Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GLASGOW 2011
British Academy
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
XIV th INTERNATIONAL NUMISMATIC CONGRESS
GLASGOW 2009
I
CONTENTS
Preface
Editors note
18
19
Inaugural lecture
A foreigners view of the coinage of Scotland, by Nicholas MAYHEW
23
Antiquity: Greek
I Delfini (distribuzione, associazioni, valenza simbolica), by Pasquale APOLITO
35
42
48
Up-to-date survey of the silver coinage of the Nabatean king Aretas IV, by Rachel
BARKAY
52
58
67
Not only art! The period of the signing masters and historical iconography,
by Maria CACCAMO CALTABIANO
73
81
89
97
105
114
123
CONTENTS
131
The coinage of the Scythian kings in the West Pontic area: iconography, by
Dimitar DRAGANOV
140
The royal archer and Apollo in the East: Greco-Persian iconography in the
Seleukid Empire, by Kyle ERICKSON & Nicholas L. WRIGHT
163
170
178
184
189
199
203
213
Archaic Greek coins east of the Tigris: evidence for circulation?, by J. KAGAN
230
237
246
251
The coinage of Chios during the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, by
Constantine LAGOS
259
265
CONTENTS
269
280
285
293
Some remarks concerning the gold coins with the legend , by Lucian
MUNTEANU
304
310
The coinage of the Paeonian kings Leon and Dropion, by Eftimija PAVLOVSKA
319
Le trsor des monnaies perses dor trouv Argamum / Orgam (Jurilovca, dp.
de Tulcea, Roumanie), by E. PETAC, G. TALMACHI & V. IONI
331
337
350
357
365
The coin finds from Hellenistic and Roman Berytas (fourth century BC third
century AD, by Ziad SAWAYA
376
382
Uso della moneta presso gli indigeni della Sicilia centro-meridionale, by Lavinia
SOLE
393
405
CONTENTS
417
427
436
Zur Datierung und Deutung der Beizeichen auf Stateren von Grtyn, by
Burkhard TRAEGER
441
447
461
473
487
The civic bronze coins of the Eleans: some preliminary remarks, by Franck
WOJAN
497
500
Antiquity: Roman
The coinage of Diva Faustina I, by Martin BECKMANN
509
514
The key to the Varus defeat: the Roman coin finds from Kalkriese, by Frank
BERGER
527
Monetary circulation in the Bosporan Kingdom in the Roman period c. first fourth century AD, by Line BJERG
533
The Roman coin hoards of the second century AD found on the territory of
present-day Serbia: the reasons for their burial, by Bojana BORI-BREKOVI
538
CONTENTS
Die Mnzprgung des Thessalischen Bundes von Marcus Aurelius bis Gallienus
(161-268 n. Chr.), by Friedrich BURRER
545
557
569
576
580
592
Analytical evidence for the organization of the Alexandrian mint during the
Tetrarchy (III-IV centuries AD), by J.M.COMPANA, L. LEN-REINA, F.J.
FORTES, L.M. CABALN, J.J. LASERNA, & M.A.G. ARANDA
595
605
613
621
629
635
Monuments on the move: architectural coin types and audience targeting in the
Flavian and Trajanic periods, by Nathan T. ELKINS
645
657
662
CONTENTS
668
New coins of pre- and denarial system minted outside Italy, by Paz GARCABELLIDO
676
686
696
709
Mars and Venus on Roman imperial coinage in the time of Marcus Aurelius:
iconological considerations with special reference to the emperors
correspondence with Marcus Cornelius Fronto, by Jrgen HAMER
715
The silver coins of Aegeae in the light of Hadrians eastern silver coinages, by F.
HAYMANN
720
726
732
742
749
757
765
772
The Nome coins: some remarks on the state of research, by Katarzyna LACH
780
785
CONTENTS
794
800
809
816
822
828
839
846
856
864
Die Sammlung von Lokalmythen griechischer Stdte des Ostens: ein Projekt der
Kommission fr alte Geschichte und Epigraphik, by Johannes NOLL
872
878
888
893
901
Could the unofficial mint called Atelier II be identified with the officinae of
Chteaubleau (France)?, by Fabien PILON
906
CONTENTS
911
916
926
933
941
A stone thesaurus with a votive coin deposit found in the sanctuary of Campo
della Fiera, Orvieto (Volsinii), by Samuele RANUCCI
954
964
973
Numismatics and archaeology in Rome: the finds from the Basilica Hilariana,
by Alessia ROVELLI
983
991
999
1004
1013
1019
1020
1025
CONTENTS
1037
The iconography of two groups of struck lead from Central Italy and Baetica in
the second and first centuries BC, by Clive STANNARD
1045
1056
Personalized victory on coins: the Year of the Four Emperors Greek imperial
issues, by Yannis STOYAS
1067
1073
1082
Gold and silver first tetrarchic issues from the mint of Alexandria, by D. Scott
VANHORN
1092
Note sulla circolazione monetaria in Etruria meridionale nel III secolo a.C., by
Daniela WILLIAMS
1103
Roman coins from the western part of West Balt territory, by Anna ZAPOLSKA
1115
Antiquity: Celtic
La moneda ibrica del nordeste de la Hispania Citerior: consideraciones sobre
su cronologa y funcin, by Marta CAMPO
1135
1142
1148
1155
Trading with silver bullion during the third century BC: the hoard of Armua de
Tajua, by Manuel GOZALBES, Gonzalo CORES & Pere Pau RIPOLLS
1165
1173
10
CONTENTS
1182
1191
1198
New coin finds from the two late Iron Age settlements of Altenburg (Germany)
and Rheinau (Switzerland) a military coin series on the German-Swiss border?,
by Michael NICK
1207
1218
Antiquity: general
La moneda en el mundo funerario-ritual de Gadir-Gades, by A. ARVALO
GONZLEZ
1231
Neues Licht auf eine alte Frage? Die Verwandschaft von Mnzen und Gemmen,
by Angela BERTHOLD
1240
Tipi del cane e del lupo sulle monete del Mediterraneo antico, by Alessandra
BOTTARI
1247
Not all these things are easy to read, much less to understand: new approaches to
reading images on ancient coins, by Geraldine CHIMIRRI-RUSSELL
1254
1261
Preliminary notes on Phoenician and Punic coins kept in the Pushkin Museum,
by S. KOVALENKO & L.I. MANFREDI
1266
Greek coins from the National Historical Museum of Rio de Janeiro: SNG
project, by Marici Martins MAGALHES
1278
1292
The sacred life of coins: cult fees, sacred law and numismatic evidence, by
Isabelle A. PAFFORD
1303
Anton Prokesch-Osten and the Greek coins of the coin collection at the
Universalmuseum Joanneum in Graz, Austria, by Karl PEITLER
1310
CONTENTS
11
1323
1334
Greek and Roman coins in the collection of the orum Museum, by D. zlem
YALCIN
1344
1355
1360
1372
1382
1392
1401
1408
1411
Norwegian bracteates during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, by Linn EIKJE
1418
1426
1431
1436
1441
12
CONTENTS
1452
1458
1464
Among farmers and city people: coin use in early medieval Denmark, c. 10001250, by Gitte Tarnow INGVARDSON
1470
1477
1492
Byzantine coins from the area of Belarus, by Krystyna LAVYSH & Marcin
WOOSZYN
1500
Die frheste Darstellung des Richters auf einer mittelalterlicher Mnze?, by Ivar
LEIMUS
1509
Coinage and money in the years of insecurity: the case of late Byzantine
Chalkidiki (thirteenth - fourteenth century), by Vangelis MALADAKIS
1517
1535
The money of the First Crusade: the evidence of a new parcel and its
implications, by Michael MATZKE
1542
1552
1557
1564
1570
CONTENTS
13
1580
1591
The discovery of a hoard of coins dated to the fifth and sixth centuries in
Klapavice in the hinterland of ancient Salona, by Tomislav EPAROVI
1597
1605
1614
1620
1625
1633
1640
1649
1664
1671
1679
The money box system for savings in Amsterdam, 1907-1935, by G.N. BORST
1687
1693
14
CONTENTS
1704
1713
1719
1725
1734
1744
1748
Representaciones del caf en el acervo de numismtica del Museu Paulista USP, by Angela Maria Gianeze RIBEIRO
1752
Freiburg im echtland und die Mnzreformen der franzsischen Knige (16891726), by Nicole SCHACHER
1758
1765
1774
The political context of the origin and the exportation of thaler-coins from
Jchymov (Joachimsthal) in the first half of the sixteenth century, by Petr
VOREL
1778
The late sixteenth-century Russian forged kopecks, which were ascribed to the
English Muscovy Company, by Serguei ZVEREV
1783
1789
1796
CONTENTS
15
1807
1813
1821
1826
Numismatic research in Japan today: coins, paper monies and patterns of usage.
Paper money in early modern Japan: economic and folkloristic aspects, by
Keiichiro KATO
1832
1841
A study of medieval Chinese coins from Karur and Madurai in Tamil Nadu, by
KRISHNAMURTHY RAMASUBBAIYER
1847
1852
Silver fragments of unique Byid and amdnid coins and their role in the Kel
hoard (Czech Republic), by Vlastimil NOVK
1862
Numismatic evidence for the location of Saray, the capital of the Golden Horde,
by A.V. PACHKALOV
1869
Le regard des voyageurs sur les monnaies africaines du XVIe au XIXe sicles, by
Josette RIVALLAIN
1874
Les imitations des dirhems carrs almohades: apport des analyses lmentaires,
by A. TEBOULBI, M. BOMPAIRE & M. BLET-LEMARQUAND
1884
1890
Glass jetons from Sicily: new find evidence from the excavations at Monte Iato,
by Christian WEISS
1897
Medals
Joseph Kowarzik (1860-1911): ein Medailleur der Jahrhundertwende, by
Kathleen ADLER
1907
16
CONTENTS
1920
1931
1937
1945
The rediscovery of the oldest private medal collection of the Netherlands, by Jan
PELSDONK
1959
1965
Shines with unblemished honour: some thoughts on an early nineteenthcentury medal, by Tuukka TALVIO
1978
General numismatics
Dalliconografia delle monete antiche allideologia della nazione future.
Proiezioni della numismatica grecista di DAnnunzio sulla nuova monetazione
Sabauda, by Giuseppe ALONZO
1985
1993
The Count of Caylus (1692-1765) and the study of ancient coins, by Franois de
CALLATA
1999
2004
2012
2017
A prosopography of the mint officials: the Eligivs database and its evolution, by
Luca GIANAZZA
2022
2027
CONTENTS
17
2036
2044
Foundation of the Hellenic World. A new private collection open to the public,
by Eleni PAPAEFTHYMIOU
2046
2047
2058
2072
2082
2089
2100
From the electrum to the Euro: a journey into the history of coins. A multimedia
presentation by the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation, by Eleni ZAPITI
2102
Highlights from the Museum of the George and Nefeli Giabra Pierides
Collection, donated by Clio and Solon Triantafyllides: coins and artefacts, by
Eleni ZAPITI & Evangeline MARKOU
2112
Index of Contributors
2118
1093
along with the aurei, will thereby revise significantly the current arrangement of First Tetrarchic
issues from the mint of Alexandria listed in RIC VI. Comparing the examples of Alexandria mint
argentei here, one further important feature is the omission of an officina letter (or secondary mintmark, such as a star, crescent, or pellet) on the coin at Pl. I, 1, given that all other specimens have
an officina letter present. Sutherland assigned the PROVIDENTIA DEORVM and VICTORIAE
SARMATICAE issues to AD 295, and the VIRTVS MILITVM issues to AD 295/6. Almost eighty
years ago, Karl Pink undertook the first significant systematic study of First Tetrarchic argentei
and aurei (including those of Alexandria).3 Since then, several studies have attempted to address
the chronological sequence of Alexandria mint issues, including the argentei, but this chronological sequence has remained largely unchanged.4
The variation in the placement of legends, when compared to the similarity of the portraits
on two separate dies, visible on the imperial nummi, along with the misspellings of obverse and
reverse legends of both gold and bronze issues, and the haphazard placement of the obverse legend
on the Alexandria mint argenteus of Diocletian shown at Pl. I, 1, all suggest that the same mint engravers were employed for both portraits and suggest that a small group of highly-skilled individuals were employed cutting portraits (and possibly reverse types), while less experienced individuals were relegated to cutting legends. The two coins of Domitius Domitianus shown as Pl. I, 5 (a
and b), the first an imperial nummus; the second a provincial tetradrachm, support this hypothesis.
Like the argentei of Alexandria, those of Antioch also display certain stylistic features which,
over time, will be common to that mint. As can be seen from the following examples, the earliest
issue, that of the sacrificing tetrarchs, shows the most variation in portrait style and may share stylistic affinities with other mints, suggesting that die cutters may have been deployed from one mint
to another to help facilitate the production of these new issues (Pl. I, 6 a-c). Later on, however,
once the operation was fully staffed and underway, certain stylistic markers begin to appear, allowing for a consistent and recognizable mint style. One can begin to see a more fully developed Antioch mint portrait style beginning in examples 7d and 7e, while the remaining examples show
two of the predominant styles of that mint in full formation (Pl. II, 7 a-e). Such portrait markers
are important for tracing the possible movement of mint engravers from one mint to another. For a
mint like Alexandria, which produced little First Tetrarchic coinage in silver or gold, these markers
provide valuable clues in helping to understand the chronological sequence of issues.
RIC VI lists two major gold denominations an extremely rare multiple as well as several
very rare aurei and six reverse types: Jupiter enthroned left; Sol standing left; Hercules standing
facing; Jupiter standing facing; and Victory standing facing or advancing left. Six reverse legends exist: IOVI CONSERVATORI for the multiple; for the aurei CONSER AVGG for the Sol;
HERCVLI COM AVGG and IOVI CONSER AVGG for the Hercules and Jupiter respectively;
and VICTOI AVG or VICTORI AVG for the Victory. The multiple and the IOVI CONSER AVGG
is recorded for Diocletian, the HERCVLI COM AVGG for Maximianus, the CONSER AVG for
Galerius Caesar, and the VICTOI AVG or VICTORI AVG for Domitius Domitianus. No aurei
appear to have been struck for Constantius Caesar, a significant omission in view of the standard
practice of striking aurei. Five mintmarks are recorded for these gold issues. For the multiple, the
mintmark is ALE followed by a pellet. The mintmark for the aurei of the emperors is ALE with a
star in the left or right field. For the aurei of Domitius Domitianus there are three mintmarks. The
first (and possibly earliest) is one with no mintmark and the reverse legend VICTOI AVG. The
second is the mintmark ALE with an A officina letter in the left field and the reverse legend VIC3
Pink 1930, pp. 33-34 (for the argentei); Pink 1931, pp. 51-52 (for the
aurei).
1094
D. SCOTT VANHORN
TORI AVG. A third, which RIC does not list, has the mintmark ALE with a star in the left field and
the reverse legend VICTORIA AVG. Published by Jacqueline Lallemand in her 1951 Revue belge
Numismatique article on the coinage of Domitius Domitianus, and coming from the collection of
the late Victoria Adda, a noted Alexandrian collector, it provides an important clue in establishing
the chronology of the sequence of First Tetrarchic gold issues.
Sutherland dated the multiple to AD 294 and the aurei, including those issues of Domitius
Domitianus, to AD 294-296. As with the argentei, no significant study of First Tetrarchic issues of
aurei has been undertaken since that of Karl Pink almost eighty years ago, and as these extremely
rare issues of Alexandria may appear to provide too small a sample for research, this chronological
sequence has remained unchanged. The key to the solution, I think, are those aurei struck during
the revolt of Domitius Domitianus, dated to AD 297/8, which provide an important fixed chronological point for the sequence of the First Tetrarchic aurei of the Alexandria mint. Four obverse
and five reverse dies are recorded for the aurei of Domitius Domitianus. The potentially close
die-links of these coins and the misspelling of the reverse legends which argue hasty or unskilled
production, suggest that the quantity of aurei struck for Domitius Domitianus was small and
brief payment for those officers and officials who had assisted in the usurpation.5 Furthermore,
one must take into account the apparent sequence of these issues. The first emission for Domitius
Domitianus must have been that possessing no mintmark at all (Pl. II, 8), a fact supported by the
misspelled reverse legend VICTOI AVG (see comparison coin of Domitius Domitianus). The last
emission would have been the one with the star in the left field, a mintmark sequence which continues on aurei of the First Tetrarchs (Pl. II, 9).
Likewise, the earliest consular issue struck at Alexandria is for Diocletians seventh consulship (AD 299). None is known for Maximianus. More importantly, no sixth consulship (AD 296)
issue is known for Diocletian at Alexandria. This is especially unusual, given Sutherlands chronological claim that the Alexandrian multiple was struck in AD 294 and the First Tetrarchic aurei
were struck between AD 294 and AD 296, as well as the fact that such coins were being minted at
other imperial mints, especially Alexandrias nearest neighbour, Antioch. The question appears to
be further complicated by those First Tetrarchic issues which Sutherland assigned to the AD 294 to
AD 296 period, all of which show a variation of style and type. The aureus of Galerius Caesar with
its Sol reverse, known only from a specimen in Vienna, seems peculiarly out of place, since this
god was not a part of the Jovius-Herculius imperial programme of the First Tetrarchy, already in
place when Galerius became Caesar in AD 293 (Pl. II, 10). Sol appears on pre-reform antoniniani,
but more often in connection with the reverse legend ORIENS AVGG, thus signifying his role as
a personification of the East rather than a representation of the god himself. Only in one instance
is he represented as the god: an undated pre-reform Cyzicus mint antoninianus of Diocletian with
the reverse legend SOLI INVICTO. When it does appear later (which is quite infrequently), as it
does on this aureus (as well as an aureus from Nicomedia), it is only on coins of Galerius Caesar.
Why then was Sol used on the reverse of this aureus?
This aureus must have been struck to commemorate Galeriuss victory over the Sasanian king
Narseh in AD 298 an event well-recorded in the contemporary literature - which, along with
Diocletians suppression of the revolt of Domitius Domitianus, would have once again secured
Romes eastern territories.6 While not necessarily part of the programme per se, the inclusion of
the Sol aureus here, as an indicator of Romes victory over the Persians, provides a further chronological fixed point, demonstrating that those gold issues with the star in the field must have been
struck around AD 298, a conclusion based on those nummi of the same mint signature, known to
5
1095
have been struck in the period following the suppression of the revolt of Domitius Domitianus.
Two other aurei, assigned by other scholars possibly to Alexandria, are unrecorded by Sutherland for that mint. The first coin, struck for Diocletian and showing a bust of Jupiter on the reverse
was assigned by Ivo Lukanc to Alexandria, though without any explanatory reason why it should
be assigned to this mint (Pl. II, 11).7 It has no mintmark, and appears to be part of a series of similar aurei, consisting of four reverse types head of Jupiter, head of Fortuna Redux, head of Sol,
and clasped right hands struck for three of the tetrarchs (Pl. II, 12 a-b). Notably in this series, no
aureus was struck for Maximianus. Pink classified these coins as Festmnzen auf die Beendigung
des Perserkrieges 299.8 Sutherland placed them at Antioch during this same time, as did Pierre
Bastien.9 Georges Depeyrot also assigned them to Antioch and dated the issue to AD 299.10 In view
of this evidence, Lukancs attribution should be rejected.
The second example, also struck for Diocletian, first appeared in Jacob Hirsch Auction XIV
(27 November 1905), lot 1467 (Pl. II, 13). It was also published (along with another similar aureus of Diocletian (Pl. II, 14) by Laffranchi in RIN 1907 (p. 398), in The Roman Avrei Catalogue
of X. Calic as catalog number 4583, and is recorded by Georges Depeyrot as Alexandria 1. This
particular aureus is most unusual in that the bust of Diocletian matches the style of aurei struck
at Antioch (Pl. III, 15 a-b). The reverse features a standing Hercules and has a roughly engraved
legend VIRTVTI AVGG; even the ALE mintmark appears hasty. This coin may be one of the earliest gold issues of Diocletian at Alexandria. Webb, in RIC V, found it difficult to accept the coin as
genuine, based on his own quirky reasoning that the lettering of the reverse legend is cruder than
that of the obverse, and that the letters ALE are weak and irregularly placed although the rest of
the lettering on the reverse is clear and well struck up.11 Other examples of this type, however, display similar qualities of rough engraving, thereby weakening Webbs stylistic argument. Webbs
hypothesis is diminished further by the existence of an extremely rare aureus of Carinus Caesar
(Pl. III, 16 a-b). Assigned by Laffranchi in RIN 1907 (pp. 396-97) to Alexandria, the attribution
is confirmed by a similarity of style with concurrent billon tetradrachms (Pl. III, 17 a-b). These
examples suggest that the Alexandria mint was engaged in the limited production of aurei well
before those issues struck by Domitius Domitianus and those subsequent First Tetrarchic issues.
Such a case significantly alters the original chronology of the gold First Tetrarchic issues at Alexandria, helps to explain the haphazard nature of striking gold at that mint, provides a precedent for
the gold issues of Domitius Domitianus, and offers evidence for a potential connection between
the mints at Alexandria and Antioch.
In view of the evidence offered by these early aurei of Carinus Caesar and Diocletian, Sutherlands inclusion of the gold multiple, dated by him to AD 294, among the Alexandria mints earliest
issues now seems especially inexplicable (Pl. III, 18). This coin is unique in the entire Alexandria
series for the following reasons. Apart from this example, no other gold multiples were struck for
the First Tetrarchy at this mint. The next multiples appear some time after AD 305 with Galerius
as Augustus and Diocletian as Senior Augustus. In addition to the mintmark, these new multiples
have an officina letter in the right field Alpha for Galerius and Gamma for Diocletian mint
signatures which parallel the argentei already mentioned, and which were already a standard feature for the nummi. This multiple, however, has a mint signature unique for Alexandria the ALE
is followed by a pellet. A similar combination, though here with the pellet before the mintmark,
occurs at both Nicomedia and Antioch. The obverse legend is the long form IMP C C VAL DIO6
7
8
Lactant. De mort. pers. 9.7; Eutr. 9.25; Aur. Vict. Caes. 39.33, 36.
Lukanc 1991, p. 146.
Pink, Gold-prgung, p. 50.
1096
D. SCOTT VANHORN
CLETIANVS P F AVG. Given the amount of space available for engraving the legend, the use of
the long form does not necessarily suggest an early issue. Like the example from Nicomedia, the
bust is bareheaded. Yet it is noticeably clean-shaven, something which occurs nowhere else, and
the portrait is of an older man, visibly care-worn by his efforts to keep the empire together. The reverse also possesses some remarkable inconsistencies with other known multiples. At Nicomedia
and Antioch, Jupiter is depicted laureate, standing nude but for a draped chlamys, and holding a
globe surmounted by a Victory and a sceptre, while at his feet stands his aviary symbol, the eagle,
holding a wreath. On the Alexandria example, however, Jupiter is seated on a high back ornate
throne, drapery about his waist, and, in addition to the presence of the sceptre and the eagle, is now
holding a thunderbolt, rather than a Victory. The only other instance where such imagery is known
is on aurei from the Treveri mint, and assigned (unhelpfully!) to circa AD 295305. The overall
style of execution suggests an accomplished engraver, quite possibly an individual attached to a
mint other than Alexandria. If, as has been suggested, he was in Alexandria in AD 302 on his way
back to Nicomedia, it is possible that this piece was then struck, a gift for the continued loyalty of
the provincial administration to the imperial regime.12 While little other evidence is available, it is
clear that Sutherlands date of AD 294 for this issue must be questioned, if not outright rejected.
By observing the comparison aurei from the mint of Antioch, stylistic affinities between these
coins and those of Alexandria suggest, like the argentei, that die cutters may have been transferred
from one mint to another, a fact supported by the Hirsch aureus. Even discounting Lukancs attribution of the aureus with the head of Jupiter on the reverse to Alexandria, it is still possible
to see that during these early stages mint engravers from other mints must have been employed,
especially in the case of those who produced aureus dies. While the evidence is not conclusive, it
is tantalisingly probable, and requires a full die-study for further elucidation.
The chronology of the operations at the mint of Alexandria, established by Pink and followed
by Sutherland, has remained largely unchanged, even though both noticed several obvious difficulties, namely the date of origin and chronological sequence of issues.13 Sutherland argued that it
was necessary to arrange and date correctly the very abundant and probably continuous series of
bronze issues.14 I very much agree, since an understanding of the sequence of these early issues will
contribute greatly to a more precise comprehension of the gold and silver issues as well. My preliminary findings regarding the bronze nummi of Domitius Domitianus, which I presented at the XIIIth
International Numismatic Congress, have shown that the current arrangement in RIC VI is doubtful
and must be revised to comport with the contemporary events of the revolt of Domitius Domitianus.
This revolt provides a fixed chronological point from which a sequence for the remaining issues may be constructed. The same is true for the argentei. The example with which I began this
presentation suggests that Sutherlands chronology for this issue is also outdated and must be
placed in the period of the revolt. As Domitius Domitianus issued no argentei in his own name,
one must conclude that this denomination did not yet exist, or that he had a reason for not striking
it. The presence of such a coin prior to this usurpers revolt makes little sense, and its placement
in the sequence of issues must be reconsidered. Finally, the early gold issues of Alexandria are the
thorniest to resolve. The aureus of Carinus Caesar and the Diocletian aureus of the Hirsch sale
reposition the date of origin for striking of First Tetrarchic gold coinage at the Alexandria mint to
its earliest years (and even a bit further under Diocletians immediate predecessor a possibility
that is quite attractive). It demonstrates that not only were local mint engravers employed for their
12
1097
production, but also that mint engravers were brought from other mints, especially Antioch, from
time to time, as the need arose. Like other issues of Domitius Domitianus, the usurpers aurei provide a fixed chronological point locating those First Tetrarchic aurei with similar mintmarks, and
suggest that these coins should be located after the usurpers issues, rather than before.
Finally, there is the question of the gold multiple. Clearly, Sutherlands placement of it to AD
294 seems much too early, given both its stylistic anomalies and its unique mint signature. Its extreme rarity hampers further any immediate and more secure sequence placement, other than some
time in this period. My suggestion of locating it later in Diocletians reign makes better sense,
though future research may uncover new and more conclusive evidence. My concluding illustration, visible in the following tables, shows Sutherlands chronological arrangement, listed in RIC
VI. As can be seen in Table 1, it presents a somewhat confused picture which I have tried to clarify
with my own arrangement, listed in the Table 2.
TABLE 1. Sutherlands table of First Tetrarchic emissions for Alexandria Mint
Emission
Date
Person(s)
AV
AR
AD 294
Diocletian
(Multiple) ALE
None
AD 294-296
Tetrarchs, DD
AD 295
Tetrarchs
Same
4s
AD 295-296
Tetrarchs, DD
Same
4s;
(eagle)
4s;
4s
ALE
1
AD 296
Tetrarchs
Same
Same
AD 297-281
Tetrarchs
None
None
AD 298-299
Tetrarchs
None
None
(eagle)
1098
D. SCOTT VANHORN
TABLE 2. Table of First Tetrarchic emissions for Alexandria Mint (based on VanHorn)
Emission
Date
Person(s)
AV
AR
AD 282-283
Carinus Caesar
No mintmark
(Aureus)
None
4s
None
4s
4s
No mintmark
(Aureus)
1a
AD 284
1b
AD 285
AD 286-295/6
Tetrarchs
None
None
AD 296/7
Tetrarchs
None
None
4a
AD 297/8
DD
4b1
AD 297/8
Tetrarchs, DD
(long form)
4b2
AD 297/8
Tetrarchs, DD
(short form)
5a
AD 298
Tetrarchs
5b
AD 298
Tetrarchs
Same
Unknown
5c
AD 298
Tetrarchs
Same
Unknown
5d
AD 298
Tetrarchs
Same
5e
AD 298/9
Tetrarchs
Same
Diocletian
ALE (Aureus)
None
4s; 6s(?);
8s
Same
None
(eagle)
Same
None
(eagle)
(eagle)
ALE
circa AD 302
Diocletian
(Multiple) ALE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bastien, P. (1988), Monnaies et donativa au Bas Empire (Wetteren: Edit Numismatique Romaine).
Depeyrot G. (1995), Les monnaies dor de Diocletien a Constantin I (Wetteren: Moneta).
Gautier, G. (1984), Le monnayage dargent dAlexandrie aprs la rforme de Diocltian: essai de
classement, RN.
Lukanc, I. (1991), Diocletianvs, der rmische Kaiser aus Dalmatien (Wetteren: Edit Cultura).
Pink, K. (1930), Die Silberprgung des Diocletianischen Tetrarchie, NZ.
Pink, K. (1931), Die Gold-prgung des Diocletianus und seiner Mitregenten, NZ.
Sutherland, C.H.V. (1967), The Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. VI, London.
Webb, P.H. (1967), The Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. V, London.
1099
KEY TO PLATES
Plate I
1: Argenteus of Diocletian (Classical Numismatic Group 67 [22 September 2004], lot 1757).
2: Tetradrachm of Domitius Domitianus (Hess-Divo 309 [28 April 2008], lot 103 = Knker
124 [16 March 2007], lot 8190).
3: Argentei of Diocletian, Galerius Caesar and Maximianus Leu 86 (5 May 2003), lot 965.
Triton XIII (5 January 2010), lot 377 = Freeman & Sear MBS 13 (25 August 2006), lot 571.
Peus 369 (31 October 2001), lot 1402.
4: Tetradrachms of Domitius Domitianus
Hess-Divo 307 (7 June 2007), lot 1411.
Peus 369 (31 October 2001), lot 1415.
5: Coins of Domitius Domitianus
Nummus (Triton X [(9 January 2007], lot 762 = Tkalec [9 May 2005]), lot 377
Tetradrachm (Classical Numismatic Group 70 [21 September 2005], lot 626 = Dattari Collection, 10817)
6: Antioch mint argentei of Maximianus, Constantius Caesar and Diocletian
Freeman & Sear FPL 9 (Spring 2004), no. 106.
Freeman & Sear FPL 9 (Spring 2004), no. 115.
Goldberg 41 (27 May 2007), lot 2931.
Plate II
7: Antioch mint argentei of Maximianus Caesar, Constantius Caesar and Maximianus
Freeman & Sear MBS 16 (5 June 2009), lot 418.
Freeman & Sear MBS 16 (5 June 2009), lot 419.
Freeman & Sear MBS 16 (5 June 2009), lot 421.
Numismatica Ars Classica 46 (2 April 2008), lot 693.
Freeman & Sear FPL 9 (5 June 2009), lot 408.
8: First Emission Aureus of Domitius Domitianus (RIC VI, pl. 16, 5)
9: Aureus of Maximianus (Numismatica Ars Classica 49 [21 October 2008], lot 430)
10: Aureus of Galerius Caesar (RIC VI, pl. 16, 2)
11: Aureus of Diocletian Assigned to Alexandria Mint (BM Inv. No. 11-1-1 [1975])
12: Aurei of Galerius Caesar
RIC VI 23b [Antioch]
Ponton DAmcourt Collection (Rollin & Feuardent, 25 April 1887), lot 638.
13: Aureus of Diocletian (RIN 1907, pl. XIII, 23-4 = J. Hirsch XIV [27 November 1905], lot 1467)
14: Aureus of Diocletian (RIN 1907, pl. XIII, 18)
Plate III
15: Antioch mint aurei of Diocletian
GoMo 175 (9 March 2009), lot 284.
Knker 143 (6 October 2008), lot 725.
16: Aurei of Carinus Caesar
Numismatica Ars Classica 34 (24 November 2006), lot 70.
RIN 1907, pl. XIII, 18 [only obverse illustrated])
17: Tetradrachms of Carinus Caesar
CNG Inv. 730542
Peus 369 (31 October 2001), lot 1402.
18: Gold Multiple of Diocletian (BN, no. 15)
PLATE I
Plate I
3a
3b
4a
4b
5a
6a
3c
5b
6b
6c
PLATE II
te II
7a
7b
7c
7d
7e
10
11
12a
13
12b
14
PLATE III
III
15a
15b
16a
16b
17a
17b
18