General introduction (p. 11-33)

1This work sets out to explore the processes that led to the integration of Inner Gaul into the Roman world, from the 3^rd c. BC to the mid-1^st c. AD, focusing in particular on the use of coinage in indigenous societies. Coinage and money are seen as good touchstones to understand what is traditionally called the “Romanisation” of Gaul: indeed, as F. Braudel wrote a few decades ago, “[…] money everywhere contrives to insert itself into all economic and social relationships. This makes it an excellent indicator: by observing how fast it circulates or when it runs out, how complicated its channels are or how scarce the supply, a fairly accurate assessment can be made of all human activity, even the most humble.” ¹

2The areas of Northern and Eastern Gaul were chosen as the field of study for various reasons. First and foremost, data are abundant and of good quality. Excavations have unearthed a variety of sites, from indigenous rural settlements to Roman military camps, including sanctuaries, cemeteries and different types of towns. These areas also cross various ancient boundaries, both pre-Roman and Roman. This diversity is crucial to understanding the numerous forces at play in the period.

3The study covers a long period, from the first indigenous coinages in the early 3^rd c. BC to their disappearance from the circulation pool around the mid-1^st c. AD. However, particular emphasis will be put on the years between 150 BC and AD 50. This has primarily to do with the method used for this research. It is based on stratified coins found in precisely dated contexts, put into sequence, mapped using the tools of statistical cartography and carefully analysed in their historical, social and economic contexts. Such data are very scarce before the mid-2^nd c. BC. Therefore, the first phases of the Gallic coinage, from c. 300 to c. 150 BC, will only be analysed in a later section of the book, in light of the findings from the subsequent periods.

4The rest of the introduction presents in some detail the material basis of this study (c. 17 900 stratified coins from 873 archaeological contexts, coming from 165 sites, as well as 205 hoards from 150 sites; the data are presented in detail in a second volume, freely downloadable from the following URL: http://ausoniuseditions.u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr/index.php/collections/scripta-antiqua?isbn=978-2-35613-138-6), and discusses the periodization adopted, before presenting the structure of the book. This book is composed of five chapters, which fall into two parts of unequal length. Chapters 1 to 4 each study in detail one particular period, outlining the characteristics of coin circulation and coin use and discussing the relevance of these findings for our understanding of the “Romanisation” of Northern and Eastern Gaul. Chap. 1 deals with the century before the Gallic Wars (150 to 60/50 BC, i.e. La Tène D1a, D1b and D2a in the current periodization of continental Iron Age). Chap. 2 covers the Gallic Wars through to the end of the Triumviral period (60/50 to 30 BC, i.e. La Tène D2b). Chap. 3 is concerned with the Augustan principate (30 BC to AD 15/20), while chap. 4 surveys the reigns of Tiberius and Claudius (AD 15/20 to 50/55). Rather than taking a chronological approach, chap. 5 tackles the topic from a thematic perspective. Starting with a discussion of the earliest Celtic coinages in Gaul, it then proceeds to examine three themes: first, the link between coinage and the degree of political organisation; second, the role played by Rome in the changes observed in the area under study; third, the monetisation of Gaul in the period under study. The books ends with a short Conclusion.

Chap. 1. A time for friendships. From La Tène D1a to La Tène D2a (150 to 60/50 BC) (p. 35-96)

5The first section of the chapter is concerned with the composition of the coin pool (p. 35-52). Already in this period, and even more during La Tène D2a, a partition can be observed in the study area between Belgic Gaul and what is known in French as the “Centre-Est” (a wide region centred on Burgundy, Champagne and Franche-Comté). In the Centre-Est, base metal coins are almost exclusively potin coins (cast and not struck) and silver is much more common, whereas in Belgic Gaul, gold is slightly better represented and struck bronzes appear from the early-1^st c. BC. The coin pool is heavily regionalised, and there are no clear signs that Gallic civitates or tribes were responsible for the minting (except maybe for the Remi). Mediterranean coins are very rare. Coins from Massalia are present in the second half of the 2^nd c., whereas Roman coins are absent before 100 BC, at which point they appear to take over. Mediterranean coins spread from the Rhone valley to the north, although a second diffusion route through the Alps is also possible.

6The second section (p. 52-68) deals with coin use and introduces a new tool to quantify coin use (called “Coin Use Index”). This tool, applicable to stratified coin finds, takes three parameters into account: 1. the number of coin finds; 2. the duration in years of the context or phase under study; 3. the area excavated in hectares for the phase under study. The Index is calculated as follows: (number of coins/duration in years)/area in hectares. This tool, used throughout the book, does not pretend to give a precise measure of coin use; but it is useful for comparing data from various excavations and various periods, and it allows for estimations and working out tendencies and orders of magnitude. By using the Coin Use Index with spatial analysis of the coins found on settlements, it is possible to show that from La Tène D1a to La Tène D2a, coin use seems related to the wealth of the dwellers, although other indicators point to usage spread throughout the population. Coins are seldom used in funerary rituals, except on the territories of the Remi and Treveri. Ritual depositions are more common, although as hoards rather than deposits in sanctuaries. There is a distinct use of gold in Eastern Belgic Gaul, which can be interpreted as collective depositions controlled by the élites. These various hints indicate that, although it was probably controlled by the aristocracy (both in its production and its uses), coinage was an institution well-known to all strata of the indigenous population.

7The third section of chap. 1 tackles the problem of Rome and its influence on the region and its coinage (p. 68-91). The “zone du denier” is discussed at length. This expression designates a phenomenon that originated in the Centre-Est, where Gallic mints adopted a Roman standard for their silver coins (therefore called quinarii or denarii by numismatists). It is often assumed that this is an economic phenomenon, linked to the expansion of Roman trade – most notably the wine trade. Recent archaeological research proves this view wrong. Indeed, the first coins from the zone du denier, with legend KAΛETE∆OY SVLA, most likely date to c. 150 BC, whereas Roman wine trade in the Centre-Est is not attested before c. 130/120. Building on previous studies, it is argued here that the zone du denier began as a political phenomenon, as a result of the foedera contracted between Rome and several Gallic peoples: the Haedui in the mid-2^nd c. BC (attested in literary sources), but also possibly the Treveri and the Sequani in late-2^nd or early 1^st c. This is reflected in the careful imitation of the traditional Roman denarius type by the Gallic mints (the copying of the legends allowing us to trace it back to the original prototype), and, for the Treveri, by the relatively large amount of Roman coins coming from pre-Caesarean contexts (including a small hoard from Mainz dated in the 70s BC, as confirmed by a Correspondence Analysis performed by K. Lockyear). In a second phase, after the expansion of Roman trade, other mints adopted a Roman standard but not Roman iconography: this subsequent development of the zone du denier can be linked to economic reasons. However important Roman trade was, it does not appear to have modified indigenous social structures in depth.

8The chapter ends (p. 91-95) with a tentative model of coin circulation in Gaul during La Tène D1 and D2a, taking into account the division between élites and common people in Gaul, as well as the role of trade, ritual and diplomatic exchanges.

Chap. 2. A time for fighting. The Gallic Wars and La Tène D2b (60/50 to 30 BC) (p. 97-176)

9Chap. 2 opens with a section devoted to numismatic and archaeological finds linked to the Gallic Wars (p. 97-104). In the study area, Alésia is the only site that can be attributed without doubt to the Caesarean conquest. A new examination of the data shows that some coin types can be connected to the origin of Caesar’s legionary troops: Republican bronze asses and drachmae from the Po Valley for Italian troops, coins from Massalia and Southern France for soldiers from Transalpine Gaul. A Correspondence Analysis, again performed by K. Lockyear, shows that the denarii found in the ditches of the plaine de Grésigny (pseudo-camp D) constitute a hoard, similar in its composition to Italian denarii hoards from the 50s BC. These coins were, therefore, likely to have been brought to Gaul by Caesarean troops. The insights given by Alésia into the coin supply to Roman soldiers are valuable and are used in the following sections of the chapter.

10Chap. 2 then goes on to examine the composition of the coin pool during La Tène D2b (p. 105-120). Although there is a marked renewal in coin types, much of the characteristics are similar to the La Tène D1/D2a coin pool: the division between the silver-using Centre-Est and the gold-inclined Belgic Gaul, is clearly marked. In Belgic Gaul, potin coins are almost completely replaced by struck bronzes, whereas they still dominate in the Centre-Est. Attempts are made to explain this phenomenon and three non-mutually exclusive solutions are explored: the role of potin coins; the supply of tin; the color of the coins. Coin circulation is even more regionalised then before, even though “exotic” coins are more common on some sites: this has probably to do with the military sphere and is dealt with in a subsequent section. There are clearer signs of coin production in the hands of the civitates, although this is by no means the dominant situation.

11This continuity has much to do with the Roman administration of the new province of Gallia Comata (p. 120-143). Although Gaul was officially part of the Roman empire and had to pay a stipendium, the various civitates were still governed by the same indigenous aristocracy and there was no large-scale reorganisation. The local élites retained most of their prerogatives, such as leading military contingents and minting their own coins. However, it is very clear from the coin types that these aristocrats were fully integrated in their new Roman setting. Whereas before the Gallic Wars, Romanised coin types remained very general, mostly depicting the head of Rome on the obverse, from the 50s to the 30s the issuing authorities copied very precisely a large variety of Roman denarii. The prosopography of the Roman gentes responsible for the prototypes shows that more often than not, they already had a link with Gaul; moreover, indigenous coins sharing a common prototype tend to cluster in the same area. This is interpreted as a clear trace of patronage received by the Gallic aristocrats from their Roman counterparts, as known in literary sources. Coin iconography could also show alliances between indigenous élites, as some motifs or types appear on several coins.

12The importance of the army has already been highlighted. An entire section of this chapter is devoted to its impact on coin circulation (p. 143-163). During the decades under study, the military presence was diffuse on the territory and relatively light in comparison with the Gallic Wars and the subsequent Augustan period. Troops were often stationed at indigenous oppida, such as the Titelberg, as opposed to the large camps of the Imperial period. On these sites, legionaries and auxiliaries were most probably garrisoned together. The presence of Roman coins, and particularly Republican bronze asses, should clearly be linked to military occupation, as should the presence of colonial dupondii struck in Gaul (mostly in Lyon and Vienne). A large number of Roman silver coins is often indicative of Roman military presence as well, and, as a rule, Roman coins seem to circulate with the Roman army in this period. Some indigenous coin types can also be linked to soldiers, most notably “exotic” coins (i.e. indigenous but coming from a distant region), and Gallic quinarii which may have been used to pay local auxiliary contingents.

13The final section explores coin use (p. 163-171). Coin deposition in cemeteries remains low and is still observed on the territories of the Remi and Treveri only. In settlements, the Coin Use Index is often higher than during La Tène D1/D2a, which is consistent with increased production during this period. Depositions in sanctuaries become massive, particularly in Belgic Gaul. Although a change in rituals is probable, it is difficult to believe that this does not reflect a general increase in coin use and monetisation, especially since these depositions are made of small change. It is worth remembering that this upward trend in coin use coincides with a sharp decrease in the Roman wine trade, underlining how small a role international trade played in the spread of coinage and monetisation in Gaul – the origin of which must be sought, above all, in internal factors.

14As a conclusion to the chapter (p. 171-175), a model for the circulation of Roman coins only is proposed. Indigenous coinage has been left out because too many questions remain, in particular with regard to the issuing authorities (some of them public, some of them private). The purpose of the model is to show how important the role of Roman authorities was for the circulation of Roman coins during this period. Most locals would not have handled Roman coins, if only because they were not available in great numbers and were mostly circulating in the military sphere.

Chap. 3. A time of changes. The Augustan period (30 BC to AD 15/20) (p. 177-250)

15As in many other domains, the Augustan principate appears as a pivotal period when it comes to coin production and circulation. It is during these decades that indigenous coin production ceases and that for the first time Roman coins make up a significant part of the coin pool. A detailed analysis of the data sheds light on the various stages of the process (p. 179-207). From the 2^nd decade of the 1^st c. BC, base metal coins are mass-produced in Gaul, in the mints of Nîmes and Lyon. However, in Northern and Eastern Gaul, their circulation is mainly confined to the Rhineland. This results very clearly from the foundation of numerous military camps on the Rhine from the years 20/15 BC. It was only in the last years of Augustus’ principate that Roman coins appeared in some numbers in the civilian part of the study area (Eastern Belgic Gaul and Northern Gallia Lugdunensis). Local coin production stopped gradually before coming to a definitive halt around the change of era (with the possible exception of one or two coin types). At the same time, circulation of Celtic coinage remained dynamic down to the 2^nd decade of the 1^st c. AD, and does not appear to be residual. A Correspondance Analysis, run by the author, has shown a stronger continuity in the circulation of indigenous coins on sites occupied before the Augustan period: this has to do both with the use of an existing coin pool, and with the presence of users accustomed to manipulating such coins. These sites are also more common in the civilian part of the study area, reinforcing the divide between the Rhineland and the rest of Gaul.

16The administrative changes in the Augustan period had several effects on coin circulation (p. 208-230). In the previous chapter, it was argued that minting was rarely supervised by the civitates themselves, but rather by local aristocrats. Therefore, contrary to the Greek world, coinage never was a symbol of civic pride and independence, but rather a display of power by the élites (notwithstanding its economic role). With the Augustan municipalisation, i.e. the organisation of the various civitates along Roman lines, the aristocracy had to exert power in a different way and they appear to have lost interest in coinage. Attempts at a civic coinage were very rare and short-lived. At the same time, there is no sign that Rome tried to spread Roman coinage into the provinces. Although fiscal pressure was real, it does not seem to have played any significant role in the extension of coin use. The army was regularly provisioned with coins, both in precious and base metals, but coin-drift from the Rhineland towards Inner Gaul remained low. The very last years of Augustus’ principate, after the death of Varus with three legions at Teutoburg, may have marked a drastic change (p. 230-235). The impact of this defeat is well known from literary sources. Around the same time, Rome and Lyon started minting coins bearing Tiberius’ portrait on the observe. The Lyon issues were massive, and stratified finds show that they were distributed very quickly throughout the Gallic provinces, both civilian and military: although most were minted in AD 13/14, we already find them in archaeological contexts dated before 15/20. Finally, this was contemporary with a clear boom in town planning and building all over Gaul, including Gallia Narbonensis. A possible scenario is that following Varus’ death, Rome decided to reinforce its power in Gaul by issuing and distributing numerous coins bearing the portrait of Tiberius, heir to the empire, present in Gaul at the time, while encouraging the petrification of the civitates’ capitals. Although the minting had a political rather than an economic impetus, it had strong effects on coin circulation, as the coins from Lyon came to form the bulk of the coin pool for the coming decades and were instrumental in replacing Celtic small change.

17The final section of the chapter examines coin use in the Augustan period (p.  235-245). In spite of the end of local issues, there is no sign of coin shortage in the archaeological record. The Coin Use Index seems to indicate that in settlements, coin use was more widespread than before, as the link between well-being of the inhabitants and number of coins appears weaker than in the previous periods. Coin deposition in tombs remains rare but is attested outside the territory of the Treveri. In sanctuaries, deposition is still high but we observe new practices, with individual rather than collective deposits. Some sites from Inner Gaul show an unusually large number of Roman coins: given the composition of the coin pool during this period, a link with the military sphere is the best explanation available.

18As in the previous chapters, a model of coin circulation in the Augustan period is presented (p. 245-249). It insists on the limited circulation of Roman coinage outside of the Rhineland, in spite of the huge amounts of coins distributed. Several hints show that Rome was also cautious in its choice of coin iconography and took into account where the coins would be distributed. Furthermore, we should not think that the Roman administration was not interested in the economy of the civilian part of Gaul; rather, it concentrated its efforts on the more “risky” and sensitive regions, that is the Rhineland – whereas Inner Gaul, during most of the Augustan principate, remained calm and pacified.

Chap. 4. A time for integration. From Tiberius to Claudius (AD 15/20 to 50/55) (p. 251-328)

19It is during this period that the Gallic coin pool became entirely Roman (p. 252-271). The transition from indigenous to Roman coins was smooth, both in the domestic and the ritual sphere: the change in coin types and denominations did not trigger a change in practices. Deposition in cemeteries appears more common than before. But although it is sometimes linked to the military sphere, this is not the import of a “Roman” practice (Charon’s obol). On the contrary, it probably reflects the presence of soldiers coming from the Celticised Northern Italy, where the practice was well attested. From the chronological point of view, it is clear that by the end of Tiberius’ principate, Gallic coins had disappeared from the coin pool. Based on a handful of archaeological contexts, previous studies assumed that this phenomenon occurred only in the Flavian period; however, a detailed re-examination of the data shows the evidence is inconclusive.

20It is often assumed that the period under study experienced a chronic shortage of small change (p. 272-314). Again, the data assembled for this study does not support this view. Although not every scholar accepts them, there are very strong arguments for the existence of official imperial mints in the provinces, both for precious and base metals. At least one of them was situated in Gaul (probably Lyon). To what extent they supplied Inner Gaul as well as the Rhineland remains to be investigated. However, it is clear that small denominations circulated mainly in Inner Gaul, while multiples were concentrated in the military provinces: this probably reflects a differentiated supply rather than coin-drift. Furthermore, it seems that the lack of small change on the Rhineland was compensated, first by halving the coins, then by imitating them. Indeed, along the Rhine, there was a large episode of imitation in the Claudian period, characterised by a tight control of the coins’ weight, with a mean around 3.5g, i.e. a semis (1/2 as). Although these imitations were probably produced by civilians and display a rather indigenous style, they have to be interpreted in a Roman context rather than as “the last Celtic coinages.”

21The problem of coin shortage is then studied from another angle, looking at the causes of the AD 21 revolt, led by Florus and Sacrovir (p. 314-326). Following T. Frank and A. Grenier, it has often been interpreted as a debt crisis: having invested massively to anchor their power in a Roman way, the Gallic aristocrats would have been unable to pay their creditors back because of a lack of available cash. Although there certainly was a fiscal component to the revolt, recent archaeological research does not support this idea of an inopia rei nummariae (Tac., Ann., 6.17.1). Although the values for the Tibero-Claudian period are somehow lower than for the Augustan period, the Coin Use Index does not show a sudden nor a massive drop. On the contrary, a small epigraphical dossier from Châteauneuf (Savoie) points to a rather strong monetisation: it consists of an ensemble of graffiti from a temple, with a significant number of offerings mentioned in monetary terms (sestertii and denarii). Unfortunately, it is a rather unique and isolated piece of data.

22On the whole, a lot of questions remain unanswered for this period, as more archaeological and numismatic research is to be done; the identification of the Western imperial mints, of their productions and their role in the coin pool is badly needed. Nevertheless, it is clear that by the mid-1^st c. AD, coin circulation in Northern and Eastern Gaul was fully Roman and the economy was without doubt monetised (p. 326-328).

Chap. 5. From Celtic coins to Roman coinage. Thematic studies (p. 329-396)

23This last part picks up different threads running throughout the four previous chronological chapters (summarised p. 329-333), and singles out three main themes. Before this, however, it starts by tackling the problem of the earliest Gallic coinages, struck from the early 3^rd c. to the mid-2^nd c. BC (p. 333-353). These issues were intentionally left out of the previous chapters: although they have been catalogued recently, we lack precise archaeological contexts and their chronology remains blurry. Furthermore, past discussions have tended to focus heavily on numismatic aspects of this coinage, and few attempts have been made to understand their social significance and the reasons of their minting. Such has been the goal of a recent study by P. Pion. His suggestions are combined with world-systems analysis (as promoted by I. Wallerstein) to offer a tentative narrative of the adoption of coinage in Gaul. To understand this phenomenon, it is necessary to go back to the transition between the First Iron Age (Hallstatt period) and the Second Iron Age (La Tène period), c. 450 BC. The Hallstatt period saw the emergence of early towns known as “princely residences”; their economic power was in part due to their role as trade intermediaries between the Mediterranean and Northern Europe. As advocated by P. Brun, Hallstatt Europe was integrated in a world-system dominated by the Mediterranean cities (Greeks and Etruscans). For some reason, between 450 and 425 BC, this system disintegrated and the princely residences were abandoned. This led to a reshuffling of power relations in Celtic Europe, which appeared to have been very rapid because as soon as we reach c. 400 BC, what we term “Celtic invasions” began, i.e. a period of expansion of Celtic people, mainly towards the Mediterranean. The sack of Rome c. 390 BC is one of the best known episodes of this expansion. For the next century, the highly militarised Celts appeared as serious candidates in the competition for power in the Western Mediterranean, along with Rome and Carthage. The Celtic expansion came to a halt in the first quarter of the 3^rd c. BC with a series of defeats. This contradicted the highly militarised and mobile character of the existing Celtic society and threatened the power of its leaders. In Gaul, this triggered a new episode of settlement and led to a new organisation. This period, known as the La Tène B2/C1 transition, saw the appearance of enclosed settlements and large sanctuaries with massive weapon deposition, and the adoption of a gold coinage. Coinage enabled the circulation of value, both horizontally between aristocrats (as demonstrated by the existence of die-links between hoards, indicative of batches of coins circulating as such after they left the mint) and vertically between élites and their dependents (as shown by the presence of smaller denominations). Several elements point to the economic use of coinage from the beginning of the 3^rd c. BC. In this early period, aristocrats rather than tribes appear to have been responsible of the minting. A gap in the issuing of coins around the end of the 3^rd/beginning of the 2^nd c. BC could be interpreted as the end of a diplomatic cycle consecutive with this major change. Minting resumed some decades later, during La Tène C2, when large open settlements were founded, confirming the link between coinage and territorial organisation.

24From these premises, the chapter turns to the first of the three themes identified earlier: the link between coinage and the degree of political organisation (p. 353-362). To establish who was responsible for the issues, we can follow three main tracks: legends; traces of production; distribution-maps of particular series. As shown previously, civitates only appear in legends after the Gallic Wars, and more often to qualify a person’s name than to designate the civitas itself. Mints are virtually invisible archaeologically, but the few traces we have do not point to a highly centralised production, controlled by the civitas. Finally, more often than not, maps show that the investigated coin-distributions do not correspond to civitas boundaries. Given our data, it is therefore best to assume that the Gallic civitates were never the main issuing authorities. On the contrary, from the earliest issues onwards, aristocrats seem to have had control over most of the coinages. This result is important for our understanding of the genesis of civitates in Gaul. The situation described by Caesar and subsequent authors is a late development, not traceable before the 2^nd c. BC at the earliest. Although these civitates can be described, without doubt, as early States, and can be compared as such with the Roman civitas or the Greek polis, we should not assume that they had a similar organisation – in particular regarding coinage.

25The following section discusses the role played by Rome (p. 362-369). Before the Augustan reorganisation, we should not think of Rome as the main driving force behind the many changes in Northern and Eastern Gaul. Indeed, trade and diplomatic relations were real and important from the mid-2^nd c. BC. But in the Republican period, imperium over a territory did not yet imply direct control nor systematic intervention. In many ways, Inner Gaul was firmly in a Roman grip decades before Caesar; but there are no traces that this altered significantly the social and political organisation of the various Gallic tribes. The Augustan principate marks a real break from this situation: from this period onwards, the imperium Romanum came to be conceived as a coherent territorial entity. This was reflected in the development of a common imperial Roman culture (G. Woolf’s and A. Wallace-Hadrill’s “cultural revolution”). In terms of world-system analysis, this corresponds to the concept of geoculture, created by I. Wallerstein, “a term coined by analogy with geopolitics [referring] to norms and modes of discourse that are widely accepted as legitimate within the world-system. [...] a geoculture does not come into existence automatically with the onset of a world-system but rather has to be created.”² Romanisation could be defined as the creation of this geoculture in Augustan times: this conception is consistent with both the diversity of provincial cultures and the unity of Roman rule, expressed in material as well as juridical and political forms common to the whole empire.

26The final section of this chapter deals with the monetisation of Gaul in the period under study (p. 369-395). For a start, we propose to use a precise definition of monetisation, such as that suggested in 1977 by an IMF staff member: “Monetization [is] defined as the enlargement of the sphere of the monetary economy [...]. It involves the extension through time and space of the use of money in all its aspects – namely, as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value – to the non-monetized (subsistence and barter) sector. The monetization ratio [is] the proportion of the total of goods and services of an economy that is monetized, in the sense of being paid for in money by the purchaser [...].”³ The relation between “economic Romanisation” and monetisation is then explored. Most students of Roman economy have argued that the Roman conquest represented an important break with the previous situation, resulting in particular with the monetisation of indigenous economies, whose use of money and coinage was embedded in social practices. A similar position was taken up by some specialists of the Iron Age and provincial archaeologists, who made use of anthropological research on the disrupting effect of Occidental money in colonial situations. It is argued that both views overplay the difference between Roman and Celtic coin use; a series of examples is provided, showing how Romans and Gauls made similar use of coinage. The effects of the Roman conquest were felt in many ways but the data does not support the idea that it triggered a drastic change in the level of monetisation. Compiling the data of the Coin Use Index for the various periods studied in previous chapters, it appears that the mean and median values remained remarkably stable from the mid-2^nd c. BC to the mid-1^st c. AD, except for a rise during La Tène D2b that can be attributed to the Gallic Wars and its aftermath. What is new, however, was a higher level of coin use in the urban settlements most closely linked to Roman power, such as Roman colonies. There, monetisation was probably higher due to the concentration of Roman officials and the probable presence of non-Gallic settlers. The Roman rule does not otherwise appear to have brought serious changes in the use of coinage in Northern and Eastern Gaul.

General conclusion (p. 397-399)

27The cross-study of monetisation and Romanisation has proved fruitful. Although no definite link can be made between changes in coin use and Roman rule, there is no denying that the evolution of coinage from the 3^rd c. BC to the mid-1^st c. AD sheds some interesting light on the integration of Gaul in the Roman empire. In the 50s AD, the Gallic coin pool had never been so unified and so similar to what users could find in other provinces. This monetary unification is one of the best testimonies to the reality of the Roman rule and the level of integration it accomplished.