This document is part of the online version of the book Amheida II: A Late Romano-Egyptian House in the Dakhla Oasis / Amheida House B2 by Anna Lucille Boozer, which is available at http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/amheida-ii-house-b2/. It is published as part of the NYU Library's Ancient World Digital Library and in partnership with the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World (ISAW). Further information about ISAW's publication program is available on the ISAW website. Please note that while the base URI of this publication is stable, the exact content available at that address is likely to change over time.
Three worn coins were recovered from Area 1, all associated with late occupational layers of House B2. Each was likely minted in the first or second century CE. The documentary evidence recovered from B2 suggests that the house was built sometime in the third century, a dating supported by the ceramic evidence (see Chapters 15 and 8, respectively). The meager numismatic evidence does nothing to contradict this conclusion, since coins of this basic module were minted until the third century and are known to have circulated for decades, even centuries. Indeed, each of the coins shows significant wear, which we should attribute to prolonged circulation.↩#p2756
Of the three coins, only 14.1 is legible, a worn diobol of Vespasian minted between September of 69 and August of 75.1 This was one of two coins discovered during the 2005 season and associated with a floor in room 1 (F11). Floor F11 was preserved only in a small patch (approximately 150 by 130 cm) in the middle of the room underneath an area of collapse (DSUs 16 and 4). F11 is a deep feature, 17 cm at its greatest depth, and comprised largely of compacted debris. Since the second coin (14.2) lay directly on the floor surface in a layer of occupational debris (DSU 22), it has been suggested that 14.1 was embedded in F11 by the pressure of the layers above it and therefore represents an intrusion of DSU 22 into F11. A full interpretation of the stratigraphy of room 1 is available in Chapter 4.↩#p2757
A second coin (14.2) was discovered in this same context, but lay directly on the floor surface, just below a context that has been identified as a layer of occupational debris (DSU 22). Like much of the coinage from the Oasis and other parts of Egypt, 14.2 is extremely worn and corroded and thus now illegible with the exception of a notable center “punch” on what would appear to be the reverse. Given the surviving module and weight, and the fact that the “diobol” (size III) appears to have been one of the most frequently minted coins throughout the first century CE, it is reasonable to suppose that it too is a Roman diobol of the first or second century.↩#p2758
Suggestive of an earlier date, however, is the “punch,” a mark characteristic of Ptolemaic bronzes. In fact, several hoards from first-century Roman Egypt contain a mix of late Ptolemaic bronze issues and contemporary Roman bronzes,2 indicating that “the small Ptolemaic bronze coins had a long afterlife in the Roman period,”3 of which we might have yet more testimony in this find. That said, Ptolemaic center punches are typically found on both sides of the coin, while in this case there is clearly only a sole punch on one side. A quick survey of the first-century bronzes from Egypt in the American Numismatic Society collection revealed several examples from the Flavian era with a center punch similar to that of 14.2.4 While the coins of this period betray a seemingly indifferent attitude on the part of the mint with respect to the side of the flan on which the obverse was struck (these flans usually present a convex or bevelled side and a flat side), the punches (if that is what they are) uniformly appear on the side with the reverse design.5 In other words, if this phenomenon is substantiated by further study, then we may reasonably assume that we have a Flavian bronze diobol. In the meantime, the dating of 14.2 to the Roman period must remain tentative, as we cannot exclude the possibility that it is in fact Ptolemaic.↩#p2759
The third coin (14.3) was recovered in the western half of Room 6 in the 2006 season. It was discovered in DSU 47, a layer that has been interpreted as consisting of occupational debris overlaying the last floor (F16), sealed by the collapse of the upper courses of the room’s walls (DSU 38) sometime after the abandonment of the house. This coin is completely illegible, and the module and weight are of no help beyond suggesting a date between the late first century BCE and the beginning of the third century CE for the reasons above.↩#p2760
Finally, the condition of all three coins argues for their being in circulation for an extended period before being lost. There is nothing exceptional in this: bronze coins are known to have circulated in some cases for more than a century not only in Egypt but also other parts of the Roman world,6 and indeed there is some evidence for the survival of Vespasianic diobols into the second and third centuries.7↩#p2761
Condition: Very worn on both sides, some corrosion still adhering to reverse.↩#p2768
Description: Diobol of Vespasian. OBV. Bust, laureate, r. Legend: [ΑΥΤΟΚ(ΡΑΤΟΡΟΣ) ΚΑΙ]Σ(ΑΡΟΣ) ΣΕΒΑ[(ΣΤΟΥ) ΟΥΕΣΠΑΣΙΑΝΟΥ]. REV. Bust of Sarapis, r. Traces of date mark remain, but illegible. The surviving portion of the obverse legend is compatible only with obverse types of Vespasian bearing a version of legend B in Milne’s classification. This legend was minted on coins showing busts of Sarapis on the reverse continuously between years 2 through 7 of his reign, which corresponds to the years 69/70 through 74/75. Not enough remains of the reverse to allow a more precise identification. With respect to the denomination, there is still some debate as to the values that should be assigned to Egyptian bronze coins of this era, though this module (size III, ca. 25 mm, 8.5 g) is most often seen as corresponding to the diobol (see introductory discussion above).↩#p2769
Date: late first century BCE—early third century CE↩#p2788
Notes
1 The denominations of bronze coins from Roman Egypt are subject to an ongoing debate, see Rathbone 1997:187-189, Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès Alegre 1992:688-689, Christiansen 1988:vol. II, 7-10; cf. Christiansen 2006:14. A diobol, or a two-obol coin, in the first and second centuries would have bought two loaves of bread according to prices we have recorded in papyri from the Nile Valley: see Drexhage 1991:29; cf. Harl 1996:278-279. Put another way, a daily wage for unskilled labor in the Valley from the same period seems to have been somewhere between 1 drachma (= 6 obols) and 1 drachma and 3 obols, i.e., between 6 and 9 obols per diem. This 2-obol coin could therefore have possibly represented 20–30% of such a worker’s daily pay, when he was paid in cash, if the prices in the Great Oasis at this time were on a par with those in the Valley: see Scheidel 2008:esp. 1–10; Rathbone 1996:331-132, cf. Rathbone 1991:155-166; cf. Bagnall 1997:52-56, Bagnall 2008a on oasite price levels. For general information on living standards and price levels for the period in which House B2 was likely to have been inhabited, see Scheidel 2008; Rathbone 1997, Harl 1996:270-289. For a quick discussion of coinage in Egypt, see ibid.:117-124 and now Bagnall 2009:189-191.
2 Christiansen 2004:48-52, cf. 76 [A60], 79 [A54], 80 [A69 and A104], and 81 [A109].
4 There was, regrettably, insufficient time during the preparation of this short catalogue to conduct a systematic study of this “punching” in Alexandrian bronzes. However, my preliminary results suggest that this phenomenon may be worth further study. I found no such punches in the coins of Nero in the collection of the American Numismatic Society, but 11 examples in 97 specimens of Flavian bronzes. Another possible example is Geissen 307 (though on the obverse). As far as I know, this phenomenon is undescribed. Care must be taken to distinguish between the possible traces of a punch and the deep indentations integral to certain designs, particularly those with drapery folds in the middle or those with the eyes or ears of portraits near the center. (Geissen = Geissen, A. (1974-1983). Katalog Alexandrinischer Kaisermünzen der Sammlung des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Köln. Papyrologica Coloniensia, vol. 5. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.)
5 Milne 1933:xli. Milne noted the flan variation in Flavian bronzes, but not the punching.
6 See, e.g., Augé 1987, Reece 1987:13-25, Metcalf 1980:115-120.
7 E.g., A84; see Christiansen 2004:50-51, 129; cf. the condition of museum pieces, like Geissen 289.
