Author:

Keywords:

Sagalassos, coins, contexts, archaeology

Abstract:

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.