| 87.72 85.04 88.25 96.0 86.76 » 86.78 - = = Philip II.| 85.12 2.3 Zinc 8. 86 No. 74 “ 84.25 Bibra 5.86 No.75 “ 90.27 Alexander IV | 86.44 » 90.63 1.23 Zinc p. 86 No. 77 Antigonus | 90.78 Bibra 8.86 No0.78

p. 129 · zoom original

| The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 121 ee tight No. | Place of minting or -Mr Copper % tin % Lead % | Literature TE TE 45 ı Macedon. Kings: | Gonata| 84.53 | 13.77 1.34 | BibraS.86 No.78 46 |. Philip V. |. 85.77 12.67 0.99 a EN. A|, | 315) 10 5, 0 oo 48 | Indefinite no | 87.99 11.44 — a en 49 | King's Coins /| 89.44 | 10.56 | — ee Bi 50 e ea 51 : 85 | 10 52 3 89.3 8.88 LA on 53 | Ptolemy: Time? | 90.75 9.25 — ; DB, Hey 54 N 2 385 695. 78 2 55 - 5 85.35 5.12 8.62 aa 56 . ; 8561| 1816 1.200. 57 | Ptolemy IX 84.25 | 15.64 — Re way). I All analyzes prove that the Greeks copper, but Bronze coins cases as random, become. i none clean shape wanted. The first Series of pieces examined (around 400 BC) revealed: 0% copper and 8'/,% tin. The lead content was 22 in these analyses only once 2.92%, reduces to just a trace, and is allowed in all unwanted contamination viewed Likewise pure bronze coins put the older samples Athens: approx. 88-89% copper and 10-11% tin. Pure of lead additive are the pieces from panorama, Hiero I of Syracuse') (478 BC), pretty much also that of Agathocles and of all Macedonian kings, finally the (probably) older ones Samples from Olbia. 1) This one Piece no. 15 with 7%% lead, the Bibra only with one Question mark assigned to Hiero, set I just because of the lead content more recent times.

p. 130 · zoom original

1929 J Hammer: In later times the amount of lead added increases in the reveal Intention to save on copper. Because like the Attic Coin from Roman times, the piece from Naples, etc. show, is the lead at cost of copper introduced, while the Amount of tin the same remains or still rising. So results also the average of the 27 analyzes around 300-150 BC. Chr.: 85.92% copper; 9.55% tin; 4.077% lead. The zinc not entirely missing, achieved in a coin of Agathocles: 3.72% (No. 18), Philip III from Macedonia 3.2% (No. 39), but is just a random addition. Likewise you will hardly get a coin or other copper Find an alloy of old and new times, in which not at least Traces of iron and nickel can be found). Apart from that of 2.42% silver in a coin of Philip V. of Macedonia (No. 47) comes silver only rare, and then in minor traces. On a metal mixture of its own kind will be shown here- noticeably be made, which are in analyzed parts Bactrian royal coins were found. W. Flight?) shares us as Result of a coin from King Euthydemus (2nd century BC) with: 77.585% copper; 20.038% nickel; 1.048% iron; 0.544% cobalt. There are two other Aga coins of the same alloy. thocles and one of the Pantaleon in the British Museum’); that too Exterior of each piece of Euthydemus and Agathocles in Our local collection has the same composition there. It is therefore similar to the alloy of our five and ten penny pieces (75% copper and 25% nickel). 1) Bibra, p. 76. 2) Chemical Compos. of a Bactr. Coin, in Num. Chron. 1868, 305 ff. 3) See Cunningham, Num. Chron. 1868, p. 279; 8,282 No. 6 and 6a; 1869, p. 125 no. 6.

p. 131 · zoom original

| | The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 123 For a long time it was in numismatics the word Potin as technical term used for impure metal. It should initially a special one, only in Gallic copper money occurring mixture are called, then it became many times also used for strongly alloyed silver, and so it has many simple ambiguity into the numismat. Literature brought in. As for the second use, let us use — already of uniformity because of - for this the word Billon, And also at Gallic Copper money can man quite well without the same get along. Because the same thing actually exists also only made of bronze, with that small difference, that the Added some tin in it appears stronger. have analyses result '): | Atlas de monn. No. Copper% | Tin % | Silver % ee | 1 | ( coins d. Aeduer | 73.42 | 26.58 | track |pl.XVI 5368 found on Mont- to 5401 2 || Beuvray (Nievre) | 82.72 | 17.19 | 0.09 |pl.XVI 5253 | cf. Blanch. 11583) 81,911 | 17.93 | 0.159 |pl.VIL 2935 Segisu ı 68,065 | 31,935 | track |pl. VII 2628 > These are cast coins, like they do in the east Parts of Gaul, especially among the Catalauni, Sequani, Helvetii and Leuci, many times occur and in which already mentioned Finds at Mont-Beuvray (Bibracte) in mass came to light. The mere sight of it reveals a hastily made, rough work and points to a time of great distress and distress (in battle with Rome). Completely natural is it that since the coin metal has been cleaned even less carefully and the mixture shows relatively more significant fluctuations. 1) Blanchet, Traite, I p. 42. 2) Babelon, Traite, p. 952.

p. 132 · zoom original

124 J Hammer: But also the minted coins from the same find, and probably certainly belong to the same area, show none other material: No.1. atlas pl. XVI 5086 81.03% copper; 18.17% tin; Bed, 2,020.,200003 74.5% h Be Small amounts of silver can always be detected the embossed one like the cast one, e.g. in the coins of the Leuci (No. 9078) —_ the Meldi (No. 7606): >. But 1000° also contains a Nemausus coin from Augustus - ’/ıoo, one des Germanus (from 15 AD from the Treveri) — "/ıoo Silver'), in short, a special name for the Gallic metal is not required by anything. The Bronzes from Nemausus, which ones the early days des Augustus and the heads of Augustus and Agrippa wear, show quite the relationship of the Republican bronze coins; three samples’) consisted of: No. 1: 78.45% copper; 12.96% tin; 8.62% lead; “22 180851 129125, 8592 or 13019: 5. 81% 7,.. Finally a single analysis from the find of Saint- Marcel (Marseille) yielded for a brass coin from Massilia (11.5 er): 78.9% copper; 16.5% zinc; 2.8% tin; 1.2% lead; 0.6% silver). 1) Blanchet, Traite, I, p. 43. 2) Ibid. 3) Willers, Vienna. N.Z. XXXIV, 1902, p. 125. 4) Blanchet, Traite, I, p. 41. Compare to this peculiar alloy relationship the matching ones Results the large bronzes out the first imperial period (below p. 130).

p. 133 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 125 812 Bullion copper and copper money during the Roman period Republic. It is of increased interest to examine the metallic composition setting of Roman copper money to find out since it here at the beginning of its existence not in the subordinate position of credit money, but as the only means of payment and value carrier occurs. Precursor of heavy copper, i.e. h. by the state with shape and tokens provided copper money, like it in the course of the 4th century!) appears in Rome, it was known- That's rude: it are bars, which private industry also only have a private character and are determined are to be taken on the wagon. That's why they're in Shape and weight irregular, and this corresponds well with the extremely fluctuating alloy of raw copper money that everyone Norm scoffs?). According to Willers®) we leave some chemical Chemical analyzes of copper ingots follow: a ee u he Ingots % TE I | Quingento(upper Italy) 68.5 23.4 Arsenic 3.5% II | Well discovery v. Sanpolo d'Enza (Upper Italian.) 61 39 III R 86 14 IV h 67 33 1) Haeberlin, The systematics of the oldest Roman coinage, Berlin (Separate print the “Berlin coin sheets* 1905), sets the beginning des- the same around 330 BC. BC. ?) H. Willers, Italic bronze ingots out the last period of raw copper money, in Vienna. Number Z. 1905, p. 1ff. 3) 4.2.0, 8.9, 10 u, p. 32.

p. 134 · zoom original

126 No. u. Copper % v |Individual at Sanpolo ge- find. Ingots | 80 Castelfranco nell’Emilia 72.64 Sulfur 2.86% Villanova 93.7 Oertosa near Bo- logna al,iı 8.22 = 80,679 1.435 | 17,886 Marzabotto 64.4 32,528 | contamination clean ments ” | 54.61 38 Other bars are made of pure copper (found in or- vieto and Antemnae), one from Vercelli showed next to 95.2% Copper still 4.8% zinc. Anyway must man out above compilation the gain an impression, that in traffic like so does the shape the salary of raw copper completely been irrelevant is. It It may also be a question whether in those times the strong lead addition the last one three analyzes (No. 9-11) the raw copper money devalued in the way that was later the case would be. Maybe that lead was just as high in Italy back then was as valuable as the abundant copper. The last-mentioned alloy in particular is connected without further the central Italian Heavy copper coin on. Philips found in three coins of the ten ounce foot, so of the oldest pounds'), the following ratios: 1) Haeberlin a. a. O., p. 19,

p. 135 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 127 Weight gr copper% | Tin Lead % Literature As: 268.91) 69.69 4.16 21.82 |cit. atBibra, K.L., Semis: 129.24| 62.04 | 7.66 29.32 | 8.52, no. 10-12. Quadrans: 62.85| 7222 | 7.17 19.56 Average salary: 67.98% copper; 7.33% tin; 23.56% lead. Off During the time of the uncial foot I have prepared 11 analyses- found: No. Weight gr Copper%| tin % Lead % | Literature | The." :388. 877. 10 | A006 Bin | P. 52, No.1 2| As : 33.0 | 84.64 | 8.0 6.33 | “ eg 3 | As aaa 0 4 As : 22.35 | 83.87 | 5.35 9.28 11.3% zinc. Bibra p. 52, no. 4 5. Quadrans: 6.1 86.69 | 12.9 — |Bibra, 8.52 No.5 6 sextans : 4.1 84.68 9.57 8.81 a ee 7 | Quadrans: 5.56 | 82.01 5.55 10,231 2% Ziok “et al ,07 8 ; Lo 81.23 8.02 18.22 is 9:8emis : 2 87.0 9.8 3.1 | Göbel near Bibra p. 62 no. 53 10| As ed 83.1 5.68 11.16 |Göbel b. Sabatier p.75 No.1 172 ? 19.3 6.55 14,13 ...8.76:N0.2 Average content: 83.91% copper; 7.43% tin; 8.58% Lead. Finally from the last period of the Roman Republic, the period of the semiuncial foot and before the coinage order des Augustus, the following eight analyzes are given;

p. 136 · zoom original

128 J Hammer: tin | Lead % Weight ST Copper % No. time Literature 1 | Pompey: 53 B.C. BC, Dupondius: 20.02)74.17| 8.47 116.15 | Bibra, p.52No.13 2 |Gens Atilia: 45 B.C. BC? 3 |Sextus Pompey: (Spain 45/44)| As 2 ll 9.7 119.3 |Grueber'), p. 244 4 | M. Anthony: (East 38/35)) As ? 170.9: 14 8.3 r “ 5 | Octavian: (Gaul 38)| Dupon dius? 181.2 | 3.9 |14.5 5 » “ 25.43168.69| 4.86125.43| “ a 6 = (42 9th ear) “ 22,16,70,13 9 12.8 |Bibra, p.52No.15 7 5 (d) As: 10.22/88.63| 6.86| 6.83, 2 8 | Octavian and Agrippa (30 B.C. BC) Nemausus | “ 15.42178.45 112.96 | 8.62 n; 261.0 Average content: 76.6% copper; 8.6% tin; 14% lead. The following conclusions can be drawn from the analyzes so far pull: main components of the ingot copper, as far as it is concerned is alloyed partly copper and iron, on average of 72'/,% copper and 25.7% iron; partly copper and lead, on average of 66'/% copper and 29'/,% lead. In close connection with the latter alloy, the heavy copper money an average of 68% copper; 7'/,% tin and 23'/,% lead. 1) Roman bronze coinage from B. C. 45—3. Num. Chron. 1904, 8. 185 ff; Table of Analyzes p. 244,

p. 137 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 129 This one initial lead additive stretches yourself too on the later fractions of the pound ass and can be found, like the Tables show, down to Augustus: Uncial foot: on average = 8!/,% Semiuncial foot: ', Ai == 14%. About the purpose this lead alloy are different Views been set up. As bullion money advances, that was always poured, and 'also the actual copper Coins were initially always made by casting, like one The reason is that the addition of lead damages the metal Mixture light liquid wanted to do. Later he stopped practical Romans probably did with the traditional alloy therefore gladly, because here too for the state treasury profit dropped?). Silver content is only unique in Republican bronze, to be mentioned in a coin of Octavianus (No. 7). Same is 2%, but in its isolated occurrence it is considered pure Randomness or negligence in metal cleaning may apply. 8 14. The copper money of the Roman Empire. After the copper stamping in Rome during of the years 94-15 B.C. had almost completely stopped in the 1st century BC, the coinage Augustus' reform was also significant for copper coins change. The emperor decreed that the large bronzes (Sestertius - 27.29 gr) and from the middle bronzes the Dupondius (= 13.64 gr) made of aurichalcum, an alloy of copper and zinc’), the smaller denominations, d. i. As (= 10.23 gr), semis 1) Through the intense one Exploitation the lead silver mines, before everything Spain, the value of lead had of course fallen greatly during this period. 2) Such brass-like coins are still minted in China today: In addition to copper, up to 433% zinc, as the analyzes by Bibras (8. 176) show, Journal of Numismatics, XXVI, 9

p. 138 · zoom original

130 J Hammer: (approx. 3.41 gr) and the quadrans that disappear with Traianus (approx. 2.3 gı). pure Copper embossed and all alloy should be omitted: no quis in aes publicum quid indat neve im- misceat, quo id peius fiat (Dig. 48, 13, 1). That's right the imperial copper coins the ordered one Imperial era. Initially, seven resulted in larger denominations from the ranks of Augustus: time Nominal gr up ne | nn Literature % % % Augustus Sestertius 23.7|92.57|) 5.15 Bibra, K.L., 8.52 No. 18 - “23.4 |87.05| 11.8 he, Gens Cassia 20 BC | “23.651 82.26 17.31 Del C. Asinius Gallus m. Chr.], 2:76.71 128.2 | Grueber a. a. Oh, p. 244 Re) “ Dupond. ? 76.4 |23.6 ns "244 Augustus | 27 3rd Chr. n 78.7 |20.6 s; "244 DL = , 89.8 21... 2, "244 Average content: 83'/,% copper and 14.9% zinc'). Let's look next to it the composition of the same current smaller denominations: time Nominal gr | Copper % | Additives Literature | | Augustus As 9:12| 100 Bibra, p. 60 No.1 “ 99 =. 100 “ “ 60 2) 2 ” ® 100 02 Thu 1) Bibra, Kupfer L., p. 62 no. 55 recorded under July. Caesar(?) one Coin belonging to the time of Augustus in terms of its composition: 81.75% copper; 5.89% tin; 10.5% zinc; 1.7% lead.

p. 139 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 131 time Nominal gr Copper % | Additives Literature I Augustus 11-3 B.C. BC Lamia, Silius, Annius 11BC C. Asinius Gallus 9 BC | As fe ı Quadrans? As ? 99.5 | Traces 98.9 ” 98.8 hr Grueber a.a.O., 8. 244 “ ' 244 "244 Pursue us now first the salary of the larger no- minale (Sestertius and Dupondius), which ones out aurichaleum be- stand: hey Emperor Nominal Number copper gr % Zinc % Others Additives Literature (ER eg Caligula R Nero and Drusus ? Claudius ”“ Claud. and Antonia Augusta 41/54 Nero Vespasian Titus Domitian Sestertius 23.19 1 Dupond. 11.52.1 Ace? 10.20 % Dupond. 11.55 } 1180.1 17.44 148 72.2 81.07 1181.30 83.04 88.19 86.3 179.3 [20.7 19.9 21.5 22 27.7 1.05% tin 1.1% lead 17.81 16.3 15.84 10.23 12.94 Bibra 8.62 N0.57 8.52, 27 »“ 9702, 00 Göbel b.Sabatier p.76. N0.6 Bibra p.60 no.4 “ “ 62 Ih) 63 “ he] 60 ha 7 approx “in 94, 34

p. 140 · zoom original

1323 J Hammer: E e Kälser a number a nn no ertar Traian Dupond. | 11.92 82.13!15.35| 1.12 Bibra p. 54N0.36 pr AR. 8095 83.95| 12.42) 2.22 lin ht e Sestertius | 24.74 1 94.63) 3.18| yellow output see ET 58 5 ? Bel, 5, » ? BB.58| 70 18 ,2928| “ “60.12 a ? 84.02115.2 | — a . ? | 78.55/16.4 | 3.01 “08, Hadrian Sestertius ) 21.2 91.24 7.14 — en DE a Dupond. 13.72 88.5 | 9.05| 1.27 The s “10.4 82.91115.57| — 89; From | 3 Sestertius | | 19.5 1 82.35 16.84 — dl | : 88.58 7.5618 1208| “ “64, | 5 “23.65 8567.10,851,134:.3,.08 | ":: “60, 40 | His gifts | mahlin Sa- Iron | bina |. 25,751 |8998| 6.74. 1.5211.15| “ “54, 48 | 2 00 3.00 I Lori, “0.0 Antoninus ) Pius | "," 24.04 91,721 5.33 1.55 | 1.3 ge 08 & “17.03 i 87.88111.28| — ee yes RN 87.86| 8.14| 3.88 re! M. Aurelius “ 181 | 81.47110.2 | 6.62 | Lead ee ee) “ id 85.63] 6.07| 4.62 | 2.0 | rg “20 L. Verus | “ 23.65 | |88.88| 3.82! 4.2 | 2.6 | egg

p. 141 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 133 Emperor Nominal Number Copper Zinc | tin | Lead Literature n gr % % % % | L.Verus |Dupond. \5 | | | 10.65 90.28] 5.9! 2 ı Bibra, p.54N0.61 Faustina | | (According to Aurelius) | Sestertius 23.45] 79.15] 627 297,218, “voe0o0. 19 Commode “.106 87.74:4925 29 “2 8,080.02 5: ; out] 85.6 | Di2zı 402 417) re Crispina 3 (see husband.)| Dupond. 11.4 87.23] 4.51 3.90 424 5 ee Caracalla “10.1 .1|8698 50) 3220322 >, 7G0 Severus Alexander | Sestertius Vienna. Number Z i '63| 6.82|12.0 18.83 75 5.6 XYL 11 ; “104 70.83} 6.9 | 3.97 10.29 Dupond.11| |/84.0 | 3.35! 6.33] 6.0 | Bibra, p.54N0.67 n Sestertius N 71.56| 8.79| 6.45|13.09| Sabatier, E:77.,.10 . Dupondius| [75,84] 1.28|29.98| 0.91 approx Julia Mamaea | Sestertius 72,011 4.6 \15.28| 7.12 Nope Soaemias % En 76,621 17,081 4.0 | 0.95] Vienna. Num.Z., XVI, 10 Gordia nus DI | 20:78.0 | 8.33! 8.73] 4.74| Bibra, P.56 No.70 u Dupond. 3 10.3 | 181,181 80: 759 2004 ...00. 95 « | Sestertius 77.1 | 1.36: 7.5412.7 | sabatier, | 8.77.48 Philip | | Arabeı , 22.:11762 | 384 a 1202| et

p. 142 · zoom original

134 J Hammer: Close with that the large and medium bronzes with important lower zinc content. since Marcus Aurelius the stronger addition of tin and lead the character pure brass coins (aurichalcum) lost, also show several of the earlier pieces of the large copper money no zinc at all or a completely different dwindling quantity. Eg: Nominal number Emperor | e Nero Sestertius 21.44 Vespasia nus| "," 20.5 Antoninus Pius | Dupond. 13 R medallion 40.4 Commodus | Sestertius 22.45 s “ 24.88 Gordianus a ,a21 is r10.19 a “ 14.25 Salary Tin % Copper % 98.48| 0.33 99.53) — 84.32 69.65 88.1 | 4.7 89.41! 5.42 98.22| 1.03 '97.52| 0.53 80.0 | 9.10 Of course have she does Literature 0.07| 0.66 |Bibra, p.52 N0.28 ” 9 52 9 30 95 — y “60” 14 on 1.60, 7.2 FR “ “ 60 “ 20 4.23|0.94| ,. “De “54 0.383] — THURS 0 DABIDET | “ “24th DB 091 1... the smaller denominations, As, Semis and Quadrans, which latter disappears with Traian. Tiberius A: 60) Semis 5.59 1 96.61 0.3 95.97 0.5 87.0: 9.8 | Sabatier, p.76 No.3 — | 2.46 |Bibra “52” 21 — /350| “ 32: 22 3.1 — 99 | 1 | | l 1 Egg | 1 | | | B| R|

p. 143 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 135 | Nominal Number copper) tin | Lead Emperor He y y y P Literature Caligulla |As 9.44 199.24 0.1 | 0.46| — | BibraS.52N0.23 “ age h 98.84 aa |. on we 2 ? 1000 ae he Claudius | As nn 97.9 | 0.58 — |1.5 eh “ Quadı 2.2H 97.57 1355 = 058 0 0.2 a As 886 1100.01 — | — | — 2 = ? old Nero “10.88 1198.53:049 10 0 000 03 Vespasia nus “10.93\ 99.13,..0.22, — rer). & % 109 | 0. | eo 00.0 20m on ? 100. ie a Titus ? 1:96.06) .— | — 14.4. ,00.,0 Domitianus "," 10.38] a 0.53 — | — 02, 08 2 105 90384aA200 —ı “oo, 2 : at 98.92 108 — 2 0 0, : “75 are. ag Nerva »“ 8.52 1196.51) 042 0.2 25) “ “org Traianus 2 1/85.1 [11.5 | 34 | — win. 00 Hadrianus | “ 8.55 1[97.62| 0.73] 0.3 |0.68| “ “54 “44 Antoninus | Pius “7235| [9814| 103 012 11, 2 9 i\ 0.04 | 96.68 1 0. “ Medallion I; 40.4 I |69j65| 5.981924 37ı “ ,0. u ; Dupond. | 13 32 01945 i. , 0.8 5 ? 9 were, M. Aurelius| As el 96.62) — | 1.36! 1.7 u I x u 10.18 | 955 066 — U “u. u

p. 144 · zoom original

p. 145 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 137 Kalker Nominal Copper! tin | Zinc Bee gr % % % Tacitus ? 92.0 2.8 | 5.53 | 0.07 | Bibra8.62N0.67 small- Probus bronze 2.4 94.0 | 8.75 | 2.25 “60. 42 N 3561 198.74 T2e 60: “48 : Ace? 8 (*|92.66 4.01 | 2.3 “56 “84 5 ? 92.15] 3.5 | 365 62 1068 The since about 295 AD') also in the coin Diocletian's reform took the place of the earlier one 3 types (large, medium and small bronzes) two denominations — a medium, about 11 grams, and a small, about 2.5 grams. After We refer to them briefly as they are calculated to 5 and 2 denarii as fives (Follis) and twos?) and refer to the later ones Explanations. he Nominal Number copper tin | Zinc Silver Titeruius gr %»|% % Diocletia nus Twos 3.77 ,194.92\ 3.05 | 0.9 Bibra p. 56 N0.85 $ “2365| 195.84] 2.28 | — “8.60 “44 X ı Fives 9.5 91.03) 3.03] 2.15 00.60 Maximianus “ 95 94.91| 1.1 _ 3 20 n 2: 8,151 92:67 2.07 083 3.96, BB A 508 91.96| 3.8 — 00 » “..833%6197.97) — | — 64, 20 u In :.9,991: 194,591 2.0 — no in ı Twos | a 98.87 — | — u 600,, 49 1) Kubitschek, Quinquennium S$, 86. 2) according to the same p. 86.

p. 146 · zoom original

138 J Hammer: a Nominal ZahllCopper| tin | Zinc | Lead | Silver titration gr % % % % % Maxentius | Fives Bibra 2 88,721 5.85| — | 5.18] — |S.60N0.46 j ? 82.03! 5,031 1.3 111.4 | — |Sabatier P.80N0.22 Constanti us Chlorus twosome 3.75 1194.42] 1.04] 2.0 | 1.36| 0.22 Bibra 5.56 N0.90 Constanti us Magnus . 231 100.07) 6811. — | 2.97] 0.14 “8.56, 91 » “3,191 19407 2.01 — | 2.87, 1.04,,.00,.92 R ? 92.34| 1.34| 2.3 | 1.01] 0.83] , “56 “983 » L 95.93) 0.35) 1.46| 0.53) 0.25 “56.94 N eo. n 91,191 3.331 2.70| 1.1 | 0.98, “56.95 . en 94.64 156 138 | = 0.60, A ? 87.5 | 7.14 0.91] 4.26) — |,„,“62,, 69 > “42 | |68.87|22.89| 1.86) 5.85) 0.30, “64,, 22 S n 5.33) 75.5 14.0 | 1.7 | 7.83] 1.08 “64.23 Licinius ? 188.75 7.,77| 0.66) 7.82) =: | “62.70 oonstanti ] nus I ' Dd.Const. 1] “ 1.82]: 187.96).4,351. 709 > | — |, “62.48 R N Const. II “ 1 84.68| 2.8 | — | 78 | 3.22 “96 , 96 (337—340) a 20 89.68] 4.36| — | 4.27| 1.03|,,,.,56 ,"97 . “2341 1968.01 1,907) 1.70) — |, “56.98 S ":.. 1.7817 190.01) :1,13|: 1.44) 7.0 | — |... 56:, 99 “2207| 199.75) 2.37] -- | 3.08| 0.9 | Bibra 5 P.56 N0,100 . 58,951 191.85 4.71) —- 1 1,2] 1.01.56 “101 A | Re 39 | 98.93) 1:88 4.70.01.) 1.04.06 102 EEEE Hi ice ri

p. 147 · zoom original

| | | The fineness of Greek and Roman coins, 139 Kaıır a! Number N en De | . u read Constans (337”—350)|Two 2.05! [87.77/ 1.9 |1.6 |82 | — |Bibra 3 P.56N0.103 > 5 2.01; 31.82, 1.4 — 1615| — 1.56" 104 ? | 90.99) 0.42 | 1.92 | 5.25 | 0.97:.56 ,, 105 Constantius (337— 361) |Centeniona- lis') ya 91.25, 2.38 | 4.44 | 0.52 | 0.8 |.56 " 106 (? Sabatier “ i | 88.01| 4.08 | 3.74 | 3.95 | — :8.81No. 25 Gallus ee Bibra 235.05| 1.97.|.1.9 108 — 13.56 N0.107 Magnentius “ 4 85.43) 2.11 | 1.38 | 8.08 | 2.7 .56 “ 108 s “37 j* Eat,os| 2.63 |2.0 |227| 34 |,56 “109 Valentinia nus I centenio- nalis 4.2 87.08, — 10.61 9.92 202. 30th and u N, 92.94 0.7 .1 2.231 211! — sabatıer 1 P.81N0.26 ? pecunia maiorina 2.92 1- 194.66: 1.04 | 1.33 | 1.82| — '|Bibra, p.56 No. 111 Theodosius| ,, \ı 9383| — | — I) E76) — 7569280 50 1: centenion. 2.19 2602 338, — —ı 1.62 “5l ” ? | 90.04| 1.25 | 2.6 |6.11/| — |Sabatier, p.81 No.27 Arcadius ] (3935—408)| “ 4.5 | 95.97 E22 | 132.20 — | Bibra, 8.58 No.l I) According to Seeck, the monetary policy of Diocletian and his successors, Z. f. N. XVIII (1890) p. 132.

p. 148 · zoom original

140 ek | Eu “ar Ar et al Arcadius Bibra, p.58 (395—408)) centen.4.3 (° 96.29! 0.93 1.5 | 09 No. 2 | f “8%: ) 98.08 4.b 1-0.8 | 1.02 Be: Zieno (474—491) 12.13 h 96.29| 1,111 2.43 >98 = 6.0 96.2 .1,8.1.05 1 13 WIN) Anastasius : (491—518) ar 97.51) 1.01) 0.93 — 8. i 15.41 m 97.48| 0.5 | 1.3 | 0.07 el = " 97.04! 0.88| 1.03] 0.42 “858 “ ? 97.41 — 2.01 == Sabatier, P.82N0.28 Justin I (518 —527) sn 87.84 a4 | 0.7 | 5.73 Bibra, S.58N0.9 Y = 96,911 1.2 | 0.76| — |0.33 | “58 “10 R 17.5 16 98,261 0.51! 0.92] — et Justinus and Sophia 19.1 97.76] 0.24| 1.6 | 0.7 08, 182 5 11.1 97.26| 0.84| 1.43] — '58 18 5 I | 96.75] 0.8 | 2.45) — Sabatier, P.32 N0.29 Justinia nus I | (527—565) 2.2 E 93.06 4.8 | 0.4 | 1.64 Bibra, | p.58No.14 Maurice (582 — 602) 4 J Hammer: 79.94 6.5

p. 149 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 141 Ban | a E | n m a research no Phocas Bibra (603—610) 6.23 hours 1 | b0120 — P.58N0.17 e 5.5 94.93] 2.93 | 1.0 | 05 “oe. 8 Heraclius (610/41) 5.91 1/1983 | 0.881 — | 0.37 Dee rg Philippicus (711/13) 6.93 1/97.86) 1.38 | 0.14 °— 98...20 Leo IV (775/80) 7.1 1198.69] 0.5 |0.66| — 98 ..21 Nice phorus I (802/11) 5 1197.04] 1.88 | — [|0.34 “08: "22 Theophilus (829/42) 8.53 2179.68) 5,331 74: TE “58, 28 Basil I (867/86) 10,11 1196.63) 1.33 | — | 05 “98” 24 Romanus I (919/44) ? 1172.37 3.1131 122.29 Sabatier, p.82No.31 John ) Zimisces | Bibra (969/76) 10.0 i 97.32] 0.51 | 0.98 | 0.89 “08:20 # 10.24 | 198.82] 1.1 —|ı — 726 \ | 35.86) 1.4 10.64] — 1.97 | “98 “27 > ? 938,185 — 14 | — Sabatier Un- No. 32 true Coins Bibra ibn 8.5 la 98.8 1052| — | 0.05 P.58N0.28 12th century, 2.5 J 198.76] 0.43 |0.55| — | “58,239 Manuel I Sabatier (1143/80) 1194.03] 0.7 | 3.42 1.80) No, 33

p. 150 · zoom original

142 | | J Hammer: We close the copper money the Roman Imperial period with some analysis of provincial copper from this period: Mint location gr time | Ar Eg 3 < Literature Antioch Ä | | (Pisidia) 7.55 | Traianus |87.72| 7.89) 1.66| 2.97! Bibra 8. 84 S 8 " 85.74 10.33, 2.03] 1.72] No. 63-68 Alexandria11.25| Hadrianus |82.48| 6.0 | — [10.91 is 11.31 5 82.37| 5.03 — 111.36 8 7.99 . 85,481 5.73] 6.33] 1.53 Nicaea (Bithynia) 3.25 | Elagabalus|79.27| 2.7116.33| 0.73 The results above investigation about the copper money The imperial period can be summarized as follows: In the mentioned larger nominal, Sestertius and Dupondius, the zinc content under Augustus is on average lich: 15%. The same rises in the coins of Caligula and Claudius to 20% and about it. (Maximum amount in one piece des Claudius: 27.7%). From then on he slowly goes back under Nero to about 18%, Vespasian and Titus about 16%, and is under Domitian and in the 7 analyzes Traian already on average 11'/, % arrived; Antoninus Pius: 8°/,%; M. Aurelius: 6%; Commode: 6%. Under the Emperors des 3rd century fluctuate the Analyzes between 5-7% zinc content - from Philippus Arabs However, from then on it disappears as a special alloy metal the copper coins, and the small quantities that... are often found and rarely exceed 2% out of use of the remelted brass money the previous periods.

p. 151 · zoom original

The fineness of Greek and Roman coins. 143 The pure copper content remains in the small nominal values a very high one during the 1st century. By Caligula, Claudia dius, Vespasian we record chemical investigations 100% fine. And even Bibra's precise analyzes revealed: Tiberius :96'/,%; Caligula: 99%; Claudius almost 98% (where- at No. 4 with only 87% not is included); Nero 98!/,%; Vespasian 99'/;%; Titus, Domitian and Nerva about 96%: The copies of Antoninus Pius and M. Aurelius show still 91%, or 95% fine copper on average. With the 3rd century occurs again a bronze coin one that we have in its alloy mass of approximately 85% copper and 7---8% tin and lead each best can compare with the Republican copper of the uncial foot (above $. 127) and with the provincial copper stamping (8. 142). At least it lasts the copper coin, minted under the supervision of the Senate one commendable goodness, improves yourself increasingly from Aurelianus every now and then remains through ours whole List down mostly pure copper money with only a very weak alloy. From some Rarities apart from, finds yourself Silver regularly from Diocletian in the copper money, by now In addition to the pure silver coin, the so-called white copper coin money came into its production the metal of the ancient denarii was used. So initially from Diocletian onwards the larger variety, the Follis, and then by Constantin the Elder. Gr. off the exclusively embossed small variety (of twos) one Addition of silver obtained by boiling the pieces in an acid on the surface appears and well-preserved copies now the appearance of silver-plated there. In an analysis lysis of Maximianus, this addition is: 3.27% [in the 5th listed: 2.2%], in one piece Constantine II: 3.22; of Magnentius: 3.4%. Calculate us to this, that at the Most coins in circulation have some of the silver rubbed off has, then we can an average one Silver content of 2-4% in the varieties concerned,

p. 152 · zoom original

144 J Hammer: The precious metal was so intentionally in the coin let and stayed also determines the value the same. The Follis Diocletian is actually just that Continuation of Antoninianus'), and since the value designation XX or XX—I (XX=J), which those since Aurelian to 295 Billon coin minted in AD (with rays wreathed head of the emperor) often in the section who bore Rs., thus also for Our Follis applies, its calculation results in XX sesterces — 5 denarii. Like Kubitschek from the in the ruins of Fragment of the Diocletian prize found in ancient Elateia edict of 301, the denarius was now has become the (smallest) unit of account, worth approximately 1.637%. The Follis, in weight from 11 gr (& 0.15% = 1.65 &°), increased through one average 3 percent Silver content changes its value 0.33 grams of silver 18% = 6.4; i.e. the metal value of 7.65% something like that with the nominal value of 5xX1.637% = 83.2 3. The small copper piece — 2 denarii or 3.27 & — is against it without Silver content and that's why credit coin, became Of course from Diocletian just very little marked, and as it under Constantin (312) the Follis repressed, took over it also, as we have seen, its valuable silver additive. That one on the small admixture of silver put, speaks themselves in one Laws from years 349 out'); In it, the mint officials are threatened with the death penalty if her this one Addition from the metal retire and under- hit. Anyway, come to Valentinian in our analysis There is no longer any significant silver lysis, we have it almost pure copper coin from the early imperial period. J. Hammer. 1) Mommsen, $. 801. Kubitschek, Quinquennium, p. 86/7. 2) Ibid. p. 85/6. 3) The largest silver to 18 3, the largest copper !/,,, of this. 4) Cod. Theod. IX, 21, 6.

p. 153 · zoom original

kin false Campanian ingot and other falsis. In the latest issue of Rivista Ital. num. Vol. XIX. (1906) fasc. II, pp. 143-150 published by Mr. Francesco Gnecchi in Milan a bar he acquired the previous year, which he at the same time on Tav. III and IV depicted in natural size. The guys are new for a bar. He carries on one On the side is the well-known image of the Roman Prora, on the other a jug with a folded spout and high handle, whose am- phora-like slimmer body on one suddenly into the Wide outgoing feet sit on. However, the ingot is not intact, it consists of many- more from three fragments, namely two big ones in the top the Prora touching main fragments and a small one middle pieces filling the gap in the lower prora section. Mr. Gnecchi it is Despite many efforts, not achieved lungs, with the alleged finders of the bar in direct contact. draw to kick, but probably was him from the one in his Publication not mentioned Middlemen the information, it act around one of country people next to Rimini at the via Flaminia at a depth of two meters weighing about ten kilograms, that of the main thing after aes rude also consisting of some aces, two tripods and a Dupondius, finally the three in speech standing Ingot fragments included have. There is also a watercourse nearby was, like that doubts Mr. Gnecchi not on that Character of the treasure as a stips votiva. He received first the two large ingot fragments, later also the two tri- pondia; only that it was rude was from an ore foundry, the it Journal of Numismatics, XXVI, 10

p. 154 · zoom original

146 E.J. Haeberlin: acquired for melting have should, and that one for its purposes such an unsurpassable metal mixture never before was opposed, to gain no prize; the only one why? this iron foundry, who always remained mysterious, understood himself the final publication of the little one middle fragment on Mr. Gnecchi, who succeeded in this way, all of them mile of the bar in his possession. The bar is a fake and its current owner has become the victim of a mystification. The same one had that Kindness, to me at my request after the publication of his publication the three ingot fragments along with the two equally false ones Tripondia and one to be mentioned later, which is also false Decussis to Frankfurt a. M. to send. On the one hand the Importance the appearance of a new bar, on the other hand the boldness, with what one in Italy to regrettable outcome stretching occurred counterfeiter and gang of fences the products of their light-shy trade, namely especially on that too areas of the aes grave, recently trying to distribute is, let it seems necessary here immediately energetically opposed to enter. In the interests of science acts it around the destruction of the fairy tale from one new ingots, in interest of museums and the collector for the warning a danger that threatens them. Below I will first discuss the reasons the the new bar was considered typologically and stylistically impossible. let it appear, then only the factual findings, this is because already based on Gnecchi's publication. the falsehood of the bar was theoretically certain for me, after which the autopsy just the practical confirmation of something already happening elsewhere was able to deliver the result obtained. In the former relation the following occurs into consideration. I I developed the system in a work last year!) in 1) “The systematics of the oldest Roman coinage”, published in the “Berliner Münzblatt” 1905/06; from their publisher also separately to relate.

p. 155 · zoom original

A false Campanian ingot along with other falsies, 147 the so-called. campanian bars for heavy money. They are all of Roman origin, manufactured in the around the year 335 v. BC at the same time with the capital city Office justified Capuan mint, anywhere her Casting in the for the activity this mint to con- The second epoch, which has been going on since about the year 312, begins. The system of this second epoch is characterized by that which used to be according to the Phocaian foot (7.58 gr.) under the Names of Rome issued didrachms henceforth in Roman Foot (6.82 gr.) can be placed, but also that on each new Didrachm emission the issue of one for the Latin area certain series of heavy money and to every series of heavy money Edition of a bar connected will. Each of these Emissions therefore forms one from didrachm, Heavy money series and bars existing group, their internal connection This makes it clear that the idea which expresses it found in the coin image of the didrachm, at the same time to dominate the idea the group will, where on the main pieces the Heavy money series immediately reflects the type of didrachm reverses, the ingot, on the other hand, the one associated with this type Introduction for printing in another way brings. Ins- will be special the idea one on silver and heavy money in Head depiction of the deity on the parallel bars through Attributes symbolizes, the to that deity in relationship stand. For example, find the Mars type of two coins rows on the two associated Ingots his expression through the weapons consecrated to Mars (shield bars and swords) ingots); connect to the Apollo head of two further rows of coins the two bars that represent the tripod sacred to Apollo on the Back carry (ingot: ear of wheat || tripod; ingot: Anchor || Tribrach) etc. f£ The bar therefore never bears any value Coin image, it always bears a symbol that is different from the coin image, however, in a symbolic connection with it, ingots image. First in later times, viz first in the time of re- duction, became also to the capital prora series a 10*

p. 156 · zoom original

148 B.J. Haeberlin: Bars issued. Also preserved here like in Capua that Bar image its independence from the coin image; it is the bar with the augurium of the eating ones Chickens on the front, the two rostrums on the back page. The idea of the warship embodied in the Prora brings thus also this bar by means of an adjoining one Symbol, namely through the ram of the warship expression. It is according to the way of thinking, that of the relationship of the Ingots on which the coins are based are conceptually excluded, that the bar could repeat the coin image. However, this is true in an absolute sense, initially only for those bars that Accessories of a heavy money series form and which I therefore in I referred to it as a “row bar” in my paper last year have. There is also an independent one, from the reference A type of bar that is independent of a series of heavy money, i.e. bars, which were coined on special historical events. This one Variety is available in the bull bar and the blefanten bar, the former pointing to the victory over the Samnites, the latter to the victory over Pyrrhus; I called these bars “commemorative” bars”. The question is therefore whether Mr Gnecchi's publish decorated bars according to their types as such a commemorative bar to comprehend would be? This one Question is however out multiple reasons to deny. Above all, it was during the time of the bullion There was no Roman naval victory, to which the Prora referred could become; furthermore, one would want to gain control of the sea express, taking into account the values already contained in the coins kick Prora for the parallel bars certainly not the same picture have chosen, like Roman land and sea rule on another ingot actually through caduceus and three- Zack has been symbolized: However, all of these questions are superfluous due to the stylistic technical considerations, the the guys of the Gnecchi ingot oppose; they appear unantique in every respect. The Prora depicted on the ingot is nothing else as one

p. 157 · zoom original

A false campanian ingot along with other falsis. 149 highest deficient Replica the Prora of Kircher Decussis. While but here the formation of the Prora takes place in one unity shows, the that full understanding des artist from whose external and inner structure in front of your eyes leads, the bar proves how much this fraud is to the forger. confession went off. Well also shows his representation the one individual Parts from which the real Prora is composed, however without the organic connection this one Parts. This Acrostolion is stretched excessively long, its outer edge, as the thick shadow of photography shows, much too protruding high. The anterior, which sits in front of the ophtalmos Steven is too far backwards; the proembolion emerges from the hull not out; the rostrum tridens, which is considered sharp Attack weapon from be carried by the keel and the keel at the same time should cover, appears as a weak, his natural Holds lacking structure; finally the 'keel itself, which descends in a curved line towards the middle would have to, runs horizontally, thereby lacking the ability to keep the ship balanced from the depths. Even more misguided is the pot on the other side of the Ingots. Broken handle it on which one such antique vessels, especially in their reproduction momentum inherent in the coins; the fold spout, the other one appears standing horizontally, with raised villi, hanging against it the thick one that rests asymmetrically on the body of the vessel neck shapeless; the foot, ugly designed, is suitable in in no way this vessel shape; finally are the edges the spout and the foot are much sharper than this with the otherwise always soft and yet so concise cam panicked design could seem compatible. The pictures of both sides of the bar are therefore completely wrong succeeds; far away from Campanian art, technology and thought wisely, this metal lie forms a drastic testimony to the Incapacity of its author, no less stylistically impossible as typological. What reference here? between Prora and

p. 158 · zoom original

150 E.J. Haeberlin: Whether the forger had his eye on the pot seems indifferent; every- if he has with this compilation just another one Proof of forgery provided. All of them features mentioned so far the forgery er- gave based on the present illustration of the bar. Nevertheless, it seemed desirable on the hands of the original also the technique of forgery to get to know better. It according to what was said about this in the Rivista, at least sten the presence one deceptive Patina expected especially since the latter is described in the description on page 144 with the marked patina the la Bruna bar (now in Berlin and in my collection) had been placed in parallel. Big was my surprise when, when I took out the question, ments from their wrapping found a fake, regarding whose it actually seems difficult to understand that through her caused a deception at all become could. The remark can here not be suppressed, that especially in the homeland of the aes grave the number of connoisseurs, which counterfeit heavy money can certainly be distinguished from real divorce understand, one striking low is. One episode of this is it, that also in many public collections of Italy still numerous fakes lie on, whose Elimination from competent visitors of abroad probably has been recommended many times, but without success. Uncertain In your own judgment you also distrust the judgment of others. Only in this state of affairs can it be understood at all Bringing an ingot like this into the scientific economic discussion. But even those who are responsible for the incorrect lines in the figurative lichen the ingot has no eye, must through the patina, the fracture surfaces and the border of the ingot fragments and inevitably be attributed to counterfeiting. As for the patina, like that the fundamental tone is dull, quite deep green, which, however, is often the case, especially on the second largest fragment, so full of bright verdigris areas -

p. 159 · zoom original

A false campanian ingot along with other falsis. 151 is drawn that this piece definitely on the same level the mass production of those neo-Roman bronzes, which, albeit in imitation of old models, but by no means with the intention of deception or with the claim as to be considered antique. The largest fragment and more yet show the small middle piece one stronger connection turn from iron rust, the the areas many times one ins brownish, partially into yellow-brown playful coloring ver- lends. Finally, on all three fragments there are numerous scabs chunks spread, those when touched feel rough and pointed felt, easily removed in detail with the tip of a knife can be. The fracture surfaces are also particularly missed. I I think it is impossible that counterfeiters could succeed in the fracture surfaces real raw ore or real bars imitate. The antique fracture surfaces let none whatsoever roughness feel; feel; their partly arched, partly recessed curves glide smooth and delicate in the hand. The break of modern pieces is grainy, rough and cutting, sometimes to the point of knife sharpness. Even in the dark This distinction is made using simple means Feels easy and safe to carry out. They show consistently fracture surfaces of the new bar that modern one Texture. | However, it may not have escaped the forger's attention that that the softness of the ancient break on one until white-hot increased heat of the pieces to be divided, whereby one smooth melting of the fracture surfaces occurred, which gave rise to the forger by subsequent melting above Edges at least Parts the fracture surfaces off- round up. Through this a change in the fracture surfaces occurred one that no longer allows the pieces to fit together exactly, so that The three fragments are now only apart from the one in the gaping gaps in Gnecchi's illustration come closer together let. Finally the edge. Since the ancient ingots are between two Casting molds with a narrow sprue on one narrow side

p. 160 · zoom original

152 E.J. Haeberlin: were cast, their edge shows on all four sides one the whole piece except of the sprue horizontally Despite all the precision, there is no circumferential dividing line between the two molds that had been placed absolutely sharply on top of each other. This one line is with the new bar usually not present at all act; where it is imitated on some routes, it appears swollen and bumpy; it is intentionally incorporated into the form- worked, not natural emerged, what his explanation in it finds that the “new” ingot is not at all between two molds, but cast into a single hollow mold was and indeed so that the one narrow side this form (the upper one in Gnecchi's illustration) in its entirety for recording of the metal open stood. As a result of crooked position development of the form then the ingot on one long side shorter than the other; on the open narrow side but cooled down the seething metal to one irregular flat surface, whereas the three others are surrounded by the shape closed Edges a compact, those that remained open Side has a lack of rounding. It follows from this, that also in the technology of the im fullest sense of the word “new” bars from his ancient Differs significantly from its predecessors. But can today's technology niker anyway don't expect in an individual experiment of an ingot cast soon on the virtuosity of skilled workers des to approach antiquity, so when using one completely different casting method from producing the characteristics of the ancient process is completely out of the question, This different casting method consists of the so-called wax pouring process already described by Benvenuto Cellini became. Here the object to be cast in ore is next formed in wax. The wax is attached to '/, out plaster, to °/, mixture consisting of brick dust painted with possible avoidance of air bubbles between mixing ung and wax. If the wax is sufficiently coated, then it comes the whole thing in a cast box with further filling of everything