Revue numismatique

The reform of Aurelian

R. A. G. Carson

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Carson R. A. G. The reform of Aurelian. In: Revue numismatique, 6e série - Tome 7, année 1965 pp. 225-235;

doi : 10.3406/numi.1965.932

http://www.persee.fr/doc/numi_0484-8942_1965_num_6_7_932

Document généré le 08/06/2016

 R. A. G. CARSON

THE REFORM OF AURELIAN

The examination of a large hoard of antoniniani of the later

third century found at Gloucester1 in 1960 has prompted the
reconsideration of Aurelian's monetary reform. The hoard of over
15,000 coins is unique in the records of hoards of this period in
Roman Britain; for such hoards normally contain a great mass
of antoniniani of the Gallic emperors and only a handful of
antoniniani of the kind created by Aurelian's reform and issued by
subsequent emperors, but in the case of the Gloucester hoard the
Gallic emperors were represented by a single coin of Victorinus,
while the bulk of the hoard consisted of reform antoniniani.
The reign of Aurelian alone was represented by 2,739 coins, a
useful body of material for the study of the problems of the mint
attributions of this coinage, as well as of the problem of what was
effected by Aurelian's reform and the probable date of this measure.
The discussion of what was involved in Aurelian's reform requires
a consideration of this measure in the wider setting of the history
of the silver and pseudo-silver coinage in the third century, together
with an examination of monetary changes which preceded it and,
to a certain extent, of reforms still later in the third century. The
complex causes of the inflation of the Roman imperial coinage
have been the subject of a number of studies2 and need not detain
us here, but for our purpose it is necessary to trace the various
stages of this inflation and the steps which were taken in an
endeavour to halt inflation.
In an inflationary situation when the supply of bullion cannot be
expanded there are two obvious methods of increasing the supply

1. This hoard is still being studied but it is hoped to publish an account shortly.
2. E.g. M. Rostovtzeff, The social and economic history of Rome; Tenney Frank,
An econonomic survey of Ancient Rome in EHR 1952, pp. 293 ft*.
226 R. A. G. CARSON

of money, namely the lowering of the weight and the fineness of

the standard coin, in this case, the silver denarius1. The early
imperial denarius of the Augustan coinage system had a weight
of 3.9 gm. and the silver fineness was of the order of 95%, but the
first two centuries of empire saw successive diminutions of both
the weight and fineness of this coin. Nero, by his reform of
A. D. 64, reduced the weight to 3.41 gm. and the fineness to 90%
and after the recall of earlier denarii by Trajan in A. D. 107 the
new issues show a weight of 3.21 gm. and a fineness of only 80%.
These standards were more or less maintained until the reign of
Marcus Aurelius whose denarii, though still approximating to the
weight standard of 3.21 gm., show a fall in fineness to about 70%.
The effect on prices of this continuing fall in the standard of
the denarius is difficult to assess, because of the lack of any
consistent body of economic information, for it is only for Egypt, which
was in any case something of a special area, that papyri provide
us with an insight into economic circumstances. There seems,
however, to have been no great crisis of confidence until the late
second century when under Gommodus the denarius further slipped
in weight to 2.93 gm. and to 67% fineness, while under Septimius
Severus, though the average weight of the denarius was a little
higher at just over 3 gm., the fineness sank still further to about
50%. Egyptian papyri of this period show a doubling of wheat
prices in terms of silver and copper and in the early third century
the wheat price is tripled.
Not only does the lack of reliable economic statistics make it
difficult to detect the effect on prices of the debasement of the silver
denarius but it leaves uncertainty as to the tariffing of the silver
denarius in terms of the gold aureus. In the Augustan coinage
system 25 denarii were the equivalent of an aureus but it is unlikely
that this relationship was maintained in view of the fall in weight
and fineness of the denarius and the relative maintenance of the
standard of the aureus. The aureus of Augustus had a weight
of 7.85 gm. which was lowered to 7.31 gm. by Nero's reform and
up to the time of Septimius Severus this weight standard remained
almost unchanged, while from the few available figures for the

1. The weights for the period Augustus to Balbinus and Pupienus are taken from
BMC, for the period Gordian III to Gallienus from L. С West, Gold and silver standards
in the Roman Empire, NNM 94, and for Claudius II to Aurelian from coins in the
British Museum. Figures for fineness are from J. Hammer, « Der Feingehalt der
griechischen und rómischen Miinzen » in ZfN 1908, pp. 1 ff, and P. Le Gentilhomme,
Le jeu des mutations de V argent au IIIe siècle, in Métaux et Civilisations I, p. 127.
 THE REFORM OF AURELIAN 227

fineness of the aureus the decline from Augustus to the later

period is only from 99% to 93%.
At only a very few points in time can an equation of denarii
and aureus be worked out. Only one is at all explicit and none
is very secure. A passage in Dio Cassius1 relating to the time
of Augustus gives the relation of denarius to aureus as 25 to 1 . The
interpretation of this passage is somewhat disputed, for Dio,
writing in the time of Severus Alexander, uses the present tense in
the relevant passage, but the wording of the passage seems to
imply that this was the Augustan ratio and that it was no longer
valid in his day. From a reference in Gaius and another in
Ulpian both Mickwitz and Heichelheim2 have calculated that
about A. D. 225 the aureus was equivalent to 50 denarii. Two
inscriptions from Nubia recording payments in the time of Philip
(A. D. 244-249) have been used by Bolin3 to produce a similar
equation but since the vital figures in the inscription are the subject
of dispute, Bolin's calculation must be regarded not as conclusive
but as no more than indicative. In default of information from
other sources the attempt to define the coinage system at various
points in time must depend largely on the information which the
coins themselves can supply.
Apart from Nero's reform of A. D. 64 and Trajan's recoinage
in A. D. 107 there was no overt change in the coinage system until
spiralling inflation in the early third century made some remedial
measure imperative. This took the form of the reduction of the
aureus to 6.55 gms and the introduction in A. D. 215 by Caracalla
of a new silver denomination which it is convenient to refer to
by its traditional name of antoninianus (Fig. 1,1). Dispute has
long raged as to the value of this new denomination and the
contention that this new coin was a double denarius has in recent
times gained much acceptance. The principal argument4 has
been that, as the radiate crown differentiates the double piece on
both gold and aes, its appearance on the new silver coin should
mean that this too is a double ; for, although the double piece in
gold is twice the weight of the single, the double piece in aes, the
dupondius, is nothing like twice the weight of the As and the silver

1. Dio Cassius, 55, 12.

2. G. Mickwitz, Geld und Wirtschaft im rômischen Reich, p. 281; F. Heichelheim,
Zur Wahrungscrisis des rômischen Imperiums im 3 Jahrhundert n. Chr. in Klio XXVI,
p. 104.
3. S. Bolin, State and currency in the Roman empire to 300 A.D., p. 281.
4. BMC RE V, p. xviii.
228 R. A. G. CARSON

follows the aes in disregarding exact weight, since it was itself

virtually a token coinage.
This, however, is the Achilles heel of the argument. The
antoninianus was in silver of the same fineness of around 50% as
the denarius, and its weight is much nearer that of one and a half
times the denarius than twice the denarius. Only in an artificially
controlled monetary economy could a coin metallically worth
1 y2 times a denarius have circulated with a worth of 2 denarii
without driving the denarius itself out of circulation. If the
antoninianus and denarius had been token coins this might have
been possible, but hoards show that at this particular juncture the
denarius did not disappear from circulation. Had the silver coins
been tokens, it is difficult to see what necessity there would have
been for any alteration in the standard of the aureus. The fact
that it was reduced to 6.55 gms. suggests that this was a new
expression of the aureus in terms of actual silver coins. The
fact, too, that about the same time Caracalla raised army pay from
500 to 750 denarii is strongly suggestive of a recognition that the
value of the denarius had fallen by two-thirds. It seems, then,
that the antoninianus, metallically worth 1 y2 denarii, was
introduced to maintain the relationship of a silver coin to the aureus
of 25 to 1, the earlier relationship of the denarius to the aureus.
The exact equation 1 aureus=25 antoniniani=37^ denarii
presents such obvious difficulty in reckoning with a half denarius
in everyday transactions that we may be justified in supposing
a slight modification to produce a more practical equation, say
1 aureus =24 antoniniani=36 denarii. This may, in fact, be
a partial explanation of the downward adjustment of the weight
standard of the aureus.
The fact that the coinages of the next two reigns both abandon
a first coinage using both the silver denominations in favour of
a coinage with only the denarius suggests some difficulties in the
working of the system. The antoninianus was abandoned by
Elagabalus in A. D. 219, and in silver only the denarius was issued
by his successors up to A. D. 238, when, with the continuing decline
in fineness and, presumably, an increased rate of denarii to the
aureus, the antoninianus was reintroduced by Balbinus and Pupie-
nus at a reduced weight of 4.75 gm. (Fig. 1,2). The presumption
is that increasing inflation had now made the denarius no longer
a viable denomination, for it is at this point that the denarius,
for practical purposes, disappears from the coinage.1

1. BMC RE VI, p. 21, n. 1.

 THE REFORM OF AURELIAN 229

Fig. 1

The behaviour of the aureus in the next period of coinage is

another indication of continuing inflation. Under Gordian III
it fell to 4.86 gm. and continued to decline until the average under
Decius was 4.0 gm. For Gallus and Volusian there are two distinct
denominations in gold : one with a radiate portrait and an average
weight 5.75 gm.; another with laureate portrait (presumably the
aureus proper) and average weight 3.60 gm. By the sole reign of
230 R. A. G. CARSON

Gallienus, where the early aurei have an average of 3.0 gm. and
are followed by a series of radiate pieces with weights ranging
from 4.6 to 4.1 gm., a late group of laureate gold has an average
as low as 1 .3 gm. Perhaps this reduction in the metallic value of the
aureus reflects an attempt to maintain some kind of realistic ratio
with the increasingly debased silver. Whatever the true
explanation may be, debasement of the silver certainly continued and
at one point in this period it is possible to establish with some
certainty the inflationary ratio of antoniniani calculated on the
basis of the ratio established on the introduction of this
denomination by Caracalla.
As antoniniani of Trajan Decius are frequently found overstruck
on denarii of the period from Septimius Severus to Severus
Alexander1 (Fig. 1,3), the ratio of antoniniani for Decius was now
the same as the earlier ratio of denarii. This ratio, we have
suggested, was 1 aureus =24 antoniniani =36 denarii, so that the ratio
under Decius must have been 36 antoniniani (= 54 theoretical
denarii). The continuing debasement of the antoninianus which,
under Decius, had fallen to no more than 40% fineness gives
support to a ratio of this order. From this point debasement
became more rapid until in the issues of about A. D. 266 in the
sole reign of Gallienus (Fig. 1 ,4) the fineness of the antoninianus had
fallen as low as 5%, indicating that the ratio for antoniniani had
now increased to eight times what it had been under Decius ; that
is, it had now risen to 288 antoniniani (=432 theoretical denarii).
The fineness of antoniniani of the end of the reign of Gallienus,
of Claudius II, Quintillus and of the early issues of Aurelian fell
to 2.5% or even lower, a figure which would produce a rate for
antoniniani of 576. There is a hint in the coinage of Victorinus,
emperor in Gaul (A. D. 268-270), that inflation may have gone
further than even this figure indicates. Some of his antoniniani
have on the reverse the numeral V2 (Fig. 1,5). This cannot be
an offlcina letter, for the officinae number only three, but it may
well be a mark of value and indicate that the antoninianus had
now become a coin of 5 denarii.
This lengthy exordium has been necessary to produce some
picture of the monetary situation to which Aurelian's reform was
applied. For the moment, the reform of Aurelian with which we

1. H. Mattingly, The Great Dorchester Hoard of 1936 in NC 1939, pp. 41-3.

2. G. Elmer, Die Munzpragung der gallischen Kaiser in Bonner Jahrbuch 146,
pp. 65 ff.
 THE REFORM OF AURELIAN 231

are concerned is the measure which introduced his new antoninianus

marked with the Roman numerals XXI or the Greek numerals KA.
It is now generally accepted that these numerals do not represent
the figure 21 but are a formula expressing the fact that this new
unit contains 20 units of another kind. If these units are sestertii,
we again have a coin valued at 5 denarii. It is significant that
in the last coinage reform of the third century, that of Diocletian
in A. D. 295, it has been convincingly argued that Diocletian's
new coin, the so-called follis, was also a 5 denarius piece1.
If Aurelian's reform introduced a new antoninianus of 5 denarii,
because of its improved weight and fineness, the ratio of antoni-
nianii calculated on our original basis must have been improved.
Diocletian's Edict of Maximum Prices states that a pound of gold
was valued at approximately 50,000 denarii and with the aureus
being struck at 60 to the pound of gold, there were approximately
833 denarii to the aureus. If we round this off to 800 denarii for
simplicity of calculation, the rate of the new follis (a 5 denarius
piece) was 160 to the aureus. Earlier radiate pieces found a place
in the system as double denarii, i. e. their ratio to the aureus was 400.
Since inflation had continued between Aurelian and Diocletian,
the ratio of Aurelian's XX coin, we may assume, was considerably
less than 400 to the aureus, and can be best calculated on the basis
of the rate of 576 for the antoniniani of Aurelians' earliest issues.
The average weight of these antoniniani was 2.81 gm., but of
Aurelian's XX coins it was 3.84 gm., an improvement of 35%. On
this basis, the ratio of the antoninianus was improved to 426 ;
but Aurelian's reform raised the fineness also to 4.5%, an
improvement of 80% from which can be calculated a new ratio of
236 antoniniani.
The effect of Aurelian's reform on the pseudo-silver coinage
with the introduction of the antoninianus marked with the formula
XXI was a reduction of the ratio of antoniniani from 576 to 236 on
the basis of our original formula. It is, however, not easy to
determine how this new antoninianus was tariffed in terms of the
contemporary aureus. What does seem certain is that the seeming
attempt to maintain some meaningful ratio between the metallic
value of the aureus and the debased silver noted above down to
late issues of Gallienus was abandoned; for under Claudius II the
aureus was established at an average weight of about 5.2 gm.,

1. G.H.V. Sutherland, Denarius and sestertius in Diocletian's coinage reform in

JRS 1961, pp. 94 fT.
232 R. A. G. CARSON

roughly a standard of 60 to the pound, and at approximately this

weight it continued under later third century emperors.
Aurelian's reform, however, did not consist of only this one
measure involving the introduction of the new XXI Antoninianus
at a date which will be discussed below, for this step was preceded
by a less easily identifiable attempt to improve the antoninianus.
The earliest issues of antoniniani for Aurelian at certain mints are
readily identifiable. Not only are they of similar fabric and
weight as those of Claudius II and Quintillus, but they also have
a portrait which is scarcely to be distinguished from that of one
or other of the imperial brothers who preceded Aurelian (Fig. 1,6).
At Rome, also, Aurelian's first issue repeats the exact types, each
in its specific officina, of Quintillus' coinage. At Rome there is
only one issue of this class of coinage, and such hoards of this
period as have been published with sufficient detail to be of value
contain little more than a representation of this issue. The
duration of this first issue at Rome must have been quite short, for
it has only the early long form of obverse legend. As this form
is replaced quite quickly by a shorter version at other mints, this
issue will not have extended beyond A. D. 270. This early class
of coinage in issues from Milan, Siscia and Cyzicus has a fair
representation in hoards, and when allowance is made for the
fact that this poorer class of coinage would be less readily hoarded
than the later and better antoniniani, the issue of this class may
have occupied most of A. D. 271.
At a number of mints, certainly at Milan, Siscia and Cyzicus,
this first class of coinage is succeeded by issues of antoniniani
which are of much improved style, module, weight and fabric
without quite reaching the standard of the final stage of Aurelian's
antoniniani and lacking the formula which was to appear in the
final group (Fig.1,7). Coinage of the mint of Rome of this second
category seems to be missing or at least is not readily identifiable.
This absence lends support to the date suggested for the end
of the first category of coinage and the beginning of this new
category; for the revolt of the moneyers under the leadership of
Felicissimus, the procurator summarum rerum, presumably following
the decision to close the mint at Rome is linked with the confusion
that followed Aurelian's defeat at Placentia in 271 x. Coinage of

1. The sources are all conveniently gathered together in H. M. D. Parker, A History

of the Roman World from A. D. 138 to 337, pp. 195-6, especially nn. 4 and 6.
 THE REFORM OF AURELIAN 233

this intermediate category is extensive, as collections and hoards

demonstrate, and to the duration of issue of this class and its
replacement by the new antoninianuswith the XXI formula (Fig. 1 ,8)
we must now turn our attention.
The traditional date of Aurelian's reform as represented by the
XXI antoninianus is A. D. 274. The authority for this is Zosimus1
whose statement that Aurelian issued 'apyúpiov vsov is contained
in the sentence immediately following the account of the defeat
of Tetricus. The position of the statement is indicative of the
fact that this new coinage came amongst the events towards the
end of the reign but is not necessarily conclusive for a date in
A. D. 274. Even if Zosimus is accepted at face value, there is
little precision about the date, for the fall itself of Tetricus in
A. D. 247 is not determined with any exactitude.
The coins themselves, however, have a contribution to make
to the question. The pattern of issues, so far as they can be
determined on the basis of attribution to mints of mint-marks
which are not always too specific in this regard, shows three distinct
stages of the antoninianus bearing the specific reform formula:
(1) coinage from all officinae for Aurelian only; (2) coinage
mainly for Aurelian but also for Severina; (3) coinage from all
officinae for Severina only. Again, the date of Aurelian's death
is not known for certain, but, since the news of his death in the
Balkans had not reached Alexandria by the end of August A. D. 275
(there are Alexandrian coins with his year 7)2 it cannot have been
much before early August. At this time, then, ended the coinage
of our second group.
The Alexandrian coinage provides useful evidence for the
beginning of the issue shared by Aurelian and Severina, for it is only
in Aurelian's year 6 at Alexandria that coinage for Severina also
began to be issued3. The shared antoninianus coinage therefore
began sometime after 29th August 274. This has a bearing on
both the date of the reconquest of Gaul and the validity of the
implication of Zosimus' report that the reform of the coinage
followed the defeat of Tetricus. Aurelian's coinage from the new
mint at Lugdunum after the recovery of Gaul is shared in by
Severina. As we have seen that this shared coinage is not before

1. Zosimus 1,61.
2. J. Vogt, Die Alexandrinische Miinzen II, p. 163.
3. Vogt, op. cit., pp. 162-3.
234 R. A. G. CARSON

the end of August it seems likely that the reconquest of Gaul came
late in the campaigning season of 274. Other mints — Rome,
Ticinum, Siscia, Serdica and Gyzicus — have one and in some
cases two issues of the new reformed antoninianus for Aurelian
alone. The reform, then, antedated the recovery of Gaul.
An element of uncertainty attaches to the attribution of mint-
marks to mints for this coinage except in the case of Ticinum. An
examination of the sequence of issues and their statistics supplied
by the Gloucester hoard may provide some clues as to the duration
of the reform coinage for Aurelian alone and the date of the reform.
The sequence of marks at Ticinum is quite straightforward. The
* l
first mark pxXT *s ^or Aurelian only and includes two reverse
types Oriens Аид and Soli Invido, each struck in four officinae
marked P-Q. These two types, again from only four officinae,
are repeated in the next issue marked PXXT and again for
Aurelian only. The third issue retains the simple mark PXXT
but has a new type for Aurelian Providen Deor, struck by officinae
P-Q. For this issue the officinae are increased to six, the new
officinae, marked V and VI, striking for Severina the same reverse
type Providen Deor or more rarely Providentia Deorum. The final
issue retains the mark PXXT but strikes the reverse type Concor-
diae Miliium in all six officinae for Severina alone.

Aurelian alone

1. *| ORIENS AVG / nn 42 examples

PXXT SOLI INVICTO ( 4 Offlcinae PQ 17 -

2. ORIENS AVG / 41 —
PXXT SOLI INVICTO \ 4 °mcmae PQ 18 -

Aurelian and Severina

3. PROVIDEN DEOR (Aurelian) 4 officinae P-Q 129 —

PXXT
PROVIDEN(TIA) DEOR(VM) (Severina)
2 officinae V-VI 90 —

Severina alone

4. PXXT CONCORDIAE MILITVM 6 officinae P- VI 37 examples

 THE REFORM OF AURELIAN 235

As we have seen, the date of issue 4 is from August 275, and for
issue 3 from 29th August 274. Though such issues are more
likely to have been periodic rather than continous, it is perhaps
not unreasonable to draw comparisons between the volumes of
issues. In the table above, issue 3 which provided coinage for
about a year contains 129 coins for Aurelian from four officinae.
Issues 1 and 2 together account for 118 coins for Aurelian from the
same number of officinae. The joint duration of these two issues
may well be comparable to that of issue 3. If we take the two
issues together as accounting for something short of a year, the
reform which introduced the new antoninianus with the XXI
formula may well be placed right at the beginning of 274 after
Aurelian's return to Rome from the East and before his departure
for the campaign against Tetricus.