Impressive images – coins as a mass medium

Today, coins are just one mass medium among many – in ancient times they were the mass medium par excellence. We can observe an extreme diversity: from the first three centuries after Christ, the time of the Roman Principate, we know of almost 30,000 different types of coins. The changes in the canon of images and the individual depiction features show the efforts of the Roman rulers to respond to changing socio-cultural phenomena by adapting coin images. But how exactly did the design of the coins change, what events paralleled or caused these changes and does this present a ‘different’ aesthetic?

The crisis of the Roman Empire in the 3rd century is one example. Border conflicts in northern and eastern regions led to the secession of individual parts of the empire: the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires were created.

It was not until Emperor Aurelian in 272 and 274 AD that reintegration was achieved. Characteristics of this crisis in the Roman Empire were extremely rapid changes of rulers – the year 238 AD alone recorded six different Roman emperors – and the rise of numerous challengers in the struggle for the regency of the Roman Empire. The new rulers did not come from long-established dynasties, but were almost always military leaders of a lower social rank and therefore had to assert their claim to power in a special way, also and especially by means of representation. The insecure rule required specific modes of representation. What features of this crisis can be seen on the coins of this period?

Let’s take a look at this coin from around 260 AD: The obverse shows Postumus, the founder and first emperor of the so-called Gallic Empire. What immediately catches the eye is that this coin shows four busts and not just the portrait of the emperor himself, as is usual.

Postumus is accompanied by the divine Hercules – a return to a traditional representation of rule, as previously found under the emperor Commodus, for example. However, Postumus surrounds himself not only with his main patron Hercules, but also with other gods from the Roman pantheon: Diana and Apollo. In the representation mode of staggered busts, a particularly large number of gods can be shown in a specific relationship to one another and to Postumus. The so-called “reverse legend”, the inscription on the back of the coin, CONSERVATORES AVG(usti) = the protectors of the emperor, underlines the function of the gods Diana and Apollo. Postumus’ depiction, with his long beard, is reminiscent of the successful emperor Septimius Severus and thus establishes a connection to the last important dynasty.

As the coin of Postumus impressively shows, the claim to power of the Gallic challengers is also manifested in new coin images. Their minting differs significantly from the coinage of the Roman emperors through special iconography (special portrait and beard shapes, choice of divine companions). This may indicate a claim to power by the Gallic emperors over all Romans and thus beyond their actual territory of rule. However, it is also conceivable that this specifically dynastic mode of representation compensates for missing family members or a significant lineage. In any case, the challengers in the Gallic Empire clearly have their own aesthetic.

In addition to the conflict on the northern border of the Roman Empire, the battles with the Persians in the east also led to an imperial crisis: the capture of Emperor Valerian triggered numerous local uprisings by challengers, who now took the defence against the Persians into their own hands. This led to the secession of the so-called Palmyrene Empire: the governor Odaenathus secured the area with the important city of Antioch against the enemies of the Roman Empire and thus assumed the role of Roman emperor in Palmyra. Gallienus, Valerian’s son and co-regent, awarded him the imperium maius and thus effectively recognised the competitor’s military power position in this area. While Odaenathus did not yet mint any coins with his own image and recognised the Roman emperor’s claim to sovereignty by issuing coins with the portrait of Gallienus, the negotiation processes for power on coins began under his son Vaballathus: After the Palmyrenes were able to significantly expand their sphere of influence with the conquest of Egypt, the coins now show two rulers.

This tetradrachm from Alexandria shows the central Roman emperor Aurelian with a laurel wreath on one side. The Greek legend reads AVT K Λ Δ AVPHΛIANOC CEB (= Autokrator Emperor Lucius Domitius Aurelianus Sebastos), where the title Autokrator corresponds to the Latin Imperator and Sebastos to the Augustus title. The year sign L and the numeral B for the second year of the reign are to the right and left of the emperor’s bust. The other side of the coin shows Vaballathus, the second ruler of the Palmyrene Empire. In addition to the laurel wreath, he wears another headdress: the diadem as a symbol of royal dignity. Next to his bust, the numerals L and E also indicate his fifth year of reign and thus his own claim to power. While in Greek legend – I A C OVABAΛΛΑΘΟC AΘΗΝΟ V A [C PW] = I(ούλιος) A(ύρηλιος) C(επτίμιος) OVABAΛΛΑΘΟC AΘΗΝΟ(δωρος) V(πατικος) A(υτοκράτωρ) [C(τρατηγος) - the first six parts of the legend (Lucius Iulius Aurelius Septimius Vabal(l)athus Athenodorus) all have the name of the Palmyrene Describing the ruler, it is assumed that the last four words of the reverse legend correspond to the Roman title of a consul.

The reverse of the coin is normally dedicated to the description of the virtues of the emperor depicted on the obverse in writing and image. If other people are shown in such a way on the reverse, they are members of the imperial family whose own claim to power is to be even more strongly legitimised through the dynastic reference. The fact that the ruler of a peripheral area of ​​the empire allows himself to be placed on the official means of payment in the same way as the emperor – from the bust shape, to the attributes of power, to the mention of his full name and title – was unprecedented up to this point and even unthinkable before the imperial crisis of the 3rd century. In addition, it is by no means clear for all coins from the Palmyrene breakaway state which ruler is depicted on the obverse and thus on the more important side of the coin. The challengers play with this ambiguity and thus exploit the specific representational possibilities of coins as a medium with two sides. This interplay of obverse and reverse thus appears to be evidence of a different aesthetic, shaped by the challengers in the Palmyrene Empire.

After Tetricus’ defeat by Aurelian, the important mints in this region in Trier and Cologne were closed and the state money supply to northern Gaul, Germania and Britain came to a standstill. The imitations minted in small, decentralised workshops are in most cases of a coarser style than the central Roman and breakaway Roman imperial coins:

The letters of the official coin of the last ruler of the Gallic Empire, Tetricus, are roughly imitated: In the inscription on the front of the coin IIIIP TETRICVS P(ius) F(elix) AVG(ustus), the first part of the legend is most likely to be IMP for Imperator. The reverse legend also no longer conjures up the peace caused by the ruler, with P II X I I II instead of PAX AVG (= the peace of Augustus), but no longer makes sense.

Scholarship on the subject has long described such coins as barbarisations (= minted by barbarians) and dismissed them as simple forgeries of the official coins. However, more recent research points to the extensive deviations from the original, which make a mere imitation unlikely. The fact that the legends no longer make sense is linked to a significant change in the understanding of the function of writing on coins: the function of the legend was initially to significantly expand the image statement to include essential characteristics of the emperor. The imitations, however, do not give the correct title or the number of offices held by the emperor, but merely imitate numbers and letters. Despite the loss of significance, a purely decorative function of the legends seems unlikely. They are still perceived as a specific feature of the representation of power of their time.

Imitations show which forms of representation of power are considered worthy of imitation and thus functional. It is questionable whether the imitations are merely a type of emergency money to compensate for the shortage of small change in the northwestern provinces, or whether they also indicate an emancipation from Rome or from classical Roman aesthetics, since the depiction of the rulers of the breakaway states in particular is an imitation while an independent, unique style is also developed. This is linked to the opposing research theories that the imitations merely fulfil an economic function or that their design also has its own aesthetic claim shaped by other socio-cultural structures in these parts of the empire. With regard to the change in representative features and their change in function, it could be generally deduced that a shortage gives rise to different aesthetics.

At second glance, however, it becomes clear that this coin does not depict the Central Roman Emperor Aurelian, but rather the Palmyrene challenger Vaballathus – here now entirely in the Roman representational tradition.

After the break with Rome in 271/272, both rulers are no longer shown on the coin; instead, the depiction of the usurper on the obverse clearly and distinctly formulates his changed claim to power. Consequently, the Palmyrene regent claims the Roman ruler titles for himself in the Latin obverse legend IM(perator) C(aesar) VHABALATHVS AVG(ustus). The legend on the reverse also refers to the struggle for power: the Greek letter epsilon in the reverse legend A∈QVITAS AVG(usti) reveals that the punchcutter is very likely not proficient in the Latin language and that the classic Roman forms of representation are only imitated.

As the official language of the Roman Empire, Latin dominates the legends of all imperial coinages and thus acts as a specific feature of Roman imperial coins. The Latin legends convey the emperors’ claim to power and the cultural dominance of the Roman language. Despite the multilingualism in the Roman Empire, other languages ​​in the Roman imperial period are only found on this medium in the form of Greek in the provincial Roman mints. The decisive factor for the representation of power is which language can ultimately prevail on the coins.

This imbalance is effectively balanced out by reducing the proportion of precious metal in the coins. While an Antoninianus in 238 still had an average silver content of around 40%, by 270 it was less than 3%. The method of white boiling gives the poor coins a silvery appearance despite the low precious metal content. After a short period of circulation, however, this layer peels off and the copper becomes clearly visible. This phenomenon can also be observed in the tetradrachms from Alexandria: At the beginning of the Roman Principate, these contained just as much silver as the denarii, but during the imperial crisis they were also only coated with a silver solution on the surface and had a silver content of 3 to 0.3%. The deterioration of the currency therefore affected the entire empire.

The emperors of the late 3rd century tried to stop the advancing inflation: Aurelian was able to make a significant contribution to stabilising the empire by reintegrating the Gallic and Palmyrene breakaway states. He also attempted to reform the empire’s economy by introducing a higher-quality silver coin. However, it was only the coin reform under Diocletian in 294 that was able to slow down the rapid devaluation of the currency. A change in currency is crucial: the Antoninianus is replaced by the Follis and its exchange rate is tied to the gold denomination, the Aureus. In addition, the currency is standardised, thus preventing Alexandria from minting its own denominations. As a further measure to combat inflation, a maximum price edict with fixed prices for goods and services is issued in 301.

It is questionable how strongly materiality is linked to the expression of the understanding of power and whether poor material, such as in the case of Antoniniani with a low silver content and the heavy abrasion of the portraits and images, also reflects poor power. A clear indication of the importance of the materiality of coins is the effort that goes into white-boiling them. The shortage of small change in Gaul and the visibly poorer Antoniniani are not only indicators of the crisis of the Roman Empire in the 3rd century, but also decisive factors in the development of different aesthetics in times of crisis.

He defeated Vaballathus and his mother Zenobia in the same year and then moved north to reintegrate the Gallic breakaway state into the empire. Vaballathus probably died on the way to Rome while Zenobia and Tetricus were paraded in Rome as defeated enemies in a triumphal procession. Aurelian’s coins impressively depict this success:

The sun god Sol in the legend ORIENS AVG refers to the victory in the east. On some coins, this statement is even emphasised by two chained prisoners at the feet of the protective god. On other coins, he calls himself RESTITVTOR ORBIS, restorer of the world – the message is reinforced by the globe as a symbol of world domination in the hands of the god.

The Hallig Langeness-Nordmarsch is emblazoned on the front of this banknote as the issuing institution. The fish, the ship, the post mill and the woman in Frisian costume are motifs with a clear regional reference instead of the imperial eagle as a supra-regional identity feature - state representation thus takes a back seat to regional forms of representation and expression. The back of the note shows a tiled room with a stove and chair, and the text “Dü liewe God, bewahre üs Hüss in Störm un Noud!” (A phrase in dialect to the effect of: “Dear God, protect us during storm and hardship!”) underneath. Regional dialects are not uncommon on the emergency money of the interwar period. The note also bears the unusual denomination of one mark, which was never issued by official bodies. The mottled grey paper of this issue also makes the crisis and the unofficial nature of the emergency money visible on a material level.

Emergency money was issued in the German Reich and the Weimar Republic during the First World War and in the interwar period between 1917 and 1923. The war industry’s need for metal led to a shortage of materials to produce small change. Coins were therefore made from substitute materials such as cardboard, linen or even porcelain. Cities, municipalities, companies and many other institutions tried to cover the gap in state means of payment by minting their own coins. Elaborately designed series notes with small denominations of just a few pfennigs or marks not only serve as a replacement for small change, but the issuing institutions also tried to generate additional income by selling them to collectors. The massive reprinting of the mark to cover national debt after the First World War leads to an extreme loss of purchasing power and ultimately to hyperinflation. The pressure from the enormous reparation payments and the costs of the strike against the occupation of the Ruhr area weaken the German economy in 1923 to such an extent that notes with a nominal value of several trillion marks are issued, the value of which often only lasts for a few hours.

In terms of a specific, different aesthetic of coins from the Roman imperial period, the question arises whether similar developments in the medium can also be identified in other times of crisis and how money behaves as a means of communication and representation in times of unstable forms of rule and government. In this respect, the emergency money issued between the world wars is not only a sign of inflation, but also a manifestation of the crisis itself (in iconographic design, materiality and value). The stability of money could only be restored in the Weimar Republic through the introduction of a new currency in the form of the Rentenmark and finally the Reichsmark, as well as a link back to the gold mark. The decentralised design of money and a changed way of communicating through modified image elements is thus also a feature of other times of crisis.