IMPERIAL
COINAGE OF EGYPT.
R.S. Poole Introduction
to the catalog of the British
Museum
I.
chronology
Dates
on coins.
The
imperial coins of Egypt, as a
rule, bear the year of the reign
of the Emperor in which they
were struck. The year is the
Alexandrian. * There
are difficulties as to the date
of the official introduction
of the Alexandrian year, which
have been treated by Lepsius
in his essay Ueber einige
Berührungspunkte der ägyptischen
griechischen und römischen
Chronologie. His conclusions
are as follows: *
1.
The Alexandrian Era was dated
B.C. 30.
2.
The epoch of the Alexandrian
Calendar was B.C. 26. In other
words, the New Calendar was dated
from that year, in which the
Egyptian Vague or civil year
first presented the characters
of the Alexandrian year.
3.
The introduction of the Calendar
does not date before B.C. 8,
and with the highest degree of
probability not before A.D. 5.* The
first of these dates, B.C. 8,
is that of the decree of Augustus
for the rectification of the
Calendar of Julius; the second,
A.D. 5, is that of the introduction
at Rome of the Calendar of Augustus.
Its
Characters.
The
Alexandrian year began 29, 30
Aug. of the ordinary Julian year
of the chronologers. The ordinary
day of commencement was 29 Aug.,
but in the year following its
leap-year, which fell A.D. 6,
and every fourth year after,
therefore in A.D. 7, 11, 15, &c.,
it began one day later, 30 Aug.*
Regnal
years.
The
reign of each Emperor is thus
dated on the coins:The
first year is the part, however
small, of the Alexandrian year,
in which the Emperor began to
reign over the Alexandrians.
The years following, exclusive
of the last, must be complete
Alexandrian years. The consequences
of those conditions, some of
which must be next discussed,
are easily to be inferred from
the datoes at the head of each
Emperor's coins in the Catalogue.
In order to find the first Alexandrian
year of an Emperor, it is necessary
to note whether he came to the
throne before or after the date
of the beginning, of the Alexandrian
year Aug. 29, 30 marking the
years when the commencement was
shifted to Aug. 30. Thus, Elagabalus
came to the throne A.D. 218,
June 8, and died 222, cir. Feb.
1, having reigned 3 years, 7
months 24 days? he has, therefore,
the following five Alexandrian
years:
1.
A.D. 218 June 8 - Aug 29
2. A.D. 219 Aug. 30 - Aug 28
3. A.D. 220 Aug. 29 - Aug 28
4. A.D. 221 Aug. 29 - Aug 28
5. A.D. 222 Aug. 29 - Feb 1?
In
the case of Augustus, his years
are complete Egyptian Vague years
until the introduction of the
Alexandrian years.
Symbol
L for year.
The
date, except on the earliest
dated coins of Augustus, is uniformly
preceded by the symbol L for year, but ΕΤΟΥC
occasionally takes its place.
The symbol is of uncertain origin.
It first appears on coins which
I have attributed to Ptolemy
IV., Philopator, struck in Cyprus, &c.
(Cat. Ptol. pp. 62, 63.) Under
Ptolemy VIII., Euergetes II.,
it became almost universal for
all dated coins, and, except
on some coins of Augustus, so
until the Reform of Diocletian.
Probably the symbol is a conventional
form of the Egyptian sign for
year in the demotic character.
Difficulties
in Imperial Dates.
Augustus.
The
coinage of the reign of Augustus
is the only group in the Alexandrian
series which is not dated throughout.
Being in bronze only, it forms
a continuation of the bronze
money of the Ptolemies, which
is generally undated, and always
so at the close of its period.
Dates
on coins.
The
letter Κ, which appears upon
an altar (p. 3, no. 19) and in
the field, where the type is
a prow (no. 23), can only be
the numeral 20*,
as on other coins we find LΚΗ upon
the altar (no. 20). These coins
with Κ are the only ones
in the series of Egypt under
the Emperors which do not bear
the symbol L before the numeral
of the date. The coins of the
year 28, just cited, thus begin
the regular dated series in bronze.
The issue was, however, evidently
irregular. The dates known are
39, 40, 41 of Augustus, 39, 40,
41, 42,* of
Livia with the years of Augustus.
The coins of Tiberius and of
Livia with the years of Tiberius
begin with 4, 6, no later being
known of Livia. There is, therefore,
a want of continuity between
Augustus and his successor, the
wanting years being 42, 43, 44
Aug. and 1, 2, 3 Tib. Dr. Friedländer
published a coin in the Berlin
Cabinet similar to those described
under pp. 2, 3, nos. 13 sqq.,
bearing the date 46, LΜς.
He infers, on this and other
evidence, that some chronological
starting-point is used anterior
to B.C. 30, and suggests the
date of the triumvirate B.C.
43.* It
seems a much simpler theory to
suppose that the coinage of Augustus
was at first considered as dating
from an Era, the Era of Alexandria,
and thus was continued after
his death until superseded by
that of Tiberius. According to
this view, there is but a slight
gap in the continuity
of years, whereas on Dr. Friedländer's
hypothesis there would be 23
years unrepresented after B.C.
43. It cannot be determined what
years are intended by these on
the coins of Augustus. It must,
however, be remembered that the
characters of the Egyptian Vague
year and of the Alexandrian year
were so similar at this time,
that the matter is not likely
to cause any difficulty.
The
regular billon series of Alexandria
begins with the coins of Tiberius
bearing on the reverse the head
of Augustus as deified. They
Continue the coinage of the Ptolemies.
Tiberius.
The
bronze coins of Tiberius with
his bare head, since they have
low dates, can only be of his
reign.
Galba.
Under
the Emperor Galba we find a different
style in the first and second
years, ΛΟΥΚ ΛΙΒ ΣΟΥΛΠ ΓΑΛΒΑ ΚΑΙΣ ΣΕΒ ΑΥΤ being
replaced by ΣΕΠΟΥΙ ΓΑΛΒΑ ΑΥΤΟ ΚΑΙΣ ΣΕΒΑ.
The accession of Galba cannot
have been known at Alexandria
until near the close of the Alexandrian
year:* the
coinage of his first year was
thus hastily issued with a style
which had to be changed afterwards.
Vespasian,
First Coinage.
The
coins with the inscription ΑΥΤ ΤΙΤ ΦΛΑΥΙ ΟΥΕΣΠΑΣΙΑΝ ΚΑΙΣ have
hitherto been classed to Titus.
This inscription occurs on the
obverse of tho billon coins of
year 1 with a head on either
side, and the reverse inscription ΦΛΑΥΙ ΟΥΕΣΠΑΣΙΑΝΟΣ ΚΑΙΣ (Pl.
xxxii. 221). The billon coins
of year 2 differ only from those
of year 1 in having the regular
obverse inscription of Vespasian, ΑΥΤΟΚ ΚΑΙΣ ΣΕΒΑ ΟΥΕΣΠΑΝΟΥ of
year 2 the addition of the praenomen Τ (Titus, id.
223). It is thus evident
that the inscription ΑΥΤ ΤΙΤ ΦΛΑΥΙ ΟΥΕΣΡΑΣΙΑΝ ΚΑΙΣ applies
to the same person as the inscription ΑΥΤΟΚ ΚΑΙΣ ΣΕΒΑ ΟΥΕΣΠΑΣΙΑΝΟΥ,
in other words that both are
of Vespasian (cf. for portraits, id.
222, 225). If we compare
the other billon coins of the
same dates, with a head on the
obverse only, and the bronze
coins of the same group, we find
the same two inscriptions and
once in the case of the bronze
both inscriptions on two coins
of year 1 (nos. 216, 247). It
may be remarked that the second
of these two coins (no. 247)
would, if we limited the ΑΥΤΟΚ inscription &c.
to the coins of Vespasian, be
the only coin of that Emperor's
first year in the British Museum.
The
evidence of the heads on the
obverses of the coins in billon
and bronze of years 1 and 2 is
the same as that of the inscriptions,
and points to the same solution
of the difficulty. The characteristic
portrait of year 1 is similar
to that of Vitellius, the immediate
predecessor of Vespasian, and
the characteristic portrait of
year 2 is the typical head of
Vespasian. It is, however, remarkable
that only one coin of year 1,
and that the exceptional bronze
with the regular inscription
of Vespasian, has his typical
head.
Though
the reverse of the billon coins
with the two heads bears the
inscription ΦΛΑΥΙ ΟΥΕΣΠΑΣΙΑΝΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΦΛΑΥΙ ΟΥΕΣΠΑΣΙΑΝΟΣ ΚΑΙΣ in
year 1, and in year 2 first the
same inscription and then Τ ΦΛΑΥΙ ΟΥΕΣΠΑΣΙΑΝΟΣ ΚΑΙΣ,
practically identical save for
the omission of ΑΥΤ with
the obverse inscription of year
1 in the same class, yet the
head is always the same on the
reverse, and it is a thoroughly
characteristic portrait of Titus,
which it is hard to see how any
one could have doubted to be
his.
How
is this to be explained? It has
been already noticed that the
style of Galba changes in his
second year. In the case of Vespasian
the same evidently occurred.
His proclamation at Alexandria
took place July 1, A.D. 69, and
he was not accepted by the senate
until after the death of Vitellius,
about Dec. 21 in the same year
(Fasti Rom. i. pp. 54,
56). Consequently he was not
Emperor de jure in his
first year at Alexandria. Hence
the first style without the title
Augustus. This style, as is proved
by the solitary bronze coin of
year 1 with his regular inscription,
was speedily changed for the
second style with Augustus, though
there may have been some hesitation
in the general introduction.
Titus was at first distinguished
from his father as Flavius Vespasianus
Caesar. After his father's change
of style, but not immediately,
he assumed his praenomen on the
coins, and then his inscription
is the same as his father's first
one omitting ΑΥΤ.
It may be added that on coins
of years 8 and 9 of Vespasian,
with two heads, Titus has the
style ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΩΡ ΤΙΤΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ in
the genitive on bronze of year
9. Titus first received the title
Imperator on Roman coins of the
third consulate of Vespasian,
A.D. 71, that Emperor's year
3-4 at Alexandria.*
The
historical result of the inquiry
is this, that Vespasian and Titus
were first proclaimed at Alexandria,
the one as Emperor but not Augustus,
the other as Caesar, with styles
which they did not continue to
bear. It must not be forgotten
that there is no fact new to
history in these styles; each
was Titus Flavius Vespasianus.
There is therefore no difficulty
beyond the want of precedent
in Vespasian being called Imperator
Titus Flavius Vespasianus, and
Titus being called Flavius Vespasianus
Caesar or Titus Flavius Vespasianus
Caesar. We have however to find,
if possible, a reason for the
change to the ordinary style
in the case of Vespasian. The
conditions of his accession were
exceptional. Vespasian was first
proclaimed by Tiberius Alexander,
the Praefect of Egypt, before
he was set up by the troops in
Palestine. Consequently the coins
were probably struck by the Praefect
at first without authority. Certainly
the engravers of most of the
earlier dies had no authentic
portrait of Vespasian. The arrival
of Vespasian at Alexandria, where
he heard of the death of Vitellius,
which happened about Dec. 21,
A.D. 69 (Fasti Rom. pp.
54, 56), was probably after the
beginning of his second Egyptian
year, 30 Aug. in this year.* This
coming to Alexandria would account
for the change of style, were
it not that the coins show from
one instance that it had already
taken effect in year 1. If any
further argument is needed to
account for the anomaly which
has been discussed, the parallel
case of the two styles of Galba
may be cited.
Dates
Of Faustina Marci
The
next chronological difficulty
is presented by the coins of
the younger Faustina. Like Marcus
Aurelius, the dates on her coins
are first of the reign of Antoninus,
and then of that of Marcus Aurelius,
who struck first as Caesar and
then as Emperor. It will be seen
from the chronology of Faustina
that there are some years in
both reigns which are common,
and which can only be discriminated
by considerations apart from
the numerals. The chronology
is as follows:
Faustina
Pii dies, and Faustina, her daughter,
survives as heiress of Antoninus
Pius, after the beginning of
the Alex. year, Ant. 5* A.D.
141
M. Aurelius marries Faustina, Alex.
year, Ant. 10-11 A.D.
147
Faustina Marci dies Alex. year,
Marci, 16*A.D.
175
Consequenently
we may have Alexandrian coins
of Faustina, under Antoninus
5-24 and Aurelius 1-16, the doubtful
dates which could be of either
reign being 5-16.
The
evidence of the coins is now
to be stated.
There
are two inscriptions and two
portraits on the coins of Faustina
Marci. The ordinary inscription ΦΑΥCΤΙΝΑ CΕΒΑCΤΗ,
and the exceptional ΦΑΥCΤΙΝΑ CΕΒ CΕΒ ΕΥCΕΒ ΘΥΓ or ΦΑΥCΤΙΝΑ CΕΒ ΘΥΓ CΕΒ ΕΥCΕΒ are
found with dates which might
be of Antoninus or of Aurelius.
The second style is however,
so far as I know, not found with
dates which cannot be of Antoninus,
the father of Faustina. The portraits
are of two distinct types, a
young bust, the hair plaited
and falling in curls over the
forehead, and a mature bust with
wavy hair. The mature portrait
is found with some dates which
can only be of Aurelius, and
always with the inscription ΦΑΥCΤΙΝΑ CΕΒΑCΤΗ.
The coins with the young portrait
would therefore naturally fall
to the reign of the Ernpress's
father, which would account for
the use on them of the style
with "daughter." It
may, however, be asked why this
style should be used together
with the less appropriate ΦΑΥCΤΙΝΑ CΕΒΑCΤΗ.
It will be seen on examining
the coins that those in billon
almost invariably bear the shorter
inscription which is always used
on the smaller bronze, whereas
the bronze of the largest size
has almost invariably the longer
inscription. The natural inference
is that the size of the coin
Dictated either a full or an
abbreviated inscription, the
abbreviated inscription becoming
on Faustina's accession her full
style.
Chronology
of Commodus
The
chronology of the reign of Commodus
is important in reference to
his coins. The dates are the
following:
Commodus,
named Caesar, 12 Oct. 166* Alex.
year, Aur. 7
Commodus named Assoc. Aug. 177* Alex.
year, Aur. 17
Commodus Sole Emp.17
Mar. 180* Alex.
year, Aur. 20
Commodus dies 31
Dec. 192* Alex.
year, Aur. 33
Dates
on coins.
Upon
the Alexandrian coins Commodus
uses the years of his father
Aurelius. As Caesar and as associate
in the empire, he would naturally
do so, and it would be convenient
to continue the reckoning after
he had become sole Emperor, instead
of beginning a new reckoning,
either from his association,
or which would have been illogical,
from his accession as sole Emperor.
I do not believe in the occurrence
of dates of his own reign, whatever
that was, on these coins. It
is easy to read Α for Λ and
to read units of lost tens as
substantive dates, and the desire
to make a new series is always
an incentive for unusual readings.
Dates
of Caracalla.
The
reign of Antoninus II. "Caracalla " was
in its chronology similar to
that of Commodus. He was first
Caesar, then Augustus associated
with his father and afterwards
with Geta also, then with Geta
only and ultimately sole Emperor.
Naturally he uses the years of
his father's reign.
Geta,
Julia Domna.
Julia
Domna and Geta follow the same
reckoning. A principle is thus
established. The coin of Geta,
no. 1481, with obverse ΑΥΤ ΚΡΟΥ CΕΠ ΓΕΤΑC Κ CΕΒ?
reverse, ΝΕΙΚΗ ΚΑΙ ΒΡΕΤΑΝ (ΝΕΙΚΗ ΚΑΙCΑΡΟC ΒΡΕΤΑΝΝΙΚΟΥ)
is not of dies of two different
periods, but both belong to the
time when Geta was Augustus,
yet the formula of the obverse
inscription may have led the
engraver to adopt the formula
of the reverse. Geta was appointed
Augustus A.D. 209. The coin is
dated year 19 (reckoning of Severus)=
A.D. 211, 212.
Dates
of Wives of Elagabalus
Dr.
von Sallet has shown that the
coins confirm the statement of
Dion that Elagabalus divorced
Paula and married Severa, that
he then divorced her and married
three others, but again took
Severa back.* The
coins of the Roman series mention
three wives of Elagabalus, Julia
Paula, Aquilia Severa, and Annia
Faustina. These are found in
the Alexandrian series, Paula
with years 2, 3, and 4, Severa
with 4 and 6, and Faustina with
the same years. Dr. von Sallet
has remarked on the agreement
of the dates with Dion's statement.
It is evident that Elagabalus
divorced Paula in his 4th Alexandrian
year, married Severa and divorced
her in the same year, and still
in the same year married Faustina
whom he divorced in the 5th year
and took back Severa.*
Dates
of Severus Alexander
Severus
Alexander as Caesar uses the
year of Elagabalus, as Augustus
he dates from his first year
in that dignity. He was not a
colleague-Emperor before his
sole reign.
Coins
with palm.
A
very interesting class of coins
has its origin in the 10th year
of Severus Alexander, those with
the palm in the field of the
reverse. The palm referred to
is not always a simple palm-branch,* but
sometimes is adorned with a fillet.
It is a symbol of victory in
war or in the games. Originally
Nike was the goddess of peaceful
success and, consequently, her
appearance on coins marks victory
in the great Games. In course
of time Nike was diverted to
war and denotes on coins what
is now called Victory. This is
in later Greek times and throughout
fhe Roman rule. In both capacities
Nike bears the wreath and palm.
The province of the wreath and
palm is similarly divided. There
is, however, this important difference:
whereas Nike was altogether diverted
from her original function, her
wreath and palm were associated
by the Romans with success in
the games as well as with victory
in war. In consequence of the
wide diffusion of imitations
of the great Games throughout
the Greek world, as well as of
new and local games proper to
various cities, the wreath and
the palm are frequently found
as coin types.
Both
wreath and palm have sometimes
a chronological reference. The
Greeks and Romans marked time
by the recurrence of the games.
Consequently agonistic symbols
could be used to note any periods
commemorated by games. At first
the games noted time, in the
sequel eras were signalized by
games, while the old method still
went on. Thus the Olympic Gamcs
afforded a reckoning of time,
and before their disuse in this
function, the Emperors commemoratod
their decennalia by games.
The
Decennalia of Commodus.
The
first decennalia which are commemorated
on the Alexandrian coins are
those of Commodus, in whose 10th
year as emperor we find the following
billon coin reverse,
Within laurel-wreath,
ΠΕΡΙ
ΟΔΔΕ
ΚΑΕΤ in
ex., L ΚΖ (Pl.
xxxi., 1442 ) The
year at Rome was the 10th,
but the Alexandrian year then
began seven months earlier
than the Roman regnal year.* We
may regard this difference
as accidental. The decennalia
were no doubt kept at Alexandria
at the time fixed for the Roman
commemoration. Decennalia
of Severus Alexander. The
decennalia of Severus Alexander
are more markedly recorded
on his Alexandrian coinage.
On the billon coins of his
10th year in his own series
and that of Julia Mamaea the
following reverse occurs:
Within laurel-wreath,
ΠΕΡΙ
ΟΔΟC
ΔΕΚΑ
Τ Η
in
ex., palm. Sev. Alex. (Pl.
xxxi., 1703) Mamaea (cf.
1762). On all coins of
year 10 of this reign the
palm occurs, and still more
remarkably on all coins of
later years, with the heads
of Severus or of Mamaea.
Besides the commemorations
just noticed the decennalia
also gave rise to the reissue
of bronze coins of the largest
size of Severus and also
of Mamaea, all dated year
10, and having the palm on
the reverse as a symbol. Eckhel
has noticed that on the Alexandrian
coins the palm, with one
exception, refers to the
decennalia, the exception
being on the coins of Domitianus
II.* No
doubt he was unaware of the
recurrence of the symbol
on the large bronze coins
of Philip I, Otacilia Severa,
and Philip II in the 6th
year. Ludi
Saeculares of Phillip I. This
issue of large bronze coins
by Philip was ordered to
commemorate the Ludi Saeculares
which marked the thousandth
year of the building of the
City. The Museum has a single
coin of this class of Philip
I., year 5, which is without
the palm (no. 2001.) * The
Saecular Games were celebrated
by Philip I at Rome in the
year A.D. 248, in which his
5th Roman regnal year began
from March.* The
time of the Games was about
July at Rome;* Philip's
5th Alexandrian year was
then about to end. Probably
the Games were kept at Alexandria
at the beginning of the 6th
year.* The
case is not parallel to that
of the decennalia of Commodus
which have been supposed
above to have been kept at
the same time at Rome and
at Alexandria: the Saecular
Games were far more important,
would require a longer preparation,
and from their chronological
importance would preferably
have been kept at the beginning
of the Egyptian year. The
palm occurs on no coins but
the bronze of the 6th year. Chronology
of Decius. It
is necessary here to leave
the decennalia, to observe
that Trajanus Decius reckoned
his reign from two commencements,
in A.D. 248, on his proclamation
by the troops, and most usually
in A.D. 249, autumn, when
he defeated the Philips.* Clearly
the reckoning from A.D. 249
is the Alexandrian, as no
coins are known of any years
but 1, 2 of Decius and his
family. Decius was slain
early in his third Alexandrian
year. Chronology
Of Hostilianus. Hostilian,
younger son of Decius, was
Caesar with Herennius in
A.D. 250.* Probably
he was appointed Caesar with
his brother as Herennius
was at once sent to Illyricum. Interregnum
after Aurelian. It
is known that the death of
Aurelian was followed by
an interregnum of six months.
During this time the coins
of Aurelian and of Severina
dated in the seventh year
must have been struck. There
are no coins without imperial
heads that can be assigned
to this period. Deccenalia
of Gallienus. To
return to tbe decennalia,
the first Emperor after Severus
Alexander who reached the
10th year of his reign was
Gallienus. His decennalia
are commemorated on the reverse
of the billon coinage:
Within laurel-wreath,
ΔΕΚΑ
ΕΤΗΡΙ
CΚ Υ
ΡΙΟΥ
in
ex. LI (Pl.
xxxi., 2240.) The palm
is general but not constant
on the coins of Gallienus
and of Salonina from year
10 onwards. If we admit into
the class with the palm those
types in which the symbol
is part of the type, the
exceptions are greatly reduced. Deccenalia
of Diocletian. Diocletian
was the next Emperor who
reached his 10th year. Accordingly,
we find on his billon or
only coinage of that year
the following reverse:
Within laurel-wreath, ΠΕΡΙ
ΔΕΚΑ Beneath,
palm. [Kennard Coll.] The
palm appears even more irregularly
on the coins of the 10th
and following years than
in the case of Gallienus. It
is to be noted that there
are no Alexandrian coins
of Maximian I as Caesar,
A.D, 285, nor does he, as
Augustus, date from that
year. There
is no clear case of reference
to decennalia under Maximian
I. The palm occurs on a coin
of year 11. [Kennard Coll.]
The coin of the 9th year
with the date in a laurel-wreath,
(no 2601) might be supposed
to be commemorative of the
decennalia of the colleague
of this Emperor, Diocletian,
inasmuch as this year was
coincident with the 10th
of that colleague, but the
same reverse is found on
a coin of the same date of
Diocletian, year 9 (no. 2841.) The
occurrence of the palm on
coins attributed in this
Catalogue to Domitius Domitianus,
is unexplained. There
is a solitary case of a possible
commemoration of Quinquennalia
in the coins of Aurelian,
having as reverse-type a
laurel wreath and within
either ΕΤΟΥC Ε or
LΕ. (nos. 2372, 2873.)
The case of the 9th year
of Diocletian, just cited,
forbids us to draw any inference. Dates
of Constantius and Gal.
Maximian Caesars. The
last Caesars who appear in
the coinage, Constantius
and Gal. Maximianus, use
their own dates. This must
have been due to the inconsistency
of the dates of Diocletian
and Maximian. The palm occurs
on a coin of year 4 of Constantius.
(no. 2608.) Difficulties
of Attribution. M.I.
Aemilianus. There
are two Emperors in the series
of Alexandria who bear the
name of Aemilian, the legitimate
Emperor, whose name was M.
Aemilius Aemilianus,* and
another Emperor, called on
his coin M. I[ulius] Aemilianus.
(Pl.
xxxii. 2806.) The coins
of Aemilius are all of year
2, the only one of I[ulius]
is of year 1. The legitimate
Emperor Aemilian was proclaimed
about May A.D. 258, in Moesia;
after the death of the Galli
he was acknowledged by the
Senate, and reigned thereafter
about three months till about
May 254.* There
are many coins of the Glali
of their 3rd year at Alexandria,
which began Aug. 258. Therefore
they must have reigned over
Egypt some time in this year.
As it was the second year
of Aemilian, we cannot expect
to find any coins of his
first year. It is therefore
right to discriminate the
other Aemilian who struck
in his first year. He could
well be the Aemilianus who,
as præfect of Egypt,
revolted against Gallienus
in the year A.D. 262 or 263,
and ruled with much vigour
until he was taken captive
by an officer of Gallienus.* As
there is no gap of a year
in the Alexandrian coinage
of Gallienus, we may suppose
that however long Aemilian
may have ruled de facto,
he did not claim to rule de
joure more than part
of one or two Egyptian years. L.
Domitius Domitianus Achilleus,
or, as his fullest style
on coins informs us, the
Emperor Lucius Domitius Domitianus,
commonly styling himself
Domitianus, rendered himself
independent ruler of Egypt
in the reign of Diocletian
and Maximian I. He was taken
prisoner and slain by Diocletian
on the capture of Alexandria,
after a siege of about eight
months, in A.D. 297. The
length of the independence
of Achilleus or Domitianus
can be shown by the dates
of the coins of Diocletian
and his colleagues. The coins
of Diocletian bear the dates
years 1-12, those of Maximian
I, years 1-11, those of the
two Caesars, Constantius
I and Maximian II, years
1-4, no date being wanting
in the four sequences. The
12th year of Diocletian and
the 11th of Maximian I began
in Egypt 30th Aug., 295.
The 4th year of the two Caesars
began 29th Aug., 294.* Thus
the coinage of the Caesars
ceased in the year before
that of the Augusti ended.
Farther, the coins of A.D.
295 struck by the Augusti
are scanty. Consequently,
it is evident that the capital
was lost to the empire early
in the Egyptian year, which
began in 295, thus in the
late autumn of 295. Alexandria
was taken by Diocletian after
about eight months' siege
in A.D. 297.* Diocletian
arrived in Egypt in A.D.
296.* It
is unlikely that any city
besides Alexandria offered
a prolonged resistance. Consequently,
the war had almost certainly
ended before the Egyptian
year began in A.D. 297. The
coinage of Domitianus aids
the inquiry. It is of two
groups: 1. The Alexandrian,
in billon of three sizes.
(i.) Double the usual coin,
a most remarkable variety.
(ii.) the usual coin, large.
(iii.) the usual coin of
the peried. 2. The follis
of the new coinage introduced
in the Monetary Reform. All
the Coins of the Alexandrian
class bear the date year
2. Obviously,
the 2nd year of Domitianus
must have been that which
began A.D. 296: his money
of the reformed coinage must
have been issued subsequently
to that of the old coinage
dated in the 2nd year, and
therefore in A.D. 296-7. A
very important consequence
of these facts is the fixing
of the Monetary Reform to
A.D. 296. It cannot be supposed
to have taken place in A.D.
295, as the old coinage was
struck by the Augusti in
Egypt after 30 Aug., 295,
and the new must have been
current in the empire generally
before Domitianus would have
struck it; and he must have
done so before the siege
of Alexandria, which evidently
occupied the earlier part
of A.D. 297, as the issue
of a new coinage, not money
of necessity, is unlikely
to have occurred during a
siege. The year A.D. 296
therefore only remains as
that of the Reform.* |