• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
207
THE ORGANISATIONOFTHE ALEXANDRIANMINTINTHEREIGNOFDIOCLETIAN
BYJ.GRAFTONMILNE,M.A.1.Thequestionhasbeen raised morethan oncewhether thecoins issuedundertheRom:anemperorsfor thecurrencyoftheprovinceofEgyptwere struckonlyatAlexandriaorinpartat othermints.Thesuppositionthat therewas morethanoneplaceofmintagehasbeenbasedmainlyonslightvariationsintypesandfineness;but itmaybearguedthatthesevariationsmightoccurindifferentshopsofthesamemintjustasmuch as indifferentmints.Iproposetherefore toenquirewhatevidencecanbefound astotheexistence of distinctshopsinthemint of AlexandriaduringtheperiodwhentheRomano-Egyptiancoinagewas on aspecialbasis-i.e.down tothe"MonetaryReform"ofDiocletian-and inthefirstinstancetoinvestigateforthispurposetheissuesofthereignofDiocletian,as thenearestinpointof timetothosewhichcanbemorecertainlyclassifiedundershops.2. Itshouldbepremisedthatthestatisticsusedinthefollowingparagraphsfordemonstratingthesizeofaparticularissueofcoins havebeen drawn sofar aspossiblefromacombinationoftheresultsofhoardscoveringthesameperiod.Thegeneralprinciplestobeadoptedinusingtheevidenceof hoards areexplainedinmnypaperon"TheRomanCoinageofAlexandria"inHistoricalStudies,p.30;butitmaybeaswelltoemphasizethefact,whichis notalwaysrecognised,that theactivityoftheAlexandrianmintinagiven yearisnotto be measuredbythenumberofdistincttypesused,butratherthecontrary:as arule,thelargerthenumber ofcoinsissuedinanyyear,thesmalleris the numberoftypes;consequently,itismostmisleadingtoassume thatthe issueofayearwaslargebecausesomemuseumorcollectionpossessesnumerousvarietiesoftypesofthatyear.3. Asapreliminarystep,it isnecessaryto considera chronologicalpoint-therelationofthevariouscoinage-yearsusedduringtheperiodunderconsideration,whenAlexandriancoinswere struckinthenamesofDiocletian,Maximian,Constantius,andGalerius.InallearlierinstancesduringtheRoman ruleinEgypt (excepttheanomalouscaseofAurelianandVaballathus)whereasecondAugustusor aCaesarhadbeenproclaimed,thedates on Alexandriancoins struckinhisnamewerethoseoftheyearsofthe seniorAugustus.Butthe issuesofDiocletianand MaximianweredatedbytheirindividualyearsasAugusti;consequently,asMaximianwasassociated inthefullimperial powerduringthe secondAlexandrianyearofDiocletian-285/6-hiscoinage-year1is 2ofDiocletian.Thus,whlen ConstantiutsandGalerius
 
J.GRAFTONMILNE
wereproclaimedCaesars,-whichwas,accordingtothechronologyusuallyaccepted,onMarch1st,292,-themintprobablyfoundadifficultyinfollowingprecedentwithregardtotheiryears:theymighthave datedthe coinsof ConstantiusbytheyearsofDiocletian,and thoseofGaleriusbytheyearsofMaximian,eachCaesartakingthedatesofthe Augustuswithwhom he wasspeciallyassociated;but,as there werealreadytwo sets ofyearsrunning,theofficials seem to havethoughtitsimplertogivetheCaesarstheir owndates,andthe issuesofConstantiusandGaleriusareaccordinglydatedyears1to4. It hasusuallybeenassumed thattheseyearswerefixed ontheregularAlexandrianprinciple,so thatyear1of ConstantiuswouldbeMarch1st toAugust28th,292,coincidingwiththelatterpartofyear8ofDiocletian
=
7ofMaximian.But there are several reasons forthinkingthatthefirstyearoftheCaesars,forcoinage-dating,wasyear9=8,notyear8=7,ofDiocletianandMaximian.4.(a)Thepalmwasintroducedas asymbolonthe reverseof coinsofDiocletianinhisyear10. Thiswasin honour of hisdecennalia,inaccordancewithprecedent(see
?
25);andpreededent(see?25);asndprecedentalso allowedthepalmtobesimultaneouslyplacedonthe reversesofcoinsofsubordinate membersoftheimperialhouse.Nowthepalmis foundoncoins ofConstantiusofyear2,which isthereforepresumablyyear10ofDiocletian,notyear9;as it is mostimprobablethatthesymbolwouldhavebeen introducedonthe coinsof aCaesarayearinadvance of thepropertime.(b)Thepalmissimilarlyfirstused as asymboloncoins of Maximianinhisyear10,and occursoncoinsofGaleriusofhisyear3.(c)Exergualletters,indicating shopsof the mint(see?9),arefound oncoins ofyears8, 9,and10ofDiocletian,7,8,and9ofMaximian,and1and2ofConstantiusancdGalerius.Itseemsunlikelythat,ifyear1 oftheCaesars hadcorrespondedwithyear8=7 oftheEmperors,the useofshop-numeralswould havebeendroppedintheiryear3whenitwascontinuedon thecoinage of theirseniors.(d)The staroccursfrequentlyasasymboloncoinsofyear4ofConstantiusandGalerius;itsimilarlyoccurs onthoseofyear12ofDiocletianand11 ofMaximian,but neveronthose ofyear11=10.(e)Ifyear1oftheCaesarswasyear8=7 of theEmperors,therewouldbenocoinsknown ofthelastyeaiyear-year5-oftheCaesars before themonetaryreform.Thereis noobviousreasonwhytheirissuesshould have ceasedwhilethoseoftheEmperorswenton.(f)ThecoinsofDiocletian ofyear12and ofMaximian ofyear11showmarkedpeculiaritiesoftreatment,whichare sharedbythoseof theCaesarsofyear4(see?27).Forthesereasonswemaysupposethatthe issueofcoinsfortheCaesars,andthedatingoftheircoin-years,didnotbegintillyear9=8oftheEmperors.Thisdatingisinaccordancewiththeevidence ofpapyri,inwhichyear1 oftheCaesarsisnormallyequatedwithyear9=8of theEmperors,andsoforth.Thetablesgivenbelow arecompiledontheassumptionthatthisequationis thecorrectoneforthepurposesofthecoinage.5.AfterthemonetaryreformofDiocletian,theevidence as to theorganisationof theAlexandrian mintismuchclearerthan before.TheEgyptiancurrencywas
208
 
THEORGANISATIONOFTHE ALEXANDRIANMINT209
nowassimilated to that of therestof theempire:and thecoinage,whichwasissuedfromadozen ormoremints indifferentprovinces,regularlyborethenameoftheplaceofmintageof eachpiece,and alsoaletterornumberdenotingtheparticularshopinwhichitwasstruck. TheonlyEgyptiancitywhosename occursas aplaceofmintageisAlexandria,where thereseemstohave beenagooddealofvariationinthenumber ofshopsatwork.
MAURICE's
carefulstudyofthecoinageofthetimeofConstantinetheGreat showsthatthe Alexandrianminthad thefollowingshlopsopenduringthisperiod:-305-3084308-3116311-3123312-3148314-3272327-335Mintclosed335-337 2337onwards46. Itdoesnotappearwhatconsiderations governedthe number ofshopsopenatany particulartime. Itmightbepresumedthat extrashopswerestartedwhentheminthadtoproduceanunusuallylargeissue;but Ihave nodefiniteevidencethatthecoins of theperiodswhenthereweremostshopsaremarkedlycommonerthanothers. Alsoit is notclear whethertheoutputofdifferentshopswasapproximatelyequalatanygiventime;alargehoard ofcoinsburiedabout344
A.D.
andconsistingalmostentirelyof theissuesoftheprecedingtenyearscontained271,318,377,and233examplesstruck after337bythefourshopsoftheAlexandrianmintrespectively(seeJourn.Intern.d'Arch.Numism.,xvi,1),whichsuggeststhattherewassome,thoughnotnecessarilyalarge,variationin theoutput.7.Wecannowproceedtoscrutinizetheissues ofthetwelveyearsofthereignofDiocletianbeforethemonetaryreform,duringwhich theEgyptianmintstrucktetradrachmsfortheprovincialcurrency,and,accordingto theregularcustomofAlexandria,datedthecoins ofeachregnalyear.The hoards which Ihaveexaminedarethree,andthefollowingtableshows thenumberofspecimensofeachyearineachhoard,withapercentageexpressedasthe mean ofthepercentagesofthethreetakenseparately.
Hoard A.HoardB.HoardC.Meanpercentage.
Year 132211436'3,,2703217311-3,,310353910517-3,, 4 8251010115-5,, 5715148814-2J6583438111-2,,7 24365266-7,,840114476-,,9 2358404.,,102039353-4,,111727252-6,,12148121-5
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...