The question which this analysis hopes to answer is whether or not the Gallic Empire was based on an economic response to the Roman third-century crisis. The Gallic Empire does seem to have a more stable and valuable currency than the central empire (Reece 80). How would this relate to the Gallic Empire as an economic phenomenon? Trade during the third century was severely limited by the rapid debasement of Roman coinage (Sinnigen and Boak 401). In order to pay the army and Roman bureaucracy, the emperors had to produce more coinage. They could not issue promisory notes and run a deficit as do modern governments today, so their only recourse was to produce more money. Unfortunately, producing more money devalues the existing money supply, causing inflation.

Since the supply of silver billion was limited, the emperors were able to produce more coinage by mixing the silver with base metals such as bronze or iron. They also repeatedly lowered the weight of the coins, requiring even less silver. Since they produced a glut of these coins at once and the debased coins were supposed to be of the same value as less debased coins, massive inflation resulted. At first the severely debased coins were held at the same value as the less debased coins, but as coins started to be made of far less silver than base metals, the severely debased coins became undesireable (ibid.). As a result, the coinage issued by the mid-third century emperors was undesirable and sometimes worthless. It became harder to trade and goods became more expensive. Responses to this inflation included reverting to a barter system and valuating coins on the amount of silver they contained (Drinkwater 207; Grant 44).

Since the market was flooded with worthless coins, wealthy individuals sought to protect their wealth by hoarding. In order to protect their wealth and livelihood in the long run, the empire needed to develop a stable currency system. Since the Gallic Empire was able to establish a relatively stable currency system for the first decade of its existence, we should look at trade patterns to see if this currency was desireable.

The Oliver's Orchard Hoards can be used to study the currency circulation and trade patterns of the Gallic Empire. Hoard I (TPQ of 269) has very few Roman coins issued during the sole reign of Gallienus, which was when the Gallic Empire was in existence. Since only 3 out of the 1500 Hoard I coins were post-260 Roman coins, it is unlikely that this is a statistical fluke, unless there was an individual preference for Gallic coins. There were many post-260 roman coins in Hoards II (30%, TPQ of 273) and III (50%, TPQ of 274), which were closely associated with Hoard I. Therefore, it is quite unlikely that this is a statistical fluke. It is more likely that this pattern instead suggests some conclusions about Britain's connections to trade patterns in the Gallic Empire.

See another version of the chart with numerical counts. Source: Burnett and Bland 67

The pattern from Hoard I suggests that during the first decade of the Gallic Empire, Britain was not linked into a trade network with the central empire. During this period the Roman coins were far less valuable than their Gallic counterparts. This would mean that the people of the Gallic Empire (at least in Britain) would not want to trade with the central empire or at least not want their coins. Those in the Gallic Empire trading with the central empire would be taking on inferior currency if they did trade with the Romans. On the individual level this would provide for an unsatisfactory bargain. On the macro level this would drain wealth out of the Gallic Empire. This is equivalent to the modern situation where the American dollar and British pound are acceptable as currency in less developed countries, but not vice versa. The result of this monetary gap was a lack of economic interaction between the two empires.

It is also possible that this was an existing pattern of economic interaction, where Gaul and Britain were an economic sphere unto themselves, however this is unlikely because of the patterns in Hoard II and Hoard III. Had there been no post-260 central empire coins in these hoards as well as in Hoard I, this would indicate that the inhabitants of Britain did not come in contact with any Roman goods because of shear distance from the central empire. But the absence of post-260 central coins in Hoard I and their presence in Hoards II and III suggests that it was possible for the inhabitants of Britain to be linked into the Roman trade network before 268, yet they chose not to.

The appearance of post-260 and post-269 Roman coins in Hoards II and III also need to be accounted for. This indicates that Britain did trade with parts of the central empire during the last few years of the Gallic Empire. Perhaps this is a result of the 267-8 economic crisis. Postumus initially established a Gallic antoninianus more valuable than the Roman coin and then debased the coin severely in the fiscal crisis of 267-268. Eventually during the reign of Tetricus, the Gallic antoninianus became just as debased as the Roman antoninianus. I think that the debasement of the Gallic coinage between 268 and 274 are connected to the coin patterns in the Oliver's Orchard Hoard. As described above, the Gallic economic situation was so bad in the 270s that imitation coins began to be minted in Northern Gaul (King 92). As Gallic coins became less valuable during the last half decade of the Empire. As the Gallic coins rapidly declined in value, the already severely debased Roman coins would become more acceptable for exchange within the Gallic Empire. The gap that existed between the two empires closed because the Gallic Empire got caught in the same trap that the Roman Empire got trapped in a decade earlier.

The Oliver's Orchard Hoard is reflective of the trend toward debasement. As the Gallic coinage became less valuable, Roman coinage became more acceptable within the Gallic Empire. This is why Hoards II and III contain contemporary central empire coins while Hoard I does not. Of course, the Oliver's Orchard Hoards are likely the record of the economic activity of a single individual or family. Therefore, similar trends in contemporary hoards need to be demonstrated before a solid conclusion can be reached. However, the trends ascribed to the hoards above are reflected in the graph of coin debasement below.

Source: Drinkwater 154-157

Created by Michael Freedman-Schnapp
A project for ARTH 491: Roman Art
University of Virginia; Charlottesville, Virginia.
Last updated April 25, 2001.