Recent publications (e.g. Lockyear 2007; Kemmers and Myrburg 2011) have stressed the need for an integration of coinage data with other archaeological data, and for numismatics to be reintegrated into a wider discourse. My theoretical consideration, I feel, presents many possibilities to integrate numismatics within a wider multidisciplinary discourse. The ability to incorporate numismatic data within this discourse, however, is vital.
The multidisciplinary consideration of coins, coin-use, and identity can hopefully inform and shape new perspectives by which to question numismatic data, leading to alternative forms of analysis. The theoretical concepts (discussed in chapter 3) produced several key issues applicable to how we can approach coin data:
• A coin is not money. Money is a combination of the coin as an object, together with an idea or understanding of the object, allowing a specific use of that object. This is not a new concept, but seems easily forgotten.
• The meaning of coins, how they are understood, and how they are interacted with and used, is dependant on individual understanding of underlying systems that facilitate and define coin-use. The underlying systems of coin-use can be seen as similar to language. The same coin can be understood differently, and used differently, without any change in its form. Coinage and coin-use is flexible, adaptable and contextual.
• Just as there is a potential for an object to be produced without any deliberate intention to communicate a message, an object or text can be observed without a conscious interaction. People can use coins without interacting with their text, imagery and messages - we cannot assume that the design on a coin would have been read and interpreted.
• Coins are physical objects. Whilst we cannot assume that a coin-user would interact and engage with the images and text on a coin, the experience of coin-use is essentially a sensory and physical interaction with a material object, shaped by a complex combination of the mind and the senses, prior experiences, and identity. Shared experiences create shared (or cultural) identities.
Traditional numismatics is focused heavily on production and supply, rather than use and interpretation. Too much is assumed in regard to coin experience - we have little grounds to presume that people would have noticed aspects of the design, but not variations in size. In fact, our modern coin-use and coin experience suggests the opposite can be the case (when shown a Roman sesterius or dupondius, most people usually observe and remark on their relatively large size and weight above any aspects of the image and text). Whereas archaeology is not averse to the concept of passive design, there is a much larger role for passive experience, such as through defamililiarisation (chapter 3.4). The size, shape, feel, weight and smell of a coin are all part of the interpretation and experience process, although this is easy to forget when our typologies are largely based on production of coin issues rather than the appearance or design of the coins. The text and images of different coin issues can be stylistically and ideological similar, but given distinct typologies based on production and issuing activity. There are also typologies where stylistically or ideologically different variations are combined as a single ‘type’ (such as whether or not a standard or flag depicts a Chi Rho).
Coin Size:
We can begin to quantify and understand what was experienced by assessing and quantifying the physical properties of the coins that were used, such
as the basic notion of coin size (by diameter). Coin diameter has the benefit of being relatively well recorded, easily understood and quantifiable. Size is a simple aspect of coinage; it seems undeniable that coin-users would have experienced different coin sizes, and the data shows that coins of a wide range of sizes were produced and used. If there are patterns of variation in coin sizes, this is a potential start of a basic new perspective by which to understand coin experience. If different regions experienced different types of coins, as differentiated by simple physical criteria, we will be able to assess part of the conscious experience, and potential shared experience, and therefore we will have access to ‘identity’ in a small but meaningful way. Traditional approaches would interpret and explore these patterns through a consideration of supply, differential supply (of issues and denominations), and differential production and use of copies. This approach is valid, but not the aim here. I feel that variation in the size of coins between regions, if present, would have the potential to be considered in greater depth, theoretically and analytically, to better understand the link between coin size and coin experience.
Copies:
An assessment of the size of coins also forms a basis from which to explore copies, with size a key part of what differentiates contemporary copies from official coins. In this perspective, we must define a copy through user-experienced criteria, a mixture of relatively small size compared to official issues, and a relative crudity of design. The first aspect of copies that can be assessed is working from a user- focused definition of copies to assess a potential regional variation, in terms of potentially significant differential ratios of copies to official coins in use (and therefore potential differential experience, interpretation, and meaning).
The second aspect of exploring copies via numismatic data is the potential to consider what a ‘copy’ actually meant to the coin-users, through analysis of the nature, and variation, in how copies can be identified within numismatic data, when using the user-focus approach outlined above. This is possibly the most important and meaningful perspective by which to apply a user-focus to numismatic data testing - establishing a user-focused meaningful concept of the contemporary copy, and assessing how copies relate to experience and interaction.
There is significant potential for further investigation and interpretation, addressing the impact of the use of a copy (of smaller size and/or increased crudity of image and text) compared to the use of a genuine coin, both through materiality and conscious experience, and in terms of message and interpretation (with the coin as a ‘text’).
Reverse Types:
For the coinage of the fourth century, both phases of issue and phases of production are defined by changes in the design and text of reverse types (discussed in chapter 2.2), rather than changes in imperial personnel. These reverse types depict a series of imperial messages or ideologies. Coin design, image and text are a result of production, and variation in the message or ideological content of coins between regions is effected by coin supply, however, the meaning of the messages (or designs, images and text) is decided by interpretation and identity. This is a complex process, and not well suited to exploration via numismatic quantification. However, we can attempt to create a picture of the coins in use by considering them as texts, and attempt to move away from production-issue dominated typological distinctions, and move towards distinctions closer to the experience of the user. I feel that it would beneficial, therefore, to consider differential supply within the perspective of user experience, and a differentiation in the ‘textuality’ of coins.