Roman Republican Control Marks

Richard Witschonke’s 2012 article, published in the Revue Belge de Numismatique, tackles a long-standing puzzle in Roman Republican numismatics: why did many Republican coin series bear seemingly random letters, numbers, and symbols on their dies? These “control marks” (or die marks) appeared on silver denarii and quinarii over a span of several decades, yet their purpose has never been definitively explained. Witschonke’s study revisits the evidence and prior scholarship, ultimately proposing a new explanation centered on fraud prevention within the mint.

Origins of Control Marks in the Roman Republic

Roman Republican mints began using control or die marks in the mid-2nd century BC. The first appearance of such marks is generally acknowledged to be on the denarius issue of Numerius Fabius Pictor, struck around 126 BC. Earlier Republican coins had occasionally featured symbols or monograms, but N. Fabius Pictor’s denarii (RRC 268) are the earliest known to systematically employ a unique mark on each die.

In this small issue, which included both obverse and reverse marks, every obverse die bore a different letter of the alphabet, paired arbitrarily with letters on the reverse dies. For example, this coin shows the helmeted head of Roma on the obverse with a letter E below her chin as a control mark and the letter N on the reverse as control mark.

Roman Republican, Numerius Fabius Pictor, AR Denarius (3.88g), 126 BC, Rome

Obv: Head of Roma right, X behind, control mark E below chin

Rev: The Flamen Quirinalis, Q. Fabius Pictor, seated left, shield at side inscribed: QVI / RIN., N. FABI on right, PICTOR on left, ROMA in exergue, control mark N behind head of Flamen

Ref:  Crawford 268/1b

Control-marks on Roman Republican denarii emerge c. 126 BC, flourish 108–63 BC, and were chiefly a late-Republican response to booming coin production and mounting forgery fears, giving mint officials a practical tool to monitor dies, bullion, and personnel. Over the next six decades (c.126–63 BC), approximately 80 Republican silver issues incorporated some form of control marks, ranging from letters (Latin or Greek) and numerals to various symbols.The practice was clearly deliberate: marks were changed from die to die according to chosen systems, though the systems varied widely in complexity. Notably, after 63 BC the Republican mint largely abandoned the use of such marks, with a brief revival in 44 BC on the issues of M. Mettius.

The phenomenon of Republican die marks emerges in the 120s BC, becoming common in the 2nd–1st century BC, and then disappearing on the eve of the Civil War era. Witschonke’s study focuses on this window (126–63 BC) when marked denarii and quinarii were regularly produced at Rome.

This issue of C. Marius C.f. Capito from 81 BC is one of my favorite coins from the time of Sulla's and has marks that are unique for pairs of denarii: XIII for this set. C. Marius C.f. Capito ("Big Head" ) is not directly related to Sulla's rival Marius.  The fact that Capito not only survived but held office in 81 BC strongly indicates he was not aligned with the Marian cause – indeed, he must have been acceptable to (if not an active partisan of) Sulla’s faction.

What hypothesis do academic researchers suggest for why they were introduced?

• Mint accountability & anti-fraud: Witschonke argues that unique die-marks let officials trace any plated or debased coin in circulation back to the exact striking crew and bullion lot, deterring internal theft or alloy-tampering.

• Production control: Earlier writers (Mattingly, Crawford, Burnett) saw marks as a way to monitor die life, output per anvil, or bullion allocations to individual moneyers or workshops.

• Anti-counterfeiting signal: Complex, changing symbols made it harder for external forgers to replicate current dies convincingly.

• Administrative convenience amid growth: After 125 BC annual output spiked; marks helped keep large, multi-anvil operations organized.

• Occasional propaganda / “vote-catching”: A few moneyers used paired symbols relevant to Roman trade guilds (e.g., issues of L. Papius), but this is a minor, type-specific motive.

  
  

What triggered the change?

• Surge in mint volume around 125 BC demanded stricter oversight.

• Spike in high-quality plated forgeries in the 130s-120s BC heightened official anxiety.

• Introduction of al marco batch-weighing of flans (c. 123 BC) replaced individual weighing; die-marks provided a new way to link each pre-weighed bag of blanks to the crew that struck it.

How would it prevent counterfeiting?

According to Witschonke’s model, control marks made it possible to “trace plated or debased coins found in circulation back to the responsible mint employees.”

Each mark or combination of marks was effectively a code identifying the particular mint workshop, anvil, or team that struck the coin. Mint officials, would maintain logs correlating every die (and its mark) with the coining team or metal allotment used. If later a suspect coin surfaced – a silver-plated counterfeit that appeared stylistically genuine – the mint could consult its records to see which employee or contract minter had struck coins with that die mark.

In other words, die marks introduced accountability at the level of individual dies or production batches, enabling investigators to pinpoint where in the production chain a fraudulent coin originated.

How to explain the mix of Control and Non-Control coins?

Mulitple explanations are offered from the pressure of high volume minting, to the lack of need for security in small batches made by only one team. The use of controls for coins minted by contractors in times of heavy minting is also a possibility that Witschonke offers.

Why did the system fade after 63 BC?

Civil-war mints, higher output outside Rome and looser emergency procedures made the elaborate control-mark regimen impractical; political upheaval also reduced appetite for meticulous fraud-tracking.

References: Richard Witschonke, “The Use of Die Marks on Roman Republican Coinage,” Revue Belge de Numismatique 158 (2012), pp. 65–86.