• Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
• BE close
• English close

Oxford’s English Dictionary puts it as such: ‘Numismatics’ is ‘the study of coins and medals, especially from an archaeological or historical standpoint’. Sounds fair, at least to us, archaeologists. Indeed, interdisciplinary research is a basic requirement for both sciences, archaeology and numismatics. But in many cases it appears that numismatics are rather directed towards the – so to speak - other side of the coin. When Maria Alföldi wrote about coins as the object of her profession and passion she mentioned: “We want to interpret the effigy, read the legend, solve and explain the possibly present abbreviations. We will also engage on the nature of the coins; knowing the composition of the metal, from which it was made; also the manufacturing method – struck or cast – is always intriguing. At the same time, we will ask for the weight of the piece, which helps decide its original value. Finally we want to know if the coin is real – a heavy verdict, although not all ‘forgeries’ are without meaning or value.” Iconology, epigraphy, chemical and physical analyses,… All these disciplines contribute substantial and necessary information to our knowledge on coins. It makes numismatics a very complex profession. Complex even to such an extend that the information retrieved from the coins is often regarded as self-fulfilling and in some cases this information does not always return to the responsible archaeologist. On the other hand, the archaeologist has sometimes no idea of what additional information the numismatist could use or what information he can procure. The nature, volume and location of the deposits that provided the coins is of vital importance for a correct interpretation by the commentator. When being left into the blue regarding find circumstances and contextual features, the job of the specialist is all but relieved. If we also take in account that a lot of numismatists have no clear view of the situation on the site, then we can conclude that the interdisciplinary cooperation could be more efficient. Likewise, the authoritative volumes of Roman Imperial Coinage and Moneta Imperii Byzantini are perfect guides to coinage produced in qualitative terms, but there is little guidance as to quantitative analyses of coins, especially for the eastern part of the Mediterranean. The study of coins as struck is a very under-exploited resource, and encounters with lots of objections, for example against the estimation of the size of issues from die-counting. That is one reason why we should turn instead to the study of coins as found, as proposed on several occasions by Reece and Casey. Coins as site finds form an area of study that is in its early stages. Off course, coins can be studied and appreciated because of their purely aesthetic characteristics. The same applies to other products of crafts. However in this thesis I will deal with coins as pure archaeological artefacts; subjected to the laws of archaeology: deterioration, post-depositional processes, selective excavation methods,… Their physical presence on the site catalogues them amid all other artefacts. It is thus not more than logical that they can be treated likewise. It was my original intention to write a thesis that is at least partially based on material research in stead of publications. Furthermore, a second objective was to gather information from coins that can be useful to both archaeology and numismatics, by extracting quantitative data from them. I think both aims are fulfilled in this thesis. Tables and graphs will present the results in a conveniently arranged way and it makes it possible to view patterns at a single glance. The results from different sites within Sagalassos are compared and correlated with the known history of the site. The intention is to possibly detect subtle details in the coinage patterns. Interwoven with these results is the main aim for this thesis: try to establish patterns in coin presence for different contextual features. For example, can erosion layers be distinguished from destruction layers? Are occupation layers as disturbed as surface and topsoil material? Can we, eventually, learn from a look at the coin list which events took place at the site, that might explain certain aspects/discrepancies within the list? We will see that a lot of biases interfere with the material on hand. It is of vital importance to have all necessary information available: completely published coin lists, full find records, correlative material for further study,… Sagalassos fulfils this conditions. On the other hand, the coin evidence is tangibly there to be tested against new ideas, to be investigated in greater depth as required, and is an ever expanding source and resource. This work should thus be conceived as a starting point for further research, either on a wider spatial scale or in combination with other information retrieved from Sagalassos. Introduction Chapter I From coin circulation to coin finds on site p. 1 I.1 FROM COIN CIRCULATION TO COIN LOSS I.2 LONGEVITY OF COINS I.3 LAWS GOVERNING COIN LOSS I.4 SITE FORMATION PROCESSES I.5 COIN FINDS ON SITE Chapter II Coins from Sagalassos p. 23 II.1 SITUATING SAGALASSOS IN SPACE AND TIME II.1.a Physical setting – city in the clouds II.1.b Historical setting – city in a nutshell II.1.c Coins from Sagalassos II.2 INTEPRETING THE RESULTS II.2.a Preventing biases on the coin population II.2.b Results of the total coin population II.2.c Results per excavation campaign II.2.d Results from sites within the urban centre II.2.e Results from some specific contexts Conclusions p. 52 Bibliography p. 55 Appendices App. I Tables App. II Graphs App. III Figures status: accepted nrpages: 87

The representations of the Sasanian coins published in “Une collection de monnaies sassanides de billon, de cuivre et de plomb” by Rika Gyselen & Malek Iradj Mochiri are all based on images made with the so-called Portable Light Dome (PLD) system (Willems et al. 2005; Hameeuw & Willems 2011; Hameeuw 2011), a multi-light/directional reflectance technique. With this method both sides of each coin have been imaged, A. to facilitate their study, B. to digitally safeguard them for curatorial purposes and C. to allow researchers to publish adequately those visualisations of the coin’s surface they selected in support to their study and findings. Figure 1 demonstrates how some different types of archaeological surfaces from the ancient Near East can be visualized with this system. ispartof: Sasanian Coins, Middle-Persian Etymology and the Tabarestan Archive pages:102-106 ispartof: Res Orientales vol:26 pages:102-106 status: published

Presentation, edition and commentary of the collection of coins connected to Antwerp in the Roman period.

ispartof: Jaarboek voor Munt- en Penningkunde vol:102 pages:15-60 status: published

Several sources and clues provide evidence of metrological reforms that modified the Athenian weight system in the Classical and Hellenistic periods. Several significant changes are attested in the space of a few centuries. Initially, the commercial mina weighed 100 drachmas, i.e. around 435 g. The mass of the drachma remained stable, but that of the mina was first increased to 105 drachmas and 112 drachmas in Classical times, and to 126, 138 and 150 drachmas in Hellenistic times. More than twenty weights, several of which have a known archaeological context, probably belong to standards exceeding 150 drachmas. On the basis of the mass of the objects and the pattern of evolution of the Athenian weight system, which regularly shows increases of 12 - or even 14 - drachmas, we therefore postulate the existence of standards of 162 drachmas and 176 drachmas, or even 188 drachmas, in the 1st century BC. The rapid increase in weight standards could be explained by the troubled context of the first half of the 1st century BC, when Athens, which had sided with Mithridates of Pontus against Rome, was sacked by Sylla's troops in 86. The city slowly recovered from the destruction and went through a period of political and economic crisis. This phenomenon of increasing weight standards was not unique to Athens. Other cities seem to have followed the same pattern. Are these increases in Greek weight standards a sign of standardisation or a sign of crisis? This is what we propose to explore in this paper.

We describe the application of synchrotron X-ray diffraction and neutron micro-tomography to three ancient bronze coins from the Mediterranean coast of Israel. Key questions are whether neutron tomography can contribute to the reading of features on corroded coins by allowing the corrosion crust to be stripped away in cyber-space using surface and volume rendering techniques, and to what extent this type of non-destructive measurement can inform possible conservation action. In addition, the X-ray diffraction experiments allow the main composition of the varicoloured surface corrosion to be deduced. We show that both X-ray and neutron data are of considerable help to numismatic study of the coins.

About the Isiac types (Isis standing ; Isis sailing ; Sarapis seated ; Harbor of Kenchreai) in the Corinthian coinage.

Since the 16th c. numerous studies have been consecrated to the images depicted on Greek and Roman coins. Most of them are concerned with the identification of numismatic types. In contrast, rare are those asking questions about the possible mechanisms preceding the choice of types by an authority and their reception(s) by different audiences. The present book brings together various approaches on visual culture from different fields (working on different areas, periods, or specializing in media other than coins) proposing an original methodological synthesis of what has been done or has still to be done in numismatic iconography. More precisely, this book explores the relation between “issuer” and “user” by addressing various points. Were numismatic types chosen and adapted for particular audiences? If so, then how is it that the iconography, bearing a religious character in most of the cases, does not correspond to those we imagine being the primary beneficiaries, i.e., soldiers and traders? What is the actual circulation of monetary images? What are the differences and similarities with respect to the images produced in other media of similar or distant sizes and qualities, gems and seals being similar, vases and sculptures being distant? To what extend did the issuers draw on media other than coinage for their iconographic ideas? Could users understand the “message” without the mediation of other media? In which way did numismatic imagery influence (or was it influenced by) the iconographic types and choices on other media? Which concepts and tools coming from different fields of research (anthropology for instance) are likely to help our understanding of the type-choice process? Are numismatic types over-commented by art historians (eager to use the term “propaganda”) and under-commented by economists (more imbued with pragmatism)? To what extent did the indispensable confidence of the users determine the use of images easily recognizable by them? Who decides the monetary iconography: the highest authorities or, as in the case of Republican Rome, junior aediles? Who’s responsible for the numismatic type: the coin engraver or the artist creating the original design? These are some of the questions addressed in this book and answered by leading specialists through new lenses and perspectives focusing on visual culture.

MITHRA - Mobility and Intercultural Dialogue for the Transmission of Heritage from Roman Antiquity 2020-2023