Coins permeated the Roman Empire, and they offer a unique perspective into the ability of the Roman state to implement its decisions in Italy and the provinces. This dissertation examines how this ability changed and grew over time,... more
Coins permeated the Roman Empire, and they offer a unique perspective into the ability of the Roman state to implement its decisions in Italy and the provinces. This dissertation examines how this ability changed and grew over time, between 60 B.C. and A.D. 68, as seen through coin production. Earlier scholars assumed that the mint at Rome always produced coinage for the entire empire, or they have focused on a sudden change under Augustus. Recent advances in catalogs, documentation of coin hoards, and metallurgical analyses allow a fuller picture to be painted. This dissertation integrates the previously overlooked coinages of Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt with the denarius of the Latin West. In order to measure the development of the Roman state’s infrastructural power, this dissertation combines the anthropological ideal types of hegemonic and territorial empires with the numismatic method of detecting coordinated activity at multiple mints. The Roman state exercised its power over various regions to different extents, and it used its power differently over time. During the Republic, the Roman state had low infrastructural minting capacity. The Roman state’s infrastructural power over the European and African provinces grew as more regions began using the denarius and its bronze coin fractions. The Roman state’s minting infrastructural reach suddenly extended into Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt during the reign of Nero and continued to increase thereafter. In the Imperial Period, the state’s infrastructural power was modest and limited to some extent, as it managed an empire-wide system of coordinated mints in which the mints also retained some autonomy. This diachronic sketch suggests that the state’s infrastructural minting capacity grew significantly about one hundred years into the Imperial Period, in part due to the development of an imperial ideology.
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... more
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.
