THE
SHOPS OF THE ROMAN MINT OF ALEXANDRIA
By
J.G. MILNE
During the fourth century A.D. the coins issued from the different
mints of the Roman empire commonly bore, in addition to the
name of the city where the mint was situated, a letter or
number indicating the particular shop of the mint in which
each coin was struck. In a recent article* I
made a study of the tetradrachms issued at Alexandria during
the first twelve years of the reign of Diocletian—i.e.
till the date when the Egyptian currency was assimilated
to that of the rest of the empire—to see what evidence
could be found as to the existence of marks distinguishing
the shops in this series: and I propose now to pass the whole
of the Roman tetradrachm issues of Alexandria in brief review
for the same purpose.
The
bronze coinage will not be taken into account, as it
practically ceased about a century earlier than the
billon tetradrachms, and was always more irregular
in its distribution: and, as the present investigation
must depend to some extent on comparison of different
periods, the best evidence will clearly be derivable
from the fullest and most continuous series.
In
the first place, the conclusions of the article already
cited may be recapitulated. During three years of the
period considered numerals were placed in the exergue
of the reverse, to denote the shops, in the same manner
as was done on the bronze coinage of the following
century : and there appeared reason to suppose that,
before the introduction of the numerals, a star in
the field of the reverse was used as a shop-mark. The
probable organisation of the mint, after the association
of Maximian in the government during the
second year of Diocletian, was :—
Years
2 (part)—6. Four shops, two striking for Diocletian,
two for Maximian : one of each pair using the star
as its mark.
Years
7—8 (part). Two shops, one of Diocletian, one
of Maximian : the latter using the star.
Years
8 (part)—10 (part). Four shops, using numeral
letters : two (Α and Β) of Diocletian, two
(Γ and Δ) of Maximian.
Years
10 (part)—11. Two shops (?).
Year
12. One shop (?).
In
the first year of Diocletian, and in the second till
the association of Maximian, no shop-marks are ascertainable.
It
further appeared that the number of shops varied frequently
and that the evidence did not show that this variation
bore any relation to the total output of the mint :
also that the outputs of the different shops were not
necessarily equal, but at times one shop was much more
active than another.
It
might be thought that a simple way of distinguishing
the issues of different shops, at a mint where several
reverse-types were often in concurrent use, would have
been to appropriate special reverse types to each shop.
But this was clearly not the case in the years when
the shops were marked by numerals : shops Α and Δ of
Diocletian have the same reverse-types as a rule, and
so have shops Β and Γ of Maximian : and,
though there is more difference between the reverses
of the two emperors, some types are common to all four
shops. At other periods a classification of the coinage
between shops by reverse-types may be negatived by
the evidence of the use of different reverse-types
with the same obverse-die : for instance, in year 4
of Valerian, when six reverse-types in all were employed
Helios, Homonoia, Nike, Tyche, Sarapis, and eagle —I
have noted examples of an obverse-die being associated
with different reverses in the following pairs— Homonoia
and Nike; Homonoia and Tyche; Homonoia and eagle; Tyche
and eagle; Sarapis and eagle : so that it would be
out of the question to suppose that in this year particular
reverse-types were appropriated to particular shops.
And the constant tendency of the Alexandrian mint was
to use fewer distinct reverse-types when the total
output was larger : thus, in the busiest year the mint
ever had year 12 of Nero only two reverse-types were
used, while in many years of which the coins are comparatively
rare from ten to twenty different reverse-types can
be found : so that on general grounds it does not seem
that the types of the reverses will give much guidance
in discriminating between shop issues.
We
may now proceed to consider the tetradrachms of each
reign and see whether any points of distinction can
be found for separating coins of a particular year
into two or more series.*
The
tetradrachms of Tiberius are constant in their legend
and in their types the head of Tiberius on the obverse
and that of the deified Augustus on the reverse. The
earliest issue, of year 7, has both heads to r. : but
afterwards the heads of obverse and reverse are in
different directions, and, after year 11, in each year
when tetradrachms were struck—years 14 and 18
to 23 inclusive—except in year 23, examples occur
with the head of Tiberius r. and that of Augustus l.
and vice versa : so there were two clearly marked parallel
series. In year 21 a lituus is found in the field of
the reverse of some coins
of both series : this seems a casual introduction,
but is of some importance in relation to the issues
of Claudius.
There
are no Alexandrian tetradrachms of Caligula : under
Claudius these coins were struck, in considerable quantity,
in years 2 to 6 inclusive. The regular reverse type
is Messalina with her children: in year 2 the bust
of Antonia is also found. There are two possible clues
for division of the issues. The coins with the Messalina-type
fall into two classes, according as they have or have
not a lituus in the field of the reverse : the class
without the lituus is much the commoner in each year.
Further, the legend on the obverse ends alternatively —ΑΥΤΟΚ or —ΑΥΤΟΚΡ :
this variation is not due to bad spacing on the part
of the engravers, as the shorter legend occurs in cases
where there is plenty of room for another letter. But
the variations of these two distinguishing marks are
not consistent : in years 2, 3, and 4, the coins without
the lituus on the reverse regularly have the longer
obverse legend, which is also that of the coins with
the Antonia reverse-type, which never had the lituus
: but in year 5 the shorter legend is the only one
found, both with and without the lituus on the reverse
: and in year 6, though both forms of legend are used,
they occur indifferently with and without the lituus.
On a few coins of year 4 the lituus is placed, not
on the reverse, but on the obverse, behind the head
of the emperor : these have the legend —ΑΥΤΟΚΡ.
On the whole, the lituus seems to be the more consistently
used of the two distinctions, and is more likely to
be a shop-mark: though the practice of the first three
years might be held to show that the variation of the
legend was an equally important test, and in that case
in year 5, when the issue was greatly reduced, the
shops were combined and used the same form of legend,
while in year 6, when the output increased again, the
old combination was not renewed. Statistics from three
large hoards (the numbers for which are given separately)
will show the comparative size of the two series.
| |
Rev.
without lituus
|
Rev.
with lituus
|
Lituus
on obv.
|
| Year
2 |
49
: 24 : 11
|
8
: 1 : 6
|
|
| Year
3 |
81
: 34 : 18
|
10
: 12 : 3
|
|
| Year
4 |
41
: 24 : 8
|
6
: 3 : 1
|
11
: 9 : 2
|
| Year
5 |
15
: 7 : 1
|
6
: 2 : 4
|
|
| Year
6 |
21
: 71 : 15
|
12
: 1 : 4
|
|
A
variation in the treatment of the emperor's head on
some specimens should also be noted, in view of a similar
phenomenon in a later reign. Occasionally one end of
the ties of the wreath, instead of hanging straight
down, which is the normal position in the Alexandrian
portrait of Claudius, is brought forward across the
neck. This is, however, very rare, and as the examples
which I have noted, belonging to years 3 and 4, appear
to be from dies executed by the same hand, I am inclined
to think that it is merely an idiosyncrasy of the artist.
The
first period of the tetradrachm issues of Nero runs
from year 3 to year 6 : and the same set of reverse-types
is used in each year. The only noteworthy change is
in the legend of the obverse : in year 3 it runs ΝΕΡΚΛΑΥΚΑΙΣ ΣΕΒΓΕΡΑΥΤΟ :
the same form is found in year 4, and also ΝΕΡΚΛΑΥΚΑΙΣ ΣΕΒΑΓΕΡΑΥΤΟ :
this is continued in year 5, and another, ΝΕΡΩΝΚΛΑΥΚΑΙΣ ΣΕΒΑΓΕΡΑΥΤΟ also
appears : the last only is used in year 6. These changes
seem to be successive rather than concurrent, and are
therefore hardly likely to be shop-marks. After a brief
interval, the mint resumed issues in year 9, apparently
under new direction, as not only the types, but the
whole style and execution of the coins are altered.
The output was very small, and specimens are rare :
but it is noteworthy that a star occurs on the reverse
in some cases, while others have similar reverse-types
without the star. It would, however, hardly be safe
to draw conclusions as to the meaning of this symbol
from the scanty evidence available for this year. During
the next three years, on the other hand, there are
abundant coins, but no clear series. Year 10 has three
obverse types, each used with a distinct reverse-type,
viz. :
(A)
|
ΝΕΡΩΚΛΑΥΚΑΙΣΣΕΒΓΕΡ
|
Head
r. laur. (Rev.,
bust of Nilus.) |
(B)
|
Do.
|
Head
r. rad. (Rev.,
bust of Sarapis.) |
(C)
|
ΝΕΡΩΚΛΑΥΚΑΙΣΣΕΒΓΕΡΑΥ
|
Head
r. rad. (Rev., bust of Poppaea.) |
[The
explanation of the difference in legend between (B)
and (C) is doubtless that the reverse-type used with
(B), like that with (A), has the legend ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑ.]
In
year 11 (B) and (C) recur, with the same reverse-types,
and a fresh obverse and reverse are found.
(D)
|
ΝΕΡΩΚΛΑΥΚΑΙΣΣΕΒΓΕΡ
|
Bust
r. rad. wearing aegis. (Rev., eagle l., palm across.) |
the
reverse-type sometimes having a simpulum in the field.
Year 12 shows only (D), with the eagle-type, always
accompanied by the simpulum, and a new type, the bust
of Alexandria. (D) continues into year 13, when it
is used with fresh reverses—busts of Apollo and
of Roma : and in the same year a new series begins;
but before this is discussed some statistics of the
numbers of examples belonging to the years 9 to 13
and falling under the foregoing types may be considered.
They are drawn from the same three hoards as those
cited for Claudius.
| Year
9 |
with
star
|
|
8
: — : 1
|
| |
w/o
star
|
|
— : — : —
|
| Year
10 |
(A)
|
|
7
: 1 : —
|
| |
(B)
|
|
167
: 71 : 9
|
| |
(C)
|
|
145
: 64 : 92
|
| Year
11 |
(B)
|
|
77
: 49 : 68
|
| |
(C)
|
|
101
: 50 : 49
|
| |
(D)
|
without
simpulum |
309
: 208 : 110
|
| |
(D)
|
with
simpulum |
78
: 32 : 18
|
| Year
12 |
(D)
|
Alexandria
(without simpulum) |
582
: 425 : 293
|
| |
(D)
|
Eagle
(with simpulum) |
30
: 19 : 6
|
| Year
13 |
(D)
|
without
simpulum |
64
: 49 : 42
|
There
is such wide variation in the number of coins of each
type in any one year that it seems to be adverse to
the conclusion that might be drawn from the number
of types considered alone—that in year 10 there
were three shops, using types (A), (B) and (C) respectively
: in year 11 the place of (A) was taken by (D), and
this type was shared by two shops, one of which had
the simpulum as its distinctive mark : in year 12 the
'simpulum' shop continued, but only one other group
was struck, the three other shops possibly combining
to produce the enormous output of the Alexandria reverse-type
: while in year 13 one shop may have still used (D)
and others the new obverse-type. This is
(E)
|
ΝΕΡΩΚΛΑΥΚΑΙΣΣΕΒΓΕΡΑΥ
|
Bust
l. rad. wearing aegis |
which
is the main obverse type of year 13 and the only one
of year 14 and in both years is associated with a set
of reverse-types derived from the Greek oecumenical
games— Zeus Olympios, Zeus Nemeios, Poseidon
Isthmios, Hera Argeia, Apollo Aktios, and Apollo Pythios:
also, in year 13, the heads of Augustus and Tiberius
and the imperial galley occur. The issues of year 13
of this series show no differentiating marks : but
in year 14 all types are found with and without a star
on the reverse, and this star may well be a shop-mark.
The specimens of this series in the three hoards used
above are:
| Year
13 |
|
423
: 306 : 222
|
| Year
14 |
(without
star) |
119
: 60 : 70
|
| Year
14 |
(with
star) |
124
: 66 : 56
|
so
that in year 14 at any rate there seems to have been
a fair balance between the issues with and without
the star. On the other hand in year 13 the number of
coins with obverse (E) is greatly in excess of those
with obverse (D), though the disproportion is not so
extreme as that between the two types of year 12.
The
coinage of Galba has been fully described in a previous
article,* and
reference may be made to that for the classification.
But the conclusions then reached appear to require
modification as regards the subject of the present
paper. In the first issue of Galba, which comprises
practically all the tetradrachms of year 1 the legend
of the obverse ends alternatively —ΑΥ or —ΑΥΤ,
examples of al types being about equally common with
either ending. I formerly suggested that the variation
was due to careless workmanship : but I am now inclined
to think that it was intentional, as in the case of
the ending of the obverse legend of Claudius, and may
have been designed to distinguish the shops. Further,
the coins of year 2 after a rare and anomalous group,
have a stable obverse legend, but are differentiated
by a symbol in the field of the reverse, some bearing
a star and others a simpulum. I regarded these symbols
as marking distinct issues, of which that with the
simpulum was the later : but they might well be shop-marks,
a symbol on the reverse being used as a distinction
in the second year instead of a variation in the obverse
legend as in the first. The numbers of 'star' and 'simpulum'
coins found in hoards are about equal.
A
few examples of 'simpulum' coins occur in the issues
of Otho, under whom the mint continued to use the same
five reverse-types as for Galba : but normally his
tetradrachms bear no symbol on the reverse, those with
a simpulum being only about one in ten. There is no
variation in his obverse-legends.
The
obverse-legend of Vitellius is also constant, and only
one reverse-type— Nike is used for him. This
type is, however alternatively to right or to left,
and, on the analogy of the coins of Tiberius, this
variation may be regarded as a shop-mark. The type
to l. is much the commoner : on an average seven specimens
of it occur for one of the type to r.
The
tetradrachms of Vespasian show very little variation.
The obverse legend is constant in each year, though
altered after year 1 : and the reverses have no symbols.
The types on the reverse are the same in each of his
first three years—standing figures of Eirene,
Eleutheria, Nike, Roma, and Alexandria, and the bust
of Titus : only the last occurs afterwards, in year
8. The sole possible mark of distinction that I know
is in the treatment of the ends of the tie of the wreath
on the emperor's head : sometimes both ends hang straight
down, sometimes one is brought forward on the neck.
An isolated instance of such a variation has been noted
in the reign of Claudius : it may be regarded as more
important in the issues of Vespasian, especially in
year 2, when the output of the mint was largest
: a hoard contained, for the first three years respectively
6, 48, and 4 specimens with one end forward to 1, 26,
and 1 with both ends straight.
Coins
of Titus are rare, and only of years 2 and 3 : his
obverse legends show no modifications, but in year
3 a star is sometimes found in the field of the reverse.
The number of specimens in one hoard was—year
2, 9 ; year 3 (without star) 19, (with star) 3.
The
tetradrachms of Domitian are so few* that
they may be disregarded for the present purpose : the
mint was mainly occupied with the issue of bronze coins.
Under
Nerva there was a fairly large output of billon; but
there are no marks of differentiation either on obverse
or reverse.
No
tetradrachms were struck for Trajan till his fifth
year : and thereafter, although issues were made in
every year except 13 and 17, they were usually very
small till year 15. The coins of years 5 and 6 are
more numerous than those of any of the next eight years
: but on none of them is there anything that could
be regarded as a shop-mark. In year 15 the point of
breakage of the obverse-legend is occasionally varied
: normally it runs ΑΥΤΤΡΑΙΑΝC ΕΒΓΕΡΜΔΑΚΙΚ,
but about one specimen in thirty has —CΕ Β— :
this is probably an accidental variation, and occurs
also in year 16. More importance may be attached to
the division of the obverse-legend in years 18, 19
and 20 : the commonest form in years 18 and 19 is ΑΥΤΤΡΑΙΑΝΑΡΙ CΕΒΓΕΡΜΔΑΚΙΚ,
but the break is also made at the points —ΑΝ ΑΡΙ—, —Α ΡΙ— and —CΕ Β— :
the numbers of examples of these respectively, in hoards
I have examined, are 18, 2, 1, and 5 belonging to year
18, and to year 19 13 of —ΑΡΙ CΕΒ— and
1 of —CΕ Β—.
The head of the emperor on these coins is laureate,
but in year 19 a radiate head is found with the same
legend, which is always of the form —ΑΡΙ CΕΒ—.
Later, in years 19 and 20, the title ΠΑΡ is
added to the legend, which is always associated with
a radiate head : the breakage-point is (a) —ΑΡΙ CΕΒΓ—,
(b) —ΑΡΙC ΕΒΓ—,
(c) —ΑΡΙCΕ ΒΓ—,
(d) —ΑΡΙCΕΒ Γ—,
of which the specimens in the hoards cited above were
:—in year 19, (a) 5, (b) 2, (C) 5, (d) 1; in
year 20, (a) 4, (b) 11, (c) 17, (d) 16, together with
3 of a new form, —CΕΒΓ ΕΡ—.
This evidence in itself would not be conclusive as
to attaching any meaning to the variations, but reason
will be shown later for regarding them as possibly
indicative of distinct shops. On all the tetradrachms
of the last three years there is a star in front of
the bust on the obverse : but, as this symbol is invariably
present, it cannot be regarded as a shop-mark. There
is very occasionally a departure from the normal in
the treatment of the ends of the wreath-tie, but too
rarely for any significance to be traced.
For
the early coinage of Hadrian reference may be made
to a recent article,* from
which it will be seen that in year 2 there were several
forms of obverse-legend employed, each of which showed
some variation in the breakage-point : also on some
issues there is a star on the obverse. Either or both
of these might be regarded as shop-marks; and I should
be inclined to treat the former at any rate as such.
In year 3 the breakage-point of the obverse-legend
is constant; the star still occurs on the obverse,
and there seem to be two parallel series, with and
without star, using the same reverse types. Similarly
in year 4, when a new obverse-type comes in, two series
may be distinguished, the differentiating mark being
a crescent on the obverse : in years 5 and 6 however,
though the same type is continued, and the issues were
fairly large, the crescent is always present, and so
ceases to be a differentiation. A fresh mark is found
in year 8, when one series still has the crescent,
and another a serpent in its place. But after this,
from year 9 to year 16, the obverse-type shows no variation,
and no symbol occurs : coins of these years are common,
but there is no obvious clue for separating the outputs
of different shops: the reverse-legend in years 9,
10 and 11 is divided irregularly, but I have not been
able to trace any method in the variation. Fresh obverse-types
come in in years 17 and 19 : it is not till year 20,
however, that parallel series can again be distinguished,
the differentiation in this case being in the form
of the obverse legend, which is alternatively (A) ΑΥΤΚΑΙCΤΡΑΙΑΝ ΑΔΡΙΑΝΟCCΕΒ and
(B) ΑΥΤΚΑΙCΤΡΑ ΑΔΡΙΑΝΟCCΕΒ,
both occurring with the same reverse-types. In year
21 the latter form is again found, with (C) ΑΥΤΚΑΙCΤΡΑΙΑ ΑΔΡΙΑΝΟCCΕΒ as
an alternative; and both are used with the head of
the emperor either r. or l. A similar variation in
the position of the head, with legend (B) only, occurs
in year 22. If these series are parallel, however,
there is some disproportion between the number issued
in each series, according to the statistics derived
from five hoards—
| Year
20 |
Leg.
(A) |
Head
l. |
20
|
| |
Leg.
(B) |
Head
l. |
106
|
| Year
21 |
Leg.
(B) |
Head
r. |
55
|
| |
Leg.
(B) |
Head
l. |
20
|
| |
Leg.
(C) |
Head
r. |
3
|
| |
Leg.
(C) |
Head
l. |
6
|
| Year
22 |
Leg.
(B) |
Head
r. |
48
|
| |
Leg.
(B) |
Head
l. |
6
|
The
coinage of Antoninus Pius, unlike that of Hadrian,
presents a most complicated variety of obverse-types.
The portrait of the emperor may be to right or left,
a head or a bust, and, in the latter case, in front
or back view : it is usually laureate, but often in
years 2 and 3, and occasionally in years 11 and 12,
bare, and in year 23 sometimes radiate : and in most
years there are two or more of these varieties used
concurrently. The legends are even more confusing in
their divisions: in year 2 the full normal legend is ΑΥΤΚΤΑΙΛΑΔΡ ΑΝΤΩΝΙΝΟCCΕΥCΕΒ,
which is also used in year 3 : but most coins of year
3 have ΑΥΤΚΤΑΙΛΑΔΡ ΑΝΤΩΝΙΝΟC,
and this continues through year 4 into year 5 : then
in the course of year 5 a fresh legend appears, ΑΝΤΩΝΙΝΟC CΕΒΕΥCΕΒ,
and this is used for the rest of the reign. But these
legends are arranged in a manner which is particularly
curious in the earlier forms : the fixed point is that
: the name ΑΝΤΩΝΙΝΟC always
begins in front of the head or bust of the emperor,
and the rest follows with an apparently capricious
break : thus such readings as ΒΑΥΤΚΤΑΙΛΑΔΡ ΑΝΤΩΝΙΝΟCCΕΥCΕ or ΤΚΤΑΙΛΑΔΡ ΑΝΤΩΝΙΝΟCΑΥ constantly
occur : with the later legend there is not the same
unnatural look in such schemes as ΑΝΤΩΝΙΝ ΟCCΕΒΕΥCΕΒ.
To provide further variations, the emperor’s
name was frequently in years 9 to 11 spelt ΑΝΤΩΝΕΙΝΟC,
and the form ΕΥCCΕΒ occurs
for ΕΥCΕΒ :
mistakes and retrograde legends are also numerous.
In view of all these facts, it seems hopeless at present
to trace any shop distinctions in the tangle of obverse-types
of Antoninus Pius : the subordinate issues of Marcus
Aurelius as Caesar are almost equally confused, although
the types of Faustina II under Antoninus are fairly
stable.
For
the same reasons the coinage of Aurelius and Verus
cannot be satisfactorily classified : though one of
the elements of complication found under Antoninus
is not present, as the legends, normally ΜΑΥΡΗΛΙΟC ΑΝΤΩΝΙΝΟCCΕΒ and ΛΑΥΡΗΛΙΟC ΟΥΗΡΟCCΕΒ,
are almost invariably divided naturally, there is a
tendency with the titles of both emperors to drop one,
two or three letters at the end of each half of the
legend, thus giving such forms as —ΑΥΡΗΛΙΟ, —ΑΥΡΗΛΙΟ,
or —ΑΥΡΗΛ, and —ΟCCΕ, —ΟCC,
or —ΟC :
and both are represented by a head or a bust, in front
or back view, to right or to left, laureate or bare-headed.
After year 10 of Aurelius, there was a gap of ten years
in the billon issues of the Alexandrian mint, except
for a few coins struck in year 17 : and when it recommenced
the production of tetradrachms in year 21 of Commodus,
it seems to have recovered its stabillity to some extent.
The portrait of the emperor is regularly a laureate
head to right, and the only variation in the obverse
is in the spelling of the legends. In 21 to 23 the
normal form is ΜΑΥΡΗΚΟΜΜ ΑΝΤΩΝΙΝΟCCΕ but
this is modified by the substitution of —ΑΥΡ— for —ΑΥΡΗ—, —ΚΟΜΜΟ or —ΚΟΜ for —ΚΟΜΜ,
and —ΟCC or ΟC— for—ΟCCΕ :
and as two or more of these alternatives may come on
the same coin, there is a considerable range of possible
readings : I have noted eleven. In year 24 the legend
is changed to ΜΑΚΟΜΑΝΤΩ CΕΒΕΥCΕΒ,
which is only varied by —ΚΟ— for —ΚΟΜ— in
years 24 and 25, and —ΕΥCΕΒΗC for —ΕΥCΕΒ in
year 26* :
thereafter it is constant till year 311 when a new
style is adopted of ΛΑΙΛΑΥΡΚΟΜ CΕΕΥCΕΕΥΤΥ,
the second half also appearing as ΕΥCΕΕΥΤΥ.
The
very rare Alexandrian issues of Pertinax and Pescennius
Niger do not furnish any evidence for our purpose:
and there is not much to be derived from those of Septimius
Severus, whose tetradrachms are also uncommon except
in years 2 to 6. The legend of years 2 and 3 is ΑΥΤΚΛCΕΠΤCΕΟΥ ΗΡΟCΠΕΡΤCΕΒ,
which is varied by being broken —CΕΟ ΥΗΡ— or —CΕ ΟΥΗΡ— :
in year 4 it is ΑΥΤΚΛCΕΠCΕΥΗΕΥ CΕΠΕΡΤCΕΒΑΡΑΑΔΙ,
and this also shows variety in the breakage-point, —ΕΥCΕ ΠΕΡΤ— occurring.
There are a fair number of coins of Domna of years
2 to 6, but on these the legend is constant. After
year 6 the issues of Severus and Domna, and likewise
those of Caracalla, Geta, and Macrinus, are too sporadic
and rare to be of any use here.
With
the accession of Elagabalus billon coinage begins to
be plentiful again. In the obverse-types of the emperor
himself there is little variation : the legend is normally ΑΚΑΙCΑΡΜΑΑΥΡ ΑΝΤΩΝΙΝΟC ΕΥCΕΒ,
the last word being under the head, but in year 1 the
break at the bottom is sometimes —ΕΥ CΕΒ or —ΕΥC ΕΒ,
and in year 2 —Ε ΥCΕΒ occurs
as well as these two varieties, : after this the legend
is constant, though in year 5 the portrait is a bust
instead of a head : there is also some change in the
treatment of the ends of the wreath-tie, both of which
at first hang down, but in year 2 one is occasionally
curled upwards : in year 3 one is brought forward sometimes,
and this is the regular arrangement in year 4 : the
two schemes are about equally common in year 5. The
subordinate coinage of Julia Paula (years 3 and 4),
Aquilia Severa (years 4 and 5), Annia Faustina (year
5), Julia Soaemias (years 4 and 5) and Alexander Caesar
(year 5) have no variations at all in their obverses.
But that of Julia Maesa is different in this respect:
in year 2 the legend is, like that of Elagabalus in
the same year, variable, and has two main forms: one, ΙΟΥΛΙΑ ΜΑΙCΑCΕΒ,
is stable, but the other, normally ΙΟΥΜΑΙCΑ CΕΒΜΗCΤΡΑ,
sometimes reads ΙΟΥΛ— for ΙΟΥ—, CΕ— for CΕΒ—,
or —ΜΗΤ— for —ΜΗ— :
in year 3 the regular legend is ΙΟΥΛΜΑΙCΑ CΕΒΜΗCΤΡΑ,
with the variant —ΜΗ—: the same
continues in year 4 : and in year 5 it becomes ΙΟΥΛΜΑΙCΑ CΕΒΜΗCΤΡΑ or —CΕΒΑΜΗCΤΡΑ.
It is difficult to trace any significance in these
changes: and the exact relation of the subordinate
coinage to those of the emperor is not clear: it may
be noted that the reverse types of Maesa in year 2
are distinct from those of Elagabalus, and in year
3 several reverse types are shared by Maesa and Paula
which do not occur on coins of
Elagabalus: but in years 4 and 5 the same reverse-types
are used for all members of the imperial house. The
output in the names of Maesa and Paula in the years
when they had their own reverses was comparatively
larger than that for any of the other subordinate issues,
except that for Alexander Caesar, as will be seen from
the following list of specimens in four hoards.
| |
Year
2
|
Year
3
|
Year
4
|
Year
5
|
| Elagabalus |
46
|
52
|
96
|
30
|
| J.
Paula |
—
|
14
|
1
|
—
|
| A.
Severa |
—
|
—
|
1
|
3
|
| A.
Faustina |
—
|
—
|
—
|
6
|
| J.
Soaemias |
10
|
12
|
—
|
—
|
| Alexander
Caes. |
—
|
—
|
—
|
29
|
The
series of Severus Alexander begins with some very stable
types. The legend on the obverse in year 1 is ΑΚΑΙΜΑΡΑΥΡCΕΥΗΡΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟCΕΥCΕΒ,
running round usually without a break, but occasionally
interrupted —ΟC ΕΥCΕΒ,
the last word being under the bust: the latter form
of the legend is the normal one in year 2 : in year
3 a second break is introduced above the head at the
point —ΥΗΡ ΑΛ—.
The portrait is throughout a bust to right, but is
varied each year, becoming older in appearance: this
annual modification continues into year 4. In years
3 and 4 the breakage point above the head is sometimes —ΥΗΡ ΑΛ— or —Υ ΗΡΑΛ— and —ΑΥ— occurs
in place of —ΑΥΡ—. The original
form of legend without a break is also used in year
4, with a smaller bust, the lettering being so arranged
that no part is below the bust : this continues into
year 5. A very similar bust is found in years 5 and
6, with the legend ΑΚΑΙΜΑΑΥΡCΕΥΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟCΕΥ :
but this legend, unlike the previous one, shows many
variations, in the use of —ΚΑ— for —ΚΑΙ—, —ΜΑΡ— for —ΜΑ—, —ΑΥ— for —ΑΥΡ— and
the endings —ΟC, —ΟCΕ, —ΟCΕΥC, —ΟCΥCΕ,
or —ΟCΥCΕΒ besides
some obvious blunders: there are at least 19 different
forms In year 5 also an obverse-type of very distinct
style, with the legend ΑΚΑΙΜΑΥΡCΕΟΥΗΡΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟCΕΥCΕΒ,
was introduced, and used during years 6 and 7 : I have
discussed this elsewhere,* and
it may certainly be regarded as representing a break
in the traditions of the mint and belonging to a special
set of workmen and probably to a separate shop. In
year 7 what may be called the ordinary series has the
bust in front view, that of all previous years being
in back view : the legend is ΑΚΑΙΜΑΡΑΥCΕΥΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟCΕΥ,
with variants of —ΜΑ— for—ΜΑΡ—, —ΑΥΡ— for —ΑΥ—,
and —ΟC or —ΟCΕΥC for —ΟCΕΥ :
this type covers also years 8 and 9. The disposition
of the bust in the type of year 10 which is used till
year returns to that of the earliest series : the legend
is ΑΚΑΙΜΑΡΑΥΡCΕΥΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟCΕΥ,
with common variations in the termination as —ΟC, —ΟCΕ,
and —ΟCΕΥC :
there are also rarer instances of —ΚΑ— for —ΚΑΙ—, —ΜΑ— for —ΜΑΡ—,
and —ΑΥ— for —ΑΥΡ—,
and occasional misspellings. The legend is the same,
with the same variations (except —ΟCΕΥC)
in the termination, in year 14, when the bust is again
turned to the front. The subordinate issues of Orbiana
are unimportant: but those of Mamaea show an interesting
parallelism with her son's. Her types are at first
stable : in year 3 the legend is ΙΟΥΜΑΜΑΙΑΝ ΜΗΤCΡCΕΒ,
in year 4 ΙΟΥΜΑΜΑΙΑΝ CΕΒΜΗΤCΤΡΑ,
the Ν being occasionally omitted in the latter
year : in year 5 there are, as in the case of Alexander,
two issues, one with the legend ΙΟΥΛΙΜΑΜΕΑCΕΒΜΗΤCΤΡΑ,
and another with ΙΟΥΛΙΜΑΜΗΑCΕΜΗΤCΤΡΑ :
in year 7 the legend becomes ΙΟΥΜΑΜΕΑ C Ε Β Α ΜΗΤCΤΡ :
then, after one or two apparently exceptional types,
in year 10 a fresh series begins with the legend ΙΟΥΜΑΜΑΙΑ CΕΒ ΜΗΤΕCΕΒΚCΤΡΑ,
which, like the contemporary series of Alexander, has
regular variations in the termination of —CΤ or —CΤΡ,
besides such forms as ΜΗΤ— for ΜΗΤΕ—, —CΒ— for —CΕΒ—,
and —CΕΚ— for —CΕΒΚ—,
with more obvious misspellings. This series goes on
to year 13, and in year 14 the same legend is used
but without a break. The blunders in the legends are
so numerous that any conclusions drawn from the variants
can only be accepted with hesitation : but the parallel
treatment of the terminations in the legends of Alexander
and Mamaea from year 10 onwards seems significant.
The
issues of Maximinus and his son are more easily classified.
The obverse legend of the emperor in years 1 and 2
is ΑΥΤΟΜΑΞΙΜΙΝΟCΕΥCCΕΒ :
in years 3 and 4 the form —ΕΥCΕΒ is
also used, both
forms being associated with the same reverse-types
and about equally numerous. The coinage of Maximus
Caesar begins in year 2, with the legend ΓΙΟΥΛΟΥΗΡΜΑΞΙΜΟCΚΑΙ :
in year 3 there is also a second form, with the spelling —ΟΥΡ— for —ΟΥΗΡ— :
in year 4 a variant is produced by the ending —ΑΙ for —ΚΑΙ.
The simultaneous introduction of alternative legends
both for father and son is important.
The
Alexandrian coins of Gordian I are fairly common, and
have a legend with a variant termination, ΑΚΜΑΝΓΟΡΔΙΑΝΟCCΕΜΑΦΚΒ or —ΕΥCΕ being
found in much the same proportion of specimens and
with the same types on the reverse. The issues of Gordian
II, Balbinus, and Pupienus are too rare to furnish
any evidence : but those of Gordian III as Caesar are
commoner, and also show alternative terminations of
the legend, which runs ΜΑΝΤΓΟΡΔΙΑΝΟCΚΑΙC or —ΚΑΙCΑ.
The
tetradrachms of Gordian III as Emperor fall into two
groups. The first runs from year 2 to year 5, and the
obverse legend is ΛΚΜΑΝΓΟΡΔΙΑΝΟCΕΥCΕ or —ΕΥC,
very rarely —ΕΥCΕΒ :
the portrait is a bust to right, in back view on one
of the series of year 2, in front view on the other
and on those of the next three years. In year 5 the
legend is changed to ΑΚΜΑΝΤΓΟΡΔΙΑΝΟCΕΥC or —ΕΥ :
in years 6 and 7 the termination is always —ΕΥ but
the legend is broken in most cases at the points —Γ ΟΡΔ— or —ΓΟ ΡΔ—,
rarely —ΓΟΡ Δ— the
unbroken form occurs frequently in year 6, but rarely
in year 7. These facts suggest that the variation in
the break of the legend was intended to serve the same
purpose on the later coins as the variation in the
termination : the number of specimens of the different
types found in two hoards will illustrate the point.
| |
Year
2
|
Year
3
|
Year
4
|
Year
5
|
Year
6
|
Year
7
|
| ΑΚΜΑΝΓΟΡΔΙΑΝΟCΕΥCΕΒ |
1
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
— ΕΥCΕ
|
18
|
28
|
20
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
— ΕΥC
|
4
|
8
|
27
|
9
|
—
|
—
|
| ΑΚΜΑΝΤΓΟΡΔΙΑΝΟCΕΥC |
—
|
—
|
—
|
3
|
—
|
—
|
— ΕΥ
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
34
|
26
|
5
|
— Γ ΟΡΔ —
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
11
|
20
|
— ΓΟ ΡΔ —
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
16
|
33
|
— ΓΟΡ Δ —
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
2
|
The
coins of Tranquillina show less variation : they belong
to years 5, 6, and 7, and usually have the legend CΑΒΤΡΑΝΚΥΛΛΕΙΝΑCΕΒ,
sometimes broken —ΝΚ ΥΛ— or —ΝΚΥ Λ— in
year 6, and ending —CΕ on
one or two examples of year 5.
The
foregoing classification of the issues of Gordian III
into two groups is borne out by the evidence derived
from those of Philip I. Here the first group, covering
years 1 to 3, has a legend differentiated in the same
manner as on the later coins of Gordian by changes
in the breakage-point : the forms are ΑΚΜΙΟΥΦΙΛΙΠΠΟCΕΥCΕΒ,
unbroken, or broken —Φ ΙΛΙΠ—, —ΦΙ ΛΙΠ—, —ΦΙΛ ΙΠ— or —ΦΙΛΙ Π— :
very rarely the legend ends —ΕΥCΕΥCΕΒ.
In the second group, covering years 4 to 7, the differentiation
of the legend, which is always unbroken, is by the
termination, varying between ΑΚΜΙΟΥΦΙΛΙΠΠΟCΕΥCΕΒ, —ΕΥCΕ, —ΕΥC, —ΕΥ,
and —Ε. The following statistics are drawn
from the same two hoards as in the figures for Gordian
:—
| |
Year2
|
Year
3
|
Year
4
|
Year
5
|
Year
6
|
Year
7
|
Year
8
|
| ΑΚΜΙΟΥΦΙΛΙΠΠΟCΕΥCΕΒ |
8
|
88
|
48
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
— ΦΙΛΙ Π —
|
5
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
— ΦΙΛ ΙΠ —
|
24
|
5
|
3
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
— ΦΙ ΛΙΠ —
|
18
|
16
|
23
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
— Φ ΙΛΙΠ —
|
—
|
5
|
3
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
| ΑΚΜΙΟΥΦΙΛΙΠΠΟCΕΥCΕΒ |
—
|
—
|
—
|
8
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
— ΕΥCΕ
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
22
|
—
|
|
|
— ΕΥC
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
49
|
31
|
32
|
—
|
— ΕΥ
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
10
|
38
|
34
|
—
|
— Ε
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
24
|
18
|
—
|
The
legends on the coins of Otacilia Severa follow the
same scheme as those of her husband. In years 2 and
3 the normal form is ΜΩΤCΕΟΥΗΡΑCΕΜCΤΡΑ,
sometimes varied by a break —ΟΥΗ ΡΑ— :
in years 4 to 7 the variation is in the termination,
the first form, in years 4 and 5, being ΜΩΤCΕΟΥΗΡΑCΕΜCΤΡΑ, —CΤΡ, —CΤ,
or —C,
followed in years 5, 6 and 7 by ΜΩΤCΕΟΥΗΡΑCΕΜCΕΒ or —CΕ.
The first group of the issues of Philip II as Caesar,
in years 2 and 3, shows no variation in the legend,
which is ΜΙΟΥΦΙΛΙΠΠΟCΚCΕΒ :
but in year 4 variation by termination begins, as in
the cases of his father and mother, the alternatives
being —ΚCΕΒ,
and —ΚCΕ :
after his elevation as Augustus, his legend runs ΑΚΜΙΟΥΦΙΛΙΠΠΟCΕΥCΕ, —ΕΥC, —ΕΥ,
or —Ε It is clear that the mint officials
were following a definite scheme in the use of modified
forms of the obverse legends in this reign.
A
similar practice was adopted under Decius : in his
first year three forms of legends occur regularly in
association with all reverse types, viz. : ΑΚΓΜΤΡΑΙΑΝΟCΔΕΚΙΟCΕΥ, —ΟCΕ,
or —ΟC;
and in his second two, viz. :—ΑΚΓΜΤΡΑΙΑΝΟCΔΕΚΙΟCΕ or —ΟC.
A few coins of year 1 have the alternative legend ΑΚΓΜΚΔΕΚΙΟCΤΡΑΙΑΝΟCΕΥ,
or —ΔΕΚΙΟ C— :
the ending —ΟCΕ is
also found : but this series is rare,and its relation
to the ordinary one cannot be definitely fixed. The
legend of Etruscilla is similarly varied by termination, ΕΡΚΟΥΠΑΙΤΡΟΥCΚΙΛΛΑCΕΒ or —CΕ :
so is that of Herennius Etruscus, ΚΕΡΕΕΤΡΜΕCΔΕΚΙΟCΚΑΙCΑ or ΚΑΙC :
there seems to be no differentiation in the legends
of Hostilian.
There
is an interval of a year in the issue of tetradrachms
at Alexandria between the second year of Decius and
the third of Trebonianus Gallus, no coins of year 2
of Gallus being known. This is the only year in the
period 216 to 296 in which the mint appears to have
been absolutely idle.
The
opportunity may be taken to correct an error in the
tables appended to my paper on the Roman coinage of
Alexandria quoted above. Accepting the old chronology,
which supposed the reign of Decius to have continued
into a third Alexandrian year, I took A.D. 251-2 to
represent Decius 3 and Gallus 1 : 252-3, Gallus 2 and
Aemilian 1 : 253-4, Gallus 3, Aemilian 2, and Valerian
1 : and, as there are no coins of Decius 3, Gallus
1 or 2, or Aemilian 1, this left a gap of two years
in the series. It is fairly certain that Decius fell
in the early summer of 251, and Gallus probably disappeared
from Alexandrian datings in August 253, the recognition
of Aemilian at Alexandria being for a few days in August
(year 1) and most of September (year 2) of 253. His
only Alexandrian coins are of year 2. The tables should
therefore show, as regnal years, Decius 2, Gallus 1
250-1 : Gallus 2 - 251-2 : Gallus 3, Aemilian 1—252-3
: Aemilian 2, Valerian 1—253-4 : and the entries
for the two latter years in columns vi-xiii should
be—
| |
VI.
|
VII.
|
VIII.
|
IX.
|
X.
|
XI.
|
XII.
|
XIII.
|
252-253
|
1
|
2
|
4
|
13
|
12
|
7
|
43
|
3
|
253-254
|
—
|
—
|
1
|
12
|
2
|
8
|
21
|
2
|
When
the coinage was resumed in year 3 of Gallus, his obverse
types and legends and those of Volusian show no variations.
The same is the case in regard to the coins struck
for Aemilian.
There
is also no variation in the obverses of Valerian and
his family : the early coinage, in fact, during the
first eight years, when the mint was striking in the
names of Valerian, Gallienus, Salonina, Valerian the
younger, and Saloninus, is exceptionally homogeneous,
as I have pointed out in a recent article,* and
there do not appear to be any marks of differentiation
which would serve to classify the coins under shops.
It might be suggested that separate shops struck for
the several members of the imperial house, as was probably
the case for Diocletian and Maximian; but the sets
of reverse-types used for Diocletian and Maximian respectively
show numerous differences in each year, while those
of the family of Valerian are identical throughout,
which is rather against the analogy : and I have noted one
instance of the use of the same reverse die with obverses
of Gallienus and Valerian the younger. [Instances of
the use of a reverse die with different obverses are
naturally much rarer than those of an obverse-die with
different reverses, as the Alexandrian mint used up
about eight reverse-dies to one obverse-die (see N.C. 1910,
p. 338).] The latter fact might be explained by the
supposition that one shop struck for Valerian and another
for Gallienus, Salonina, and the Caesars; but this,
though not at variance with the statistics as to the
proportionate issues in the different names given in
the article mentioned above, is rather a wide excursion
into conjecture. An alternative suggestion for classification
into separate shop-issues, which will come up again
in a later reign, is by reverse-types: but that is
practically negatived here by the evidence of the use
of different reverse-types with the same obverse-die,
an instance of which in year 4 has already been given.
After the break in the issues of Gallienus caused by
the rebellion of Macrianus and Quietus (whose Alexandrian
coinage is closely related to that of the preceding
eight years), the homogeneity previously noted disappears,
and there would be more justification for assuming,
when coinage in the name of Salonina was resumed in
year 11, that her coins were struck at a separate shop
from those of her husband, as distinct reverse-types
for emperor and empress are almost invariably adopted:
and the issues for each, if an average of one year
with another is taken, are about equal. But there are
no further marks of differentiation as between coins
of the same year, except in those of Gallienus of years
9 and 10 : and the special circumstances of these years
are discussed in my former article.
The
short reign of Claudius furnishes some evidence of
rather interesting character. It extended over parts
of three Alexandrian years, beginning about March 268
and ending about March 270. During this period three
obverse-types are found :—
| (A) ΑΥΤΚΚΛΑ ΥΔΙΟCCΕΒ |
Bust
r. laur. in back view
|
(year
1). |
| (B) ΑΥΤΚΚΛΑΥ ΔΙΟCCΕΒ |
do.
|
(years
1, 2, and 3). |
| (C) ΑΥΤΚΚΛΑ ΥΔΙΟCCΕΒ |
Bust
r. laur. in front view
|
(year
2). |
There
are marked differences in the portraiture of the emperor.
In year 1 the work is very rough, in both (A) and (B),
and the artists seem to have had very little idea of
the model they were supposed to follow : in A the head
has usually a dishevelled appearance, while the most
characteristic feature of (B) is a curious sharp-pointed
nose In year 2 the work improves : the artistic successor
of (A) is (C), which has a portrait conceived on the
same general lines, though with the position of the
bust changed, and of better execution : while (B) shows
a progressive development, especially in the matter
of nose : a few coins have the pointed nose of year
1, but on most the nose is strongly aquiline. In year
3, when (B) is the only type used, the style is the
more developed one of year 2. The difference in portraiture
coincides with a general difference in reverse-types. The
combinations are :—
| Year
1. |
Obv.
A. Rev. :—bust
of Helios : bust of Selene : Elpis l. : Nike
r. with shield : Tyche reclining l.: eagle
r. looking back.
|
| |
Obv.
B. Rev. :—Poseidon
l. : Ares l. : Hermes l. : Homonoia l. : Nike
r. : Horus and child : eagle r. looking back.
|
| Year
2. |
Obv.
B. Rev. :—Poseidon
l. : Ares l. : Hermes l. : Elpis l. : Homonoia
l. : Nike r. : Horus and child : eagle r. looking
back: eagle r. palm across.
|
| |
Obv.
C. Rev. :—Dikaiosyne
seated l. : Nike l. : bust of Hermanubis r.
: jugate busts of Nilus and Euthenia r. : bust
of Alexandria r. : eagle l. looking back.
|
| Year
3. |
Obv.
B. Rev. :—Athene
l. : Nike r. : Tyche l. : eagle r. looking back
: eagle r. palm across. |
It
will be seen that A and B have in year 1 only the eagle
reverse in common, and in year 2 Elpis, found with
A in year 1, is used with B : while the only type which
occurs on both B and C is Nike r. and this is differentiated
in the pose of the figure and arrangement of the date
: in the type associated with B, Nike has her right
foot advanced, and the date is divided L Β to
left and right, while in that with C the left foot
is advanced and the date is L Β on the right.
The reverses of B carry on from the fifteenth year
of Gallienus, and are noticeable as including some
unusual types revived or introduced in that year Poseidon,
Hermes, and Horus* :
those of A are more the regular stock of the Alexandrian
mint : while C has no reverses inherited
from A, but uses a number of familiar ones. On grounds
of style and reverse-types, as well as of division
of legend, there would appear to be considerable reason
for regarding the coinage of Claudius as falling into
two groups, one with obverses A and C, the other with
obverse B. There is, however, a lack of balance in
the comparative numbers of examples in the two groups:
the specimens in a large hoard were—
| Year
1 |
A
|
477
|
B
|
9
|
| Year
2 |
C
|
1048
|
B
|
747
|
| Year
3 |
—
|
—
|
B
|
636
|
If
the groups are the outputs of distinct shops, that
using B must have been almost idle during the first
five months of the reign of Claudius, although its
coins are more closely related in style to the latest
issues of Gallienus than those of the other group:
incidentally it may be noted that it used a greater
variety of reverse-types than are found with A. On
the other hand, it monopolized the coinage of the seven
months of year 3. On the whole, however, I incline
to think that the disproportion in output does not
outweigh the considerations stated in favour of the
hypothesis that there were two shops at work, differentiating
their issues as shown above. The Alexandrian mint as
a whole varied its activity from year to year, with
sudden rises and falls of output: and its shops may
well have had similar vicissitudes at different times,
first one and then another furnishing a larger proportion
or the whole of the new currency.
The
coins struck for Quintillus follow closely on those
of the third year of Claudius in respect of types and
style, and offer no further evidence.
The
joint issues of Aurelian and Vaballathus may conveniently
be considered before those of Aurelian alone, most
of which they precede in date. The association of the
two rulers on Egyptian coinage lasted during parts
of two years, the first and second of Aurelian and
the fourth and fifth of Vaballathus. In each of these
two years the tetradrachms fall into two distinct groups,
the legends being
A.
Obv. :—ΑΥΤΚΛΔΑΥΡΗΛΙΑΝΟCCΕΒ
Rev. :—ΙΑCΟΥΑΒΛΛΑΘΟCΑΘΗΝΟΥΑΥΤCΡΩ
B. Obv. :—ΑΚΛΔΟΜΑΥΡΗΛΙΑΝΟCCΕΒ
Rev. :—ΙΑCΟΥΑΒΛΛΑΘΟCΑΘΗΝΥΑCΡ
In
A the bust of Vaballathus is varied, being in front
view in the first year, in back in the second: otherwise
there is no change in the scheme of the portraiture
as between the two years or groups. There is, however,
some difference in execution, the work in B on both
obverse and reverse being nearly always markedly better
than in A which sometimes has an almost barbarous head
: it may be said that from an artistic point of view
A is the successor of types A and C,
and B of type B, of Claudius. Coins of the two groups
were issued plentifully in both years, the examples
of A being rather more numerous. Two hoards give the
following figures :—
| |
|
Group
A
|
|
Group
B
|
|
| Year
1 = 4 |
|
60
|
56
|
|
40
|
26
|
|
| Year
2 = 5 |
|
92
|
102
|
|
62
|
68
|
|
The
legend of Aurelian of group B is the only one found
on the few coins struck for him alone in year 1, presumably
before the agreement with Vaballathus* :
but on the rarer issues of year 2 after the defeat
of Vaballathus the legends of both A and B forms occur,
with about equal frequency : and similarly in year
3 there are the two varieties, A being rather commoner.
But in year 4 B becomes the predominant form, and in
many examples (though hardly ever with any reverse
type except an eagle one) there is a star in the field
of the reverse, which does not occur with A. Hardly
any instances of A are found in year 5 : but the specimens
of B with and without star on the reverse are alike
common. (It may be noted that the bust of the emperor
is turned to back view with legend A in years 4 and
5 : in the earlier years it is in front view, with
paludamentum across chest. The bust with legend B is
similar to the latter in year 1 and the joint coins
of year 2 : afterwards the paludamentum is thrown back
to display the cuirass). In years 6 and 7 B is the
only form found, and the use of the star disappears
: but coins are struck in the name of Severina, with
the same reverse-types as those of her husband. In
year 5 there is a marked improvement in the execution
of the coinage : at the same time in the dates on the
reverses the symbol L is replaced by the word ΕΤΟΥC,
which continues to be used for the two following years.
It would appear that there were two forms of obverse-type
in concurrent use during the greater part of the reign:
and further, at a time when one form was predominant,
a distinctive mark was added on the reverse of some
coins. But the statistics from a large hoard show very
little balance between the various forms.
| |
AURELIAN
|
SEVERINA
|
| |
Leg.
A.
|
Leg.
B.
|
Leg.
B (with Star).
|
|
| Year
1 |
—
|
28
|
—
|
—
|
| Year
2 |
9
|
3
|
—
|
—
|
| Year
3 |
21
|
13
|
—
|
—
|
| Year
4 |
29
|
11
|
43
|
—
|
| Year
5 |
8
|
93
|
73
|
—
|
| Year
6 |
—
|
197
|
—
|
30
|
| Year
7 |
—
|
12
|
—
|
18
|
The
short reign of Tacitus is chiefly of interest from
a numismatic point of view as a link between those
of Aurelian and Probus. In general style and scheme,
including the use of ΕΤΟΥC on
the reverse, his coins carry on the tradition of the
later years of his predecessor. The legend on the obverse
as a rule is not broken, or divided —ΤΑΚΙ ΤΟC— :
a few specimens about five per cent. have a stop after ΚΛ— :
but it is doubtful whether any distinction of issues
could be based on these variations. In the choice of
reverse-types, also, the limited held of the ΕΤΟΥC coins
of Aurelian is barely overstepped : there are six types
of year 7 of Aurelian known, all of which are found
either in year 5 or year 6 as well, and three in both
: these six are also used under Tacitus, with one addition—the
eagle r looking back. But, in view of what will be
said below, it is important to note that the bulk of
the specimens belong to four of these types, and these
four are the only ones known in the first year of Probus,
and comprise practically the whole of the issues of
his second. In a large hoard (the same as that cited
above for Aurelian) the number of examples of each
of the seven reverse-types of Tacitus was:Athene (A.)
2; Dikaiosyne (A.P.) 46; Elpis (A.P.) 42; Nike (A.)
2; eagle r. looking back (P.) 41; eagle l. looking
back (A.P.) 37; eagle r. palm across (A.) 2. (The letters
A. and P. are added to show whether the types occur
also in the seventh year of Aurelian and the first
of Probus.) From these figures it would appear that
in the matter of preference for reverse-types the connexion
was stronger between the usages of the mint in the
reigns of Tacitus and Probus than between those under
Aureiian and Tacitus.
The
coins of Probus show the same uniformity of style as
those of the later years of Aurelian and of Tacitus:
there is not an inferior and a superior group, artistically,
as was the case a few years previously. But it is possible
that a clue to a distinction of issues may be found
in the division of the legend of the obverse, as in
the reigns of Gordian III and Philip. The break of
the legend over the head is normally either (a) —ΠΡ ΟΒΟC— or
(b) —ΠΡΟ ΒΟC—,
rarely (c) —Π ΡΟΒΟC— :
when the spacing of the letters hardly amounts to a
break, the point of the wreath may be taken as indicating
the division. There is a marked tendency for these
varieties of legend to be associated with particular
reverse-types : as an illustration of this the number
of coins of various reverse-types which occurred with
the different legends in the hoard already quoted for
Aurelian and Tacitus may be given.
| |
Rev.
type.
|
Obv.
leg. (a)
|
(b)
|
(c)
|
| Year
1 |
Dikaiosyne
standing l. |
—
|
3
|
—
|
| |
Elpis
standing l. |
7
|
2
|
—
|
| |
Eagle
r. looking back |
2
|
1
|
—
|
| |
Eagle
l. looking back |
—
|
11
|
—
|
| Year
2 |
Dikaiosyne
standing l. |
9
|
88
|
1
|
| |
Elpis
standing l. |
86
|
17
|
1
|
| |
Nike
advancing r. |
2
|
—
|
—
|
| |
Eagle
r. looking back |
98
|
18
|
—
|
| |
Eagle
l. looking back |
9
|
135
|
1
|
| Year
3 |
Eirene
standing l. |
84
|
40
|
2
|
| |
Tyche
standing l. |
34
|
125
|
—
|
| |
Eagle
r. palm across |
144
|
32
|
—
|
| |
Eagle
l. looking back, wings open |
317
|
134
|
—
|
| Year
4 |
Athene
seated l. |
7
|
11
|
—
|
| |
Eirene
standing l. |
109
|
2
|
1
|
| |
Nike
advancing r. |
23
|
—
|
—
|
| |
Tyche
standing l. |
14
|
83
|
—
|
| |
Eagle
r. palm across |
204
|
10
|
—
|
| |
Eagle
l. looking back, wings open |
34
|
167
|
—
|
| Year
5 |
Dikaiosyne seated
l. |
1
|
—
|
—
|
| |
Homonoia
standing l. |
4
|
41
|
1
|
| |
Nike
advancing r. |
75
|
8
|
—
|
| |
Bust
of Sarapis r. |
—
|
1
|
—
|
| |
Eagle
r. looking back |
94
|
9
|
—
|
| |
Eagle
l. looking back |
11
|
110
|
—
|
| Year
6 |
Athene
seated l. |
69
|
4
|
8
|
| |
Homonoia
seated l. |
3
|
41
|
—
|
| |
Nike
advancing r. |
7
|
2
|
—
|
| |
Eagle
r. wings open |
240
|
14
|
20
|
| |
Eagle
l. looking back |
25
|
182
|
2
|
| Year
7 |
Homonoia
seated l. |
4
|
—
|
2
|
| |
Nike
advancing r. |
1
|
2
|
1
|
| |
Eagle
r. wings open |
257
|
115
|
35
|
| |
Eagle
l. looking back |
40
|
295
|
—
|
| Year
8 |
Homonoia
seated l. |
2
|
—
|
—
|
| |
Eagle
r. wings open |
74
|
4
|
—
|
| |
Eagle
l. looking back |
11
|
29
|
1
|
It
will be seen that on the whole there is a fairly even
balance between the issues with (a) and with (b) :
but that, especialy in the earlier years, these are
not distributed equally between the types : (a) is
normally associated with the eagle to r. and in years
and 2 with Elpis, in years 3 and 4 with Eirene, in
year 5 with Nike, and in year 6 with Athene : similarly
(b) is found throughout with the eagle to l. and in
the years corresponding to those above-mentioned with
Dikaiosyne, Tyche, Homonoia standing, and Homonoia
seated respectively. But there are a good many exceptions
and, if the break in the legend were the distinguishing
mark of the shop, the occurrence of occasional examples
of (c) is a further complication in assorting the issues
: in most years there are hardly enough to justify
this variation in being regarded as denoting a separate
shop, yet, if the breakage-point were not strictly
observed, its value as a distinguishing mark would
be small. An alternative classification into shop-outputs
by reverse-types may be worth consideration, in spite
of the arguments against the general use of this test
put forward at the beginning of this article : it is
noteworthy that in each year, till 7 and 8, the bulk
of the specimens belong to four types, as in the reign
of Tacitus, and that the four types always comprise
two personifications and two varieties of eagle : the
preponderance of eagles gradually increases, till in
years 7 and 8 they supply practically the whole of
the specimens. The number of examples, in the hoard
in question of (A) personifications normally associated
with legend (a); (B) personifications normally with
(b); (c) eagle r. normally with (a); and (D) eagle
l. normally with (b), is
| |
A.
|
B.
|
C.
|
D.
|
| Year
1 |
9
|
(Elpis) |
3
|
(Dikaiosyne) |
3
|
11
|
| Year
2 |
104
|
(Elpis) |
98
|
(Dikaiosyne) |
116
|
145
|
| Year
3 |
126
|
(Eirene) |
159
|
(Tyche) |
176
|
161
|
| Year
4 |
112
|
(Eirene) |
97
|
(Tyche) |
214
|
201
|
| Year
5 |
83
|
(Nike) |
46
|
(Homonoia) |
103
|
121
|
| Year
6 |
81
|
(Athene) |
44
|
(Homonoia) |
274
|
209
|
| Year
7 |
—
|
|
—
|
|
407
|
335
|
| Year
8 |
—
|
|
—
|
|
78
|
41
|
These
figures account for all the coins in the hoard, except,
in year 2, 2 with Nike : in year 4, 18 with Athene
and 23 with Nike : in year 5, 1 with Dikaiosyne and
1 with Sarapis : in year 6, 9 with Nike : in year 7,
6 with Homonoia and 4 with Nike : in year 8, 2 with
Homonoia. Except in year 4, these extra types are comparatively
negligible.* It
is rather tempting to suppose that there were four
shops working in the Alexandrian mint at the beginning
of the reign of Probus, which distinguished their main
issues by the reverse-types used: at first the issues
were fairly balanced, but (if the shops may be named
by the letters in the statistics above) shops C and
D gradually took a larger share and finally A and B
practically disappeared: A and C at first showed a
strong preference for legend (a), as B and D did for
(b), but the practice grew more lax tn the later years.
The presence of the extra types is, however, an objection
to this classification, just as the third variety in
point of breakage is to the alternative one.
It
is perhaps rather in favour of the first of the two
alternatives suggested that in the time of Carus and
his sons some reverses appear to have been appropriated
normally to particular members of the family, but occasionally
wandered to others. In year 1, the usage was practically
stable: the reverse-types are Dikaiosyne (Carus and
Numerian) Nike (Carinus and Numerian), Tyche (Carinus),
Eagle r. palm across (Carus and Numerian), eagle between
vexilla (Carus, Carinus, and Numerian). Of these, the
Nike-type is rare : the others are all common, and
it would seem that two types were assigned to Carus
and Numerian and one to Carinus, while one was used
in common.
In
year 2, there are four reverses : two of these, Nike
and eagle between vexilla, are continued from year
1, and are both used for Carinus and Numerian alike
: two fresh ones are introduced, Athene seated for
Numerian and Elpis for Carinus : but a few specimens
occur where the Athene reverse is associated with an
obverse of Carinus. In year 3 again Nike and an eagle-type
are found as reverses for both emperors, while Carinus
had as his special reverse-type Homonoia, and Numerian
as his Eirene : but, as in year 2, the Eirene reverse
of Numerian was occasionaly borrowed for Carinus :
there is also a rare reverse, a concord of the two
emperors, apparently known only for Numerian. It looks
as if separate shops worked on the one hand for Carus
and Numerian and later for Numerian alone, and on the
other for Carinus, with some distinct and some joint
reverse-types; but occasionally a reverse-die strayed
into the wrong shop. The transference of a reverse-die
would presumably be an easier matter than that of an
obverse one. There is, however, another mark of differentiation
which occurs in this period, and seems to produce a
cross-division : the star on the reverse, which was
found in years 4 and 5 of Aurelian, and recurs under
Diocletian and Maximian, is used during part of the
reigns of Carus and his sons. The practice was not
consistently followed throughout, as will be seen from
the following table of specimens in the hoard quoted
for the last three reigns.
In
the table I have classed the coins of Divus Carus in
year 2, as, though they are undated, they were presumably
struck shortly after his death. It is rather curious
that no Alexandrian coins of Carus of year 2 are known
: he is usually supposed to have died in the late autumn
of 283, after the beginning of his second Alexandrian
year But it is difficult to fit in the Egyptian evidence
as to the reigns of Carus and his sons with the received
chronology. From the coins it is clear that Carinus
ranked as Augustus before Aug. 29, 283, as his issues
with that title begin in year 1 : and that Numerian
was not so ranked till after that date, as issues for
him as Caesar continue into year 2. These facts suggest
that Carinus was proclaimed Augustus when his father
started for the East in the summer of 283, and that
Numerian was not promoted till the death of Carus.
Of two known papyrus datings, one (O.P. 55) presents
no difficulty : it names Carus as Augustus and Carinus
and Numerian as Caesars on April 7, 283 : but the other
(O.P. 1564) is perplexing, as it is only 16 days later
April 23, but is headed α ετους Καρινου,
giving no title and mentioning neither Carus nor Numerian.
As it contains a horoscope, there can be no mistake
in the calendar date, which is verifiable astronomically.
An explanation that occurs to me is that, for some
reason, Carinus even as Caesar was regarded in Egypt
as more important than his father : it will be noticed
from the table that the number of coins of Carinus
as Caesar in year 1 is larger than that of Carus, contrary
to the general Alexandrian rule that, if coins were
simultaneously being struck for different members of
the imperial house, the issues in the name of the Augustus
were larger than those in the name of a Caesar or any
member of the family. Possibly
however, Καρινου is
a blunder for Καρου, the scribe
having got confused between the names of father and
son.]
| |
|
Without
star.
|
With
star.
|
| Year
1 |
Carus |
94
|
3
|
| |
Carinus
Caes. |
126
|
4
|
| |
Carinus
Aug. |
1
|
7
|
| |
Numerian
Caes. |
4
|
4
|
| Year
2 |
Divus
Carus |
10
|
3
|
| |
Carinus |
94
|
20
|
| |
Numerian
Caes. |
1
|
—
|
| |
Numerian
Aug. |
41
|
11
|
| Year
3 |
Carinus |
27
|
—
|
| |
Numerian |
7
|
—
|
From
these figures it may be concluded that the use of the
star was introduced rather late in year 1, shortly
before the elevation of Carinus to the rank of Augustus,
and was dropped before year 3. Of the coins of year
2, about a quarter, alike of Divus Carus, Carinus,
and Numerian, have the star. It is clear that the issue
of coins with and without the star was concurrent,
and it is possible that the star was intended s a shop-mark
: but, if so, it seems to have been introduced tentatively,
as it may have been under Aurelian, and to have been
dropped, to be revived more systematically in the next
reign.
The
conclusions that may be drawn from this review are
as follows :—
(1)
When a symbol (other than the palm on the issues of
Severus Alexander, Gallienus, and Diocletian and Maximian
after their decennalia) appears in the field of the
reverse of a group of tetradrachms, it can usually
be regarded as a shop-mark : fairly clear instances
are the lituus under Claudius I, the star in Nero's
year 14, the star and simpulum in Galba's year 2, and
the star under Diocletian and Maximian : less certain,
but not improbable, cases are found in the star in
year 9 of Nero, the simpulum in years 11 and 12 of
the same emperor, and the star in years 3 of Titus,
4 and 5 of Aurelian, and 1 and 2 of Carus and his sons.
(2)
The star on the obverse of coins of years 18 to 20
of Trajan is not likely to be a shop-mark, but that
on the coins of the succeeding years 2 and 3 of Hadrian
may be : the crescent in the same position on coins
of the five following years, and the serpent on those
of year 8, are more doubtful.
(3)
Differentiation of concurrent issues by variation of
the obverse legend, either in the point of breakage
or the termination, is very probable in the latter
part of the reign of Severus Alexander and several
following reigns—those of Maximinus, Gordian
III, Philip, and Decius : the same system recurs under
Claudius, and possibly under Probus: under Aurelian,
in years 1 to 5, the distinction is by alternative
styles at the beginning of the legend. Earlier instances
of the same principle may be found in the reign of
Claudius, in year 1 of Galba, and possibly in years
18 to 20 of Trajan, 20 to 22 of Hadrian, 21 to 25 of
Commodus, 2 to 4 of Septimius Severus, and 1 and 2
of Elagabalus.
(4)
The output of different shops may be distinguished
by alternative positions of the emperor's portrait
in the later issues of Tiberius and in those of years
21 and 22 of Hadrian: and if any clue to the classification
of the bewildering coinage of Antoninus Pius, Marcus
Aurelius, and Lucius Verus, is to be found, it may
best be sought in a similar distinction.
(5)
There is no clear evidence that such a minor variation
as the direction of the ends of the wreath-tie on the
obverse could be used as a shop-mark.
(6)
The allocation of different shops to different members
of the imperial house is certain under Diocletian and
Maximian, probable in the latter part of the reign
of Gallienus and in that of Carus and his sons, but
quite uncertain at any other time and contrary to the
evidence in the joint years of Valerian and Gallienus.
A
chronological statement of the changes in the schemes
from year 10 of Severus Alexander may be added :
| |
Years
|
Method
of differentiation
|
| Sev.
Alexander |
10-14
|
By
termination : four forms for Alexander, three for
Mamaea. |
| Maximinus |
1-2
|
None. |
| |
3-4
|
By
termination, or by spelling for Maximus Caesar
: two forms each. |
| Gordian
I |
1
|
By
termination : two forms. |
| Balbinus
and Pupienus |
1
|
None? |
| Gordian
III Caesar |
1
|
By
termination : two forms. |
| Gordian
III Aug. |
2-5
|
By
termination : two or three forms : two for Tranquillina. |
| |
6-7
|
By
breakage : two or three forms : two for Tranquillina. |
| Philip
I |
1-3
|
By
breakage : four forms : two for Otacilia : no variation
for Philip II. |
| |
4-7
|
By
termination : four forms : four or two for Otacilia
: three or four for Philip II. |
| Decius |
1-2
|
By
termination :three or two forms : two for Etruscilla
: two for Etruscus : no variation for Hostilian. |
| Gallus |
3
|
None. |
| Valerian
and Gallienus |
1-8
|
None. |
| Gallienus |
9-10
|
None? |
| |
11-15
|
By
issues for Gallienus and Salonina respectively? |
| Claudius |
1-3
|
By
breakage : two forms. |
| Aurelian |
1-5
|
By
spelling of title : two forms. |
| |
4-5
|
By
use of star :
two forms. |
| |
6-7
|
None. |
| Tacitus |
1
|
None. |
| Probus |
1-8
|
By
breakage : two (or three?) forms. |
| Carus,
Carinus, and Numerian |
1-3
|
By
issues for Carus and Numerian and for Carinus respectively
: also in years 1-2 by star. |
| Diocletian |
1-2
|
None. |
| |
2-6
|
By
issues for respective emperors and star for each
: four forms. |
| |
with
Maximian. |
1-5
|
| |
7-8
|
By
issue as before (one only using star) : two forms. |
| |
with
Maximian. |
6-7
|
| |
8-10
|
By
numeral letters : four forms. |
| |
with
Maximian. |
7-9
|
| |
10-12
|
None? |
| |
with
Maximian. |
9-11
|
The
chief changes in practice are almost coincident with
the dates when there is other evidence of innovation
or reorganisation in the mint of Alexandria. The introduction
of the regular system of differentiation by termination
or by breakage came shortly after the appearance of
a novel style in years 4 to 7 of Alexander, to which
reference has been made above. This system was dropped
after the cessation of the activities of the mint during
year 2 of Gallus. Differentiation was resumed in year
11 of Gallienus, when the module of the coins was markedly
altered, and their artistic style improved. The series
commenced then ran on till year 5 of Aurelian, with
a gradual decay in workmanship : then another reform
took place, bringing a fresh improvement of style,
and dropping the differentiation, which was, however,
resumed by various methods during the remainder of
the issue of tetradrachms. The more precise determination
of the number of shops open at any given point in this
period would require a fuller examination of statistics,
which must be reserved for a future occasion: the object
of the present paper has been to show that the variations
discoverable in concurrent issues of Alexandrian tetradrachms
had in most, if not all, cases the purpose of distinguishing
the output of the shops of the mint.
|
