David Schwei

The addition of the aureus to the Roman imperial coinage system has not yet been fully explained, but a convergence of four factors in the 40s BCE explains this coin’s introduction and continuation. First, the use of gold coins as a medium of exchange and store of value was easily comprehensible for Romans. Second, the civil wars in the 40s and 30s provided the need for a high value coin so the generals struck numerous aurei. Thirdly, Romans perceived a need for more media of exchange during the debt crisis of the 40s so the coin was readily accepted into common use. Finally, the mint continued to produce aurei to pay the imperial army.

"The reign of Nero was momentous in the numismatic history of the Roman Empire, and it is key to understanding the nature of Roman coinage and its relationship with the Roman state. Since the time of Theodor Mommsen, scholars have recognized a change in the circulation patterns of denarii indicating a Neronian debasement and subsequent recoinage of the denarius.... Building on these observations [of various scholars] and recognizing the methodological deficiencies in Walker’s x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyses of silver coins, Butcher and Matthew Ponting embarked on a campaign of new metallurgical analyses of the denarius and eastern tetradrachm coinages. In the recent publication of their results, they clarify the Neronian changes, convincingly argue against a fiscal interpretation, and offer a new monetary interpretation. They argue that the debasement of the denarius in 64 resulted in harmonisation with the eastern coinages. The denarius could, it seemed to them, be interpreted as a Roman drachm. I agree with Butcher and Ponting’s analysis of the numismatic evidence, but I disagree with them about the inspiration and motivation for, significance of, and implications of the new Neronian silver standards and circulation patterns. In this article, I offer an overview of the Neronian numismatic changes, and a new monetary interpretation which suggests that the silver standards were established in order to reflect fixed exchange rates among the empire’s coinages and eliminate the production of the Tyrian shekel. The article will end by comparing my position with that of Butcher and Ponting." (p. 107)

The coins struck for Demetrius II Nicator provide an insight into how mint officials reacted to Alexander II Zabinas’s challenge to the throne. While literature reveals the royal response, a die study of the coins from Antioch and Damascus demonstrates that production at these mints was little affected by the war. Mint administrators relied on loyal workers, such as the two engravers whose movements can be traced. Although the production of coinage seems to have continued at a normal pace, the weight standard at Damascus dropped slightly.