Ancient Skills

Hi there, all,

This thread was prompted by my reading today's posts relating to the Antikythera Mechanism. However, rather than posting 'off-topic' there, it seemed better to start a new thread.

A few years ago, a hoard of Roman coins was discovered - I think it was on Jersey. It was a major find, lots and lots of coins.

Large as it was, this hoard must have been small by comparison with the number of coins in circulation. It seemed to me that, in order to achieve adequate production rates, the Roman mint must have had more than one set of dies to strike each denomination of coin. Each coin would have had the Emperor's head on the obverse - I don't know what they put on the reverse.

Now, even today, die-sinking is a far from easy business. How did the Romans produce multiple sets of dies that would each strike anything close to the same impression??? (I don't believe that the Romans produced their coinage by foundry methods.)

Best regards,

Swarf, Mostly!

Edited By Swarf, Mostly! on 28/02/2021 15:06:16

Edited By Swarf, Mostly! on 28/02/2021 15:07:52

At Fishbourne, the Romans had a well-trained team of slaves to do the job.

One man striking the die once a minute (four tims that when the bos was around) would easily make 1000 per day. So in batches perhaps 100k per year with a burst of 200k for a new emperor/king. With a population of less than 3 million in the uk (what we will need to get back to next century) and a 10-20 year coin lifespan you don't need many. Probably in a village only one or two people would even have a coin.

This was the question:

How did the Romans produce multiple sets of dies .

I wonder how hard the dies would have to be for gold, would bronze have been hard enough?

Swords were made of "steel" and engraved - had they perfected acid etching enough to make dies of steel?

They sure managed to get a lot done and with far less people around 2000 years ago

"Have that job finished by Friday teatime or we'll crucify you" does tend to motivate

I think the making of dies was not exactly as might be imagined. Certainly there would have to be a fairly standard version of the emperor's head, but the lettering could be produced - in the die, not the coins - by stamping the letters one by one. I'm sure that by the time coins were expected to be recognised by the users, steel was able to be softened, punched, and hardened. The coinage was for many years a guarantee, not of value per coin, exactly, but a guarantee of origin, to be measured by weight. After all, we still measure it in Pounds - a distant echo of the idea.

And no, bronze would not have been hard enough or strong enough.

It was only in the era of steam presses and pantograph die-sinkers that coins were expected to look really identical.

Swords were a different matter. The blade would be made by a skilled blacksmith, but they would have been engraved, or inlayed, or etched, individually, but only for the top brass. And I don't think etching was common until chemistry took over from alchemy - about 1500 AD.

One other point - there was no one Roman Mint. There were mints all over the empire - at least half a dozen in little isolated Britannia. This continued in the middle ages - Offa, who ruled the Midlands, had his own, for example.

Cheers, Tim

Not hard to find some they all look to be a form of iron.

By way of comparison (and when conditions permit) a visit to the Royal Mint in Wales is recommended.