Incuse Coinage in Southern Italy

Lucania, Sybaris AR Stater. Circa 530-510 BC. Bull standing to left, head to right; VM above / Incuse bull standing to right, head to left.

Between about 550 and 460 BC the Southern Italian cities of Croton, Caulonia, Metapontum, Sybaris, Taras, Laus and Poseidonia produced coins which had a broader thinner flan than was typical in contemporary Greek coinage and which were also characterised by having an obverse which was incuse. This was achieved by creating a deep intaglio-carved obverse-die and a cameo-carved reverse die in high relief. The technique of doing so is described by C. H. V. Sutherland in The “Incuse” Coinage of Southern Italy [ AMS, Museum Notes iii, 1948]

Each of these intaglio types (or, as may be termed, the “negative” types) was so designed and struck as to secure a normally exact correspondence between the area of the flan occupied by the obverse (or “positive”) type and that occupied by the negative: that is to say, the dies were so adjusted that, at the moment of striking, the raised pattern of the reverse die would press the silver precisely into the corresponding hollowed-out pattern of the obverse die.

There has been much scholarly discussion about whether this incuse coinage was conceived or influenced by the philosopher Pythagoras who arrived at Croton in around 535 BC. This is indeed a fascinating topic which, before looking to see whether there is direct evidence of such involvement, centers around whether this coin type evolved prior to his arrival. Sydney P Noe and others have argued that there is evidence that the incuse coinage of Metapontion or Siris, for example, pre-dated the arrival of Pythagoras, whilst others such as Charles Seltman in his The Problem of the First Italiote Coins disputes the chronology of these coins and so opens the door for such involvement. This topic has been well covered if not resolved and most modern numismatists accept that incuse coingage was present in Southern Italy before his arrival but that does not preclude his influence on its design. As this period was early in the development of coinage - the very earliest coins, attributed to Alyattes, were struck in Lydia in around 630 BC - there would certainly be experimentation in the manufacture of coins. However the mystery in this instance is well expressed by Seltman:

…this coinage must have been exceedingly expensive to produce - more expensive than any other ancient money. Meticulous adjustment of dies, slow technical production, a constant watch for small die-flaws which would have broken these thin coins; all these factors must have added to the cost of minting.

Why would the cities of Southern Italy have chosen to make their coinage more expensive and difficult to manufacture than those of other cities with which they would certainly have been familiar?

Bruttium, Caulonia. Late 6th century BC. AR stater or nomos (29mm, 6.83 gm, 12h). Obv: KAVΛ (retrograde), full-length figure of Apollo, nude, advancing right, torso turned facing, olive branch in raised right hand, pursuing Daphne running right, transforming into laurel tree with branches as arms; O above stag standing right in right field, head reverted, dotted border on raised rim. Rev: KAΛO (retrograde), incuse of obverse, reversed, save for an ethnic, Daphne, and branch, which is in relief.

Seltman agrees with the conclusion proposed by Sutherland that this could only be possible if there was a driving force that would persuade the cities that coinage should not just be about enabling trade or forming useful propaganda, but that it should be beautiful it itself, it should be a work of art. To do this required an individual with a vision, and that visionary for Sutherland would have been Pythagoras. It can be speculated that this also explains the short duration of this type of coinage as the influence of the Pythagorean cult waned following his expulsion from Croton following its defeat of Sybaris in 510 BC and his subsequent death at Metapontum. Seltman also uses as another point of evidence that Pythagoras came from Samos and that the one precedent for incuse coinage came from within the sphere of influence of that city and so would have been known to Pythagoras. The island of Calymna lies fifty miles to the south of Samos; and there are some exceedingly rare sixth-century coins which probably belong to this State. The obverse shows a bearded head, Ares or a local hero, wearing a crested Corinthian helmet; the reverse shows a seven-stringed lyre, made of tortoise-shell and curved horns, within a neat sunk incuse cut to take the lyre's shape. Barclay Head believed that the coins were on the Lydian silver standard of Croesus, and this pretty well fixes their issue between c. 560 and 546 BC.All the arguments presented are to the possibility that Pythagoras may have been involved in the design of incuse coinage, but reviewing the evidence we must wait for further dating to exclude it and there is no direct evidence to support it.

Leaving aside his possible contribution to the design of incuse coins, the fact remains that the preparation and manufacture of these coins would have been significantly more arduous and error prone than the alternative double-relief approach. Artistic merit as suggested by Seltman may be achieved without the use of this technically difficult method of production, so why incuse? Setting aside the more esoteric theories such as it making the coins easier to stack [C.F. Hill, Numismatic Chronicles ii 1922] – it doesn’t; or the argument by Seltman that it related to the Pythagorean doctrine of “Opposites”, a case is made by Sydney Noe that it was to prevent export of the coins. The reason you may want to prevent export is that there is very little evidence of silver mining in Southern Italy in the 5th and 6th century BC and so you would want to prevent silver from leaving the region as tradeable coins. Making the coins significantly different than other coins in circulation may have prevented them from being accepted as currency rather than their bullion value.

Sutherland builds up on the consequence of preventing the export of silver coins by noting that coin was imported from other Greek cities and used as a base for the minting of new coins. The argument then presented is that in order to obliterate the existing design and prepare a reasonably clean flan the source coin had to be heated and hammered, which leads to a naturally broader flan. As the metal was thinner (the weight remaining the same) there is a need to strengthen the coin, which is accomplished in the following manner:

It is a well-known principle that thin sheets of metal, when traversed by pressure-moulded ridge which are correspondingly indented on the under-surface, are remarkably proof against bending or buckling. Coins of "incuse" fabric enjoyed precisely this protection: in addition to the press-mouldings afforded by the main type itself, such coins (as has been noticed) generally possessed a bold outer border similarly rendered in "incuse" technique. The joint effect of type and border was to render these thin flans immensely strong, and it is sufficient to remark on the extreme rarity of bent or buckled “incuse" pieces.

The incuse technique of Magna Graecia can therefore be summarised as a result of the need to generate coin from imported silver which had to be overstruck, and for which in the incuse type was the best method of retaining the strength of the coin. The punch on the reverse of Corinthian coins ceases in around 550 BC and Sutherland is perhaps over-generous in allowing more than 50 years for the newer coins to replace the older punched coins and so no longer require the flatter flans leading to incuse coinage.I would suggest a further weakness in this argument is that whilst there are 4 examples of Metapontion overstrikes of Corinthian coins in the British Museum and two examples of Poseidonia overstrikes of Metapontum coins, there are none for the other cities which produced incuse coins. So either overstrikes were vanishingly rare in not obliterating traces of the original coin, or another reason exists. Sydney Noe in his Overstrikes of Magna Graecia solidifies this argument:

As yet, no overstrikes of incuse issues of or by Sybaris have been discovered … nor have striking of Croton over Corinthian swastika reverse types been noted (with one possible exception)

So the case for the production of incuse type coins remains open. If I may indulge in a completely unscientific musing – Southern Italy was a fertile region which produced more than sufficient riches to satisfy basic necessities and allow time for more cultural expression. In addition, the main cities noted in the production of incuse coins were Achaean (save Spartan Taras) and there were generally friendly relations between these cities until the destruction of Sybaris. In this atmosphere, could it not simply be that the cities were competing in cultural prowess, showing off both their technical and artistic skills?

Part of the Taranto Hoard currently housed in the British Museum