Reconsidering Function. Observations on Marked Roman Aurei and Denarii from the Netherlands

De Beeldenaar — november/december 2025285 ANTON CRUYSHEER Reconsidering Function Observations on Marked Roman Aurei and Denarii from the Netherlands Marks on Roman Coins Anyone who delves into the world of marks on Roman coins will soon encounter various terms. These include ‘die mark’, ‘countermark’, ‘banker’s mark’, ‘control mark’, ‘peck mark’, ‘test cut’, ‘punch mark', 'chop mark’ et cetera. An important distinction exists between marks applied to the die itself (a die mark) and those applied later, after the coin was minted (countermarks).1 Moreover, marking coins is not a Roman invention: it was done throughout the entire classical antiquity.2 Another distinction exists between marks that are secondarily applied to gold aurei and silver denarii and those on coins of non-precious metal.3 In 1923, Harold Mattingly wrote an introduction about the countermarks. He extensively discusses these marks on coin types of non-precious metal from the first century. His explanations vary, he mentions terms such as revalidation, revaluation, devaluation, and propaganda.4 Mattingly devotes only one line to the marks on the denarii (he did not mention aurei): ‘The little punch-marks on silver served a different purpose — viz. that of testing the metal’.5 Since then, the generally accepted theory is that such punch marks were applied by money changers (nummularii) to test if a coin was plated (a forgery). This idea has — until recently — received little further discussion.6 Marks on silver Roman denarii and gold aurei are commonly referred to as ‘banker’s marks’ or ‘countermarks’, and are assumed to test or indicate the authenticity of the coins — specifically, to detect forgeries or plated specimens. But is this assumption correct? In this article, I reconsider the traditional interpretation of these marks and explore alternative explanations for their presence. Tiberius, aureus. 14-37, gold, 21 mm (photos: ©RMO, PAN-143999), hoard Bunnik 2023 (PAN-S-280), with U-shaped mark Tiberius, aureus. 14-37, gold, 19 mm (photos: ©RMO, PAN-144000), hoard Bunnik 2023 (PAN-S-280), with mark ‘CL’ Titus, aureus. 80, gold, 20 mm (photos: PAN-99147), hoard Sittard-Geleen 2022 (PAN-S-110), with S-shaped mark Claudius I, aureus. 50-54, gold, 19 mm (photos: Centraal Museum Utrecht, inv. CM-4666, NUMIS 1031633) found in Bunnik (Fectio), with a little mark on the neck De Beeldenaar — november/december 2025 286 Analysis of Marked Aurei Marks are found on several gold aurei. Contrary to earlier assumptions that they had disappeared by 107 CE, marks have also been found on aurei from the early years of Hadrian’s reign (117–118 CE). 7 Until recently, I recorded a total of 236 aurei found in the Netherlands, dating up to and including the reign of Emperor Hadrian. The discovery of the Bunnik hoard in 2023 has added a further 72 gold aurei to this number. 8 In the Bunnik hoard, four aurei have marks applied to the coins after they entered circulation. These secondary marks are found on one aureus of Augustus and three aurei of Tiberius. 9 In 2022 a small hoard of three aurei was found by metal detectorists in the province of Limburg (Sittard-Geleen 2022). An aureus from Emperor Titus has a mark under the chin and on the neck. 10 Furthermore, an aureus from Emperor Claudius I (50-54) with a small mark on the neck has been found at Bunnik (the location of the Roman fortress of Fectio). 11 Also an aureus from Vespasian — also found at Bunnik (Fectio) — has a clear mark on the neck. 12 Of the total of 308 aurei, images of approximately 173 coins are available online for research purposes (mainly PAN, NUMIS and Centraal Museum Utrecht). In total, seven of these display a mark (4.05%), all of which appear on the obverse— carefully placed on the neck or beneath the chin. It is interesting to compare the findings of aurei from Dutch soil with two major hoards: the Trier hoard in Germany and the Liberchies hoard in Belgium. The large coin hoard from the city of Trier was discovered in 1993 during construction work in the Feldstraße. It comprised approximately 2,650 Roman aurei, of which 2,518 have been preserved, with a total weight of around 18.5 kilograms. This makes the Trier hoard of 1993 the largest known gold hoard from the Roman Imperial period. The coins date from the reign of Emperor Nero (c. 64 CE) to that of Emperor Septimius Severus (between 193 and 196 CE). Notably, 99% of the coins were struck before the years 167–168. Between 20% and 25% of the coins from Nero to Hadrian show one or more marks—although no distinction was made between intentional marks, dots, or graffiti. This percentage decreases to 6.4% under Trajan and only 2.9% under Hadrian. 13 In 1970, during excavations at Liberchies (province of Hainaut, Belgium), a coin hoard was discovered containing a total of 368 aurei, dating from the reign of Emperor Nero (54–68) to that of Marcus Aurelius (161–180). The earliest coin dates to 63–64, and the latest to 166. As with the Trier hoard of 1993, no distinction was made between aurei bearing secondary marks and those with graffiti. Of the 368 aurei, 56 (15.2%) show some form of marking, with 9 (2.5%) displaying marks on both sides.14 Analysis of Marked Denarii The practice of applying marks to silver denarii seems to have ended towards the end of Tiberius’ reign (14-37 CE), the only known exception being two denarii from the reign of Claudius (41-54 CE) and a denarius from the reign of Vespasian (6979 CE).15 Fleur Kemmers notes that recently some discussion has arisen regarding the marking of the denarii and that the conclusion was that a new explanation is needed, but none has been put forward.16 An important observation by Kemmers and others is that many denarii have two or more marks, while one mark should suffice for checking the coin. After I had conducted an initial analysis of marked denarii in 2023 and 2024 and discussed the preliminary results with Liesbeth Claes, she subsequently conducted an excellent and comprehensive study on marked denarii found in Roman hoards in the Netherlands. In total, 36 Roman coin hoards from the Netherlands contained Republican silver coins. Of these, 27 were more or less suitable for inclusion in the study, comprising a total of 669 Republican denarii. On 29% of these coins (N=200), one or more marks were identified. This percentage is likely somewhat higher, as no detailed information on marks was available for some of the hoards. The 27 hoards with marked denarii showed a range from 0% to 86%. 17 In this context, Fleur Kemmers too notes that out of the 233 Republican denarii found at Hunerberg (Nijmegen), 54 have a mark (approximately a quarter). 18 Of the 288 denarii from the hoard Bunnik 2023, at least 177 (61%) show one or more secondarily applied marks (169x Roman Republic, 8x Augustus). This percentage is likely somewhat higher, as many denarii in the hoard are worn and therefore less legible. This proportion is in line with the researches by Claes and Kemmers, but much higher than the percentage of the marked aurei. De Beeldenaar — november/december 2025287 Type 1: Punch mark Type 2: Symbol 1.1. Roman Republic, denarius. 119 BCE, silver, 19 mm (photos: ©RMO, PAN-145330), hoard Bunnik 2023 (PAN-S-280, Utrecht, RRC 281/1)19 1.2. Roman Republic, denarius. 64 BCE, silver, 17 mm (photos: PAN-49307, NUMIS 1145081), hoard SomerenLierop 2019 (PAN-S-21, Noord-Brabant, RRC 412/1) 1.3. Roman Republic, denarius. 136 BCE, silver, 18.5 mm (photos: NUMIS 1108076), single find from Leiden (Zuid-Holland, RRC 238/1) Type 3: Single letter 2.1. Roman Republic, denarius. 57 BCE, silver, 18 mm (photos: PAN-61622, NUMIS 1148456, Guelders, RRC 423/1), single find from Buren 2.2. Roman Republic, denarius. 84 BCE, silver, 23 mm (photos: ©RMO, PAN-145222), hoard Bunnik 2023 (PAN-S-280, Utrecht, RRC 354/1) 2.3. Roman Republic, denarius. 46 BCE, silver, 20 mm (photos: PAN-59934, NUMIS 1153570, Utrecht, RRC 464/2), single find from Houten Type 4: Letter combination 3.1. Roman Republic, denarius. 32 BCE, silver, 19 mm (photos: PAN-101576, NUMIS-1161404, Utrecht, RRC 543/1), single find from Bunnik 3.2. Roman Republic, denarius. 139 BCE, silver, 18 mm (photos: ©RMO, PAN-145240), hoard Bunnik 2023 (PAN-S-280, Utrecht, RRC 230/1) 3.3. Roman Republic, denarius. 79 BCE, silver, 18 mm (photos: PAN-49306, NUMIS 1145080), hoard SomerenLierop 2019 (PAN-S-21, Noord-Brabant, RRC 382/1b) 4.1. Roman Republic, denarius. 113 or 112 BCE, silver, 18 mm (photos: ©Restaura, PAN-105728, NUMIS-1165474), hoard Roerdalen 2009 (PAN-S-173, Limburg, RRC 292/1) 4.2. Roman Republic, denarius. 62 BCE, silver, 19 mm (photos: PAN-49300, NUMIS 1145074), hoard SomerenLierop 2019 (PAN-S-21, Noord-Brabant, RRC 416/1a) 4.3. Roman Republic, denarius. 71 BCE, silver, 19 mm (photos: ©RMO, PAN-145363) hoard Bunnik 2023 (PAN-S-280, Utrecht, RRC 401/1) De Beeldenaar — november/december 2025 288 Visible Marks Type 1: Punch mark 1.1 Obverse: two circles (O), two dashes (I) and a V-like letter or symbol. Reverse: one dash (I). 1.2 Obverse: a punch (•) on the neck and in the field a letter A or symbol. 1.3 Obverse: multiple punch marks, on the nose, the cheek and two circles (O) on the neck and behind the neck. Type 2: Symbol 2.1 Obverse: two symbols on the cheek (strigil?). Reverse: a punch mark. 2.2 Obverse: a symbol behind the head, an S or S-like symbol on the cheek and a little punch mark on the neck. 2.3 Obverse: on the neck is an S-like symbol (retrograde), multiple letters (L, C, T, L, L) and multiple little punch marks, of which two on the chin. Type 3: Single letter 3.1 Obverse: M. Reverse: several, among: N, C and O. 3.2 Obverse: C, V and L. 3.3 Obverse: R on the cheek. Type 4: Letter combination 4.1 Obverse: MIC. 4.2 Obverse: VF (ligature) and twice a single letter C. 4.3 Obverse: several punch marks (such as above the eye and on the throat). It features a punch mark O (a circle) on the helmet, and on the shoulder and neck L•C. When looking at the marked Roman denarii found in the Netherlands, several things stand out: * Four types of marks occur on the denarii: small punch marks or ‘pecks’ (like a single dot, double dot, dash or circle, sometimes hardly visible), symbols, single letters, and letter combinations. Punch marks and single letters are the most common. * Many coins have two or more marks on the obverse and/or reverse. * Many marks are only lightly impressed into the coin’s surface, making it highly doubtful that they were intended to reveal a potential base metal core. * With the exception of little punch marks, most other marks are not randomly applied; they tend to appear on the cheek or neck of the obverse portrait. When present on the reverse, they are usually placed in the field rather than on the image, which makes them stand out clearly. * Most marks appear on the obverse, occasionally on the reverse, and in some cases on both sides. * All coins date to the Republican period and the early reign of Emperor Augustus, with occasional examples from the time of Emperor Tiberius. Period of Marking Republican denarii found on Dutch soil date to the third, second, and first centuries BCE. Likely, almost all coins of the Roman Republic entered the Netherlands from 19 BCE onwards — when the Romans renewed their attention on the lower Rhine — and even more likely most of the coins of the Roman Republic entered the Netherlands in the first decades of the Roman Empire.20 The marks however, may have been added earlier. Research by Claes has shown that marked denarii occur in two hoards dated before 20 BCE.21 I propose that the practice of marking denarii is directly related to the Roman army and was therefore introduced during the reign of Emperor Augustus around 27 BCE — although we cannot rule out the possi bility that the practice began under Julius Caesar, amidst his northern campaigns during the Roman Republic. These marks should not be confused with the control marks applied by moneyers, who engraved Coin 4.3 is extra remarkable because it is a denarius serratus and because of the variety in marks. The letter combination: L•C is clearly different in shape, size, and depth compared to the other marks on the coin, and the punctuation serves as a separator between two letters. The exact meaning of the letters is unclear; they possibly represent a name like ‘Lucius Cassius’ or ‘Lucius Cornelius’, or they may refer to ‘Legatus Caesaris’ (a staff officer acting as a delegate of the emperor). This example clearly shows that the marks not only differ from each other, but also must carry meanings beyond merely testing the metal (see before). De Beeldenaar — november/december 2025289 symbols into the coin dies used for striking. The application of such a mark in the die served as a visual quality control or a sign of accountability on the part of the moneyer. As such, there is no connection between the marked coins in this article with the (much earlier) law introduced in 85 BCE by Marius Gratidianus (Naturalis Historia 33.46), that regulated the standard and quality control of silver coinage in Rome.22 The marked coins from the Netherlands can be related to military pay from Emperor Augustus (and Tiberius) — like in the Augustan legionary camp at Hunerberg in Nijmegen from the years 19-15/12 BCE.23 The majority of the Republican coins in hoards are found together with coins of Emperor Augustus as the youngest coins, although the Republican coins remained in use until the early second century CE, after which the number of finds decreases.24 The ending of the marking practice seems to date to around 30 CE, as can be seen in end dates from hoards, like hoard Someren-Lierop 2019 with a tpq of 26 CE.25 Reasons of Marking An important reason why these marks cannot be classified as banker’s marks lies in the historical context: private money changers (nummularii) played little to no role during the early military period in which Republican denarii circulated in the Lower Rhine area (present-day the Netherlands). The entire monetary cycle — comprising the transport of coins, the payment of soldiers, and tax collection — was tightly controlled by the imperial administration, notably through the office of the procurator. Payments issued via the military command were disbursed at forts along the Rhine in the form of donativa (bonus payments) and stipendia (regular salaries).26 It is therefore reasonable to assume that the practice of marking denarii originated within this military-administrative framework. Previous attempts to explain the presence of marks on denarii have been limited in scope.27 Many marks appear to be applied only lightly or superficially, making it unlikely that they were intended to test for counterfeit coins with base metal cores. This also aligns with the earlier observation that the idea of multiple ‘tests’ per coin lacks logic — one test mark should suffice. Instead, the phenomenon is better understood as part of a circular monetary system, in which coins were repeatedly paid out, collected back (e.g. via taxes or fines), and redistributed. In this model, markings may have served as internal validation or accounting tools. Officials responsible for payments within Roman forts — such as the optio — may have applied these marks when settling accounts or tracking individual transactions. In some cases, marks may have functioned as proof of temporary custody. When a soldier left camp for training or campaign duties, he could have deposited his pay with the aerarium (military treasury) and received a marked coin as a receipt, enabling him to reclaim his funds later. Other possible functions include tax verification or fiscal control. The diversity in mark types and placement of the marks suggests that no single explanation suffices; rather, a combination of purposes — validation, custody, identification, or administrative accountability — is more likely. One particularly plausible interpretation is that a punch (peck) mark was applied only to the final counted denarius in a transaction, functioning as a visual confirmation or ‘signature’ of completed disbursement. This could explain why many denarii remain unmarked while others carry multiple markings, reflecting repeated circulation within the structured flow of military finance. As noted earlier, four distinct types of marks can be identified, and it is likely that these served different purposes or conveyed different meanings. I propose the following: Type 1. Punch marks: as these tiny marks occur often and are often hardly visible they could be used in general for counting purposes, like affirmation marks indicating the completion of a (counting) task. Or they can (also) be explained as validation marks (authorised as legal tender) for the often old and worn Republican denarii. Type 2. Symbols: as these occur less, perhaps these can be explained as custody marks and/ or related to an individual in the army administration. Type 3. Single letters: possibly these function as administrative codes and can be explained as validation marks. Type 4. Letter combinations: these are likely related to names of individuals in the army administration and can perhaps be explained as (personal) custody marks. De Beeldenaar — november/december 2025 290 However other readings such as a personal initial or an administrative code cannot be ruled out for the single letters. In terms of meaning one might consider: A = Acceptum (received) C = Conductio (rent or lease), conventus (agreement/contract) or centum (100) D = Datus (given), Donativum (prize money) or Depositum (placed into custody / held as a deposit) E = Exactum (completed) F = Frumentum (grain)? H = Hospitium (hospitality)? M = Miles (soldier), Mensis (month) or Magister (supervisor/officer) N = Numerus (unit / detachment) R = Recognitum (checked or recognized) I = 1 V = 5 (amount of 5 denarii) and/or Valet: valid X = 10 (amount of 10 denarii) L = 50 (amount of 50 denarii) Final Remarks This article aims to reconsider the function of secondary marks on Roman aurei and denarii by placing them within a broader military and administrative context of coin circulation, rather than interpreting them solely as metal tests or banker’s marks. Both the Trier and Liberchies hoards contain a significantly higher percentage of marked aurei compared to those found in the Netherlands, although the presence of graffiti on some aurei from Trier and Liberchies probably have influenced these results. In all cases, the proportion of marked aurei remains lower than that of marked denarii. The practice of marking aurei continues up to the reign of Emperor Hadrian, but the number of marks per coin is generally much lower than on denarii—likely because aurei were used less frequently in everyday transactions. The types of marks appear broadly similar to those found on denarii, although the latter show greater variation. To conclude, the reinterpretation based on the findings presented raises several important questions for further research: 1. How does the marking practice on Roman denarii differ across various regions of the Empire? 2. Is the proposed timeframe for denarius marking (c. 27 BCE – 30 CE) accurate? 3. What are the precise types and distributions of marks on both aurei and denarii? 4. Are there additional or alternative explanations for the various types of marks? 5. What administrative or monetary changes may have caused the cessation of the marking practice? It is hoped that this new interpretation will encourage further research into marked denarii and aurei across the Roman Empire — into their distribution, typology, and function. Such studies may help refine or revise the hypothesis proposed here, and contribute to a deeper understanding of the administrative and monetary mechanisms of the Roman world.  Notes 1. Witschonke, R. (2012) The use of die marks on Roman Republican coinage, in: Revue Belge de la Numismatique 158, pp. 63-84. 2. Meadows, A. (2018) Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C., in: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics in the Mediterranean World, Suna & İnan Kıraç Research Institute on Mediterranean Civilizations, Antalya, 5-8 January, 2017 (Antalya) pp. 185-219. 3. Werz, U. (2009) Gegenstempel auf Aesprägungen der frühen römischen Kaiserzeit im Rheingebiet - Grundlagen, Systematik, Typologie (Winterthur). 4. Baker, R. (1984) The countermarks found on ancient Roman coins: a brief introduction, in: Journal of the Society for Ancient Numismatics 15-3, pp. 52-58, specific p. 52; https:// www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greekcoins.asp?vpar=1490 (accessed February 14, 2024). 5. Mattingly, H. (1923) Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, vol. I, Augustus to Vitellius (London), p. xxviii. 6. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta, A.N. & W.A. van Es (1974) Muntwijzer voor de Romeins Tijd (Bussum) p. 74; Alföldi, M.R. (1978) Antike Numismatik (Mainz) p. 37; Baker, 1984: 52; Walker, D.R. (1988) The Roman coins, in: B. Cunliffe (ed.) The temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath, vol. 2, The finds from the sacred spring (Oxford) p. 285; Besombes, P.A. et al. (2003-2004) Trésors monétaires XXI. Le dépôt de 22438 monnaies du gué de Saint-Léonard (Mayenne) p. 53; Kemmers, F. (2005) Coins for a legion, An analysis of the coin finds of the Augustan legionary fortress and Flavian canabae legions at Nijmegen, in: Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 21 (Mainz) pp. 24, 61-62; Claes, L. (2024) Punch intended? The punch marks on the Republican and early imperial denarii found in hoards in the Netherlands, in: P. Cattelain, C. Lauwers & E. Warmenbol (eds.), Money, it’s a hit!: Mélanges sonnants et trébuchants offerts à Jean-Marc Doyen (Treignes) pp. 201-208. 7. Thirion, M. (1972) De Muntschat van Liberchies. Aurei uit de eerste en de tweede eeuw (Brussel) p. 73; Gilles, K.-J. (2014) Der Trierer Goldschatz, in: Schriftenreihe des Rheinisches Landesmuseum Trier 39 (Trier) pp. 49-50. 8. Cruysheer, A. & T. de Groot (2025) The Bunnik hoard 2023. Outline and initial analysis of the Roman coin hoard Bunnik (Utrecht, The Netherlands), pp. 1-6 (online publication: www.utrechtaltijd.nl/verhalen/the-bunnik-hoard-2023) (accessed August 2, 2025). De Beeldenaar — november/december 2025291 2SHONJHZHQVWPRPHQWLQRQ]HYRRUUDDGSHQQLQJHQNLMNHQ" 'DWNDQRSZZZPHYLXVQO .HX]HXLWUXLPGXL]HQGVWXNVYDQDIGH H WRWHQPHWGH H HHXZ 2RNQXPLVPDWLVFKHOLWHUDWXXUNXQWXRSRQ]HZHEVLWHYLQGHQ  Mevius Numisbooks International B.V. Oosteinde 97, 7671 AT Vriezenveen Tel. 0546 561 322, Fax 0546 561 352, E-mail: [email protected] Bezoek aan ons kantoor alleen op afspraak. 9. PAN-144023; Sutherland, C.H.V. (1984) The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. I: From 31 BC to AD 69 (London), RIC-1² Augustus 206; PAN-143996 (RIC-1² Tiberius 25); PAN-143999 (RIC-1² Tiberius 29); PAN-144000 (RIC-1² Tiberius 29). 10. PAN-99147, hoard PAN-S-110 (Sittard-Geleen 2022); NUMIS 1160617; Carradice, I.A. & T.V. Buttrey (2007) Roman Imperial Coinage. Volume II, Part 1, From AD 69 to AD 96, Vespasian to Domitian (London), RIC-2².1 117. 11. NUMIS 1031633; Centraal Museum, inv. CM-4666; RIC-1² 80. 12. NUMIS 1031463; Centraal Museum, inv. CM-4621; RIC-2².1 Vespasian 918. 13. Gilles, 2014: pp. 45-50. 14. Thirion, 1972: pp. 32-33, 66-73. 15. Thirion, 1972: p. 72, note 91; Kemmers, 2005: p. 74; Claes 2024: p. 202; Heritage Auctions, auction 61514, lot 25066 (with thanks to Rasmus Thelen). 16. Kemmers, 2005: p. 62 and footnote 255. 17. Claes, 2024: pp. 201-203. 18. Kemmers, 2005: p. 24. 19. Crawford, M.H. (1974) Roman Republican Coinage (Volumes 1–2) (Cambridge). 20. Pelsdonk, J. (2013) Muntslag en muntgebruik in Nederland in de preen protohistorie, in: Jaarboek voor Munten Penningkunde 100, pp. 1-51, specific pp. 20-21, 29. 21. Claes, 2024: p. 203. 22. Witschonke, 2012: pp. 65-86; Claes, 2024: p. 202. 23. Kemmers, 2005: p. 273. 24. Pelsdonk, 2013: p. 28. 25. PAN-S-21; Bakker, R. (2019) Romeinse muntschat, in: Detector Magazine 163, pp. 26-27. 26. Kemmers, 2005: pp. 271-283; Kropff, A. (2019) The bronze enigma: soldiers’ pay and civilians’ taxes in the Northwestern Roman Empire ad 69-197, Jaarboek voor Munten Penningkunde 106, pp. 1-18; Speidel, M.A. (2014) Roman army pay scales revisited: responses and answers, In: M. Reddé (ed.), De l’or pour les braves! Soldes, armées et circulation monétaire dans le monde romain. Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’UMR 8210 (AnHiMa) à l’Institut national d’histoire de l’art (12-13 septembre 2013) (Bordeaux), pp. 53-62. 27. Besombes, A., J.N. Barrandon & R. Martini (ed. M. Amandry) (2005) Trésors monétaires XXI, Le dépôt de 22438 monnaies du gué de Saint-Léonard (Mayenne) (Paris), pp. 58-59; Suresh, S. (2001) Countermarks on Roman coins found in India: chronology and significance, in: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 62, pp. 981-984; Claes, 2024: pp. 201-208. PEETERS WAROTSTRAAT 50, 3020 HERENT, BELGIË Tel. (016) 49 03 07 E-mail: [email protected] d rukkeri j