1

Tom VI
MUZEUM NARODOWE W KRAKOWIE
SEKCJA NUMIZMATYCZNA
KOMISJI ARCHEOLOGICZNEJ PAN
ODDZIAŁ W KRAKOWIE

Kraków 2011
SPIS TREŚCI / CONTENTS
9 Od redakcji / From the Editors

ARTYKUŁY / ARTICLES
MAREK JAN OLBRYCHT
13 On Coin Portraits of Alexander the Great and His Iranian Regalia. Some Remarks
Occasioned by the Book by F. Smith: L’immagine di Alessandro il Grande sulle
monete del regno (336–323)
27 Streszczenie: O portretach monetarnych Aleksandra Wielkiego. Uwagi na marginesie
książki: F. Smith, L’immagine di Alessandro il Grande sulle monete del regno (336–323)

JERZY CIECIELĄG
31 Ascalon Coins and the Roots of the Herodian Dynasty
45 Streszczenie: Monety z Askalonu a pochodzenie dynastii herodiańskiej

KAMIL KOPIJ
47 Propaganda on the Coinage Related to Pompey the Great
60 Streszczenie: Propaganda na monetach związanych z Pompejuszem Wielkim
5
WOJCIECH BORUCH
63 The Language of Propaganda of the Year of the Four Emperors in the Light of Imperial
Coinage
86 Streszczenie: Język propagandy roku czterech cesarzy w świetle mennictwa imperialnego

KATARZYNA LACH
91 The Roman Coinage of Alexandria in the Reign of Domitian. The First Nome Coins
as Compared with Other Contemporary Issues
100 Streszczenie: Mennictwo aleksandryjskie w okresie panowania Domicjana. Pierwsze
monety nomów na tle pozostałych emisji

AGATA A. KLUCZEK
103 Deo cabiro. À propos des monnaies au nom de Claude II le Gothique frappées
à Antioche
120 Streszczenie: Deo cabiro. O monetach powstałych w Antiochii w imieniu
Klaudiusza II Gockiego

RENATA CIOŁEK
123 Początki zainteresowań znaleziskami monet antycznych w Prusach Królewskich i Książęcych
139 Summary: The Beginnings of the Interest in the Finds of Ancient Coins in Royal Prussia
and Ducal Prussia
 MATERIAŁY / MATERIALS
ARKADIUSZ DYMOWSKI
143 The Late-Roman Bronze Coins Found recently in Krakow and the Surrounding Area
148 Streszczenie: Późnorzymskie monety brązowe z nowych znalezisk z Krakowa i okolic

JAROSŁAW BODZEK, ELŻBIETA POHORSKA-KLEJA

153 Znalezisko solida Walentyniana III w Prusieku, gm. Sanok, woj. podkarpackie
162 Summary: A Solidus of Valentinian III Found at Prusiek, Gmina Sanok, Podkarpackie
Voivodship

ANNA JAWORUCKA-DRATH
163 Bony zastępcze Cukierni Lwowskiej w Krakowie, zwanej Jamą Michalika,
w zbiorach Gabinetu Numizmatycznego Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie
171 Summary: Customer Vouchers Issued by the Lvov Café “Jama Michalika” in Krakow,
in the Collection of the Coin Room of the National Museum in Krakow

RECENZJE / REVIEWS
TOMASZ BOCHNAK
6
175 Georges Depeyrot
Le numéraire celtique, I, La Gaule du Sud-Est, MONETA 27, Wetteren 2002
Le numéraire celtique, II, La Gaule des monnaies à la croix, MONETA 28,
Wetteren 2002
Le numéraire celtique, III, De l’Atlantique aux Arwernes, MONETA 36, Wetteren 2004
Le numéraire celtique, IV, Bituriges, Éduens, Séquanes, Lingons, MONETA 41,
Wetteren 2004

EDWARD DĄBROWA
179 C. Augé, F. Duyrat (éds.), Les monnayages syriens. Quel apport pour
l’histoire du Proche-Orient hellénistique et romain? Actes de la table ronde
de Damas, 10–12 novembre 1999 (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique
– vol. 162), Institut Française d’Archéologie du Proche Orient, Beyrouth 2002

DOROTA MALARCZYK
183 Khatchatur Mousheghian (†), Anahit Moushegian, Cecile Bresc, Georges Depeyrot,
François Gurnet, History and Coin Finds in Armenia; Coins from Duin, Capital
of Armenia (4–13th c.); Inventory of Byzantine and Sasanian Coins in Armenia (6–7th c.),
Collection Moneta 18, Wetteren 2000
KRONIKA / CHRONICLE
ELŻBIETA KORCZYŃSKA
187 Kronika Gabinetu Numizmatycznego Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie (2001–2008)
197 The National Museum in Krakow Coin Room Chronicle (2001–2008)

MACIEJ SALAMON
209 Sekcja Numizmatyczna Komisji Archeologicznej Oddziału Polskiej Akademii Nauk
w Krakowie (2001–2010)
211 The Numismatic Section of the Archaeological Committee of the Polish Academy
of Sciences, Krakow (2001–2010)

ANNA JAWORUCKA-DRATH
213 Memoriae Donatorum – wystawa numizmatyczna ze zbiorów Gabinetu
Numizmatycznego Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie
217 Memoriae Donatorum – the Numismatic Exhibition Showcasing Collections
of the Coin Room, National Museum in Krakow

NEKROLOGI / OBITUARIES
7
BOGUMIŁA HACZEWSKA
223 Wspomnienie o dr Stanisławie Kubiak (1926–2005)
225 In Memory of Dr Stanisława Kubiak (1926–2005)

BOGUMIŁA HACZEWSKA
227 Wspomnienie o dr Januszu Reymanie (1927–2004)
229 In Memory of Dr Janusz Reyman (1927–2004)

MACIEJ SALAMON
231 Historia starożytna i źródła numizmatyczne. Profesora Lesława Morawieckiego
koncepcja badań nad mennictwem antycznym.
244 Summary: Ancient History and Numismatic Sources. Proffesor Lesław Morawiecki’s
Idea of the Ancient Coinage Research
Tom VI

Kraków 2011

KATARZYNA LACH
Jagiellonian University, Krakow

THE ROMAN COINAGE OF ALEXANDRIA

IN THE REIGN OF DOMITIAN.
THE FIRST NOME COINS AS COMPARED
WITH OTHER CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

The rule of the Flavian dynasty did not bring any significant change in the Ro-
man Empire’s policy towards one of the most exploited provinces, i.e., Egypt. The
status of the province, established by Augustus in 27 BC, remained unchanged. The 91
provincial administration was entrusted to the prefect, directly accountable to the
emperor whose authority was, in fact, unlimited.1 The Roman legions, responsible
for keeping peace in the province, were still stationed there. No changes were made
in the monetary policy, either.2 In Alexandria, billon tetradrachmas (equal in value
to the Roman denarius) and their fractions were minted. There was no coinage made
of gold or pure silver and the import of such coins was prohibited. Within the terri-
tory of Egypt, the only valid coinage was the one struck at Alexandria. Moreover, it
was forbidden to export it from the province. The Flavian rulers had maintained the
status quo, except for the fact that some additional taxes were imposed (such as the
fiscus iudaicus and the poll tax levied on the Alexandrians).

1
Some of the more important publications on the subject: A.K. BOWMAN, Egypt after the Pharaohs, Uni-
versity of California Press 1986, pp. 65–69; L. CAPPONI, Augustan Egypt. The Creation of the Roman Prov-
ince, New York and London 2005, pp. 25–35; A. ŁUKASZEWICZ, Egipt Greków i Rzymian, Warszawa 2006, pp.
229–241; M. SARTRE, Wschód rzymski. Prowincje i społeczeństwa prowincjonalne we wschodniej części basenu
Morza Śródziemnego w okresie od Augusta do Sewerów (31 r.p.n.e.–235 r. n.e.), Wrocław 1997, pp. 452–4610.
2
Inter alia: A. BURNETT, M. AMANDRY, I.A. CARRADICE (eds), Roman Provincial Coinage II. From
Vespasian to Domitian (AD 69–96), London, Paris 1999 (hereafter RPC II); E. CHRISTIANSEN, The Roman
Coins of Alexandria. Quantitative Studies, Vol. 1 and 2, Aarhus 1988; S. SKOWRONEK, Mennictwo aleksan-
dryjskie w okresie Cesarstwa Rzymskiego, Kraków 1982; J. VOGT, Die alexandrinischen Münzen, Stuttgart 1924;
I.A. CARRADICE, T.V. BUTTREY, Roman Imperial Coinage, Vol. II, Part 1, London 2007.
 KATARZYNA LACH

The rule of Domitian was frequently contrasted, in particular by contemporary

authors, with the reign of his father, Vespasian.3 While Vespasian showed his gener-
osity and leniency (Suet. Vesp. 12–13), Domitian tended to be cruel and vainglori-
ous (Suet. Dom. 10–12). The two emperors had also differed in their approach to the
finances of the state. Suetonius recounts Vespasian’s miserly ways and the means he
had used to obtain more money (Suet. Vesp. 16), yet a little further on he excuses the
ruler for such practices and says: “(...) he made the best use of his gains, ill-gotten
though they were”. Domitian, who was reportedly noted for his honesty and gener-
osity before his accession to the throne and very early into his reign, turned greedy
and cruel after some time (Suet. Dom. 9–10). It can be seen that Suetonius portrays
Vespasian in a very positive light and explains his actions by referring to his extraor-
dinary traits of character, whereas his depiction of Domitian is completely negative
in all the aspects of his authority.
As the governor of Egypt, Domitian pursued the policy of his father, adopting
the policy of tolerance towards the Egyptian religion, and also followed in his pre-
decessor’s footsteps by investing in the cleaning of irrigation channels and construc-
tion of new roads.4 Domitian was aware of the fact that only the proper governance
in the province could make the conquered territories yield expected profits.5 It had
already been Augustus’ main goal to increase the areas of cultivated land in Egypt
92
and, in consequence, the income from the levied taxes.6 Apart from various types
of land taxes, Augustus had imposed a poll tax on all the male inhabitants of Egypt,
from 14 to 60 years of age.7 The census, which was instituted ca. AD 33/34, was
carried out every fourteen years with the purpose of entering all the inhabitants
bound to pay the tax in the records.8 The population of Egypt was also encumbered
by various other taxes allocated for the purposes of construction projects, irrigation,
military requirements, as well as by transport payments.9 Taxes were paid in coin or
in kind (in the latter case, mostly in grain supplies).10

3
B.W. JONES, The Emperor Domitian, London, New York 2002; H.W. PLEKET, “Domitian, the Senate and
the Provinces”, Mnemosyne 14:4, 1961, pp. 296–315; P.M. ROGERS, “Domitian and the Finances of the State”,
Historia 33:1, 1984, pp. 60–78.
4
JONES, The Emperor Domitian, p. 113.
5
PLEKET, “Domitian, the Senate and the Provinces”, p. 312.
6
In his speech to the Jews in 66, Agrippa said that the Roman Empire’s monthly income from Egypt is greater
than a yearly one from Judea (Titus Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War II, 385–6); SARTRE, Wschód rzymski...,
p. 470.
7
This tax had been collected until as late as AD 257/8 (R. DUNCAN-JONES, Money and Government in the
Roman Empire, Cambridge 1994, p. 61); ŁUKASZEWICZ, Egipt Greków i Rzymian, p. 246.
8
R. BAGNALL, “The Beginnings of the Roman Census in Egypt”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
32, p. 255.
9
ŁUKASZEWICZ, Egipt Greków i Rzymian, p. 246.
10
CAPPONI, Augustan Egypt..., p. 129.
 THE ROMAN COINAGE OF ALEXANDRIA IN THE REIGN OF DOMITIAN

Using coins in payment transactions was limited, to a certain extent, in Egypt

as well as throughout the Empire. This was due to two reasons. First, in many loca-
tions, especially in less urbanized territories, the old, pre-monetary, system of pay-
ment based on exchange of goods was still in practice. Second, there was a shortage
of coins in circulation, owing to the limited resources of the state as well as the
inefficient means of distributing coinage.11
In Domitian’s eleventh regnal year (AD 91/92), a new type of coin was in-
troduced in Egypt, the so-called “nome coins”.12 Their name is derived from the
inscription on the reverse, always bearing the word NOMOC and the designation of
a specific nome. The iconographic representations of the issues in question are re-
lated to the local cults. The reverse of the coin bears an image of the personification
of the guardian deity of a given city, while the images on the obverse of the nome
coins were identical with those on the obverse of the other provincial coinage struck
in Alexandria. It represented the sovereign’s image as well as an inscription with
his title and name. As mentioned above, the nome coins can be identified as such
by their inscriptions on the reverse. Up to that point, representations on the reverse
of the coins issued in Egypt did not bear any inscription, except for the year of the
coinage. The issue of Domitian’s coins comprises eight nomes: four of the Lower
and four of the Upper Egypt (Map 1). Thus far, the coins of the nomes Hermopolis
93
and Mendes have not been clearly attested as belonging to this period. The coins of
the nomes Saite and Sethroite are known thanks to just one extant item.13 During
Domitian’s reign, the valid denomination of the nome coins was only the bronze
drachm, later on obols and hemiobols were included.
The issue of the nome coins in 91/92 was an isolated occurrence during Domi-
tian’s reign. The next coinage of the nomes were not struck until 108/109, under
Trajan. The minting of those coins continued for the next four years, until 111/112.
After that, it was discontinued until AD 116/117, when one more series was struck.
The next emperor during whose reign the minting of the nome coins was resumed
was Hadrian. They were issued in the years from 121/122 to 123/124 and in 126/127.
The last issues of the nome coinage are those struck in 144/145, both for Antoninus
Pius and Marcus Aurelius (as Caesar).

11
DUNCAN-JONES, Money and Government..., p. 20.
12
The essential publications on the nome coins: RPC II, pp. 339–341; A. ��������������������������
GEISSEN, M. WEBER, “Unter-
suchung zu der ägyptischen Nomenpragung (I–X)” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 144, 2003, pp.
277–300; 147, 2004, pp. 259–279; 149, 2004, pp. 283–306; 151, 2005, pp. 279–309; 153, 2005, p. 291–316; 155,
2006, pp. 271–300; 157, 2006, pp. 277–304; 158, 2006, pp. 271–300; 160, 2007, pp. 275–300; 164, 2008, pp.
277–305; J.G. MILNE, “The Nome Coins of Egypt”, Ancient Egypt 1932, pp. 73–78.
13
RPC II, p. 340.
 KATARZYNA LACH

There are many hypotheses explaining why these particular coins were issued.
They were to commemorate the emperors’ decenalia and vicenalia,14 for example,
or to serve as an instrument of propaganda.15 According to one of the recently most
common theories, the nome coins were to commemorate the twentieth anniversary
of the censorship of Vespasian and Titus at the turn of AD 73 and 74, and the related
reform designed to reorganize the agriculture of Egypt.16 The gradual emergence of
the coins of the individual nomes is explained by the corresponding implementation
of the reform in each successive part of the province. The fact that the final issue
appeared in the eighth year of Antoninus Pius’ reign is to signify the conclusion of
the reform implementation process. This hypothesis, however, does not account for
all the relevant issues.17
In all the studies published so far, the “nome coins” have been separated from
the rest of the provincial coinage issues. However, in the case of the first issue,
struck during Domitian’s eleventh regnal year, these coins are integrated into the
monetary policy of the period, and they ought to be discussed within that context.
The 1st-century coins found in Egyptian hoards are overwhelmingly dominated
by the coinage of Nero. Erik Christiansen’s (1988) research on the coins issued after
the ninth year of Nero’s reign, and in particular during the twelfth year, highlighted
the correlation with the debasement of the denarius weight at Rome in AD 64.18
94
The minting of the debased-standard billon tetradrachm in Alexandria, which com-
menced during the ninth year of Nero’s reign aimed to remove the high-grade silver
coins from circulation, especially the Ptolemeian and Tiberian coinage.19 Christians-
en argues that those efforts were successful, providing Rome with an amount of sil-
ver necessary for covering Nero’s expenses. The tremendous volume of the coinage
issued during Nero’s reign weighed heavily on the Empire’s monetary policy for
a century to come. The Egyptian market was well-stocked on currency and the suc-
cessive sovereigns felt no need to put greater quantities of coinage in circulation. It
can be seen, in particular, in the contents of the hoards until as late as the latter half

14
J. SCHWARTZ, « Le monnaies de nomes en Egypte Romaine », Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyp-
tologie 15, p. 19–20; VOGT, Die alexandrinischen Münzen, p. 51.
15
M. JUNGFLEISCH, « Note sur les monnaies des nomes Égyptiens », Revue Numismatique 17, pp.
259–265.
16
J.-C. GRENIER, “Une hypothese sur l’origine des monnaies de nomes”, [in:] W. VON CLARYSSE,
A. SCHOORS, H. WILLEMS (eds), Egyptian Religion: The Last Thousand Years. Studies dedicated to the memory
of Jan Quaegebeur, (Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 85), Leuven 1998, pp. 1331–1340.
17
K. LACH, “The Nome Coinage. Some Remarks on the State of Research”, Papers of the XIV International
Numismatic Congress in Glasgow (forthcoming).
18
A. KUNISZ, Mennictwo w Cesarstwie Rzymskim w I wieku n.e., Katowice 1978, p. 77; C.H.V. SUTHER-
LAND, R.A.G. CARSON, Roman Imperial Coinage, Vol. 1, London 1984, pp. 136 ff.
19
CHRISTIANSEN, The Roman Coins of Alexandria..., p. 105.
 THE ROMAN COINAGE OF ALEXANDRIA IN THE REIGN OF DOMITIAN

of the second century (Chart 120). Among the coins of the Flavian dynasty found in
the hoards, the most represented are those from the reign of Vespasian (Table 1).
The production of billon tetradrachms was extensive at the beginning of Vespasian’s
reign. Even the coins dated to the first regnal year, which lasted only two months,
are numerous and, according to the hoard finds among the regnal years 1 to 3, ac-
count for 17%, as compared with 75% struck during the second year and 7% during
the third. A significantly large output of coins during the first two years of his reign
and a gradual decrease during the third year indicates that a certain demand for
coins has been fulfilled. Interestingly, in the hoards, even the coins struck during
Titus’ reign, i.e., over a period of a little more than three years, outnumber those of
Domitian.21 It may have been due to a lack of demand for new issues, as there were
sufficient quantities of the coins minted under Nero and Vespasian in circulation.
It remains to wonder then why Vespasian issued any coinage at all. And in doing
so, we should take into account the necessity of covering the costs of the legions
stationed in Egypt22 as well as the ordinary propaganda-related function: the new
emperor’s image on the coins.
Another question to consider is the number of the reverse types issued in each
year. The list below (Table 2) presents the reigns of Nero, Vespasian, and Domitian.
As we can see, the coinage issued during Domitian’s reign was characterized by
95
the greatest iconographic variety. In his eleventh regnal year, 37 reverse types ap-
peared, including 18 for the first time and 12 for the second, after their first issue
in the tenth year. In 91/2, billon tetradrachms were not minted; therefore, all the
issued coins were bronze fractions used in daily transactions. It is characteristic of
the reigns of Vespasian and Domitian. Both of these emperors did not have to resup-
ply tetradrachms to the market, after Nero’s reign. In the course of the eleven years
of Vespasian’s reign, tetradrachms were struck only in the first (AD 69), second
(69/70), third (70/1), and eighth (75/6) years of his reign. In turn, the sixteen years
of Domitian’s reign brought only three years in which those coins were issued: in
the second (82/3), sixth (86/7), and eighth (88/9) regnal years. Tetradrachms did not
have to be issued, as the demand for high-value coinage had been met during the
previous periods. The bronze coins of various fractions, used in daily transactions,
were minted on a fairly regular basis by Nero and Vespasian, though probably in
insufficient amounts. Ordinarily, each fraction had one, more rarely two, reverse

20
In this case, only the hoards containing coins minted during the reigns of the Flavian emperors are repre-
sented here.
21
I agree with Duncan-Jones’ opinion: “Hoards normally represent cross-section of coin in circulation at
a particular date. (...)” Cf. DUNCAN-JONES, Money and Government..., p. 115.
22
However, the papyri evidence certifies that soldiers in the first-century Egypt were paid less than half of
payment in cash, cf. R.P. DUNCAN-JONES, Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy, Cambridge 1990, p. 44.
 KATARZYNA LACH

types. However, beginning from the early years of Domitian’s reign, it had begun
to change and, in consequence, a number of various reverse types emerged during
that period. In the eleventh regnal year, three fractions of bronze coins were issued:
drachms (ten reverse types), diobols (fifteen types), and obols (twelve types) [ac-
cording to RPC II, pp. 333–335]. During the same year, the first issue of the nome
coins appeared on the market. As mentioned before, they represented the deities
associated with the eight nomes.

Upper Egypt
The reverse of the coin of the Herakleopolite nome (Pl. 1. Fig. 1) depicts
a bearded Hercules standing, with a lion’s skin draped over his shoulder. He holds
a club in his left hand. A griffin facing left sits on his outstretched right hand. The
Oxyrynchite nome is represented by two coin types (Pl. 1. Fig. 2–3). Both of them
depict Athena standing, holding a spear or, in the other type, a double-edged axe
(labris) and Nike. As I noted before, the coin of the Hermopolite nome has not so
far been attested. The only example, in the collection of the Cologne University,23
bears a representation of the naked Hermes holding a caduceus, with a jackal sitting
at his feet. The coin of the Memphite nome depicts Isis facing right, accompanied
by the bull Apis (Pl. 1. Fig. 4). Dattari attributes yet another coin to this nome, with
96
Isis and Apis facing left. The relevant reproductions in his catalogue24 still do not
make this particular attribution any more certain, due to the very poor condition of
its preservation.

Lower Egypt
Sais is represented by one extant specimen of the coin with a depiction of Ath-
ena standing and holding a spear, with the shield leaning on her legs (Pl. 1. Fig. 5).
Likewise, there has survived only one coin representing the nome of Sethrois, mint-
ed in Domitian’s reign. The reverse bears an image of Ares, standing (Pl. 1. Fig. 6).
The nome coin of Mendez cannot be securely attributed (Dattari, no. 6303), due to
the completely indistinct photograph of the coin. The collection has been dispersed,
which makes any verification of this coin impossible. The most numerous nome
coins from the reign of Domitian are those relating to Sebennytos. These are of two
reverse types, with images of Ares and a stag standing at his feet, both facing left
(Pl. 1. Fig. 7) or right.

23
A. GEISSEN, Katalog Alexandrinischer Kaisermünzen der Sammlung des Instituts für Altertumskunde der
Universität zu Köln, Band 4, Opladen 1974, no. 3372.
24
G. DATTARI, Numi Augg. Alexandrini. Catalogo della Collezione G. Dattari, Trieste 2007 (2nd ed.).
 THE ROMAN COINAGE OF ALEXANDRIA IN THE REIGN OF DOMITIAN

The above listing shows that 45 reverse types were used in AD 91, of which 26
were used for the first time during this emperor’s reign. Eight (or ten) types belong
to the nome coins. In comparison, the most numerous issue of Nero, dated 65/6,25
comprises four reverse types, including two used for the bronze coins.
As we can see, the considerable variety of the reverse types is not reflected
in the quantities of the coins issued. At the same time, the Roman mint continues
the earlier issues, with very few exceptions; there is also a reduction in the num-
ber of the reverse types.26 The Roman Empire’s monetary policy in Egypt differed
from that in the other parts of the Empire. The sources give us no evidence on who
was responsible for selecting the imagery used on coinage. Presumably, although
a given image was dictated by the emperor, he did not approve each individual issue.
Such representations are mostly believed to serve as means of “propaganda”,27 even
though certain types do not conform to this definition at all (in the case of Domi-
tian’s coinage, e.g., the obols bearing images of the elephant, rhinoceros (Photo 8),
or hippopotamus). For the nome coins, let us also note the most common explana-
tion referring to the propaganda function of the reverse type imagery,28 although, as
in the case of the obols, they are rather of symbolic and religious significance.
In spite of a variety of hypotheses on the purpose of the nome coins, it is still
difficult to determine the reason why they had been put into circulation. Indeed, at
97
the time of their emergence on the market, the nome coins did not differ much at
all from other contemporary coinage. In terms of their fractions and iconographic
representations, they conformed to the general norms applicable elsewhere. They
were different in their usage of the Greek term NOMOC on the reverse and the ap-
pellation of the nome. In all probability, this was intended to pair the proper image
of a given deity with the corresponding nome.29

Contact the Author at: lach.k2@gmail.com

Translated by Marcin Fijak

25
CHRISTIANSEN, The Roman Coins of Alexandria..., p. 96.
26
I. CARRADICE, Coinage and Finances in the Reign of Domitian, A.D. 81–96, BAR International Series
178, 1983, p. 168; RIC2, pp. 315–317.
27
C. HOWGEGO, “Ancient History from Coins”, London, New York 1997, p. 71.
28
JUNGFLEISCH, « Note sur les monnaies... », pp. 264–265.
29
Schwartz discussed problems of interpreting some reverse types that are inconsistent with the official cult
of a given nome (cf. note 14).
 KATARZYNA LACH

CHART 1. Hoards with coins found in Egypt dated to the close of the 1st and the 2nd century AD
Data according to: Noeske H.-Ch., Münzfunde aus Ägypten II. Die griechisch-römischen Münzfunde aus dem
Fayum, SFMA 22, 2006. Hoards and their datings: A 36 – Bacchias 1896 (127/28 AD); A 42 – Tebtunis 1900
(138/39 AD); A 47 – Tebtunis 1900 (138/161 AD; A 52 – Tebtunis 1900 (138/39 AD); A 63 – Karanis 1896
(169/70 AD); A 84 – Theadelphia (230/31 AD); A 95 – Karanis 1933-34 (262/63 AD)

140

120

100

80
Others
Flavians

60 Nero

98
40

20

0
A 36 A 42 A 47 A 52 A 63 A 84 A 95

Table 1. Flavian coins found in hoards

Vespasian Titus Domitian

A 36 (127/8 AD) 6
A 42 (138/9 AD) 1
A 47 (138/161 AD) 1
A 52 (138/9 AD) 6 1
A60 (164/5 AD) 235 31 1
A 63 (169/70 AD) 4
A 84 (230/1 AD) 2 2
A 95 (262/3 AD) 2
255 33 4
 THE ROMAN COINAGE OF ALEXANDRIA IN THE REIGN OF DOMITIAN

Table 2. The number of reverse types used in a given year. The numbers in bold indicate the year in which
billon tetradrachms were struck

Nero Vespasian Domitian

55 AD - 69 AD 10 81/2 AD -

55/6 - 69/70 11 82/3 13

56/7 11 70/1 11 83/4 6

57/8 11 71/2 4 84/5 11

58/9 12 72/3 4 85/6 8

59/60 11 73/4 3 86/7 17

60/1 - 74/5 3 87/8 9

61/2 4 75/6 9 88/9 16

62/3 6 76/7 6 89/90 9

63/4 6 77/8 - 90/1 20

64/5 7 78/9 - 91/2 37

99
65/6 4 92/3 14

66/7 14 93/4 9

67/8 20 94/5 14

95/6 9

96 -
 KATARZYNA LACH

Streszczenie

Mennictwo aleksandryjskie w okresie panowania Domicjana.

Pierwsze monety nomów na tle pozostałych emisji

Monety emitowane w Egipcie w okresie grecko-rzymskim obowiązy-

wały jedynie na terenie tej prowincji, zakazany był również ich wywóz.
Ograniczenia te obowiązywały aż do wprowadzenia reformy Dioklecjana
w 296 r. n.e. Oprócz typowych monet ogólnoprowincjonalnych wybijanych
w mennicy aleksandryjskiej znane są również efemeryczne emisje tzw. monet
nomów. Ich awers nie różnił się od awersów pozostałych monet i przedstawiał
wizerunek władcy wraz z legendą jego imienia w języku greckim. Na rewer-
sie umieszczano słowo NOMOC wraz z nazwą nomu, dla którego moneta zo-
stała wybita. Pierwsze tego typu monety powstały w 91 r. n.e. za panowania
cesarza Domicjana. Następne były wybijane sporadycznie za czasów rządów
Trajana, Hadriana, Antoninusa Piusa i Marka Aureliusza. Istnieją liczne hi-
100 potezy dotyczące celu emisji monet nomów, jednak żadna z nich nie została
dotychczas potwierdzona. W artykule przedstawiono badania nad pierwszą
emisją monet nomów oraz pozostałe emisje monet aleksandryjskich roku
91 n.e.
 THE ROMAN COINAGE OF ALEXANDRIA IN THE REIGN OF DOMITIAN

MAP 1. Map of Egypt with the nomes for which coins were struck in AD 91

MEDITERANEAN SEA

Alexandria

Sebennytos Mendes
Sais
Sethroites

Memphis

101

Herakleopolis

RED SEA

Oxyrynchos

Hermopolis Magna
 PLATE I

Fig. 1. Domitian (81–96), Alexandria, for Herakleopolite nome, AD 91/2, AE, drachm, reverse, after RPC II no. 2771
Fig. 2. Domitian (81–96), Alexandria, for Oxyrynchite nome, AD 91/2, AE, drachm, reverse, after RPC II no. 2773
Fig. 3. Domitian (81–96), Alexandria, for Oxyrynchite nome, AD 91/2, AE, drachm, reverse, after RPC II no. 2774
Fig. 4. Domitian (81–96), Alexandria, for Memphite nome, AD 91/2, AE, drachm, reverse, after RPC II no. 2776
Fig. 5. Domitian (81–96), Alexandria, for Saite nome, AD 91/2, AE, drachm, reverse, after RPC II no. 2778
Fig. 6. Domitian (81–96), Alexandria, for Sethroite nome, AD 91/2, AE, drachm, reverse, after RPC II no. 2781
Fig. 7. Domitian (81–96), Alexandria, for Sebennyte nome, AD 91/2, AE, drachm, reverse, after RPC II no. 2779
Fig. 8. Domitian (81–96), Alexandria, AD 91/2, AE, obol, reverse, after RPC II no. 2662

1 2

102

3 4

5 6