  COINS AND COMMUNICATION carlos f. noreña Introduction The primary function of coinage in the ancient world was economic. Like other types of currency—for example, cattle, slaves, agricultural produce, metals—coins might serve as an accumulation of material wealth, an index of value, or a medium of exchange for goods and services (Polanyi 1968; Howgego 1995: 12–23; Harris 2008). Coinage, in other words, is a particular form of money, as Aristotle recognized (Pol. 1256b–1258a), but not the only one. Two features that distinguished ancient coins from other types of money were their adherence to a standard, which reduced transaction costs, and the fact that they bore designs indicating a minting authority, which in principle guaranteed their monetary value. Both features maximized the monetary utility of coinage, and both reflect the critical role of the state in producing it. In fact, the minting of coinage was, in practice, the near-exclusive prerogative of the state. There can be little doubt that the main reason for minting coinage in the ancient world was to facilitate state expenditure (Crawford 1970). But ancient states could also mint new coins in order to affirm status; to replace older coins that were worn or overvalued; or even to facilitate private trade (Howgego 1990). It is important to keep these economic functions in mind when considering coinage as a medium of communications in the ancient world. Three points deserve particular emphasis. First, the designs on coins, usually some combination of type and legend, not only identified the issuing authority, but could also be employed to convey a wide range of messages. As a result, coins were commodities in which two different regimes of value, the economic and the symbolic, 0001189424.INDD 248 7/19/2010 1:03:47 PM coins and communication 249 converged and reinforced one another. Second, coins were official documents. Though many details of mint operations are obscure to us, we can say that state control over the production of coins invested the messages they conveyed with a high degree of formal authority. And third, the use of coins for state expenditure required production on a near-industrial scale, which ensured constant circulation in both the public and private spheres. In no other medium were simple messages transmitted under state authority so regularly, and so extensively communicated to so many individuals. It was this distinctive combination of official status, simultaneous embodiment of economic and symbolic value, and mass production, then, that made coinage such a potentially powerful medium of communications in a pre-industrial world. The purpose of this chapter is to examine how Roman coinage worked as a medium of communications in the Roman world. The term ‘Roman coinage’ embraces all coins minted in areas under Roman administrative control. This includes both the coinage produced under the authority of the central state, mainly in the city of Rome, and the numerous civic and regional coinages produced under local authority in the provinces. We may refer to the former as the ‘central’ coinage and the latter as ‘local’ coinage. It should be noted, however, that for the period after 31 BC, it is now conventional to refer to the one as the ‘Roman imperial coinage’ and to the other as the ‘Roman provincial coinage,’ even though there is some overlap between the two categories (Burnett 2005: 171–73; Metcalf 2006). Rome began to produce bronze and silver coinages in the late fourth or early third century BC. The year 211 BC saw the introduction of the silver denarius, which henceforth formed the basis of the denominational system for the central coinage. For most of the republic, the central coinage consisted of the denarius and various bronze denominations, gold not being introduced on a large scale until 46 BC. This system was overhauled and stabilized under Augustus. Denominations were still based on the denarius, but now included a regular gold multiple, the aureus (1:25), and regular ‘bronze’ (aes) fractions, the sestertius (4:1) and dupondius (8:1), both struck from an orichalcum alloy, and the as (16:1), semis (32:1), and quadrans (64:1), all made of copper. The most important subsequent denominations, introduced under the duress of inflation and debasement, include the silver antoninianus (twice the face-value but only 1.5 times the weight of the denarius), issued by Caracalla in AD 215, and the gold solidus (about 3/5 the weight of the early-imperial aureus), issued by Constantine ca. 309. Gold coins were struck exclusively, and silver coins primarily, by the central state, and both circulated throughout the whole of the empire. For most of our period, the main central mint was located in the city of Rome, but from 12 BC to AD 64 it was in Lugdunum (Metcalf 1989). In addition, a series of ‘provincial’ mints in the east, especially at Alexandria, Antioch, and Caesarea in Cappadocia, produced silver and bronze coins on behalf of the central state (cf. Butcher 2004). The bronze coins produced by the central state circulated mainly in Italy and the western empire, supplemented through the early Julio-Claudian period by various base-metal coinages produced under local authority and not conforming to a 0001189424.INDD 249 7/19/2010 1:03:47 PM 250 mechanisms of communication and interaction uniform standard. In the east, by contrast, virtually all base-metal coins, also struck to a variety of standards, were supplied by local and regional mints, which continued in operation through the late third century AD. It is this unwieldy mass of different coinages, all treated under the rubric of ‘Roman coinage,’ that forms our subject. In order to assess this coinage as a medium of communications, we may begin with a classic model of communications developed by the American political scientist Harold Lasswell (1948). The ‘Lasswell formula’ is based on a simple question, “Who says what in which channel to whom with what effect?” Though this model does not address some important questions that will require attention, especially those of intentionality, feedback, the slow diffusion of messages over the long term, and the effects of multiple channels operating simultaneously in a complex network of communications, it nevertheless serves as a useful way to break down a complicated process into its main constituent parts. These will be considered under the headings of ‘agency’ (Who), ‘messages’ (says what), ‘medium’ (in which channel), ‘audience’ (to whom), and ‘impact’ (with what effect?). Agency The first step in understanding communication by means of coins is to examine the administration of the mints, with particular attention to the questions of output and the selection of designs. The administration of the central mint under the republic is tolerably clear (RRC: 598–620). Though new denominations and standards were normally authorized by statute (cf. Plin. Nat. 23. 46), it was the senate that controlled the state’s finances (Polyb. 6. 13. 1). In practice this meant annual calculation of revenues and authorization of expenditure, which was made from some combination of old and new coin. The production of new coin was the responsibility of the triumviri monetales, or ‘moneyers,’ annually elected magistrates who served in colleges of three. How and by whom it was decided how this new coin was to be allocated among the various denominations is unknown, but patterns in type selection indicate that it was the moneyers themselves who chose the designs on the coins they struck. Who did what in the mint of the imperial period is less clear (cf. Carson 1956). The office of triumvir monetalis survived at least through the Severan period (ILS 1181), but by the early second century AD, the central mint was administered by an equestrian procurator monetae (CIL VI 1607, 1625), and it was the a rationibus who seems to have determined total mint output (Stat. Silv. 3. 3. 103–5). As under the republic, state expenditure was made both from old and from new coin. So who chose the designs on the new coins? Several references point to the intervention of the emperor (Suet. Aug. 94. 12, Nero 25. 2; Eus. VC 4. 15. 1; Soc. HE 3. 17; Soz. HE 5. 19. 2), but these are hardly sufficient to prove regular imperial selection of designs 0001189424.INDD 250 7/19/2010 1:03:47 PM coins and communication 251 (Wolters 1999: 262–64). Routine type selection was likely in the hands of the higher ranking mint officials (which would mean that the subject matter appearing on coins issued by the central government was determined by men of equestrian status; cf. Peachin 1986). Organization of the many local mints throughout the empire varied considerably (Weiss 2005). The production of new coins was normally authorized by a decree of the local council, which presupposed central approval (or, perhaps more likely, acquiescence). In one region, Asia Minor, extensive sharing of dies between different cities implies the regular use of private workshops for the production of civic coins (Kraft 1972). Most civic coins include an ethnic identifier (‘of the Ephesians,’ ‘of the Laodiceans,’ etc.), indicating the minting authority; some also include the names of individuals, mainly local magistrates, indicating, it seems, responsibility for a particular issue. Designs must have been chosen either by these magistrates or by the local council as a whole. In all cases, then, it was the state, whether central or local, that regulated the production of coins, and it was ultimately the state that guaranteed their economic value. Actual decisions about output and design were taken—again, insofar as this can be determined—by specific collectivities (the Roman senate and local councils) and by authorized individuals (moneyers, magistrates, mint officials, emperors). It was these actors, and not states as such, that used coins to communicate messages. And they did so with varying degrees of self-assertion, sometimes allowing themselves to be effaced by the state, sometimes aggressively pressing their own claims, but always acting under the umbrella of state authority. What degree of organization may, or may not, have been involved in all this is no longer clear. In any case, the question of who, exactly, chose this or that denomination or coin type is, at least in the present context, unimportant. What matters is that those making these decisions belonged to the political elite, and that the coins themselves were authoritative objects which literally bore the stamp of some form of state authority. As we will see when we turn to the typology of Roman coin designs, the extent to which collectivities and individuals could employ the coinage to communicate messages in their own interests depended on underlying social and political conditions and structures of power. Messages Messages on coins were conveyed through designs. Designs normally comprised both image (type) and text (legend), and were deployed on both faces of the coin. The obverse usually identified the minting authority, while the reverse usually communicated an additional message about, or under, that authority. In different periods and contexts, either the obverse or the reverse bore most of the discursive force of the coin’s message, with most of the expressive work done either by the type or 0001189424.INDD 251 7/19/2010 1:03:47 PM 252 mechanisms of communication and interaction the legend, but the full message of the coin depended on the image and text on both faces, and it is therefore vital to ‘read’ the entire coin as a single, composite whole (Wallace-Hadrill 1986: 67–70). The designs on republican coins mark a long trajectory from the advertisement of the Roman state to the commemoration of individual aristocrats (Alföldi 1956; Crawford 1974: 712–44; Hölscher 1982; Flower 1996: 79–88). The earliest Roman coins bore little specifically Roman content and were hardly distinguishable from their Greek models. With the adoption of the denarius in 211 BC came a new typology, unambiguously Roman, that endured with little variation for the next seventyfive years. On the obverse appeared the helmeted head of Roma, and on the reverse the Dioscuri on horseback, glossed by the legend ROMA; subsequent variants of the reverse include Luna or Victoria in a biga (see fig. 11.1). During this first phase of the republican denarius coinage, the identity of the moneyers was normally marked by symbols or by abbreviated versions of their names, but the primary purpose of the designs was to identify the coins as Roman. Signs of modest self-assertion on the part of the moneyers begin to appear on bronze coins in the first half of the second century BC, but the critical rupture came in 137 BC, when Tiberius Veturius minted a denarius with Mars instead of Roma on the obverse, and with an oath-taking scene on the reverse (see fig. 11.2). Both sides of the coin publicized Veturius’ family: Mars alluded to Tiberius Veturius Philo, who had been flamen Martialis (priest of Mars) in 204 BC, while the oath scene not only recalled the treaty of the Caudine Forks, when Veturius’ ancestor was consul (321 BC), but also referred to the Numantine treaty of 137 BC, negotiated by Veturius’ relative, Tiberius Gracchus (RRC p. 226). For the first time, then, a Roman denarius transmitted a set of messages promoting an individual family, rather than the state as a whole. This departure from tradition ushered in a new phase in the typology (a) (b) Figure 11.1. Denarius, 179–70 BC. RRC 158/1. Photo courtesy American Numismatic Society, 1944.100.240. 0001189424.INDD 252 7/19/2010 1:03:47 PM coins and communication (a) 253 (b) Figure 11.2. Denarius, 137 BC. RRC 234/1. Photo courtesy American Numismatic Society, 1941.131.57. of the republican coinage, characterized by designs that increasingly served to commemorate the aristocratic families of individual moneyers. Commemoration sometimes took the form of allusion to divine ancestry, such as Sextus Julius Caesar’s denarius of 129 BC depicting Venus, mythical ancestress of the Julii, on the reverse (RRC 258); more often, the designs celebrated the achievements of the moneyers’ more recent relatives, especially in the areas of warfare (e.g., RRC 263/1, 269/1, advertising the military exploits of the Metelli) and monumental building (e.g., RRC 291, showing an aqueduct begun by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus in 187 BC). Perhaps the most important aspect of this new typology was, simply, that the designs were constantly changing. This was a revolutionary development in the use of coinage as a medium of communications; for the static typology of the early coinage— an inheritance from the Greek model—gave way to remarkable variety, a defining feature of Roman coinage from the 130s BC down to the early fourth century AD. This paradigm shift was triggered by contemporary developments in the political sphere, as moneyers sought increased publicity in the face of more acute electoral competition, and in the cultural sphere, as aristocratic families looked for new ways to ‘monumentalize’ their status (Meadows and Williams 2001; cf. also Flower in this volume). The underlying message of each of these designs, taken individually, was that the family concerned possessed a distinguished lineage, had served the state over multiple generations, and therefore deserved its position of honor and authority; taken as a group, these coins also asserted aristocratic superiority in general, and justified the collective dominance of the senatorial oligarchy as a whole. The political use of the coinage as a medium of communications intensified over the course of the first century BC. Designs focused less on families across several generations, and more on living individuals. This process can be traced from the rise of the late-republican ‘dynasts’ through its culmination under Augustus. Both 0001189424.INDD 253 7/19/2010 1:03:48 PM 254 mechanisms of communication and interaction Marius and Sulla, for example, are represented, while alive, as triumphing generals (RRC 326/1; 367/3). Pompey is celebrated through a more elaborate symbolic program. The reverse type of one denarius depicts three small wreaths for Pompey’s three triumphs, a large wreath for the golden crown awarded in 63, the stern of a ship for the command against the pirates, a stalk of grain for the cura annonae of 57, and a large globe for world conquest (see fig. 11.3). But the watershed moment on the road to monarchic symbolism came with Caesar. Particularly dramatic is a denarius with complex symbolism on the reverse (an axe, globe, caduceus, fasces without an axe, and clasped hands, alluding, respectively, to Caesar’s pontificate, world conquest, felicitas, libertas, and concordia), a potent obverse legend (CAESAR DICT(ATOR) PERPETUO—Caesar, the dictator in perpetuity), and, most striking, a portrait of Caesar himself on the obverse (see fig. 11.4). Caesar was the first living individual to be portrayed on a Roman coin, an arresting conflation of state and individual that paved the way for the typology of the imperial coinage. Yet the trend toward the autocratic monopolization of the coinage was temporarily interrupted in the early triumviral period. While Antonius and Octavian both strove to publicize an association with Caesar (cf. RRC 488; 490/2), Cassius and Brutus produced designs emphasizing the republican ideal of libertas (RRC 498–508). By the later years of the triumviral period, however, designs on Roman coins were reduced to expressing the competing claims of Antonius and Octavian, and the latter’s victory at Actium in 31 BC ultimately extinguished the typological and ideological polyvalence that had defined the republican coinage since the 130s. Indeed, the advent of monarchy is fully reflected in the coinage of Augustus (Wallace-Hadrill 1986; Trillmich 1988), dominated by the regular appearance of Augustus’ portrait on the obverse and the prevalence of key Augustan themes on the reverse: honors voted by the senate, for example, the golden shield displaying his virtues (see fig. 11.5); ‘constitutional’ matters, illustrated by the recently discovered aureus of 28 BC with the reverse legend LEGES ET IURA P[OPULI] R[OMANI] RESTITUIT (he restored the statutes and customary laws of the Roman people—cf. Rich and Williams 1999); victory over foreign enemies (e.g., RIC 12, 275a, AEGVPTO CAPTA—Egypt Captured); ‘personal’ deities such as Apollo (e.g., RIC 12, 170); and dynastic arrangements (e.g., RIC 12, 207, depicting Gaius and Lucius Caesar). Though aristocratic, family-oriented designs continued through the late republic, their messages were eventually overwhelmed by those publicizing the achievements and power of living individuals. These designs nevertheless continued to link the dynasts to the state as a whole. An equestrian statue of Sulla, for example, is depicted on a denarius with an obverse portrait of Roma, which underlines Sulla’s association with the state (RRC 381), while the bronze coinage of Augustus carried the prominent legend S[ENATUS] C[ONSULTO] (by decree of the senate), initially intended to indicate authorization of the new denominational structure of the Augustan coinage (Bay 1972; contra Burnett 1977), but with the effect of symbolically authorizing the whole Augustan regime. One major element in the typology of coin designs that did change was the disappearance of the moneyers. Many of the most striking designs from the late republic and early Augustan period were 0001189424.INDD 254 7/19/2010 1:03:49 PM Figure 11.3. Denarius, 56 BC. RRC 426/4b. Photo courtesy American Numismatic Society, 1944.100.2621. (a) (b) Figure 11.4. Denarius, 44 BC. RRC 480/6. Photo courtesy American Numismatic Society, 1935.117.23. (a) (b) Figure 11.5. Denarius, 20–19 BC. RIC 12, Augustus 52b. Photo courtesy American Numismatic Society, 1937.158.408. 0001189424.INDD 255 7/19/2010 1:03:49 PM 256 mechanisms of communication and interaction formally produced and signed by moneyers unrelated to the individuals celebrated on the coins; but, by the end of the first century BC, the moneyers were no longer represented, either by type or legend, and the entire discursive content of the coins was henceforth monopolized by Augustus and his successors. The designs on Roman imperial coins produced by the central mint over the first three centuries AD expressed a relatively stable constellation of imperial ideals and values.1 The underlying typology, however, was based on a bewildering variety of types and legends, especially on the reverses. One way to approach this immense body of material is to focus on those designs that were highly topical and surely intended to convey specific messages. Dynastic politics loomed large on such designs. Some announced successors to the throne, such as Vespasian’s series depicting Titus and Domitian (e.g., RIC 2. 2), others publicized members of the imperial family (cf. Gaius’ sestertius showing his three sisters, Agrippina, Drusilla, and Julia, RIC 12. 33), but most celebrated immediate imperial predecessors, normally deified (cf. Septimius Severus’ CONSECRATIO—i.e., consecration as a god—types for both Pertinax, RIC 4. 1. 24A, and Commodus, 4. 1. 72A). Especially pointed were Hadrian’s coins declaring ADOPTIO (adoption), which sought to legitimize his somewhat dubious accession (see fig. 11.6). Civil war contexts also called forth topical designs. Most often these proclaimed concord within the state, especially between the legions. Contenders for the throne in 69 and in 193–97 propagated virtually identical messages (cf. Vitellius in 69, FIDES EXERCITUUM—loyalty of the armies—RIC 12. 28, and Clodius Albinus in 195–7, FIDES LEGIONUM—loyalty of the legions—RIC 4. 1. 19). Designs were also employed to announce various types of civic benefaction, including new or restored buildings, such as the Trajanic issues representing the Column (see fig. 11.7), the Basilica Ulpia (RIC 2. 246), the Forum Traiani (255), and the Circus Maximus (571); new policies, such as Nerva’s remission of vehiculatio (road tax) costs in Italy (RIC 2. 93), or institution of the alimenta (food supply) program (RIC 2. 92: TUTELA ITALIAE—guardianship of Italy); and above all cash handouts (congiaria). But the most regular topical designs were those announcing military victories. These were a leitmotif of the imperial coinage, with coins commemorating, for example, the victories (real or imagined) of Gaius over Germania (e.g., RIC 12. 57); Claudius over Britannia (RIC 12. 30); Vespasian over Judaea (RIC 2. 424); Domitian over Germania (RIC 2. 252); Trajan over Dacia (RIC 2. 96), Arabia (94), Parthia (324), Armenia and Mesopotamia (642); Marcus Aurelius over Sarmatia (RIC 3. 340); Septimius Severus over Parthia (RIC 4. 1. 142); Decius over Germania (RIC 4. 3. 43), and so forth. What all these designs have in common is their topicality and short-term resonance. But communications could also occur over the long term. It must be emphasized that Roman imperial coins often remained in circulation for over a century (cf. Howgego 1994). As a result, most of the messages they bore were very 1. Mattingly’s introductions to the individual volumes of BMCRE remain the best overall introduction to the designs on the imperial coinage from Augustus through Severus Alexander; for the second century, Strack 1931–37 is also basic. 0001189424.INDD 256 7/19/2010 1:03:50 PM coins and communication 257 Figure 11.6. Denarius, AD 117. RIC 2, Hadrian 3. Photo courtesy American Numismatic Society, 1978.8.1. Figure 11.7. Sestertius, AD 112–114. RIC 2, Trajan 601. Photo courtesy American Numismatic Society, 1944.100.44747. slowly diffused throughout the Roman world. In order to appreciate this long-term diffusion, it is necessary to focus not on the topical or the spectacular—the emphasis of most research on imperial coin designs—but rather on the ocean of standard and repetitive designs in circulation at any one moment. One approach is to undertake quantitative analysis of the relative frequencies of the different designs (Noreña 2001). Such analysis of all denarii minted at Rome between 69 and 235 reveals that personifications were the most common iconographic category (55%), followed by deities (29%). Among personification types, some designs represented abstract ideals, of which the most frequent were Pax (Peace), Felicitas (Happiness), Concordia (Harmony), and Victoria (Victory) (see fig. 11.8), and others represented 0001189424.INDD 257 7/19/2010 1:03:51 PM 258 mechanisms of communication and interaction Figure 11.8. Aureus, AD 193. RIC 4.1, Septimius Severus 22. Photo courtesy American Numismatic Society, 1944.100.81382. personal virtues, of which the most frequent were Aequitas (Equity), Pietas (Piety), Virtus (Virtue), Liberalitas (Generosity), and Providentia (Foresight). The message of these mostly generic, non-topical designs was that the emperor had brought about favorable conditions in the empire, and that he had done so both through military conquest and through his own paradigmatic character. And it was the long-standing iconographic idiom of the coinage itself that reinforced this message, since the benefits and virtues depicted on the reverse were almost always collocated with a portrait of the reigning emperor on the obverse (cf. Bastien 1992–94; King 1999)—the symbolic conflation of monarch and state being the core message of the imperial coinage as a whole. The typology of the imperial coinage remained stable through most of the third century, and it would be difficult to discern from the designs alone that the state was suffering a political and military ‘crisis.’ With the Tetrarchy (AD 293–305), however, the iconographic variety that had characterized the Roman coinage since the 130s BC was curtailed, and topical designs became less frequent. The main innovation of the fourth century was the emergence of Christian symbolism (see fig. 11.9). The designs on local coins minted in the Roman provinces were as varied as the cities that produced them (Harl 1987; Butcher 1988; Howgego 2005; Heuchert 2005). In the western empire, where local mints ceased producing coins during the reigns of Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius, the designs developed from a local to an increasingly Roman imperial typology. In the Iberian peninsula, for example, most coins minted through the early first century BC look decidedly non-Roman, partly in iconographic terms, through the use of non-Roman symbols, but especially in linguistic terms, through the use of Greek, Punic, Celtiberian, Lusitanian, and other local languages for the legends (see fig. 11.10); by the early first century AD, by contrast, most local coins included portraits of emperors on the obverse and standard imperial imagery on the reverse (cf. Ripollès 2005). This shift is paralleled 0001189424.INDD 258 7/19/2010 1:03:51 PM coins and communication 259 Figure 11.9. Bronze, AD 350–353. RIC 8, Magnentius 188. Photo courtesy American Numismatic Society, 1944.100.20533. throughout the western Mediterranean, marked most emphatically by the total displacement of local languages by Latin on legends (Burnett 2002). The underlying message of such designs was one of assimilation to Rome. In the eastern empire, with its long, pre-Roman tradition of civic coinages, designs on coins continued to promote distinctive, local identities down through the late third century AD. The most common format included a portrait of the reigning emperor on the obverse, usually glossed by an identifying legend, in Greek, and on the reverse a design of local significance, often from the religious sphere, again with a Greek legend. A coin from Laodicea in Asia, showing Augustus on the obverse and Tyche on the reverse, (a) (b) Figure 11.10. As, AD 14–37. RPC 1, 125. Photo courtesy American Numismatic Society, 1969.222.3501. 0001189424.INDD 259 7/19/2010 1:03:51 PM 260 mechanisms of communication and interaction glossed by the legend LAOKIDEO̅ N (of the Laodiceans), is a typical example (see fig. 11.11; but cf. fig. 11.12 for an example of more exotic imagery). In addition to civic deities and personifications of place, common reverse designs included local buildings (especially temples), references to local games and festivals, and symbols alluding to elements of local mythology, almost always with Greek legends. Normally bearing a portrait of the emperor on the obverse, such coins conveyed a dual message of imperial integration and civic distinction—the twin pillars of local identity in the Roman east (Howgego 2005). (a) (b) Figure 11.11. Tetradrachm, 27 BC–AD 14. RPC 1, 4382.2. Photo courtesy American Numismatic Society, 1944.100.66331. Figure 11.12. Dichalkon, AD 126–27. Photo courtesy American Numismatic Society, 1988.59.1. 0001189424.INDD 260 7/19/2010 1:03:52 PM coins and communication 261 Medium In assessing coins as vehicles for the transmission of messages, it is important to remember that they were always embedded within larger networks of communications. Coins were distinctive in several respects, but their messages belonged to semiotic systems that transcended individual media. It is not surprising, then, that the messages themselves were neither distinctive nor unusual. In the middle republic, for example, the designs on coins mirror the public monuments in their focus on the state as a whole (Hölscher 1980: 269–71), while in the late republic they not only contributed to the rising tide of individualism visible in all media (Hölscher 1982, 1984), but also reflect the contemporary interest in monumentalizing the past (Meadows and Williams 2001). During the imperial period, when all official media of communications were monopolized by the imperial regime, the messages on coins could be coordinated with those in other media to maximize the impact of a public statement. Two examples from the reign of Vespasian illustrate such coordination. The well known IUDAEA CAPTA (Judaea Captured) type of 71 was only minted intensively between May and July of that year, surely in conjunction with the triumph over Judaea in June (Kraay 1978). And in 75, the dedication of the Templum Pacis and the extension of the pomerium were commemorated in part by a dramatic increase in the volume of denarii advertising Pax (Noreña 2003). In both cases, the coinage was skillfully employed to reinforce messages transmitted by other means. Local coinages, too, often operated in harmony with other media. This is especially clear in the symbolic association of Roman imperial power and local identity, reflected both in the typology of the coins, with their regular collocation of imperial portraits and images of local significance, and in the characteristic mixing of Roman and Greek elements in local festivals, sculpture, monuments, and public space (Howgego 2005: 15; Heuchert 2005: 44). One feature of coinage as a medium of communications that is sometimes overlooked is the discursive flexibility enabled by the minting of multiple denominations. This flexibility is most apparent on the Roman imperial coinage, with its wide-ranging and relatively stable denominational structure, where we find some intriguing correlations between message and denomination. Imperial congiaria (distributions of cash to the urban plebs), for example, tended to be commemorated by elaborate distribution scenes on sestertii, and by the personification of imperial generosity (liberalitas) on aurei and denarii (Metcalf 1993)—a literal message for the base metal coins, in other words, and an abstract one for the precious metal coins. And on the coinage of Vitellius, certain legends were confined to precious metal coins (e.g., FIDES EXERCITUUM, PONT[IFEX] MAXIM[US]), while others were confined to base metal coins (e.g., SECURITAS P[OPULI] ROMANI, LIBERTAS AUGUSTI, ANNONA AUG[USTA/I] (Hekster 2003). The potential significance of such correlations between message and denomination becomes clear when we turn to the question of audience. 0001189424.INDD 261 7/19/2010 1:03:53 PM 262 mechanisms of communication and interaction Audience Anyone who handled coins in the Roman world was a potential recipient of the messages they conveyed. Though the extent to which the economies of the Roman world were monetized cannot be determined with precision, and though the use of money in forms other than coin, such as bullion (Howgego 1992: 8–12) and credit (Harris 2006), may have been widespread, we can say with some confidence that coin use was regular in urban centers and not uncommon in rural areas (Howgego 1992: 16–22), and that nearly everyone in the Roman world used coins at one time or another. Reaching such a large audience was made possible by the mass production and far-flung circulation of coins. In the case of imperial coins, which circulated among tens of millions of users, there are some hints of attempts to reach specific cross-sections of the population. The patterning in representations of imperial congiaria discussed above may point to an effort to pitch the same message differently to different social classes: abstract idealism for the wealthy, educated users of high-value coins, pedestrian literalism for the masses carrying small change. Similar calculations might have governed the choice of legends for the coins of Vitellius: political ideals for the upper classes, and social ideals for the lower classes. There are also some geographical patterns. The concentration in mid-second-century Britain of coins depicting Britannia, for example, may indicate an attempt to appeal to provincial identity (cf. Walker 1988). In these and similar cases, however, it is difficult to prove intent. Perhaps we should look instead to the targeting of soldiers. After all, most newly minted coins were put into circulation through state payments (see below), most of the imperial budget was devoted to the army—as high as 77%, according to one estimate (Duncan Jones 1994: 33–46)—and much of the iconography of the imperial coinage, especially the portraiture of the emperor (Bastien 1992: 235–80; King 1999: 133), was martial in nature. Or maybe the designs on imperial coins were chosen with a view to pleasing a single person, the emperor (Levick 1982). But did these messages have any demonstrable effect on the thinking or behavior of emperors or soldiers? Or of the coins’ millions of other users? Were the messages intelligible? Did anyone even notice them? Impact These questions have been the subject of intense debates for over fifty years now (initiated by Jones 1956), but there is no consensus in sight (Wolters 1999: 255–339; Levick 1999). Let us begin with the problem of the intelligibility of coin designs. Instead of declaring that these designs either were or were not intelligible, we 0001189424.INDD 262 7/19/2010 1:03:53 PM coins and communication 263 should think in terms of a spectrum of intelligibility. At one end of the spectrum is the denarius coinage of the middle republic (c. 211–137 BC), when coins with a simple and largely static design (see fig. 11.1) circulated mainly in Rome and peninsular Italy among users who must have been familiar with Roman iconography. Most of the designs on local coinages also fall on this ‘more intelligible’ end of the spectrum. These coins feature multiple images (cf. figs. 11.10–11.12), to be sure, but they were drawn from a traditional, local repertoire, and the coins usually circulated locally ( Jones 1963: 313–24). At the other end of the spectrum are the coins from the late Roman Republic. Many of the designs seem intentionally obscure—recall the complex symbolism of the coins of Tiberius Veturius, Pompey, and Caesar (see figs. 11.2–11.4)—aimed at the elite and perhaps even designed to exclude the masses from full understanding (cf. Hölscher 1984). Indeed, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that most of the nuances of these designs were lost on the majority of the coins’ users. Somewhere in the middle of the spectrum is the Roman imperial coinage. On the one hand, the obverse portrait of the emperor was a standard and easily comprehended image, and the reverse designs employed a limited pictorial vocabulary (cf. figs. 11.5–11.9); on the other hand, the designs varied constantly, the coins circulated from one end of the empire to the other (and beyond), and not everyone could read the Latin legends. In general, what was necessary in order to understand the designs on coins was a basic level of visual and cultural literacy. And this must have been very high in the Roman world, characterized, as it was, by the omnipresence of public images in everyday life (Hölscher forthcoming). The intelligibility of individual coins should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, of course, but it seems safe to say that most users of coins understood most of the messages conveyed by their designs. Even if most of the designs on coins were broadly intelligible to most of the coins’ users, it is nevertheless very difficult to demonstrate their specific effects, if any. The literary sources offer little guidance. There are some mentions of numismatic imagery (e.g., the New Testament passages on the emperor’s image on coins, Matthew 22: 19–21, Mark 12: 15–17, Luke 20: 22–25; Epictetus on differing reactions to coins of Trajan and Nero, Ench. 3. 4. 5), and even a handful of well-known references to specific designs (Dio on Brutus’ famous EID MAR—the Ides of March—type, D.C. 47. 25. 3; Suetonius on Augustus’ capricorn type, Aug. 94. 12; Socrates on the reaction in Antioch to Julian’s ‘pagan’ bull type, HE 3. 17), but these passages cannot by themselves sustain the proposition that designs were regularly noticed. Material and documentary evidence is more illuminating. Patterns in type selection on the imperial coinage itself, for example, indicate that earlier designs could influence later ones. This is most evident in the explicit ‘restoration’ types of the first two centuries AD (Komnick 2001), but can also be perceived in other cases, as under Vespasian, when the central mint issued a whole series of imitation types (Buttrey 1972). These are good examples of what communications theorists refer to as a ‘feedback loop,’ a recursive process in which the medium has an effect upon its source (cf. Westley and MacLean 1957). On local coinages, too, we can discern the influence of imperial coins. The mint of Alexandria, for example, issued a series of designs emphasizing 0001189424.INDD 263 7/19/2010 1:03:53 PM 264 mechanisms of communication and interaction mythology and place from the late first to the mid-second century AD, roughly when these themes became prominent on the imperial coinage (Howgego 2005: 14–15). Another potential indicator is art in the private sphere. For the Augustan period, at least, it has been shown that the spread of official imagery from the public sphere to domestic contexts was extensive (Hölscher 1984: 20–32; Zanker 1988: 265– 95), and we may reasonably infer that the coinage played an important role in the process. The epigraphic record also provides some insights. The initial appearance of certain superlative epithets in provincial honorific inscriptions for the emperor follows closely behind the initial appearance of the related virtues on the coinage (Wallace-Hadrill 1981: 23–24), and quantitative analysis reveals that long-term fluctuations in the relative frequencies of these virtue types are mirrored in the frequencies with which the epithets are cited in these inscriptions (Noreña forthcoming). There are several avenues for investigating the impact of the designs on coins, then, all of them promising and in need of further research. But it is vital to keep in mind that the messages transmitted by coins were very similar, and often identical, to those conveyed by other media, most of which (unlike the coins) are no longer extant. It may not be possible, in other words, to pinpoint the specific role played by coins in the overall transmission of particular messages. We come finally to the question of whether or not coinage in the Roman world should be seen as a vehicle of propaganda (Levick 1999: 50–52; Wolters 2003). Much of the discussion on this contentious issue has concentrated on the imperial coinage, and has focused on whether individual designs advanced what Ellul has called ‘agitation propaganda,’ the intense, aggressive, and often subversive attempt to change attitudes (1973: 71–75). Missing from the debates about agency and intent in the selection of designs is sufficient attention to the mechanics of coin production and circulation, which virtually preclude the possibility of coins being used in this way on a regular basis. As far as we know, most new coin was put into circulation through state payments (cf. Harl 1996: figs. 9.1–4), but we do not know what proportion of such expenditure was made from newly minted coins (Howgego 1990: 11–15). There are some reasons to suspect that it was low. The costs involved in the physical movement of coin between the provinces and the treasury at Rome will have been considerable (Millar 2004: 89–104), making regular, large-scale recycling of old coin unlikely. And quantitative studies of mint output from the first two centuries AD suggest that new coin accounted for a low percentage of state expenditure—perhaps as low as 10% (Carradice 1983 on Domitian, with Burnett 1987: 95; Duncan-Jones 1994: 46, 111–12). Even more important, all newly minted coins will have been swallowed up by the bulk of old coins already in circulation (cf. Howgego 1994), with the result that their messages, unless carefully coordinated with those in other media, will have been diluted almost immediately. For these reasons, coins were ill-suited to function as weapons in concerted campaigns of ‘agitation’ propaganda. If, however, we consider what Ellul has called ‘integration propaganda,’ which is diffuse, subtle, and intended to bolster existing attitudes (1973: 75–76), and if we concentrate not on individual designs, but rather on the mass of coins in circulation, then we may conclude that the coinage had a major impact. Though the 0001189424.INDD 264 7/19/2010 1:03:53 PM coins and communication 265 specific effect of messages on coins is difficult to document, as we have seen, the distinctive features of the coinage as a medium of communications ensured that coins played a crucial role in shaping public discourse—critical for the maintenance of any configuration of power. Consider the function of the coinage in the Roman Empire. Over the course of the second century AD, according to one estimate, the central mint produced over 15 million denarii per year, and as many as 500 million under Septimius Severus alone (Duncan-Jones 1994: 165). No other commodity in the Roman world was produced on that scale. And coins were portable. As a result of their mass production and portability, coins were everywhere, constantly crossing back and forth between the public and private spheres. The rise of the imperial portrait as a standard feature of both the central and the local coinages is only the most conspicuous example of the cumulative effect of coins. It was above all the regular appearance of the emperor’s image on coins that made this image ubiquitous, in the forum and in the private home alike, from one end of the Roman world to the other. This proliferation of the imperial image was perhaps the key development in the emergence of the ‘imagined community’ that was the Roman Empire. In a world without modern technologies of mass communications, the only medium capable of such a deep impact was the coinage. SUGGESTED READING The best introduction to coinage in the ancient Greek and Roman world is Howgego 1995. For the Roman coinage, Burnett 1987 covers the central coinage, and Butcher 1988 the local coinages of the empire; shorter introductions include Pobjoy 2006 (republican coinage) and Metcalf 2006 (imperial and provincial coinage). The major reference works on the central coinage are, for the republic, Crawford (RRC), and for the empire, Roman Imperial Coinage (RIC) and Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum (BMCRE). The most important current research project on Roman coinage is the multi-volume Roman Provincial Coinage (RPC), of which two volumes have appeared (through the Flavian period); updates to the project, as well as a database with images, can be found at the RPC Online: Roman Provincial Coinage Project site: http://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/project/. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alföldi, A. 1956. “The Main Aspects of Political Propaganda on the Coinage of the Roman Republic.” In Carson and Sutherland 1956: 63–95. Bastien, P. 1992–94. Le Buste monétaire des empereurs romains. 3 vols. Wetteren: Édition Numismatique Romaine, Essais, recherches et documents 19. Bay, A. 1972. “The Letters SC on Augustan aes Coinage.” Journal of Roman Studies 62: 111–22. Burnett, A. 1977. “The Authority to Coin in the Late Republic and Early Empire.” Numismatic Chronicle 137: 37–63. 0001189424.INDD 265 7/19/2010 1:03:53 PM 266 mechanisms of communication and interaction ——— . 1987. Coinage in the Roman World. London: Seaby. ——— . 2002. “Latin on Coins of the Western Empire.” In A. E. Cooley (ed.), Becoming Roman, Writing Latin? Literacy and Epigraphy in the Roman West. Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplement 48. 33–40. ——— . 2005. “The Roman West and the Roman East.” In Howgego, Heuchert, and Burnett 2005: 171–80. Butcher, K. 1988. Roman Provincial Coins: An Introduction to the ‘Greek Imperials.’ London: Seaby. ——— . 2004. Coinage in Roman Syria: Northern Syria, 64 BC–AD 253. London: Royal Numismatic Society. Buttrey, T. V. 1972. “Vespasian as Moneyer.” Numismatic Chronicle 7th ser. 12: 89–109. Carradice, I. 1983. Coinage and Finances in the Reign of Domitian AD 81–96. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Carson, R. A. G. 1956. “System and Product in the Roman Mint.” In Carson and Sutherland 1956: 227–39. Carson, R. A. G., and C. H. V. Sutherland (eds.) 1956. Essays in Roman Coinage presented to Harold Mattingly. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crawford, M. 1970. “Money and Exchange in the Roman World.” Journal of Roman Studies 60: 40–48. Duncan-Jones, R. 1994. Money and Government in the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellul, J. 1973. Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. New York: Vintage Books. Flower, H. 1996. Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Harl, K. 1987. Civic Coins and Civic Politics in the Roman East A.D. 180–275. Berkeley: University of California Press. ——— . 1996. Coinage in the Roman Economy 300 B.C. to A.D. 700. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Harris, W. V. 2006. “A Revisionist View of Roman Money.” Journal of Roman Studies 96: 1–24. ——— . (ed.). 2008. The Monetary Systems of the Greeks and Romans. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hekster, O. 2003. “Coins and Messages: Audience Targeting on Coins of Different Denominations?” In L. De Blois, P. Erdkamp, O. Hekster, G. de Kleijn, and S. Mols (eds.), The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power. Amsterdam: J. C. Geiben. 20–35. Heuchert, V. 2005. “The Chronological Development of Roman Provincial Coin Iconography.” In Howgego, Heuchert, and Burnett 2005: 29–56. Hölscher, T. 1980. “Die Geschichtsauffassung in der römischen Repräsentationskunst.” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 95: 265–321. ——— . 1982. “Die Bedeutung der Münzen für das Verständnis der politischen Repräsentationskunst der späten römischen Republik.” In T. Hackens and R. Weiller (eds.), Actes du 9ème Congrès International de Numismatique. Louvain-la-Neuve: Association Internationale des Numismates Professionnels. 269–82. ——— . 1984. Staatsdenkmal und Publikum: vom Untergang der Republik bis zur Festigung des Kaisertums in Rom. Konstanz: Konstanzer althistorische Vorträge und Forschungen 9. ——— . Forthcoming. Visual Power in Ancient Greece and Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press. Howgego, C. 1990. “Why did Ancient States Strike Coins?” Numismatic Chronicle 150: 1–25. 0001189424.INDD 266 7/19/2010 1:03:53 PM coins and communication 267 ——— . 1992. “The Supply and Use of Money in the Roman World 200 BC to AD 300.” Journal of Roman Studies 82: 1–31. ——— . 1994. “Coin Circulation and the Integration of the Roman Economy.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 7: 5–21. ——— . 1995. Ancient History from Coins. London: Routledge. ——— . 2005. ‘Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces.’ In Howgego, Heuchert, and Burnett 2005: 1–18. Howgego, C., V. Heuchert, and A. Burnett (eds.). 2005. Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jones, A. H. M. 1956. “Numismatics and History.” In Carson and Sutherland 1956: 13–33. Jones, T. B. 1963. “A Numismatic Riddle: the so called Greek Imperials.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107: 308–47. King, C. E. 1999. “Roman Portraiture: Images of Power?” In Paul and Ierardi 1999: 123–36. Komnick, H. 2001. Die Restitutionsmünzen der frühen Kaiserzeit: Aspekte der Kaiserlegitimation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Kraay, C. 1978. “The Bronze Coinage of Vespasian: Classification and Attribution.” In R. A. G. Carson and C. Kraay (eds.), Scripta Nummaria Romana: Essays Presented to Humphrey Sutherland. London: Spink and Son. 47–57. Kraft, K. 1972. Das System der kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung in Kleinasien. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. Lasswell, H. 1948. “The Structure and Function of Communication in Society.” In L. Bryson (ed.), The Communication of Ideas. New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies. Levick, B. 1982. “Propaganda and the Imperial Coinage.” Antichthon 16: 104–16. ——— . 1999. “Messages on the Roman Coinage: Types and Inscriptions.” In Paul and Ierardi 1999: 41–60. Meadows, A., and J. Williams. 2001. “Moneta and the Monuments: Coinage and Politics in Republican Rome.” Journal of Roman Studies 91: 27–49. Metcalf, W. E. 1989. “Rome and Lugdunum Again.” American Journal of Numismatics 1: 51–70. ——— . 1993. “Whose Liberalitas? Propaganda and Audience in the Early Roman Empire.” Rivista italiana di numismatica e scienze affini 95: 337–46. ——— . 2006. “Roman Imperial Numismatics.” In D. S. Potter (ed.), A Companion to the Roman Empire. Oxford: Blackwell. 35–44. Millar, F. 2004. “Cash Distributions in Rome and Imperial Minting.” In H. Cotton and G. Rogers (eds.), Government, Society, & Culture in the Roman Empire, vol. 2 of Rome, the Greek World, and the East. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 89–104. Noreña, C. F. 2001. “The Communication of the Emperor’s Virtues.” Journal of Roman Studies 91: 146–68. ——— . 2003. “Medium and Message in Vespasian’s Templum Pacis.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 48: 25–43. ——— . Forthcoming. The Circulation of Imperial Ideals in the Roman West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paul, G. M., and M. Ierardi (eds.). 1999. Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire: E. Togo Salmon Papers II. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Peachin, M. 1986. “The Procurator Monetae.” Numismatic Chronicle 146: 94–106. Pobjoy, M. 2006. “Epigraphy and Numismatics.” In N. Rosenstein and R. Morstein-Marx (eds.), A Companion to the Roman Republic. Oxford: Blackwell. 51–80. Polanyi, K. 1968. “The Semantics of Money-Uses.” In G. Dalton (ed.), Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi. Garden City: Doubleday Anchor. 175–203. 0001189424.INDD 267 7/19/2010 1:03:53 PM 268 mechanisms of communication and interaction Rich, J., and J. Williams. 1999. “Leges et iura P.R. restituit: A New Aureus of Octavian and the Settlement of 28–27 BC.” Numismatic Chronicle 159: 169–213. Ripollès, P. 2005. “Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces: Spain.” In Howgego, Heuchert, and Burnett 2005: 79–93. Strack, P. 1931–1937. Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichsprägungen des 2. Jahrhunderts. 3 vols. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Trillmich, W. 1988. “Münzpropaganda.” In M. Hofter (ed.), Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik. 474–528. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Walker, D. R. 1988. Roman Coins from the Sacred Spring at Bath. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1981. “Galba’s Aequitas.” Numismatic Chronicle 141: 20–39. ——— . 1986. “Image and Authority in the Coinage of Augustus.” Journal of Roman Studies 76: 66–87. Weiss, P. 2005. “The Cities and Their Money.” In Howgego, Heuchert, and Burnett 2005: 57–68. Westley, B., and B. MacLean. 1957. “A Conceptual Model for Mass Communication Research.” Journalism Quarterly 34: 31–38. Wolters, R. 1999. Nummi Signati: Untersuchungen zur römischen Münzprägung und Geldwirtschaft. Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck. ——— . 2003. “Die Geschwindigkeit der Zeit und die Gefahr der Bilder: Münzbilder und Münzpropaganda in der römischen Kaiserzeit.” In G. Weber and M. Zimmermann (eds.), Propaganda—Selbstdarstellung—Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreich des I. Jhs. n.Chr. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. 175–204. Zanker, P. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 0001189424.INDD 268 7/19/2010 1:03:53 PM