Imitative coinage is understood to be any currency issued outside of the official known coin series. This currency could have been issued by individuals or state agents, and its main function was not profit, but rather it responded to currency shortages and acted as a currency of necessity. It must be distinguished from the currency itself, which had a lucrative intent on the part of the issuers. Coin imitation was a phenomenon that occurred during various chronological periods throughout the Roman Imperial era, essentially linked to historical events that caused a monetary shortage. This refers to a phenomenon where coinage not issued by the official authority was introduced into circulation and utilized in commercial exchanges of various kinds, a fact that can be demonstrated archaeologically. Imitative coinage can be detected through detailed numismatic studies, revealing variability in stylistic elements, as well as physical characteristics (such as weight or diameter) when compared to the official issue. Coin imitation should not be confused with monetary counterfeiting, as its intention was not to profit the unofficial issuer, but rather to facilitate daily commercial exchanges. Even so, the characteristics of both can be similar in some cases, which can make it difficult to assign them to one type or the other. The imitative pieces, primarily in bronze types though not limited to them, played a highly significant role in maintaining Roman economic systems during periods of decline in official currency.
- Roman archaeology
- Roman numismatics
- imitative coinage
- High Roman Empire
- Late Roman Empire
- Europe
The study of Roman coinage is a discipline that underwent a particularly important period at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. At this time, the major institutions with coin collections began to classify their numismatic materials, and subsequently, large coin catalogs were produced. The first notable catalog in the Roman world was compiled by Henry Cohen between 1880 and 1892 [1]. The paradigmatic example of these classifications was Roman Imperial Coinage, a major 10-volume work published between 1923 and 1994 by various authors (H. Mattingly, E. Sydenham, H. Sutherland) based on the coins in the British Museum [2]. As this was one of the main, if not the main, catalog, some Roman coins were already detected that differed from the rest in certain aspects such as weight, diameter, or the artistry of the dies. At that time, scholars began to discuss possible irregular issues. Although it should be noted that late 18th-century coin catalogs, such as that of J.H. Eckhel, already referred to Roman coins as very crude or barbaric [3], clearly alluding to what would later be understood as imitation coins.
Over the years, this phenomenon was detected and began to be studied in various paradigmatic studies on the subject, such as the works of Boon [4], Brickstock [5], Bastien [6–8], and Callu [9]. Other works, such as the studies by Adelson and Kustas, also detected the presence of tiny coins in hoards that could be dated to the 5th and 6th centuries, which they called minimi [10]. In these works, as well as in later ones, the concept of imitation or imitative coinage began to be clearly defined. Some authors emphasized the need to distinguish it from counterfeit coinage [8] and also that it could come from issuers who did not intend to deceive.
Later works began to incorporate the concept of monetary circulation, that is, the use and life of these coins and also imitation coins in Roman times. This fact is closely linked to advances in archaeological recording and excavation techniques, as well as to interpretative archaeology postulates that emphasize the idea of the context of the object, in this case, of the coins. Some examples of this could be the works on the excavations at Sirmium [11], or the Belgica Secunda territory in which Bastien developed a study of monetary circulation [12]. This fact was strongly reinforced by the incorporation into studies of coins from archaeological excavations, which made it possible to accurately date the use of different imitation coins with non-numismatic archaeological material, such as ceramics. Many studies have been carried out in this field, an excellent example being that based on the excavations at Tolmo de Minateda (Hellín, Spain) [13].
Comparison with archaeological sources made it possible to refine, contrast, or, in some cases, contradict and correct data from documentary sources that clearly specify the prohibition of coin imitation or counterfeiting [14], as well as their use and circulation.
In this regard, it is important to note that, even at this early stage, three major waves of imitation coins were established. Although these are not the only ones known, they would be: the imitations of Claudius I in Gaul and Hispania [15,16], the imitations of Antoninianus coins from the Gallic Empire [17–19], and also the imitation issues from the second half of the 4th century and the beginning of the 5th century, which particularly affected the western part of the Empire [8,20,21].
In more recent times, there has been a proliferation of works from different parts of Europe presenting findings of imitation coins in various archaeological contexts. These are sometimes treated in monographs and sometimes included in studies of monetary circulation in a generic manner.
The study of imitation coins has traditionally been approached on the basis of numismatic studies. This type of study, which is already well defined in the parameters of Roman Imperial Coinage [2] and also by other authors in monographs, such as M. Campo [22], sets out clear guidelines for the study of coins. Firstly, it proposes the study of physical elements (metal, weight, diameter, axes, and degree of wear) and secondly, aspects to be inferred from the coin: denomination, mint, chronology, issuing authority, obverse and reverse designs, status (whether imitation, official, or counterfeit), and a corresponding bibliographic reference [22]. In the case of imitation coins, a very detailed formal study will be key, as it will allow the numismatist or archaeologist to establish whether or not the coin is an imitation.
On occasions, this practical study has been combined with different metal analyses which, in the case of imitation coins, can provide very interesting data given their different metallic composition. Some examples of this are the studies on imitation coins from the Gallic Empire, where a different chemical composition was proposed depending on the mint [23].
The emergence of the application of archaeological techniques to numismatics has added the contextual study of the pieces to this method. This study is based on establishing a chronology of use or deposition of monetary elements based on the archaeological context in which they are found. The application of this method has made it possible to clarify some aspects that were previously unclear in the case of imitation coins, such as their chronology of manufacture, circulation, and abandonment of use.
The combination of these elements is what will allow the correct identification of the phenomenon of imitation in a broad sense, far beyond the mere documentation of imitation or crude coins, thus explaining their insertion into the Roman imperial economy and their use in some cases at later times.