THE COINAGE OF GORDIAN III FROM

ANTIOCH AND CAESAREA

ROGER FARRANT BLAND

PhD

Institute of Archaeology,

University College, London

 SUMMARY

This thesis attempts to present for the first time a detailed corpus and
die-study of two major Roman coinages of the third century AD, the issues of
the mints of Antioch in Syria and Caesarea in Cappadocia from the reign of
Gordian III (AD 238-44). The coinage of Antioch consisted of two series of
radiates with Roman legends and three series of tetradrachms with Greek
legends and 1000 specimens of the former and 318 of the latter are included
in the die-study. The die-study of Caesarea includes 113 silver tridrachms,
didrachms and drachms and 191 bronze coins in three denominations. There
is a full discussion of the types, legends, weights, die-axes and metallic content
of each issue and of the methodology used in the die-studies.
The study starts by showing how the radiates of Antioch can be
distinguished from those of Rome, something that has not been satisfactorily
done before. The lack of a clearly explained method of distinguishing the
products of these two mints has bedevilled all existing publications of these
coins. The thesis also looks for the first time at the relationship between the
striking of radiates and tetradrachms at Antioch, the former coins having
traditionally been classed as ‘Roman’ and the latter as ‘Greek imperial’. It is
argued that the Greek legend issues of both mints should be regarded as much
an imperial coinage as the radiates of Antioch. It is also shown that the dies
for the coinage of Caesarea were produced by the same engravers as worked
at Antioch, something that had not been noticed before.
Further chapters examine chronological problems, the metal content of
the silver coins of Gordian’s reign, the evidence for their circulation in hoards
and site finds and the historical events of Gordian’s reign. These findings are
summarized in the conclusion, which sets the coinages of Antioch and
Caesarea in their historical context.
The 50 plates illustrate all the obverse dies, except for the second series
of radiates from Antioch.

2
 CONTENTS

Volume I

Acknowledgements 4
Note on the catalogue and plates 5

Abbreviations of publications 6
Key to obverse busts 7

Sources of material
A. Collections 8
B. Publications of material 9
C. Finds 10
D. Sale catalogues 18

Chapter 1 Introduction 23

Chapter 2 Chronology 42

Chapter 3 Antioch: the first series of radiates 52

Chapter 4 Antioch: the tetradrachms 172

Chapter 5 Antioch: the second series of radiates 221

Chapter 6 Caesarea in Cappadocia 289

Volume II

Chapter 7 Metrology 385

Chapter 8 Coin Circulation 421

Chapter 9 The historical events of Gordian’s reign 483

Chapter 10 Conclusions 513

Appendix 1 Summary of radiates and denarii of Gordian in 79 finds 520

Appendix 2 Hoards of tetradrachms 566

Map 597
«

Plates End of Volume II

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My first thanks must go to Robert Carson, who introduced me to the

study of Roman coins. Without the training I received from him I could never
have started this project, while without the help and encouragement of
Andrew Burnett I would never have finished it. Discussion of the problems in
numismatics has always been stimulating and I am very grateful to him for the
suggestions he has made on a draft of this thesis. The text also reads much
better thanks to the attention of my wife, Lucilla Burn, who has contributed
more than she knows to the completion of this work.
I was fortunate to be able to have a number of discussions with David
Walker whose insights into this period were so incisive. His Metrology of the
Roman Silver Coinage is much more than just the results of analyses, but it is
a great pity that he never wrote a connected account of Roman silver coinage
in the early third century. This work is much the poorer for his untimely death
and I am also grateful to him for the loan of his cast collection.
I have also greatly enjoyed disagreeing with Markus Weder on many
of the issues discussed below; his unorthodox contributions have much
enriched third century Roman numismatics, forcing those who disagree with
him to attempt to justify what they took for granted. I am also grateful to
Markus for sending me photographs of several coins in private collections. It
has been a lucky coincidence that Kevin Butcher has also been pursuing
research on Syrian coinage at the same time as myself and I have greatly
benefitted from discussions with him; I am also grateful to him for a chance
to read through most of his thesis in draft.
I would also like to thank Mike Cowell of the British Museum Research
Laboratory for carrying out analyses on some of the coins included in this
study; his work has considerably revised the previously accepted picture.
Richard Duncan Jones has also been very generous with his advice on
methods of presenting the data that I have obtained.
I am grateful too to many private collectors who have shown me coins
in their collections; I will not name them here, but they are listed under
sources of material. Michel Prieur, Dominique Hollard and Jean-Marc Doyen
have also been very helpful in providing me with casts and other material.
Lastly, my thanks go to the curators of the museums I visited for their
hospitality and kindness to me: Carmen Alfaro Asins (Madrid); Giovanni
Alteri (Rome, Vatican Museum); Michel Amandry (Paris); Carmen Arnold-
Biucchi and Bill Metcalf (New York); Ermanno Arslan and Rodolfo Martini

4
(Milan); Donal Bateson (Glasgow); George Boon (Cardiff); John Burnham
(Yale); Silvana Balbi de Caro (Rome, Museo Nazionale); Gunther Dembski
(Vienna); Gisela Fdrschner (Frankfurt, Historisches Museum); Ursula Hagen-
Jahncke (Frankfurt, Deutsche Bundesbank); Arie Kindler (Tel Aviv); Cathy
King and Chris Howgego (Oxford); Ann Kromann (Copenhagen); Jacqueline
Lallemand (Brussels); Brooks Levy (Princeton); Ya’akov Meshorer (Jerusalem,
Israel Museum); Bernhard Overbeck (Munich); J P A van der Vin (Leiden);
Michele Piccirillo (Jerusalem, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum); Helmut
Schubert (Frankfurt, University Cast Collection); H-D Schultz (Berlin); Keith
Sugden (Manchester) and Terence Volk (Cambridge).
David Owen’s expertly made casts have greatly improved the quality of
the illustrations and I am grateful to Chas Howson of the British Museum
Photographic Service for photographing them and to Catharine Sheffield for
help in mounting them. My thanks also go to Peter Dorrell and Stewart
Laidlaw of the Institute of Archaeology’s photographic laboratory for initiating
me into the mysteries of printing photographs and for cheerfully tolerating my
frequent visits there.
Lastly I would like to thank the British Museum for supporting my
research and Richard Reece for his patient and good humoured supervision;
I hope he will feel that his effort has not been entirely wasted.

Roger Bland
15 May 1991

NOTE ON THE CATALOGUE AND PLATES

Since the work consists of a series of die-studies, the catalogue

concentrates on those coins which I have seen myself, or of which illustrations
are available. Other specimens, of which no photograph is available, are listed
in square brackets, while they are omitted altogether from the second series
of radiates.
The plates illustrate all obverse dies, except for the very common
radiates pf the second series, of which only a selection is illustrated. In the
case of the first series of radiates all reverse dies are illustrated as well. I
apologize for the variable quality of the photographs which is inevitable given
the wide variety of sources from which they are taken.

5
 ABBREVIATIONS OF PUBLICATIONS

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt

ANSMN American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes
ASFN Annuaire de la Societe Fran5 aise de Numismatique
BMC H Mattingly and R A G Carson, Coins o f the Roman
Empire in the British Museum, Vols. I - VI, London,
1923-62.
BMC Galatia etc. W Wroth, Catalogue o f Greek Coins in the British Museum,
20: Galatia, Cappadocia and Syria, London, 1899.
BMC Phoenicia etc. G F Hill, Catalogue o f the Greek Coins in the British
Museum. 26: Phoenicia etc., London, 1910.
BSFN Bulletin de la Societe Franfaise de Numismatique
C or Cohen H Cohen, Description Historique des Monnaies frappees sous
VEmpire Romain, 2nd edition completed by Feuardent,
Paris, 1880-92.
Cohen1 H Cohen, Description Historique des Monnaies frappees sous
VEmpire Romain, 1st edition, Paris, 1859-68.
CAH Cambridge Ancient History
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
FMRD Die Fundmunzen der romischen Zeit in Deutschland
FMRO Die Fundmunzen der romischen Zeit in Osterreich
FMRSl Die Fundmunzen der romischen Zeit in Slowenien
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
NC Numismatic Chronicle
NK Numizmatikai Kozlony
NZ Numismatische Zeitschrift
RBN Revue Beige de Numismatique
RIC H Mattingly, E A Sydenham, C H V Sutherland and R A
G Carson (edd.), The Roman Imperial Coinage Vols. I - IX,
London, 1923-
RIN Rivista Italiana di Numismatica
RN Revue Numismatique
SNR Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau
TM Tresors Monetaires
ZfN Zeitschrift fur Numismatik
ZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik

6
 KEY TO OBVERSE BUSTS

Note: all busts have a radiate head except for those suffixed with * (laureate head), + (bare
head), and E busts which are reserved for empresses. Left-facing busts are indicated by the
suffix 1.

A: heads
A1 head.
A2 head, with trace of drapery to front of truncation.
A3 head, with traces of drapery to front and rear of truncation.
The following busts occur: Al; A2*; All; A21; A31.

B: cuirassed busts
B1 cuirassed bust, viewed from front.
B2 cuirassed bust, viewed from rear.
The following busts occur: Bl; Bl*; B2; Bll; Bll*; B21.

C: draped busts (Caesars)

Cl draped bust, viewed from front.
C2 draped bust, viewed from rear.
The following busts occur: C1+; C2+; C21+.

D: draped and cuirassed busts

D1 draped and cuirassed bust, viewed from front.
D2 draped and cuirassed bust, viewed from rear.
The following busts occur: Dl; Dl*; D1+; D2; D2*; Dll; Dll*; D21; D21*.
Note: these are usually distinguished from C by the presence o f pteryges at the shoulder.

E: busts of empresses
E2 empress diademed, bust draped viewed from front; crescent behind.
The following busts occur: E2; E21.

G: busts with spear and shield

G1 cuirassed bust, viewed from front, spear over r. shoulder, shield on 1. shoulder.
The following busts occur: Gil; Gil*.

J: busts with miscellaneous attributes

J7 cuirassed bust, viewed from front, with r. fist showing.
The following busts occur: J71.

S: busts with shield

51 cuirassed bust, viewed from front, with shield on 1. shoulder.
52 draped and cuirassed, viewed from front, with shield on 1. shoulder.
The following busts occur: Sll; S21; S21*.

7
 SOURCES OF MATERIAL

A. COLLECTIONS

1. Public Collections
B Berlin, Staatliche Museen
Bonn Bonn, Rheinische Landesmuseum
Br Brussels, Biblioth6que Royale Albert l er
pBu Budapest, National Museum
C Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum
Car Cardiff, National Museum of Wales
Cop Copenhagen, Nationalmuseet
F(DB) Frankfurt, Deutsche Bundesbank
F(HM) Frankfurt, Historisches Museum
G Glasgow, Hunterian Museum
H The Hague (now Leiden), Koninklijk Penningkabinet
1 Izmir, Arkeoleji Muzesi
J Jerusalem, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum
L London, British Museum
Len Leningrad, Hermitage Museum
Lucerne Lucerne, Historisches Museum
Man Manchester Museum
Mi Milan, Civiche Raccolte Numismatiche
Mu Munich, Staatliche Munzsammlung
NY New York, American Numismatic Society
O Oxford, Ashmolean Museum
P Paris, Biblioth6que Nationale
PU Princeton University
R Rome, Museo Nazionale (Gnecchi collection)
T Turin, Museo Civico
TA Tel Aviv, Kadman Museum
V Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum
Va Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica
Y Yale University

2. Private Collections
KB Cambridge
GH San Antonio
JM London
MP Paris
KFS Manchester Museum
DRW Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
HW Hampshire

8
 B. PUBLICATIONS OF MATERIAL REFERRED TO IN
THE CATALOGUE
Depeyrot G Depeyrot, Paris, Administration des Monnaies et Mtdailles. Les
Collections MonCtaires, I. Monnaies du Monde Antique, Paris, 1985.
Doyen J-M Doyen, Mustes de Charleville-Mcziires. Catalogue des monnaies
antiques de Pertinax d la reforme monetaire de Diocletien (193-294),
Charleville-Mezteres, 1985.
Dura, Final Report A R Bellinger, The Excavations at Dura-Europos. Final Report VI. The
Coins (M I Rostovtzeff, A R Bellinger, N P Toll and C B Welles edd.),
New Haven, 1949.
Heynen P R Franke and I Paar, Die antike Mlinzen der Sammlung Heynen,
Cologne, 1976.
Lindgren H C Lindgren and F Kovacs, Ancient Bronze Coins o f Asia Minor and
the Levant from the Lindgren Collection, San Mateo, 1985.
Macdonald G Macdonald, Catalogue o f Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection III,
Glasgow 1905
McClean S W Grose, Catalogue o f the McClean Collection o f Greek Coins III,
Cambridge, 1929.
Marthaler B L Marthaler, Two Studies in the Greek Imperial Coinage o f Asia
Minor, Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1968, reprinted University
Microfilms.
Mazzini Ing. G Mazzini, Monete Imperiali Romane, Volume Terzo. Da Pertinace
a Filippo Figlio, Milan, 1957.
MRSC D R Walker, The Metrology o f the Roman Silver Coinage, 3 vols., B A R
Supplementary Series 5, 22 and 40, Oxford, 1976-8.
Principal Coins R A G Carson, The Principal Coins o f the Romans, Vol. 2, London,
o f the Romans 1980.
RICHCC A S Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet
University o f Glasgow III Pertinax to Aemilian, Oxford, 1977.
SNG von Aulock Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Deutschland. Sammlung von Aulock, 14.
Galatien - Incerti, Berlin, 1967 (by H von Aulock).
SNG Cop Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. The Royal Collection o f Coins and
Medals, Danish National Museum, Part 36, Copenhagen, 1959, (by O
M0 rkholm).
Sydenham E A Sydenham, The Coinage o f Caesarea in Cappadocia, 2nd edition
with a supplement by Alex G Malloy, New York, 1978.
TNRB 4 M Alram, R Denk, W Szaivert and F Dick, Thesaurus Nummorum
Romanorum et Byzantinorum, Band 4. Die Munzsammlungen der
Benediktinerstifte Kremsmunster und St. Paul im Lavattal, Vienna, 1983.
TNRB6 M Alram, R Denk and W Szaivert, Thesaurus Nummorum Romanorum
et Byzantinorum, Band 6. Die Munzsammlung des Augustiner-
Chorherrenstiftes Klostemeuburg, Vienna, 1989.
Waage D B 'Waage, Antioch on the Orontes IV, Part 2. Greek, Roman, Byzantine
and Crusaders’ Coins, Princeton, 1952.
Waddington E Babelon, Inventaire sommaire de la Collection Waddington, Paris, 1898.
Weber L Forrer, Descriptive Catalogue o f the Collection o f Greek Coins formed
by Sir Hermann Weber, Vol. II, Part II, London, 1929.
Wruck W Wruck, Die syrische Provinzialpragung von Augustus bis Traian,
Stuttgart, 1931.

F Imhoof-Blumer, Zur griechische und romische Mtlnzkunde, Geneva, 1908.

F Imhoof-Blumer, ‘Zur griechischen Munzkunde’, SNR 8, 1898, pp. 1-48.
H A Cahn, ‘Munzen aus fernen Gegenden in Augst’ in E Schmid, L Berger and P Burgin
(edd.), Provincialia. Festschrift fllr R Laur-Belart, Basel, 1969, pp. 57-69.

9
 C. FINDS
Note: those finds whose names are italicised are included in Appendix 1. The others are
referred to in the text or catalogue.

A. Hoards containing radiates and denarii

Alba Iulia, Romania (AI). V Pavel, ‘Tezaurul de monede romane imperiale descoperit la Alba
Iulia in anul 1963’, Apulum 14 (1976), pp. 73-97.

Allonnes I, France (Al). J-B Giard, ‘Le tresor d’Allonnes (Sarthe)’, RN 1962, pp. 217-25. A
second pot (Allonnes II) (TM 8,1986, pp. 51-110) consists of 3814 radiates from 238 to 274.

Altafulla, Spain (Alt). J Hiemard, ‘Recherches numismatiques sur Tarragone au III^me siecle
apres Jesus-Christ’, Numisma 150-5 (1978), pp. 307-21.

Alzey, Germany (Alz). FMRD IV, 1 (Rheinhessen), 1005 (pp. 62-71).

Apetlon, Austria (Ap). FMRo I, 2 (Burgenland), 5/2 (pp. 275-93). See also R Gobi, ‘Der
romische Munzschatzfund von Apetlon’, Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland 5
(1954).

Bdletfi, Romania (Ba). B Mitrea, Tezaurul monetar de la Bdle§ti, Jud. Gorj, din vremea lui
Gordian al III-lea’, Cercetari Numismatiche 2 (1979), pp. 15-37.

Basecles, Belgium (Bas). M Thirion, ‘Le tresor de Basecles: antoniniens de Gordien III a
Postume*, Helinium 4 (1966), pp. 193-217.

Baldwin’s hoard, Romania (Bd). Unpublished list by R F Bland. This was a group of 318
radiates said to come from Romania purchased by Baldwin’s in 1982. It undoubtedly formed
the whole or part of a hoard, but its terminal date is not certain because it has been
contaminated by a number of coins which are unlikely to have belonged to the hoard. It is
most likely to have closed in 264, since it contained 4 coins of the sole reign of Gallienus,
going down to 264, but it could also have closed in 258, as the 21 coins of the joint reign of
Valerian and Gallienus close then. There were also 2 coins of Postumus and 1 of Probus
which are unlikely to have belonged to the find. However, we may assume that the 122 coins
of Gordian in the hoard form a reliable sample, since their pattern is very similar to that of
other Romanian hoards.

Beachy Head, 1964, hoard, Britain (BH). R A G Carson, ‘Beachy Head Treasure Trove of
Roman Imperial Silver Coins’, NC 1968, pp. 67-81. At least two and possibly five other pots
from this hoard have been discovered: they all consist of radiates from Treb. Gallus to Probus.
See R F Bland, ‘The 1973 Beachy Head Treasure Trove’, NC 1979, pp. 61-107.

Budadrs, Hungary (Bu). M Kaba, ‘III. szazadi eremlelet BudaOrsrOl’, NK 82-3 (1983-4), pp. 7-
17.

Burgau, Germany (Bur). FMRD I, 7 (Schwaben), 7123 (pp. 172-4).

Caesarea in Cappadocia, Turkey (Ca). M J Hodder, ‘A hoard of silver antoniniani’, Spink

Numismatic Circular March 1981, p. 76 and ‘A third-century hoard’, Spink Numismatic
Circular November 1981, pp. 361-3.

Caister-by-Yarmouth, Britain (Cai). G K Jenkins, ‘The Caister-by-Yarmouth hoard’, NC 1947,

pp. 175-9.

10
Calabria, Italy (Cal). Calabria hoard (seen in trade in Switzerland, 1983, from southern Italy,
possibly near Metaponto): unpublished catalogue by Dr A S Walker.

Canlia, Romania (Can). B Mitrea and A Radulescu, ‘Un tezaur monetar de la Filip Arabul
In Dobrogea’, Pontica 8 (1975), pp. 125-73.

Capharnaum, Israel. A Spijkerman, ‘A Hoard of Syrian Tetradrachms and Eastern

Antoniniani from Capharnaum’, Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus IX (1958-9), pp. 283-
329; the coins were republished by Spijkerman in Cafamao III. Catalogo delle Monete della
Citta, Jerusalem, 1975, nos. 767-2314.

Chalfont St Peter, Britain (Ch). R F Bland and C Cheesman, ‘Chalfont St Peter, Bucks’ in R
F Bland and A M Burnett (eds.), The Chalfont Hoard, Coin Hoards from Roman Britain IX,
forthcoming. There were three other pots and a number of scattered coins, consisting of 5765
radiates from Valerian to Probus.

Chatenay-sur-Seine, France (Cht). J-B Giard, ‘Le tresor de Chatenay-sur-Seine’, RN 1963, pp.
153-8.

Clamerey, France (Cl). J-B Giard, ‘Le tresor de Clamerey’, TM 2 (1980), pp. 9-29.

Clermont-Ferrand, France. J-L Desnier, ‘Le tresor de la rue d’Alsace, a Clermont-Ferrand’,

TM IX, pp. 17-30. 142 radiates from Gordian to Postumus (latest coin, c.262), with 20 coins
of Gallienus, including one specimen of the first series from Antioch (AEQVITAS AVG,
3/41) and one of the second (FORTVNA REDVX).

Creil I, France (Cr). M Amandry, P Rigault and P J Trombetta, Le tresor monetaire de TEcluse
de Creil, Bulletin de la Societe Archeologique, Historique et Geographique de Creil et sa
Region, Documents et Recherches, 1985. A second pot contained 1437 radiates from 253 to
274.

Cunetio, Britain (Cu). E M Besly and R F Bland, The Cunetio Treasure, London, 1983.

Dura, hoards and site finds, Syria (D). All the coins are listed in A R Bellinger, The
Excavations at Dura-Europos. Final Report V l.Jhe Coins, New Haven, 1949. In addition the
hoards had already been published by Bellinger as follows: Two Roman Hoards from Dura-
Europos, Numismatic Notes and Monographs 49, New York, 1931 and The Sixth, Seventh and
Tenth Dura Hoards, Numismatic Notes and Monographs 69, New York, 1935.

Dorchester, Dorset, Britain (Do). H Mattingly, ‘The great Dorchester hoard of 1936’, NC 1939,
pp. 21-61.

‘Eastern hoard\ Turkey (Ea). S Benda 11, ‘An eastern hoard of Roman imperial silver’, NC
1966, pp. 165-70. This hoard was seen in trade in London and was said to come from south­
eastern Turkey.

Edlington Wood, Britain (Ed). Anne S Robertson, ‘The Edlington Wood find’, NC 1935, pp.
202-7. This was a two pot hoard. The first pot consisted of 80 denarii and 1 radiate from Pius
to Philip II.

Elveden, Britain (El). R A G Carson, ‘The Elveden (Suffolk) Treasure Trove’, NC 1954, pp.
204-208.

Etaples, France (Et). J-B Giard, ‘Le tresor d’Etaples’, RN 1965, pp. 206-24.

11
Falerone, Italy (Fa). G Moretti, ‘IV. Falerone - Ripostiglio monetale rinvenuto nell’area
delFantica Falerio’, Notizie degli Scavi di Antichita 1922, pp. 59-76.

Felsdtengelic, Hungary (Fe).M Albeker and K Biro Sey, ‘Antoninianus lelet FelsOtengelicrOl’,
NK 68-9 (1969-70), pp. 13-23.

Gibraltar, Spain (Gib). H D Gallwey, ‘A hoard of third-century radiates from southern Spain’,
NC 1962, pp. 335-406.

Gorsium, Hungary (Go). J Fitz, Der Geldumlauf der romischen Provinzen im Donaugebiet Mitte
des 3. Jahrhunderts, Bonn and Budapest, 1978, II, pp. 685-750.

Guiry-en-Vexin, France. Unpublished, information from D Hollard. Includes one specimen

of the first series from Antioch (44/33).

Haydere, Turkey (Ha). R F Bland and P Aydemir, ‘The Haydere hoard and other hoards of
the mid-third century from Turkey’ in C J Lightfoot (ed.), Recent Turkish Coin Hoards,
Monograph of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1991.

Iasos, Turkey (la). This hoard has not been published; a summary will appear in R F Bland
and P Aydemir, ‘The Haydere hoard and other hoards of the mid-third century from Turkey’
in C J Lightfoot (ed.), Recent Turkish Coin Hoards, Monograph of the British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara, 1991. See also D Levi, ‘Iasos: le campagne di scavo 1969-70’,
Annuario della Scuola Archelogica di Atene 47-8, 1969-70, pp. 497-502 and id., ‘Venticinque
anni di scavi a Iasos’, in Studi su Iasos di Caria, Supplement to no. 31-2 of the Bollettino
dArte, Rome, 1986, pp. 9-11.

Ichirkovo, Prof., Bulgaria (Ic). B Bojkova, ‘Tresor de monnaies romaines du village Prof.
Ichirkovo’, Numismatika (Bulgaria) 4/1987, pp. 31-40.

Intercisa, Hungary. J Fitz, ‘Antoninianus eremlelet IntercisabOl’, NK 86-7 (1987-8), pp. 37-47.
57 radiates from Elagabalus to Gallienus (joint reign, AD 254), with 21 of Gordian. Includes
one specimen attributed to the first series from Antioch (56/8) and one of the second
(ORIENS AVG, 80).

Jablanica, Yugoslavia (Jab). M Vasic, ‘Le depot de monnaies de Jablanica’, Starinar 18 (1967),
pp. 63-82. (J Fitz, Der Geldumlauf der romischen Provinzen im Donaugebiet Mitte des 3.
Jahrhunderts, Bonn and Budapest, 1978, Teil 1, p. 201.

Jagodina-KruSevac, Yugoslavia (Jag). W Kubitschek, ‘Ein Fund romischer Antoniniane aus

Serbien’, NZ 1900, pp. 185-194. (J Fitz, Der Geldumlauf der romischen Provinzen im
Donaugebiet Mitte des 3. Jahrhunderts, Bonn and Budapest, 1978, Teil 1, p. 148.)

Jafa, Israel. F de Saulcy, ‘Trouvaille de Iafa de Galilee, pres Nazareth’, Annuaire de la Societe
Franqaise de Numismatique et dArcheologie 3 (1868), pp. 350-69.

Kidderminster, Britain (Ki). R F Bland, ‘Kidderminster, Hereford and Worcester’ in R F

Bland and A M Burnett (eds.), The Chalfont Hoard, Coin Hoards from Roman Britain IX,
forthcoming. Contains 49 denarii from Septimius Severus to Gordian (2 specimens).

Krog (formerly Korong), Yugoslavia (Kr). O Gohl, ‘A korongi romai eremlelet’, NK 2 (1903),
pp. 39-43; FMRSl II, 466 (pp. 393-421).

12
Leimersheim, Germany (Lei). FMRD IV, 2 (Pfalz), 2069 (pp. 70-7). See also M Bernhart, ‘Der
Munzfund von Leimersheim’, Mitteilungen der Bayerischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 46
(1928), pp. 49-53.

Lime Street, London, Britain (LS). J Evans, ‘Roman Coins discovered in Lime Street, London’,
NC 1882, pp. 57-60; id., ‘Further notice of some Roman coins discovered in Lime Street,
London’, NC 1883, pp. 278-81; R Merrifield, ‘An unpublished portion of the Lime Street
hoard found in 1882’, NC 1956, pp. 247-54.

Mons-Boubert, France (MB). M Amandry, L-P Delestree, D Hollard and C Metzger, ‘Le tresor
de Mons-Boubert (Somme): deniers et antoniniens de Lucille a Postume’, TM 9 (1987), pp.
31-45.

Mainz, Schatzfund II, Germany (Ma). FMRD IV, 1 (Rheinhessen), 1164 (pp. 307-28).

Mattishall, Britain (Mat). R A G Carson, ‘Mattishall (Norfolk) Treasure Trove of Roman

Imperial Silver Coins’, NC 1969, pp. 129-42.

Morgat-en-Crozon, France (Mo). J-Y eveillard, ‘La trouvaille d’antoniniani de Morgat-en-

Crozon (Finistere)’, TM 2 (1980), pp. 31ff.

Nanterre, France (Na). P Le Gentilhomme, ‘La trouvaille de Nanterre’, RN 1946, pp. 15-114.

Nagyberek, Hungary (Nag). O Gohl, ‘A nagyberki romai eremlelet’, NK 12 (1913), pp. 104-8.

Prince Napoleon hoard, Britain, France or Germany (Nap). Unpublished, in the B.M.; summary
in H Mattingly, ‘The great Dorchester hoard of 1936’, NC 1939, pp. 32-3. The hoard was
donated to the B.M. by Prince Napoleon in 1919 and has no provenance. However, it is clear
from its high proportion of Gallic radiates of the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus that
it is a western hoard, i.e., that it comes from Britain, France or Germany.

Neuhofen, Germany (Neu). FMRD IV, 2 (Pfalz), 2219 (pp. 362-9). See also M Bernhart,
‘Romerfund von Neuhofen’, Mitteilungen der Bayerischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 46
(1928), pp. 54-6.

Nicolaevo, Bulgaria (Ni). G Seure, ‘Tresors de monnaies antiques en Bulgarie, III. Le tresor
de Nicolaevo’, RN 1923, pp. 111-53.

Noyers-sur-Serein, France (No). G Fabre and M Mainjonet, ‘Tresor de Noyers-sur-Serein

(Yonne)’, RN 1953, pp. 131-4.

Olivers Orchard, Britain (OO). R F Bland and I A Carradice, ‘Three hoards from Oliver’s
Orchard, Colchester’, in A M Burnett and R F Bland (eds.), Com Hoards from Roman Britain
VI, B M Occasional Paper 58, 1986, pp. 65-118. There were two other pots, both consisting
mainly of radiates from Trebonianus Gallus to Tetricus.

Oombergen, Belgium. Apparently unpublished: includes one specimen of the first series from
Antioch now in Br (43/3).

OStra Luka I, Yugoslavia (Os). 2 Demo, ‘Munzfunde aus der Zeit Gallienus im Gebiet
zwischen den Flussen Sava und Drava’, ArheoloSki Vestnik 33 (1982), pp. 258-495, at pp. 398-
402.

Otrovanec, Yugoslavia (Ot). 2 Demo, ‘Munzfunde aus der Zeit Gallienus im Gebiet zwischen
den Flussen Sava und Drava’, ArheoloZki Vestnik 33 (1982), pp. 258-495, at pp. 409-20.

Pergamum, Turkey (Pe). I Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou, ‘Acquisitions du Musee

numismatique d’Athenes’, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 84, 1960, pp. 496-7.

13
Plevna, Bulgaria (PI). H Mattingly and F S Salisbury, ‘A find of Roman coins from Plevna in
Bulgaria’, NC 1924, pp. 210-38.

Podastinje, Yugoslavia (Po). 2 Demo, ‘Munzfunde aus der Zeit Gallienus im Gebiet zwischen
den Flussen Sava und Drava’, ArheoloSki Vestnik 33 (1982), pp. 258-495, at pp. 490-5.

Reka-Devnia, Bulgaria (RD). N A Mouchmov, Le tresor numismatique de Re/ca-Devnia

(Marcianopolis), Annuaire du Musee National Bulgare, V, Supplement, Sofia, 1934.

Rocquencourt, France (Rq). D Hollard and P Gendre, ‘Le tresor de Rocquencourt et la

transformation du monnayage d'imitation sous le r£gne de Postume’, TM 8 (1986), pp. 9-45.

Rustschuk, Bulgaria (Ru). N A Muschmow, ‘Munzfunde aus Bulgarien, I. Ein Fund romischer
Silberdenare’, N Z 1918, pp. 43-51.

Rouvroy-les-Merles, France (Rv). G Fabre and M Mainjonet, Tresor de Rouvroy-les-Merles

(Oise)’ RN 1954, pp. 183-7 and G Fabre and M Mainjonet, ‘Tresor de Rouvroy-les-Merles
(Oise) (2e lot)’ RN 1958, pp. 187-9.

Schwarzenacker, Germany (Sch). FMRD III (Saarland), 1023 (pp. 42-72). See also M Bernhart,
‘Der Munzfund von Schwarzenacker’, Mitteilungen der Bayerischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft
32-3 (1914-15), pp. 67-74.

Serbia, Yugoslavia (Se). B Saria, ‘Aus dem Belgrader Nationalmuseum’, N Z 1924, pp. 91-5;
id., ‘Acquisitions recentes de la collection numismatique du Musee Nationale de Belgrade’,
Starinar 3 (1924-5), pp. 61-70. (J Fitz, Der Geldumlauf der romischen Provinzen im Donaugebiet
Mitte des 3. Jahrhunderts, Bonn and Budapest, 1978, Teil 1, p. 147.)

Selsey, Britain (Sel). H Mattingly, ‘The Selsey Hoard’, NC 1933, pp. 223-8.

Singidunum, Yugoslavia (Si). V Kondifc, The Singidunum Hoard o f Denarii and Antoniniani,
Monograph of the Museum of Belgrade, 1969.

Smederevo, Yugoslavia (Sm). J Petrovifc, ‘Munzfund aus Smederevo’, Starinar 6 (1931), pp. 32-
77. (J Fitz, Der Geldumlauf der romischen Provinzen im Donaugebiet Mitte des 3. Jahrhunderts,
Bonn and Budapest, 1978, Teil 1, p. 202.)

Smyrna, Turkey (Smy). S K Eddy, The Minting o f Antoniniani A.D. 238-249 and the Smyrna
Hoard, American Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs 156, New York,
1967.

Stevenage, Britain (St). R F Bland, ‘Stevenage, Hertfordshire’, in R F Bland and A M Burnett

(eds.), The Normanby Hoard, (Coin Hoards from Roman Britain VIII), London, 1988, pp. 43-
73.

Tarragona, Spain (Tar). J Hiernard, ‘Recherches numismatiques sur Tarragone au III6me si6cle
aprds Jesus-Christ’, Numisma 150-5 (1978), pp. 307-21.

Teteven, Bulgaria (Te). Unpublished list by R M Reece. For a summary see K Nedeltchev,
‘Some Roman coin finds in Bulgaria’, Spink Numismatic Circular October 1970, p. 382. The
hoard is in the National Museum, Sofia. The totals are taken from Reece rather than
Nedeltchev.

Tarquinia, Italy (Tq). G N Olcott, ‘Numismatic Notes. I. A Hoard of Roman Coins from
Tarquinii \ American Journal o f Archaeology 6 (1902), pp. 404-9.

14
Tulin, Austria (Tul). R Gobi, ‘Romischer Munzhort Tulin 1966’, NZ 83 (1969), pp. 7-57.

Uskub, Albania (Us). W Kubitschek, ‘Ein denarfund aus der Gegend von Uskub (Albanien)’,
N Z 1908, pp. 37-47.

Viuz-Faverges, France (VF). H-G Pflaum and H Huvelin, ‘Le tresor de Viuz-Faverges’, TM 3
(1981), pp. 33-76.

Wiesbach, Germany (Wie). FMRD III (Saarland), 1082 (pp. 124-33).

Yatagan, Turkey (Ya). Y Kizilkaya, ‘Yatagan Definesi’, Turk Arkeoloji Dergisi 27 (1988), pp.
137-69; reprinted (in English) in C J Lightfoot (ed.), Recent Turkish Coin Hoards, Monograph
of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1991.

B. Hoards containing tetradrachms

Antioch, Turkey. S P Noe, A Bibliography o f Greek Coin Hoards, 2nd edition, A N S

Numismatic Notes and Monographs 78, New York, 1937, no. 56. A more accurate list is given
by W E Metcalf, ‘The Tell Kalak hoard and Trajan’s Arabian Mint’, ANSMN 20 (1975), pp.
39-108, n. 16 on p. 92.

‘Bitias’ hoard, Syria. Unpublished: see Chapter 8.

Hama or Horns, Syria. S P Noe, A Bibliography o f Greek Coin Hoards, 2nd edition, A N S
Numismatic Notes and Monographs 78, New York, 1937, no. 480.

Capharnaum, Israel. See under Section A.

Dura, Syria. See under Section A

Jafa, Israel. See under Section A

Newell’s ‘Syrian hoard’. S P Noe, A Bibliography o f Greek Coin Hoards, 2nd edition, A N S
Numismatic Notes and Monographs 78, New York, 1937, no. 1034.

‘Numismatic Fine Arts’ hoard, no provenance. Journal o f Numismatic Fine Arts 4,1 (August
1975), p. 33.

C. Hoards containing coins of Caesarea

Caesarea, Turkey. Coin Hoards 1, 1975, p. 32, no. 116.

Caesarea, Turkey. A Baldwin, ‘Un tresor monetaire decouverte ACesaree’, Arethuse 4 (1927),
pp. 145-172.

Eki, U.S.S.R. G F Dundna and V Zirghvava, Dzeglis Megobari 1971, pp. 42-5 (I have not seen
this). Summary in Coin Hoards 2, 1976, p. 37, no. 149.

Gerzeuli, U.S.S.R. M M Ivashchenko, ‘Gerzeulvskiye Klad Monet Kesarie Kappadokiyckoe’

(in Russian), Leningrad 1931 describes 469 coins from the hoard; K Golenko, The Monetary
Circulation o f Colchis during the Roman Period, Leningrad, 1964, unpublished English

15
translation by C B Welles (copy in B.M.), pp. 131-2 corrects some particulars of Ivashchenko’s
description and adds details of a futher seven coins.

Gulek Bogazi, Turkey. B L Marthaler, Two Studies in the Greek Imperial Coinage o f Asia
Minor, Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1968, reprinted University Microfilms.
Syria. E A Sydenham, ‘A small find of Caesarean drachms’, NC 1932, pp. 68-9.

Pamphylia, Turkey. C Foss, ‘A hoard of the third century A.D. from Pamphylia’, Coin Hoards
5, 1979, pp. 37-40.

Sor, near Caesarea, Turkey. Coin Hoards 7, 1985, pp. 34-5, no. 156.

Tell Kalak, Jordan. W E Metcalf, T he Tell Kalak hoard and Trajan’s Arabian mint’, ANSMN
20 (1975), pp. 39-108.

D. Sites

Aleppo collection. H Seyrig, ‘Monnaies grecques des fouilles de Doura et d’Antioche’, RN

1958, pp. 171-81.

Antioch, Turkey (An). 11 radiates and 2 sestertii from the American excavations listed by D
B Waage, Antioch on the Orontes IV, Part 2 Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Crusaders’ Coins,
Princeton, 1952, pp. 99-100. An additional 13 radiates and 1 denarius in Antakya Museum
have been listed by K Butcher. These two groups are shown separately in the summary table,
since Butcher only noted silver coins; however, they are merged in the main table of issues.

Apamea, Syria. J-P Callu, Fouilles d ’A pamee de Syrie, VIII, 1. Monnaies Antiques (1966-1971),
Brussels, 1971.

Aphrodisias, Turkey. D J MacDonald, Greek and Roman Coins from Aphrodisias, B A R

Supplementary Series 9, Oxford, 1976.

Assos, Turkey. H W Bell, Investigations at Assos. Coins, Boston, 1921.

Athens, Greece (At). M Thompson, The Athenian Agora. Volume II. Coins from the Roman
through the Venetian Period, Princeton, 1954, pp. 19-20.

Camuntum, Austria (Car). FMRo III, 1 (Carnuntum), pp. 89-91.

Corinth, Greece (Co). KM Edwards, Corinth. Results o f Excavations conducted by the American
School o f Classical Studies at Athens. Volume VI. Coins, 1896-1929, Cambridge, Mass., 1933,
pp. 81-2 and A R Bellinger, Catalogue o f the Coins found at Corinth, 1925, New Haven, 1930.
The more recent reports by O Zervos in Hesperia have not produced any coins of Gordian.

Curium, Cyprus. D H Cox, Coins from the excavations at Curium, 1932-1953, A.N.S. Notes and
Monographs 145, New York, 1959.

Dura, Syria (D). All the coins are listed in A R Bellinger, The Excavations at Dura-Europos.
Final Report VI. The Coins, New Haven, 1949. In addition the hoards had already been
published by Bellinger as follows: Two Roman Hoards from Dura-Europos, A N S Numismatic
Notes and Monographs 49, New York, 1931 and The Sixth, Seventh and Tenth Dura Hoards,
A N S Numismatic Notes and Monographs 69, New York, 1935.

16
El Terib, Syria. J-M Doyen, Les Monnaies Antiques du TellAbou Danne et d ’Oumm el-Marra
(Campagnes 1976-1985), Brussels, 1987.

Ephesus, Turkey (Ep).

(1) H Vetters, Ephesos. Vorlaufiger Grabungsbericht 1978, Vienna, 1979, p. 131 (1 radiate, no.
7, RIC 86).
(2) H Vetters, Ephesos. Vorlaufiger Grabungsbericht 1980, Vienna, 1981, p. 159 (1 denarius,
no. 171, RIC 130).
(3) H Vetters, Ephesos. Vorlaufiger Grabungsbericht 1981, Vienna, 1982, pp. 86-100 (1 radiate,
no. 44, RIC 37, illustrated, and 1 denarius, no. 379, RIC 112, illustrated).
(4) H Vetters, Ephesos. Vorlaufiger Grabungsbericht 1982, Vienna, 1983, pp. 123-66 (1 radiate,
no. 738, RIC 37, illustrated, and 1 radiate, no. 666, said to be eastern, type not described
‘Fortuna st. li.’).
(5) H Vetters, Ephesos. Vorlaufiger Grabungsbericht 1984 und 1985; S Karweise, Vorausliste
der ephesischen Fundmunzen 1983-1985, Vienna, 1987, pp. 110-55 (1 radiate, no. 27, RIC 210);
1 radiate, no. 137, RIC 130).

Hama, Syria. A P Christensen, R Thomsen and G Ploug, Hama. Fouilles et Recherches de la

Fondation Carlsberg 1931-1938 III, 3, Copenhagen, 1986.

Jerash, Jordan. A R Bellinger, Coins from Jerash 1928-1934, A N S Numismatic Notes and
Monographs 81, New York, 1938.

Pessinus, Turkey. J Devreker and M Waelkens, Les fouilles de la Rijksuniversiteit te Gent a

Pessinonte 1967-1973. /, Bruges, 1984.

Priene, Turkey. K Regling, Die Manzen von Priene, Berlin, 1927.

Sardis, Turkey (Sa). H W Bell, Sardis. Publications o f the American Society for the Excavation
o f Sardis. Volume XI: Coins. Parti, 1910-1914, Leiden, 1916, p. 50, no. 437 (1 denarius, RIC
129A); and T V Buttrey, A Johnston, K M MacKenzie and M L Bates, Greek Roman and
Byzantine Coins from Sardis, Archaeological Exploration of Sardis Monograph 7, Cambridge,
Mass., 1981, p. 131, 22-3 (2 radiates, RIC 92 and 95).

Seleucia on the Tigris, Iraq. R H McDowell, Coins from Seleucia on the Tigris, Ann Arbor,
1935.

Side, Turkey. S Atlan, 1947-1969 Yillari Side Kazilari Sirasinda Elde Edilen Sikkeler, Ankara,
1976.

Tarsus, Turkey. D H Cox, ‘III. The Coins’, from H Goldman (ed.), Excavations at Gozlu Kule
at Tarsus, Princeton, 1950.

Tarsus collection, Turkey. D H Cox, A Tarsus Coin Collection in the Adana Museum, A.N.S.
Numismatic Notes and Monographs 92, New York, 1941.

Troy, Turkey. A R Bellinger, Troy, The Coins. Supplementary Monograph 2, Princeton, 1961.

17
 B. SALE CATALOGUES
Note: these are auctions unless prefixed by FPL (fixed price list) or MBS (mail bid sale).

Aes Rude S.A, Chiasso, Switzerland MBS 11/5/1985, 318

7/4/1983, 272 and 273 MBS 24/5/1986, 411
5/4/1984, 217 MBS 7/2/1987, 129 and 182-191

B Ahlstrom, Stockholm, Sweden Cahn, Basle, Switzerland

6 (1974), 258 71 (1931), 1013 and 1015
36 (1987), 1035 84 (1933), 400

Ars et Nummus, Lugano, Switzerland T Cederlind, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A

FPL 9/1963, 337
FPL 9/1966, 427
FPL 5/1967, 269
FPL 10/1967, 309
FPL 4/1968, 405 and 406
FPL 4-6/1977, 364
Asociacion Numismatica
(Calico), Barcelona, Spain
15/12/1981, 651 and 656
16/2/1988, 302 and 305
FPL 74 (no date), 151
FPL 83 (1989), 240
FPL 85 (1989), 71
FPL 86 (1989), 176
Asta Ceresio, Lugano, Switzerland
1 (1987), 311
Espanola 2 (1988), 233
L Ciani, Paris
FPL, 1928, 3824

Athena, Munich, Germany Classical Numismatic Review (V England),

3 (1990), 439 Quarryville, Connecticut, U.S.A
FPL 15/2 (1990), 252
Auktiones AG., Basle, Switzerland FPL 15/3 (1990), 363
8 (1978), 482 Auction 6 (1989), 268
12 (1981), 248
15 (1985), 360 and 372 Coin Galleries, New York, U.S.A
15/11/1989, 460
R Ball, Berlin, Germany
6 (1932), 2134 C Crippa, Milan, Italy
FPL 6/1964, 355
Bank Leu, Zurich, Switzerland FPL 2/1971, 594
Auction 13 (29/4/1975), 477
Auction 18, 5/5/1977, 372 and 373 L De Nicola, Rome, Italy
FPL 6/1971, 214
Bankhaus H Aufhauser, Munich, Germany FPL 6/1974, 126
7/10/1987, 418
5/10/1988, 383, 384 and 385 H Dombrowski, Munster, Germany
6 (1989), 504 FPL 42 (1971), 147
FPL 43 (1971), 141
M Baranowsky, Milan, Italy FPL 105 (1983), 1095
FPL 4 (1935), 6917
Dorotheum, Vienna, Austria
G Blan5 on, Hanover, Germany 378 (1977), 206
FPL 8 (1990), 261 403 (1980), 171
422 (1983), 309
J Brewi, Trier, Germany 424 (1983), 145
FPL 10 (8/1987), X68 433 (1985), 195
15/4/1983, 578, 580 and 581
C Burgan, Paris

18
Downie-Lepczyk, E. Lansing, Michigan, G Hirsch, Munich, Germany
U.S.A- 32 (1962), 2603
72 (1987), 1106 71 (1971), 905
82 (1973), 856
Edelstein and Holland, Haifa, Israel 84 (1973), 723
10/11/1975, 40 145 (1985), 636
149 (1986), 463
J Elsen, Brussels, Belgium 151 (1986), 539
FPL 62 (1983), 90 154 (1987), 672 and 673
FPL 87 (1986), 103 156 (1987), 909 and 927
FPL 90 (1986), 28 157 (1988), 653 and 661
FPL 101 (1987), 207 158 (1988), 541
FPL 107 (1988), 79 159 (1988), 997
FPL 115 (1989), 83 162 (1989), 836
FPL 118 (1989), 71 163 (1989), 1154
164 (1989), 717
Empire Coins, Holly Hill, Florida, U.S.A 165 (1990), 898
5/5/1982, 202 166 (1990), 1188
5/5/1985, 203 167 (1990), 1243, 1244 and 1245
8 (7/12/1987), 247 and 248
A B Hirsch, Stockholm, Sweden
Emporium, Hamburg, Germany 17/10/1966, 1389
7 (1986), 58
18 (1989), 62 H Hoffmann, Paris
M le Marquis de Moustier, 17 June 1872,
Florange-Ciani, Paris 2817
FPL 1924, 653
H Hurtt, Berkeley, California, U.S.A
V Gadoury, Baden-Baden, Germany 18 (1977), 246b
2 (1974), 356
P F Jacquier, Kehl, Germany
Galata Coins, Wolverhampton, Britain FPL 12 (1990), 295
FPL Spring 1984, 163
FPL 10/1989, 142 G Kastner, Munich, Germany
6 (1974), 376
Galerie far Griechische, Romische und
Byzantinische Kunst, Frankfurt, Germany Kolner Munzkabinett, Cologne, Germany
FPL 1, (1970) 95, 174, 175 and 178 49 (1989), 582 and 583

H Hamburger, Frankfurt, Germany F Knobloch, New York, U.S.A

11/6/1930, 450 FPL 31 (1967), 262
FPL 35 (4/1969), 110
O Helbing, Munich, Germany
80 (1940), 1150 H J Knopek (Munzen und Medaillen
Galerie Koln, H J Knopek), Cologne,
Hesperia Art, Philadelphia, U.S.A Germany
FPL 21 (1962), 212 30/9/1978, 604
7/12/1979, 447
A Hess, Frankfurt, Germany 17 (1981), 436 and 770
Auction, 28/4/1936, 214, 216 and 218
F Kovacs, San Mateo, California, U.S.A
A Hess and Bank Leu, Lucerne, FPL 24 (1985), 100
Switzerland MBS 10 (1990), 268
41 (1969), 432

19
H Kricheldorf, Stuttgart, Germany H-W Muller, Solingen, Germany
26 (1973), 187 and 188 17 (1976), 355
29 (1975), 415 28 (1980), 687
34 (1970), 161 46 (1984), 451
41 (1988), 243 and 261 50 (1985), 210
51 (1986), 220
Kurpfalzische Munzhandlung, Mannheim, 56 (1987), 260
Germany
24 (1983), 350 Munz Zentrum, Cologne, Germany
21 (1981), 221 29 (1977), 270
30 (1977), 1160
Kunst und Munzen, Lugano, Switzerland 31 (1978), 118 and 123
13 (1974), 471 and 472 43 (1981), 165
20 (1979), 431 44 (1981), 620
FPL 63 (1990), 268 46 (1982), 142
48 (1983), 156
H Lanz, Munich, Germany 51 (1984), 203
16 (1979), 564 53 (1984), 1923 and 1958
24 (1983), 661, 663 and 670 54 (1985), 362
28 (1984), 677 59 (1986), 1188
32 (1985), 745 and 746 64 (1988), 554, 558, 559 and 571
36 (1986), 799 65 (1988), 281, 328, 1116 and 1122
46 (1988), 625 and 627 67 (1989), 201, 1631 and 1682
52 (1990), 616, 620 and 629 68 (1990), 898, 4.55g.

Lanz, Graz, Austria Munzen und Medaillen AG, Basle,

5 (1975), 656 and 668 Switzerland
10 (1977) 821 FPL 312 (5/1970), 37
FPL 530, (3/1990), 40
R Lempertz, Cologne, Germany FPL 534 (7/1990), 39
237 (1926), 1621 (van Vleuten).
Munzgalerie Munchen, Munich, Germany
J Lepczyk, E. Lansing, Michigan, U.S.A Intermunz Kurier 117 (1987), 125
56 (1984), 719
Myers - Adams, New York, U.S.A
6 (1973), 308
A G Malloy, New York, U.S.A
5 (1975), 819
R J Myers, New York, U.S.A
9 (1977), 260
FPL Aug. 1976, 57
27 (17/3/1989), 303
Numismatic Fine Arts, Beverly Hills,
J Malter, Encino, California, U.S.A
California, U.S.A
29 (1985, Rindge collection), 774
Auction 6 (1979), 835, 836 and 839
Auction 18/12/1987, 859
C J Martin, London
Auction 20 (1988), 344
FPL 12, 4 (1984), G34
MBS 12/10/1988, 1000
FPL 6/1 (1977), S19
Mid American Rare Coin Auctions,
FPL 16 (1979), 74
Kentucky, U.S.A
24/5/1985, 1090
Numismatica Classica S.A, Liechtenstein
FPL 3 (n.d.), 145
Morruzzi, Rome, Italy
FPL 1990, 30

20
Nummorum Auctiones S.A, Lugano, S Rosenberg, Frankfurt, Germany
Switzerland 69 (1930) 2382
2 (1975), 244
Schulman, Amsterdam, Netherlands
B Peus, Frankfurt, Germany FPL 236 (1988), 159
271 (1969), 318
279 (1972), 264 Schulman, New York, U.S.A
282 (1973), 487 6/6/1969 (T O Mabbott), 2407 and 2411
291 (1977), 698
304 (1982), 455 P N Schulten, Cologne, Germany
313 (1985), 643 2/4/1982, 1049
315 (1986), 464 8/11/1982, 206, 207, 868 and 869
321 (1988), 602 2/11/1983, 581, 582, 583, 586 and 587
FPL 4 (1968), 81 1/4/1987, 966
FPL 39 (1975), 371 11/4/1988, 756, 757, 758, 759, 760, 761,
762, 765, 766, 767, 768,771, 963, 964, 965,
H Pilartz, Cologne, Germany 967, 968, 969, 970 and 971
4 (1963), 199 20/10/1988, 901
6 (1964), 242 19/4/1989, 540 and 605
27/3/1990, 860 and 879
C Platt, Paris FPL 12/1988, 42
26/6/1922 (Luneau II), 591
Schweizerische Kreditanstalt, Berne,
A Poinsignon - M Pesce, Strasbourg - Switzerland
Lyon, France 1 (1983), 410
MBS 3 (1986), 559 2 (1984), 561
4 (1985), 586 and 589
R Ratto, Lugano, Switzerland 5 (1986), 494
7/6/1926 (Moneta II), 1902 8 (1987), 31
4/4/1927, 2580
Schweizerische Kreditanstalt, Zurich,
R Ratto, Paris Switzerland
1/12/1932, 698 (Schwing) FPL 12/1987, 33

H D Rauch, Vienna, Austria Seaby (Coin and Medal Bulletin), London

1 (1969), 714 FPL 9/1982, D83
2 (1969), 406 FPL 4/1983, C161
5 (1970), 347 FPL 9/1984, D82
8 (1971), 422 FPL 11/1984, C568
10 (1972), 135 FPL 7-8/1989, C428
32 (1984), 831
38 (1987), 712, 737, 738 and 750 Sobelar, Brussels, Belgium
41 (1988), 959 5 (1974), 515
42 (1989), 3535, 3546 and 3551
44 (1990), 574 Spink (Numismatic Circular), London
FPL 12/1976, 10184
A Reichmann, Halle, Germany FPL 6/1977, 5705
30 (1924), 764 FPL 5/1980, 3555

Munzhandlung R itter, Dusseldorf, Spink Auctions, London

Germany 40 (1984), 314,
FPL 26 (11/1987), 302
FPL 27 (9/1988), 631

21
F Sternberg, Zurich, Switzerland G Toderi, Florence, Italy
29/11/1974, 23 FPL 1/1976, 159
28/11/1975, 225
10 (1980), 515 C Varesi, Pavia, Italy
12 (1982), 711 and 712 FPL 2/1987, 185
13 (1983), 899, 900, 904 and 908
15 (1985), 503 J Vinchon, Paris
18 (1986), 580 22/2/1971, 335
19 (1987), 774, 777 and 915
T Walker, San Antonio, U.S.A
Munzhandlung Tellman, Vienna, Austria FPL 25 (7/1988), 127
FPL 155 (1970), 143
FPL 191 (1973), 255 B Wendt, Vienna (Numismatica Wendt or
Numismatica Wien), Austria
Tietjen, Hamburg, Germany 12 (1976), 410
55 (1988), 194 13 (1976), 1519, 1521 and 1522
56 (1988), 416 15 (1977), 286
58 (1989), 281 17 (1977), 99
21 (1978), 964 and 965
Asta Titano, San Marino FPL 5 (1975), 280
7 (1981), 303
15 (1985), 228 H Winter, Dusseldorf, Germany
31 (1976), 167
Tkalec and Rauch, Vienna, Austria
15/4/1985, 308

22
 Chapter 1
Introduction
Contents

1. The coinage of Antioch before 238 .......................................................... 24

2. Gordian’s reign ............................................................................................... 27

3. The scope and purpose of this stu d y ....................................................... 28

4. Sources of m aterial........................................................................................ 31
A. Collections (31); B. Published works (32); C. Sale catalogues
(32)

5. The presentation of the catalogue............................................................ 32

6. The die-studies............................................................................................... 33
A. The purpose of the die-studies (33); B. The method used for
estimating the total number of dies in a coinage (34); C.
Explanation of the tables of die-statistics (37); D. The average
numbers of coins per die (38); E. The relative validity of die-
estimates and find studies for estimating the size of a coinage
(40)

Tables
1. Numbers of specimens in die-study and estimated total number of
obverse dies 34

23
1. The coinage of Antioch before 238
The purpose of this study will best be understood in the context of a
sketch of the earlier coinage of the principal mint of the east, Antioch, which
had been an important mint since the time of the Seleucids.1 Under the
Roman Empire it played a unique role in that it issued on different occasions
three different types of coinage: imperial aurei, denarii and radiates similar to
the coins of Rome, provincial tetradrachms with no ethnic and, finally, local
bronze coins generally with an ethnic. It struck large issues of tetradrachms
and bronze coins from the reign of Augustus onwards and, from the reign of
Vespasian it also produced aurei and denarii on the Roman pattern. These
issues of ‘Roman’ coins were, however, very sporadic; Tacitus states that an
issue of gold and silver was struck at Antioch under Vespasian,2 and another
small series of denarii from the beginning of Hadrian’s reign has been
attributed to Antioch.3
The next emperor to strike denarii at Antioch was Pescennius Niger,
the governor of Syria, who proclaimed himself emperor in 193 and who was
never recognised at Rome.4 After Pescennius’s defeat in 194 Severus took
control of the mint and probably continued to issue tetradrachms and denarii
there. However, the conventional view, following the statements in Herodian
and the Historia Augusta that Severus reduced Antioch to the status of a
village because of its support for Pescennius, is that these coinages were
minted elsewhere.5 The eastern denarii of Severus form an extensive and

1 For the coinage of Antioch down to A.D. 69 see A M Burnett, M Amandry and P P
Ripoll6s, Roman Provincial Coinage 1, London, forthcoming; for the coinage of northern Syria
including Antioch in general see K Butcher’s doctoral thesis.
2 Tacitus, Histories ii. 82. See BMC 2, pp. Ixvii-lxix.
3 BMC 3 pp. cliii- clvi.
4 R F Bland, A M Burnett and S Bendall, ‘The mints of Pescennius Niger in the light of
some new aurei’, NC 1987, pp. 65-83.
5 Herodian III 6, 9 states, d propos the sack of Byzantium by Septimius: Sirep i&\cd
utJTepov A.ip4>, rraott re rj tt6A.ic ical 0e tir p w re xat Xourpwv iravr6c re
Kdopou xacX rip?)? dcfaxipeQiv rb Bu(&vriov KcbpTjSouXctiGiv IlepivOloic 6<£>pov tSSOrj,
<Z>orrep xal ’Avridxeux AaoSiKcOaiv (‘Later the city [Byzantium] was starved out and
completely destroyed; deprived of its theatres, baths and all its splendour and honour, it was
handed over with the status of a village to be the subject of Perinthus. The same happened
to Antioch which became subordinate to Laodicea’, translated by C R Whittaker, Loeb

24
complicated series of issues and, although it is clear that Mattingly’s attribution
of them in BMC and RIC is in need of revision, questions concerning their
attribution can only be solved by a complete die-study.
Better documented is the fact that in the sole reign of Caracalla (AD
211-17) and the short reign of Macrinus that followed it (AD 217-18) there
was a great upsurge in the minting of tetradrachms in Syria: this has been
studied by Bellinger who identified a total of 28 mints producing these coins.6
While many of Bellinger’s attributions were only made on very tenuous
grounds and some have since been corrected, the overall picture remains
unaltered.7 This is that under Caracalla there was an unprecedented increase
in the number of cities striking silver coins, from Edessa in the north to Gaza
on the borders of Egypt in the south. Antioch continued striking tetradrachms
during this period, and indeed it remained the most productive mint in Syria;
however, it struck no denarii.

edition, I, pp. 293-5). The Historia Augusta, Vita Severi 9, 5 says more vaguely:
Antiochiensibus iratior fuit, quod et administrantem se in oriente riserant et Nigrum etiam
victu iuverant. Denique multa his ademit (‘Towards the citizens of Antioch he was more
resentful, because they had laughed at him in his administration of the East and also had
aided Niger with supplies. Eventually he deprived them of many privileges’, translated by D
Magie, Loeb edition, I, p. 393). For the conventional view see H Mattingly, ‘The coinage of
Septimius Severus and his times. Mints and chronology.’, NC 1932, pp. 177-98 and BMC 5,
cxvii-cxxiv. The alternative view is put by Butcher in his doctoral thesis.
6 A R Bellinger, The Syrian Tetradrachms of Caracalla and Macrinus, Numismatic Studies
3, New York, 1940.
7 H Seyrig, ‘Monnaies hellenistiques’, R N 1963, pp. 46-7. On Laodicea see R G MacAlee,
‘The Severan tetradrachms of Laodicea’, ANSMN 29 (1984), pp. 43-59 and M Prieur and M
Amandry, ‘Nouvel apport Al’etude des tetradrachms severiennes de Laodicee’, R B N 1987, pp.
67-86. Two hoards also add important new information: R Rosenthal-Heginbottom, ‘The
Mampsis Hoard - a Preliminary Report’, Israel Numismatic Journal 4 (1980), pp. 39-54 and
C van Hoof, ‘Zur syrischen Tetradrachmpragung der romischen Kaiserzeit. Ein neuer
Schatzfund’, JNG 36 (1986), pp. 107-26; one may also note the small hoard published by B
Overbeck, ‘A hoard of Syrian tetradrachms’, Coin Hoards 4 (1978), pp. 28-9. New material has
also been published by M Prieur in two short papers in BSFN 1985, pp. 676-8 and pp. 690-4
and by P Gilmore in a series of articles in Spink Numismatic Circular: May 1977, pp. 198-200;
Sept. 1977, pp. 355-7; Dec. 1977, pp. 541-2; Feb. 1978, pp. 76-7; Sept. 1978, pp. 416-7; Oct.
1978, p. 478; June 1979, pp. 286-9; July-Aug. 1979, pp. 341-2; Feb. 1980, pp. 47-8; March
1980, pp. 88-90; June 1980, pp. 210-11; Nov. 1980, pp. 403-4; Dec. 1980, pp. 440-1; Feb. 1981,
pp. 34-5; June 1982, p. 159; July 1982, p. 196; March 1983, pp. 46-7; June 1984, pp. 149-51;
July 1984, pp. 180-1; Feb. 1985, p. 9; Feb. 1987, pp. 5-6; and May 1987, pp. 109-10.; and in
Seaby Coin and Medal Bulletin August 1979, pp. 249-53.

25
 Although Caracalla’s Syrian tetradrachms are only dated by his fourth
consulship, which he held from 213 until his death, it has been assumed by
Bellinger and others that most of them were issued in the last two years of his
reign when the emperor was actually present in Syria, leading a campaign
against the Persians, and it is possible that this was the occasion for their
minting.8 Macrinus, one of whose first actions as emperor was to make peace
with the Persians, continued to produce tetradrachms at twenty mints, but his
successor, Elagabalus (AD 218-22), quickly restricted the striking of
tetradrachms to Antioch.
Elagabalus’s series of tetradrachms from Antioch are all dated to his
second consulship; this should mean that they were all produced in 219, but
Bellinger has argued that they in fact continued to be struck until his death
because their issue was so large, while Butcher dates them all to 219.9 Besides
the great quantity in which they were issued, the other notable fact about
these coins is that they became extremely debased, and their average silver
content was below 20%.10 As we shall see, Gordian was to improve the
fineness to about 29% in his first issue. After Elagabalus no more
tetradrachms were struck at Antioch until Gordian’s reign. Certain denarii and
radiates of Elagabalus have also been assigned to an eastern mint or mints,
but these coins do not seem to be satisfactorily attributed in RIC, BMC or
Thirion’s monograph and, like those of Severus, are in need of further
study.11
Under Elagabalus’s successor Severus Alexander (AD 222-35) there
was an extensive issue of bronze coins from Antioch which has been described
by Butcher in his account of the coinage of Antioch from 218 to 253.12 There

8 Bellinger, op. cit. n. 6 , p. 6. This view has recently been challenged by Butcher in his
doctoral thesis.
9 Bellinger, op. cit. n. 6, p. 29; K Butcher, ‘The Colonial Coinage of Antioch-on-the-
Orontes c.AD 218-53’, NC 1988, pp. 63-75 at p. 66.
10 D R Walker, The Metrology o f the Roman Silver Coinage 3, B.A.R. International Series
40, 1978, pp. 90-1 and 99-100. However, serious doubt has now been thrown on the accuracy
of many of Walker’s analyses as many of them seem to be overestimated: see Chapter 7.
11 RIC IV, ii; BMC 5; M Thirion, Le monnayage d ’Elagabale, Brussels/Amsterdam, 1968.
12 Butcher, op. cit. n. 9.

26
was also a small series of denarii, issued between 222 and 223, which writers
from Voetter onwards have attributed to Antioch because of their distinctive
style.13 No coins were struck at Antioch in any metal under Alexander’s
successors, Maximinus, Balbinus, Pupienus and the first two Gordians. Butcher
is undoubtedly right to state that the bronze coin of Antioch in Paris
purporting to have a portrait of Balbinus, published by Dieudonn6, has
actually been tooled from a specimen of Elagabalus.14

2. Gordian’s reign
Gordian’s reign marked the start of a new chapter in the history of the
mint: Antioch had struck no tetradrachms since 219, no denarii since 223 and
no coins at all since 235. Down to 238, therefore, its output of precious metal
coinage, especially of denarii, was intermittent and it was still in some sense
a local mint, although an unusually large one. With Gordian’s accession,
however, it was to become a major centre of coin production, second only to
Rome; it produced its first issue of radiates in 238-9 and its second in 242-4,
issuing three series of tetradrachms in between. Later, between 244 and 253,
it also struck bronze coins as well as continuing to mint radiates and
tetradrachms, while after 253 it only produced Roman denominations,
principally radiates, occasionally aurei and, very rarely, ‘Roman’ asses with
Latin legends. From Gordian’s reign the mint of Antioch was to issue coins
more or less continuously down to the eve of the city’s conquest by the
Persians in the seventh century.15

13 O Voetter, ‘Alexander Severus. Eintheilung seiner nichtdatirten Munzen’, Monatsblatt

der numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 188 (March 1899), pp. 322ff. The case for the
attribution to Antioch has been put best by Carson in BMC 6, pp. 83-7. Pink in ‘Der Aufbau
der romischen Munzpragung in der Kaiserzeit IIP, N Z 1935, p. 14, argued that these denarii
were in fact the products of contemporary forgers. This suggestion can hardly be taken
seriously.
14 A Dieudonne, ‘Les monnaies grecques de Syrie au Cabinet des Medailles’, RN 1929,
p. 142 and pi. VI, I. See Butcher, op. cit. n. 9, p. 66, n. 13.
15 There were two breaks in its minting later in the third century: first, after the defeat
Macrianus and Quietus in 261 until the end of 263 and secondly after the defeat of
Vaballathus and Zenobia in 272 until the reopening of the mint by Aurelian probably in 274.
The mint was closed on the accession of Heraclius in 610: P Grierson, Byzantine Coins,
London, 1982, p. 85.

27
 Paradoxically, however, although a single denomination, the radiate,
dominated the currency of the whole of the Empire after Valerian’s accession
in 253, it is from this date that the coinage of Syria becomes completely
different from that of the West. We shall see in Chapter 8 that from 251
onwards it consists almost exclusively of coins from eastern mints, principally
Antioch, whereas in the whole of the rest of the Empire hoards have a much
more mixed composition. In addition, the eastern coins of Gallienus’s sole
reign and of Claudius II have noticeably more silver than the contemporary
issues from other mints.16 Syrian currency was, in short, very different from
that of the rest of Empire in the late imperial period. Until the middle of the
third century, on the other hand, silver denarii and radiates from the mint of
Rome occur relatively commonly in Syrian finds (see Chapter 8).

3. The scope and purpose of this study

The reign of Gordian III, which is the period covered by this study, saw
the start of the process whereby the mint of Antioch was transformed from a
provincial mint, producing chiefly Greek-legend coins in silver and bronze, to
one that just struck Roman denominations with Latin legends in base silver
and gold. This investigation examines the origins of this transformation of the
currency of the Roman Empire, focussing on four major problems.
The first concerns the relationship between the two silver
denominations, radiates and tetradrachms, since, as we have seen, these were
both produced by the mint from early in Gordian’s reign until the death of
Trebonianus Gallus, not necessarily simultaneously. Because the tetradrachms
and the bronze coins have legends in Greek, while the radiates have them in
Latin, the two series are traditionally separated in coin collections and also in
catalogues; although a few scholars have studied the two series together,17

16 This has been confirmed by metal analysis: see P Tyler, The Persian Wars o f the 3rd
Century A.D. and Roman Imperial Monetary Policy, A.D. 253-68, Historia Einzelschriften 23,
Wiesbaden, 1975.
17 For example, K Pink, ‘Antioch or Viminacium?’, NC 1935, pp. 94-113 discusses both
radiates and tetradrachms, but in his Aufbau on Gordian in NZ 1935, pp. 12-34, he omits the
latter. K Butcher, op. cit. n. 9 also discusses all the issues of Antioch.

28
works of reference such as Cohen, RIC or the Austrian Moneta Imperii
Romani series and recent general accounts of Roman coinage have tended just
to study the Latin-legend coins.18 It is not difficult to see, therefore, that
studying the whole of Antioch’s output together is likely to produce fresh
insights.
A second problem stems from the fact that Roman coinage produced
in the east during the third century AD is not well understood. The Roman
denominations that it produced, the denarii and radiates, often share exactly
the same designs as coins issued in Rome and consequently the only difference
between the two series is stylistic. Although scholars have been aware of this
problem since the time of Voetter, none of the standard works, and in
particular RIC, has illustrated enough coins in the different styles to enable
students to make the distinction.19 As a result the only eastern coins that can
be safely identified in published lists are those that come from types that are
clearly different from those of other mints, so published catalogues are often
of little use. The problem of distinguishing between the coins of Rome and
Antioch on the basis of their style is particularly acute with Gordian’s first
series of radiates from Antioch, most of which bear the same types as the
contemporary issues of Rome. It is hoped that one of the main results of this
study will be to enable students of Roman coinage to make this distinction
more accurately than in the past, so that future publications of finds of these
coins will no longer be vitiated by this problem. My method has been to
describe all the coins of Gordian from Antioch that I have been able to locate,
to weed out the incorrect references to coins of Antioch in RIC and other

18 For example, C H V Sutherland, Roman Coins, London, 1974; J P C Kent and M and
A Hirmer, Roman Coins, London, 1978 and R A G Carson, Coins o f the Roman Empire,
London, 1990 all ignore the tetradrachm issues; an exception is A M Burnett, Coinage in the
Roman World, London, 1987.
19 An outstanding exception are the two very fully illustrated papers by A Alfoldi, ‘Die
Hauptereignisse der Jahre 253-61 n. Chr. im Orient’, Berytus 4 (1937), pp. 41ff. and ‘Die
romischen Munzpragung und die historischen Ereignisse im Osten zwischen 260 und 270 n.
Chr.’, Berytus 5 (1938), pp. 47ff. However, these only cover the output of eastern mints
between 253 and 270.

29
catalogues, to note how they differ from those of Rome and, most importantly,
to illustrate as many of them as possible.
A third problem concerns the attribution of some of the issues of
Gordian that are normally assigned to Antioch. Both Walker and Gilmore
have recently proposed that Gordian’s third series of tetradrachms may have
been struck at a mint other than Antioch, because of a number of differences
from the two preceding series which are undoubtedly Antiochene (Chapter
4).20 Another candidate for reattribution is the large second series of
radiates, issued at the end of the reign. Several scholars from Voetter onwards,
puzzled by the differences between this and the preceding radiate coinage
from Antioch, have suggested that it was in fact struck at another mint,
possibly in the Balkans (Chapter 5).21 In these two cases I have attempted
to resolve the problem both through a detailed study of the coins, their style
and the pattern of striking at Antioch, and also through analysis of the finds.
The two principal tools have, therefore, been the die-studies and the evidence
of the coin finds. The latter are discussed in Chapter 8; the die-studies and
more particularly the technique used for estimating the total number of dies
originally used will be discussed after an examination of the sources of
material.
A fourth point of interest in this study stems from the fact that it has
not previously been noticed that the issues of Caesarea in Cappadocia dating
from Gordian’s reign bore many similarities to those of Antioch. The mint of
Caesarea had had a long history as a major, if intermittent, producer of both
silver and bronze coins. Its final issues were struck in the reign of Gordian.
These were substantial in size and consisted of silver tridrachms, didrachms

20 D R Walker, The Metrology o f the Roman Silver Coinage 3, p. 101 and P M Gilmore,
‘Dating, mints and officinae of Syrian tetradrachms’, Spink Numismatic Circular September
1977, pp. 355-7.
21 O Voetter, ‘Die romischen Munzen des Kaisers Gordianus III. und deren antike
Falschungen’, N Z 25 (1983), pp. 410-1 (‘Viminacium’); K J J Elks, ‘The eastern mints of
Valerian and Gallienus’, N C 1975, p. 92n (‘possibly Viminacium’); E M Besly and R F Bland,
The Cunetio Treasure, London, 1983, p. 40, n. 7 (‘probably in the Balkans’); M Weder, ‘Seltene
Munzen der Sammlung Dattari - Neuerwerbungen des Britischen Museums’, NZ 1982, pp. 53-
71, especially pp. 63-4 and n. 38 (‘Balkans’).

30
and drachms and three denominations of bronze. The coinage was listed by
Sydenham in a handbook published in 1935 which is now very out-of-date; it
has been little studied since, and certainly its stylistic similarities with the
contemporary coinage of Antioch have not been remarked upon.22
Furthermore, Caesarea’s coins are all dated and it is has been possible to
examine their relationship with the Antiochene issues, with some unexpected
results.
Chapter 9 summarizes the new interpretation of Gordian’s eastern
coinage and examines the light that it sheds on certain events of his reign,
particularly his eastern campaigns and the circumstances surrounding his
death, while Chapter 10 concludes the whole study.

4. Sources of material
A. Collections
Public and, to a lesser extent private, collections have provided most of
the material for this study. Because of the difficulties of identifying many of
the Antiochene issues in publications, for reasons outlined above, it was
essential to visit these museums in person and I have visited eighteen
collections abroad and six in this country in pursuit of this project.23 I have
also received casts or photographs from a number of other institutions and
have been able to examine coins in seven private collections 24

22 E A Sydenham, The Coinage o f Caesarea in Cappadocia, London, 1935; second edition

with a supplement by A G Malloy, New York, 1978. Malloy’s supplement is fill of
inaccuracies. The most important study since then has been D R Walker, The Metrology of
the Roman Silver Coinage, 1-3. See Chapter 6, n. 1.
23 Abroad: Berlin, Staatliche Museen; Brussels, Bibliotheque Royale Albert ler;
Copenhagen, Nationalmuseet; Frankfurt, Deutsche Bundesbank and Historisches Museum;
Izmir, Arkeoleji Muzesi; Jerusalem, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum; Leiden, Koninklijk
Penningkabinet; Milan, Civiche Raccolte Numismatiche; Munich, Staatliche Munzsammlung;
New York, American Numismatic Society; Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale; Princeton
University; Rome, Museo Nazionale (Gnecchi collection); Tel Aviv, Kadman Museum;
Vienna, Kunsthistorische Museum; Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica; Yale University. In Britain:
Cambridge, The Fitzwilliam Museum; Cardiff, The National Museum of Wales; Glasgow, The
Hunterian Museum; London, The British Museum; The Manchester Museum; Oxford, The
Ashmolean Museum.
24 The other institutions are Bonn, Rheinische Landesmuseum; Budapest, The National
Museum; Leningrad, The Hermitage Museum; Lucerne, Historisches Museum and Turin,
Museo Civico. The private collections are listed above (p. 8). I have not named the owners

31
B. Published works
Published catalogues of personal and private collections and of coin
hoards and site-finds have also added a limited amount of material, but
obviously I have only been able to include illustrated coins in the die-studies.
These works are listed in the bibliography above.

C. Sale catalogues
I have also made extensive use of the illustrations in catalogues of coins
offered for sale by auction or at a fixed price. This is a major source of
material: 257 catalogues have produced a total of 308 coins (see the list of
Sale Catalogues above). Almost half of the tetradrachms of Antioch in the die-
study come from sale catalogues, which have produced a high proportion of
new varieties.25 However, this material has to/^used with care for the same L
coin can frequently appear in several sales. The sales used are listed in the
Bibliography of Sources.

5. The presentation of the catalogue

The use I have made of unillustrated references to coins in catalogues
is uneven: for the rarer coinages, that is all except for the second series of
radiates (Chapter 5), I have included a note of all such references in the
catalogue, enclosing the entry in square brackets to show that I have not been
able to confirm their description and that they are not part of the die-study.
On the other hand, since the radiates of the end of the reign are very common
and easily distinguished in catalogues because their types are distinct from
those of Rome, it seemed unnecessary to include every published reference in
my catalogue and instead I have noted their occurrence in hoards in Table 5
of Appendix 1.
In the case of the tetradrachms (Chapter 4), where die-links are
frequent, I have given the obverse dies numbers (using Latin numerals to

of these collections at their request.

25 65 of the first series of radiates (18.3%), 55 of the second (8.5%), 144 of the
tetradrachms (45.3%) and 44 of the coins of Caesarea (14.4%) come from this source.

32
distinguish them from the catalogue number), while I have numbered both the
obverse and the reverse dies of the bronze coinage of Caesarea (Chapter 6).
There were so few die-identities among the radiates that it was not thought
worthwhile to number the obverse dies.

6. The die-studies
A. The purpose of the die-studies
It is not difficult to appreciate that the sample of coinage obtained from
the different sources outlined above is likely to be biased. This applies
especially to the coins illustrated in sale catalogues, which are clearly more
likely to include the scarcer and more valuable pieces than those that are
worth less. Collections are often biased in the same way, although to a lesser
degree: they frequently contain only one or two specimens of each variety,
including the common ones, and will not normally provide twenty or thirty
specimens of the really common types such as one finds in hoards.26 Given
that much of the find evidence is unusable (or, in the case of the coinage of
Caesarea, non-existent), the die-studies provide a vital corrective, for they
enable us to make an estimate of the total number of dies used to produce
the coinage. Table 1 shows the variation between the numbers of coins
included in the die-study and the estimated total numbers of obverse dies.
It is clear, therefore, that if the only information we had was the crude
total of specimens we would have a very misleading picture of the relative size
of the different coinages. For example, the tetradrachms are relatively well-
represented in the die-study; this is only to be expected since they are large,
precious-metal coins, reasonably valuable today, so that they are very
frequently illustrated in sale and other catalogues and are often to be found
in collections 27 As far as the radiates are concerned, the first series is more

26 There are exceptions to this, where, for example, a museum has a acquired a whole
hoard, or part of one, such as Izmir Museum which has acquired the whole of the Haydere
hoard.
27 There is, however, an unexpected difference between the first and second series of
tetradrachms on the one hand and the third on the other, as the later coins are apparently
much better represented than the earlier ones: see below, p. 40f. and Chapter 4.

33
heavily represented than the second because it has many more varieties (67
as opposed to 19) many of which are very scarce and so -mote-are more likely
to be illustrated in sales and kept in collections.

Table 1: Numbers of specimens in die-study and estimated total number

of obverse dies

Issue No. of Obv. dies Estimated Estimated Ratio

specimens observed total range
Radiates (Series 1) 355 264 614 611-753 2.64
Radiates (Series 2) 645 543 2279 1849-2999 3.53
Tetradrachms (Series 1-2) 163 111 217 184-302+ 1.33
Tetradrachms (Series 3) 155 74 98 86-115+ 0.63
Caesarea (Silver) 113 89 510 211-891 3.83
Caesarea (Bronze) 191 65 92 70-137 0.48
Total 1622 1146 3870 3011-5197+ 2.39

The surprising figures in this table are those for the coins of Caesarea.
It might have been thought that the silver coins would be well-represented in
sale catalogues and collections but they are not. Conversely, it might be
imagined that our sample of the bronze coins of Caesarea would be rather
incomplete, since the coins are worth relatively little and so less likely to be
illustrated in sale catalogues or acquired by museums. In fact the opposite is
the case, for we have a more complete record of the dies of these coins than
of any other in the present study. JThis problem is examined in Chapter 6.

B. The method used for estimating the total number of dies in a coinage
This is a subject about which much has been written recently and many
different methods have been put forward.28 I do not feel competent to

28 These have been usefully summarised and compared by G F Carter in ‘Comparison of

methods for calculating the total number of dies from die-link statistics’ in C Carcassone and
T Hackens (edd.), Statistics and Numismatics, PACT 5, Strasbourg, 1981, pp. 204-13. The
method most frequently used before Esty’s article was described by G F Carter in ‘A graphical
method for calculating the approximate total number of dies from die-link statistics of ancient
coins’ in W A Oddy (ed.), Scientific Studies in Numismatics, B M Occasional Paper 18,
London, 1980, pp. 17-29. C Carcassone, Methodes statistiques en numismatique, Louvain, 1988
is a useful handbook on the whole subject of the application of statistics to numismatic data.
W W Esty, ‘Estimating the size of a coinage’, NC 1984, pp. 180-3 and ‘Estimation of the size
of a coinage: a survey and comparison of methods’, NC 1986, pp. 185-215. This second paper
contains extensive references to the previous literature on the subject.

34
decide which is most accurate, but instead have been persuaded by the
arguments of Esty to use the formula that he has proposed.29 This was first
published by Good in 195330 and first applied to a numismatic context by
Lyon in 1970.31
I have chosen to use Esty’s formula because: (a) it appears to be based
on sound statistical method;32 (b) it is the most recent theory to have been
published, and Esty’s work has been carried out in the light of the previous
work on the subject; (c) it has already been applied to die-studies by scholars
such as Lyon and Walker;33 and (d) it allows us to calculate a margin of
error.34 This is a most important feature, since, as we have seen, some of the
coinages studied here have produced a high proportion of die-identities and
others hardly any, and yet a simple calculation which just produces a single
estimate cannot on its own convey an impression of how precise that estimate
might be; with a calculation for the margin of error the problem is avoided.
The formula of Good that Esty advocates is:

29 Opp. citt., n. 2<j.

30 I J Good, ‘The population frequencies of species and the estimation of population
parameters’, Biometrika 40, 1953, pp. 237-64.
31 C S S Lyon, ‘Analysis of the material’ in H R Mossop, The Lincoln Mint, Newcastle,
1970, pp. 14-19.
32 Esty is a career statistician, whereas G F Carter, the main proponent of alternative
techniques is a chemist, who has also written extensively on metal analysis. Esty’s writings
seem to be sounder than those of Carter.
33 D R Walker applied it to die-studies of Britannia asses of Antoninus Pius from the
finds from Bath: see ‘The Roman Coins’ in B Cunliffe (ed.), The Temple of Sulis Minerva at
Bath 2, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 16, Oxford, 1988, pp. 301-
4.
34 In fact the results obtained from the different methods seem to be quite close. I
estimated the obverse dies of the third series of tetradrachms of Antioch using the method
explained by G F Carter in ‘A graphical method for calculating the approximate total number
of dies from die-link statistics of ancient coins’ in W A Oddy (ed.), Scientific Studies in
Numismatics, B M Occasional Paper 18, London, 1980, pp. 17-29, and it gave a figure of 105.1
dies ±20.6; this compared with 94.2 dies according to Esty’s technique. This is certainly within
the margin of error of the latter method.

35
 Number of non-singletons Known dies
Total size o f sample Total dies

where ‘non-singletons’ are those coins whose die is represented by more than
one specimen. This calculation gives a ‘spot’ estimate for the total number of
dies. It is useful because it is very easily made, but it does not on its own give
an idea of the margin of error. For this another procedure is required. First,
it is necessary to work out the ‘coverage’, that is how big a percentage of the
total number of coins originally struck is represented by the sample used in the
die-study. This is essentially the same as the previous calculation.

Coverage - 1- ( Singletons \
\ Total size o f sample J

Finally it is possible to work out the margin of error in the following

way:
«

( Nl + 2N2)
-

{ n ] » j
i

where Nj denotes the number of dies represented by only one coin, N 2

the number represented by two, and n the total number of coins in the
sample. This equation gives a 68% confidence interval and is used in
connection with the ‘coverage’ figure.
These formulae are best explained by an example. From Gordian’s first
series of radiates there are 326 coins with the normal draped and cuirassed
bust, seen from behind (D2) (see Chapter 3, Table 8). The distribution of the
dies is as follows: there are 201 singletons (dies only observed from one coin),
43 pairs (dies observed from two coins, x2), 7 x3, 2 x4 and 2 x5. Thus there
was a total of 255 dies and 125 ‘non-singletons’. Applying Good’s formula, the
total number of dies is 326 x 255 = 8313 -5- 125 = 665.04. To obtain the figure
for the ‘coverage’ the singletons (201) are divided by the total number of coins
in the sample (326) = 0.6166 and the resulting figure is subtracted from 1,

36
giving a result of 0.3834. This means that our sample accounts for 38.34% of
the total. The margin of error calculation then gives a figure of ±3.92% which
translates into a range of between 34.42% and 42.26% or between 601.7 and
743.4 dies.
Table 1 above shows the number of specimens in the sample for each
issue (n), the number of obverse dies observed (N), the estimated total
number of dies using Good’s formula, the estimated range of dies, using Esty’s
margin of error calculation, and the ratio of the Good’s estimated total over
the number of specimens (n).

C. Explanation of the tables of die-statistics

The tables in Chapters 3 to 6 which present summaries of the numbers
of dies observed show:
Column (1): the number of coins used in the die-study.
Column (2): the number of dies observed.
Column (3): the number of ‘non-singletons* (this column is headed N-S).
Column (4): the number of dies represented by a single coin, two coins, three
coins and so on.
Column (5): the estimated number of dies obtained from Good’s equation (see
above) and hence is headed ‘G ood’.
Column (6): the estimated ‘Coverage’, that is how big a percentage of the total
number of coins originally struck is represented by the sample used in the die-
study.
Column (7): in this column, headed ‘R ange’ I have translated the results of the
calculations for the coverage and its confidence intervals into the probable
upper and lower limits for the total number of dies used to strike each issue.
Of course it is not possible to carry out these calculations if no die-links
have been observed within a particular obverse variety, as is sometimes the
case. When this occurs I have simply indicated that there were, say, 2+ dies,
and I have had to make an educated guess as to the total number.
I have also worked out the die-estimates in two different ways: first, by
making the calculations separately for each variety of obverse bust or reverse

37
type and then adding them and secondly by taking all the figures for each
series together and making a single estimate for them all. The second method
is termed calculated together and the results are given in italics at the end of
each issue. The two different methods have different strengths and
weaknesses. It is obviously best to calculate the die-estimates for each variety
separately if possible, so as to avoid distortion of the results caused by one
variety being over-represented in the sample.
In the case of the obverses, it might be expected that coins with unusual
busts will be better represented than those with normal busts, since they are
more likely to be present in collections and to be illustrated in sale catalogues.
This effect can be seen in the figures of the first series of tetradrachms: when
the dies for each bust variety are calculated separately and added up the total
amounts to 205.3, while when the calculation is made for all the dies together
the figure comes to 191.7. The higher figure is to be preferred because the
other is distorted by the over-representation of coins with non-standard busts.
For the third series of tetradrachms the two methods produce very
similar results because there are so many die-identities even among coins with
the normal bust that the estimates are very precise. Thus when the estimates
are calculated separately and totalled for the first officina they give a figure
of over 66.7 dies and when calculated together they come to 65.8 dies; for the
second officina the figures are 31.6+ dies (calculated separately) and 32.6
(calculated together).
It is, however, useful to make a single calculation for all the coins of an
issue when only a very few coins are known, as in the case of the second series
of tetradrachms. Here a joint calculation gives a figure of 14 obverse dies
instead of 12+ when calculated separately, but more importantly it enables us
to set much narrower upper and lower limits to the probable number: 9.8 to
24.3 dies instead of 8+ to 54+.

D. The average numbers of coins per die

This is an intractable problem. Clearly, whatever average figure is
chosen will be arbitrary, since in reality ancient dies are likely to have enjoyed

38
lives of very variable lengths; Mate has demonstrated the fewer the dies that
were used in a particular issue, the more variable their average life-expectancy
is likely to be.35 Sellwood’s experimental re-creation of an ancient mint has
provided the starting point for the study of this problem.36 He found that his
obverse die was able to strike at least 16,000 coins and estimated that it could
probably produce many more. In 1974 Crawford proposed the figure of 30,000
for Republican denarii37 This figure has become the most widely accepted
one, followed, for example, by Carradice in his die-studies of the coinage of
Domitian.38 On the other hand, Walker preferred the ‘more conservative’
figure of 20,000.39
Kinns has put this debate on a new basis, combining epigraphic
evidence for the total amount of bullion coined for the tetradrachms of the
Amphictionic coinage of Delphi with a die-study of the coins themselves to
suggest that the obverse dies struck between 23,000 and 47,000 coins. The
figure of 30,000 sits comfortably within this range.
I follow Crawford in preferring a figure of 30,000, with the proviso that
it is likely that the dies of some of the coinages in the present study,
particularly the bronzes of Caesarea, had much longer lives than others.
Equally I would suggest that the dies for tetradrachms of Antioch and the
tridrachms of Caesarea are likely to have had the shortest lives since they were
the highest denomination coins and it is reasonable to expect that the mints
would have taken greater care with their appearance than with, say, the
drachms or the radiates. All this is, however, speculation and cannot be
substantiated or precisely quantified. It simply shows what an uncertain step
it is to move from an estimate of die numbers to an estimate of numbers of
coins struck. For this reason I prefer to restrict estimates of quantities to dies.

35 M Mate, ‘Coin dies under Edward I and II’ NC 1969, pp. 207-18.
36 D G Sellwood, ‘Some experiments in Greek minting technique’, NC 1963, pp. 217-31.
37 M H Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, Cambridge 1974, p. 694.
38 Ian Carradice, Coinage and Finances in the Reign o f Domitian, BAR International Series
178, Oxford, 1983, p. 85.
39 D R Walker, op. cit. n. 33, p. 301.

39
E. The relative validity of die-estimates and find studies for estimating the
size of a coinage
Die-estimates can give us an idea of the total size of a coinage in
absolute terms, thus allowing different denominations that are not normally
hoarded together, such as radiates, tetradrachms and Caesarean coins, to be
compared with each other. However, within each individual series, die-
estimates often give only a very approximate picture of the relative common­
ness of individual varieties and, if there are enough of them, finds will give a
better picture.40 However, finds on their own will never give an absolute
estimate of the size of a coinage, nor will they permit one denomination to be
compared with another if they are not hoarded together (for example, radiates
and tetradrachms). Therefore, although find evidence, where available,
provides a very useful check on the detailed results of die-studies, as in the
case of the second series of radiates, there is no alternative to carrying out die-
studies.
Another problem with find evidence is that the deliberate removal of
older coins from circulation, due to the rapid debasement of the alloy of the
silver coinage at this time, can distort the evidence. This seems to be the case
with the Antiochene tetradrachms of Gordian. The hoards reveal 64 coins of
the first series (38.55% of the total), 5 of the second (3.01%) and 97 of the
third (58.43%); the die-estimates, on the other hand give 205 (65.08% of the
total), 12 (3.81%) and 98 (31.11%). In other words, the proportions between
the first and third series are more or less reversed. This could mean that the
dies for the coins of the third series were used to produce over three times as
many coins as those of the first. Alternatively it could imply that the coins of
the first series were systematically removed from circulation soon after their

40 On this the locus classicus is B Thordeman’s demonstration that the number of coins
in the Lohe hoard which contained 18,201 Swedish coins of the 17th and early 18th centuries
closely parallels the records of output of the Stockholm mint: ‘The Lohe hoard: a
contribution to the methodology of numismatics’, NC 1948, pp. 188-204. See also P Grierson,
‘The interpretation of coin finds (I)’ in NC 1965, pp. i - xiii and ‘The interpretation of coin
finds (II)’ in NC 1966, pp. i - xv. T R Volk has recently re-examined the Lohe hoard in ‘Mint
output and coin hoards’ in G Depeyrot, T Hackens and G Moucharte (edd.), Rhythmes de la
Production Monttaire, Louvain, 1987, pp. 141-221 and concluded that Thordeman’s thesis is
broadly correct.

40
issue and so are much rarer in the finds, most of were buried after the
cessation of tetradrachm issues in 253. Since there is no apparent indication
that the dies of the third series were more heavily used than those of the first,
and since the silver of the first series of Gordian’s tetradrachms was about
33% purer than that of his third (Chapter 7), the second seems the more
likely explanation, as is argued in Chapter 4.

41
 Chapter 2
Chronology

Contents

1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 42

2 The date of Gordian’s accession.......................................................... 43

3 The date of Gordian’s death ............................................................... 45

4 The tribunician year at R o m e ............................................................... 45

5 C aesarea................................................................................................... 49

Tables
1 Gordian: tribunician years and consulships on coins of Rome and
Antioch 46

1. Introduction
The recent work by Peachin, which gathers together for the first time
all the evidence for imperial chronology and titulature from 235 to 284, will
serve as the starting point for all studies of third century chronology.1 We
must all be grateful to Peachin for the immense task of gathering together all
the relevant references, literary, epigraphic and numismatic. However, if there
is one weakness in his work, it is that the numismatic sources of his
information are often out-of-date and sometimes positively misleading and this

1 M Peachin, Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D. 235-284, Studia Amstel-
odamensia ad Epigraphicam etc. Pertinentia, Amsterdam, 1990.

42
needs to be born in mind when using this book.2 Another useful summary of
Roman imperial titulature has recently been provided by Kienast.3

2. The date of Gordian’s accession

This problem was discussed by Loriot in a paper published in 1974 in
which he concluded that the most likely date for Gordian’s proclamation as
Augustus following the murder of Balbinus and Pupienus was 6 or 7 June
238.4 The earliest date for Gordian as Augustus should be provided by
Alexandrian tetradrachms which are dated Year 1 and which must have been
struck before 31 August 238. These coins have, however, proved to be elusive,
although Vogt cites three specimens in his handbook and all scholars since
have assumed that they existed.5 Two of these specimens were published in
the catalogue of the Dattari collection, now dispersed; one of them has
recently been acquired by the British Museum and it is clear that its date
actually reads L B (Year 2) rather than L A.6 The other Dattari coin cannot
be checked, nor can the third example, which was described by Breccia in a
hoard published in 1920.7 For the present, therefore, the best that we can say
concerning these coins is that they require confirmation.8 On the other hand,
the earliest papyrus from Egypt of Gordian is dated to 9 September 238 and
to the second year of his reign, thus reinforcing the numismatic evidence that
he was recognized in Egypt, at least in the capital, Alexandria, before the end

2 For example, Peachin, following RIC attributes coins to Sponsianus and Bonosus,
although no numismatist would now do so.
3 D Kienast, Romische Kaisertabelle, Darmstadt, 1990.
4 X Loriot, ‘Les Fasti Ostienses et le dies imperii de Gordien IIP, Melanges d ’histoire
ancienne offerts d William Seston, Paris, 1974, pp. 297-312.
5 J Vogt, Die Alexandrischen Munzen, Stuttgart, 1924, p. 137.
6 G Dattari, NuntiAugg. AlexandrinL Catalogo della Collezione G Dattari, Cairo, 1901, nos.
4699 (now in B.M., Year 2) and 4708.
7 E Breccia, ‘Un ripostiglio di monete imperiali alessandrine’, Bulletin de la Societe
Archeologique dAlexandrie 17 (1920), pp. 229-50, no. 1057.
8 There are none in the British Museum or New York, or in the catalogues of the Oxford,
Cologne or Frankfurt collections.

43
of August.9 There is also a papyrus, from the Arsinoite nome, in the name of
Balbinus and Pupienus dated 8 September. Since, according to Rathbone, it
could take between three and 15 days for news from Alexandria to reach the
Arsinoite,10 this would seem to tie the date at which the news reached Egypt
of Balbinus and Pupienus’s death and of Gordian’s accession quite firmly to
August 238. Rathbone has also shown that news could take from between 15
and 60 days to reach Alexandria from Rome, which implies that Gordian was
proclaimed Augustus at Rome between about 24 June and 8 August.
However, Sartre has recently published an inscription, dedicated to
Gordian as Augustus, from Shaiqqa (Maximianopolis) in southern Syria which
is dated 27 May 238.11 As Sartre points out, this clearly implies that he must
have been declared emperor in Rome by early May, pushing the previously
accepted date of his dies imperii back by one month. Peachin, however, is
aware of Sartre’s inscription but prefers to follow the Egyptian evidence
suggesting a dies imperii in August. Unfortunately he does not explain why he
prefers August to July or late June, but refers instead to a forthcoming
paper.12 He must believe this inscription to be incorrect, and it is possible
that it confuses Gordian III with his uncle and grandfather as many literary
sources did.
The Chronography o f 354 states that Gordian reigned for five years, five
months and five days.13 We shall see below that there is independent
evidence to suggest that he died between late January and early February 244,
so, if the Chronography o f 354 is correct, then his accession should have been
in late August or early September 238. Since there is clearly a contradiction
between our sources, it is difficult to know which to prefer, and Gordian’s dies

9 D W Rathbone, ‘The dates of recognition in Egypt of the emperors from Caracalla to

Diocletianus’, ZPE 62 (1986), pp. 101-31, pp. 110-1.
10 Rathbone, op. cit. n. 9, pp. 102-3.
11 M Sartre, ‘Le dies imperii de Gordien III: une inscription inedite de Syrie’, Syria 71
(1984), pp. 49-61.
12 Peachin, op. cit. n. 1, p. 29.
13 T Mommsen (ed.), Chronica Minora I, Monumenta Germaniae Historica IX, Berlin,
1892, p. 147.

44
imperii could have occurred at any time between early May and August 238.
However, I think the balance of evidence favours August and that is the date
that I shall use.

3. The date of Gordian’s death

There is less room for ambiguity here. The latest papyrus date for
Gordian is 26 February 244 and the earliest for Philip between 27 March and
25 April.14 The Codex Justinianus has a rescript of Philip dated 14 March (CJ
3.42.6).15 Peachin believes that, taking into account the time it would have
taken for the news of Gordian’s death in Mesopotamia to have reached Rome,
that Gordian is most likely to have died in late January or early February.16

4. The tribunician year at Rome

This is a problem that has puzzled scholars since the time of Eckhel;17
it has also been discussed by Costa,18 Pink,19 Mattingly,20 Loriot21 and
Peachin.22 The easiest way to explain the problem is by reference to Table
1 which follows the conventional date for the renewal of tribunician power,
that is 10 December.

14 Rathbone, op. cit. n. 9, pp. 111-2.

15 P Krueger (ed.), Corpus Iuris Civilis, 2. Codex Iustinianus, Berlin, 1929. The dates given
in these rescripts are not always correct: see Chapter 9.
16 Op. cit. n. 1, p. 30.
17 J Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum, VIII, Vienna 1798, pp. 438-9, described the difficulties
but did not reach any conclusions.
18 G Costa, ‘Gordianus Nepos’, in E de Ruggiero (ed.) Dizionario epigrafico di Antichitti
romane 3, Rome, 1922, pp. 540-59.
19 K Pink, ‘Der Aufbau der romischen Munzpragung in der Kaiserzeit, III. Von Severus
Alexander bis Philippus’, NZ 1935, pp. 24-5.
20 RIC, pp. 2-3.
21 X Loriot, ‘Consulat et consulat designe sur les monnaies de Gordien et de Philippe’,
BSFN 1970, pp. 558 ff.
22 Op. cit. n. 1.

45
 There are also two inscriptions which are precisely dated:
(1) the first is dated 4 February 239 and gives Gordian’s titles as TR
POT II COS (Eph. Epigr. VII, 1210);
(2) while the second, a diploma, dates from 7 January 243 and calls
Gordian TR P VI COS II (C/L III, D LXXXVIII, p. 200, LII, p. 894).
As we have seen, additional evidence is provided by the Alexandrian
coins which are dated by regnal year according to an era which starts on 31
August each year. Gordian’s first year at Alexandria lasts from July to August
238 and his last year is year seven, from 31 August 243 to 31 August 244. In
addition Caesarea also used its own system of dating, which, I have argue</ *{
above, probably followed the Cappadocian calendar in which the new year [ u«X«o
began on either 12 December or 11 January.23 At Caesarea, as at Alexand­
ria, Gordian enjoyed seven regnal years: in other words his last year began
either on 12 December 243 or on 11 January 244.

TRP Date COS Dated coins

TRP July 238-10 Dec. 238 TRP COS (Antioch only)
TRP II 10 Dec. 238-10 Dec. 239 COS 239 TRP II COS (common)
TRP III 10 Dec. 239-10 Dec. 240 TRP III COS (scarce)
TRP III COS II (scarce)
TRP IV 10 Dec. 240-10 Dec. 241 COS II 241 TRP IIII COS II (common)
TRP V 10 Dec. 241-10 Dec. 242 TRP V COS II (common)
TRP VI 10 Dec. 242-10 Dec. 243 TRP VI COS II (common)
TRP VII 10 Dec. 243-Feb. 244 TRP VII COS II (common)

jjL Gordian: tribunician years and consulships on coins of Rome and Antioch

There are two anomalies in the table above: (1) the Antioch coins that
are dated TR P COS, since Gordian only became consul in his second
tribunician year, and (2) the coins from Rome that are dated TR P III COS
II, since Gordian was in his fourth tribunician year when he became consul for
the second time. Mattingly’s solution to these problems was to postulate that
Gordian renewed his tribunician power not on the 10 December, but on the
anniversary of his succession in July. This certainly removes the difficulties
posed by the two dates TR P COS and TR P III COS II, but it creates

23 See next section.

46
an o th er, g re a te r, difficulty w hich is th at in o rd e r to acco m m o d ate G o rd ia n ’s
seventh tribunician y ear his reign has to b e ex ten d ed dow n to July 244.
H ow ever, w e can now see from th e papyrological evidence from E gypt th a t

Philip was recognized as e m p e ro r by 24 A pril 244, so M attingly’s th eo ry is now

u n te n a b le .24
C osta, o n th e o th e r hand, p ro p o sed th a t G o rd ian h ad a double
reckoning o f his tribunician year, using b o th th e n o rm al d a te o f 10 D e cem b er

an d also his accession day, w hich he believed was 21 O cto b er, a very late
d a te 25. T his seem s to be an unnecessarily com plicated solution, and o n e for

w hich th e re is no parallel.
T h e o th e r dates th a t ha^ b e e n suggested for th e renew al o f tribunician 1 ire,
pow er at this p erio d y( 1 January, which W alk er26 has suggested an d which 1*
L oriot has p ro p o se d for Philip27 an d A ugust or S ep tem b er, w hich A rm stro n g
has p ro p o sed fo r V alerian an d G allienus.28 1 Jan u ary offers no ad v an tag es
over 10 D e c e m b e r in explaining th e two an o m alo u s d ates T R P C O S an d T R
P III C O S II, b u t at th e sam e tim e it has no disadvantages an d it rem ain s a
possibility. H ow ever, in term s o f chronology it m atters very little w h eth er Go
ren ew ed his trib u n ician pow er on 10 D e cem b er or th re e w eeks la te r on 1
January. A rm stro n g p ro p o sed A ugust o r S ep te m b er as th e d a te w hen
V alerian an d G allienus ren ew ed th eir tribunician year as th a t d ate was close
to th eir accession d ate, b ut we have already seen th a t to p ro p o se th a t G o rd ian
ren ew ed his trib u n ician pow er on th e anniversary of his accession crea tes even
g re a te r difficulties a t th e en d of his reign. F o r these reaso n s I p re fe r to follow

th e m ost re c e n t studies on this subject w hich continue to use th e conventional

d a te of 10 D e c e m b e r.29

24 R ath bon e, op. cit. n. 9.

25 C osta, op. cit., n. 18.

26 D R W alker, The M etrology o f the R om an Silver Coinage 3, n. 4 on pp. 104-5.

27 X L oriot, ‘C hronologie du regne de P hilippe l’A rabe’, A N R W 2.2 (1975), pp. 788-97.

28 D A rm strong, ‘Tribunician dales o f the joint and separate reigns o f V alerianus and
G allienus: a plea for the A ugust-Septem ber theory’, Z P E 67 (1987), pp. 215-23.

29 Peachin, op. cit., n. 1 and Sartre, op. cit., n. 11.

47
 As regards the first of the two anomalous dates, the use of TR P COS
at Antioch, Kienast has proposed that Gordian was made consul designate at
the time of his elevation to the Caesarship in May 238, which would neatly
explain this anomaly, although there is no other evidence to suggest that this
was the case.30 On the other hand, it could be explained simply as a
reflection of the Syrian mint’s notorious vagueness in imperial titles. In any
case, the three different renderings of the imperial titles do not inspire
confidence: P M TRI P CON P P (nos. 29-30), PON M TR IP CON P P (no.
32) and most irregularly, P M TR P I P COS P P (no. 31). Two examples
from Philip’s reign illustrate how sloppy Antioch could be in its use of imperial
titles: the largest issue of tetradrachms from Antioch for Philip name him as
YUATO A, or COS IV, and yet there is no evidence that Philip was ever
consul for more than three times; similarly many radiates of Philip from
Antioch accord him a sixth tribunician year, although Rome does not accord
him a sixth year. Compared to these glaring mistakes, it is a minor error for
the mint to give Gordian the title of consul before he had actually held it; they
were no doubt confusing him with his father or grandfather.
As for the anomalous date which occurs on coins of the mint of Rome
with P M TR P III COS II P P (RIC 87, 119, 137A and 301) and one
inscription from Gallia Belgica,31 these coins all seem to have been struck in
quite small quantities, while the inscription comes from a distant part of the
empire, and Pink’s suggestion that we should interpret the legend as meaning
COS DES II is an attractive one.32 The same could presumably apply to the
inscription which does come from a distant part of the Empire. Peachin
discusses these aberrant dates and concludes: ‘Given this quandary, I should
prefer to suppose that Gordian maintained tradition and renewed his

30 Kienast, op. cit. n. 3, pp. 194-6.

31 It reads IMP CAES M ANT GORD PI FEL AVG PONT MAX TR POT III COS II
P P: CIL XIII, no. 3560 = L ’A nnee Epigraphique 1900, no. 43 = Peachin, op. cit., n. 1, p. 176
no. 110 and p. 61.
32 Pink, op. cit. n. 19, p. 24. See also X Loriot, op. cit. n. 21

48
tribunician power on 10 December, and that some of the documents are
simply dated mistakenly or in a misleading fashion’.33

5. Caesarea
One of the problems posed by the study of the coinage of Caesarea is
how to interpret the dates placed on the coins. These appear in the form
eTOYC followed by the Greek numerals T, A, e, S and Z, that is 3, 4, 5, 6 and
7. That these letters refer to Gordian’s regnal years is clear, but what is less
clear is when exactly these years began. They cannot have followed Gordian’s
accession date since by that reckoning he only reigned for six years:34
according to the Egyptian evidence, Gordian’s reign lasted from September
238 to January to May 244, in other words considerably less than seven
calendar years.35 Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that the
Caesarean coins used the Cappadocian calendar in their reckoning of years,
just as the Alexandrian coins followed the Egyptian calendar. However, exactly
when the Cappadocian New Year began is another matter. There seem to be
two possibilities: 12 December and 11 January. In an article in Pauly-Wissowa,
Ginzel states that the year began with the month of Lytanos on 12 December,
on the grounds that Lytanos corresponded to the Persian month Artana which
was definitely the first month of that calendar; Kubitschek also seems to take
this view.36 In a more recent work, however, Samuel implied that the year
began with the month of Artaesti on 11 January, but since he did not state any
reasons for this it seems reasonable to prefer Ginzel’s date of 12 Decemb­
er 37 Walker noted that Caesarea’s regnal years do not correspond to the

33 Peachin, op. cit. n. 1, p. 61.

34 As was assumed by Wroth, B M C Galatia etc., p. xxxi and Sydenham, pp. 23-4.
35 D Rathbone, ‘The dates of the recognition in Egypt of the emperors from Caracalla
to Diocletianus’, ZPE 62, 1986, pp. 101-31 at pp. 110-11.
36 Ginzel, ‘Kappadokischer Kalendar’, Pautys Real-Encylopadie der Classischen Altertums-
wissenschaft, 10, 2, col. 1917. See also W Kubitschek, Die Kalenderbacher von Florenz, Rom
und Leyden, Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 57, 3,
Vienna, 1915, pp. 101-4.
37 A E Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft I, 7,
Munich, 1972, pp. 177-8.

49
Roman tribunician year and added ‘probably both Caesarea and Antioch
reckon TR P from January 1st’.38 It seems more likely, however, that
Caesarea would have followed the Cappadocian calendar just as Alexandria
used the Egyptian one. If we accept that the Cappadocian year stated on 12
December, it means that Gordian’s Year 7 at Caesarea lasted for at least six
weeks; under Samuel’s chronology, it might have been as short as two weeks.

38 D R Walker, The Metrology o f the Roman Silver Coinage 3, pp. 104-5, n. 4.

 Chapter 3
Antioch: The First Series of Radiates

Contents

1. Introduction.................................................................................................... 54

2. Previous discussions of the first series of Gordian’s radiates

from A n tio c h ....................................................................................................... 57

3. How these coins may be distinguished from those of Rome: general

principles.............................................................................................................. 64

4. The first issues of themint of R o m e ......................................................... 66

A. The sequence of obverse legends at Rome (66); B. The
structure of the first three issues (67); C. Issues 1 and 2 (69); D.
The problem of the bronze coins (70); E. Coins incorrectly
attributed by RIC to Rome (71)

5. The style of R o m e ........................................................................................ 72

A. General considerations (72); B. The Balbinus and Pupienus
portraits (72); C. The main Rome portrait style (73); D.
Lettering (74)

6. The style of A n tio ch ...................................................................................... 74

A. The style of the portraits (74); B. Lettering (75); C. The style
of the reverses (75); D. The significance of the die-study (76)

7. ‘Eastern’ characteristicsof the m in t............................................................ 77

A. Earlier eastern coinages (77); B. The eastern coinages of
Pescennius and Septimius Severus (78); C. Eastern features of
Gordian’s coinage: incorrect and unusual combinations of type
and legend (79); D. Eastern features of Gordian’s coinage:
Mistakes (80); E. Conclusion (80)

8. The structure of the first s e r ie s .................................................................. 81

A. Pink’s theory (81); B. How many issues? (86); C. The die-
study (87); D. The evidence of the dated types (87); E. The
evidence of the size of the reverse types (87); E The evidence
of the obverse busts (89); G. The relative priority of the Roman
and non-Roman types (89); H. Conclusion (91)

51
9. The problem of the g o ld ............................................................................... 92
A. Introduction (92); B. The CONCORDIA AVG type (no. 1A)
(93); C. The ADVENTVS AVG type (no. 1) (93); D. The
historical significance (94); E. The Adventus type (95); E The
striking of gold coins and the presence of the emperor (97); G.
Conclusion (100)

10. The date of the firstseries ......................................................................... 100

A. The dated legends (100); B. The calendar dates (102); C.
Closer dating (102); D. Conclusion (103)

11. Obverse ty p e s................................................................................................ 104

A. Legends (104); B. Obverse busts (105)

12. Reverse ty p e s ................................................................................................ 107

A. Introduction (107); B. Aequitas (108); C. Concordia (108); D.
Fides (110); E. Fortuna (111); F. Gordian (111); G. Jupiter
(115); H. Liberalitas/Libertas (115); I. Mars/Soldier/Virtus (117);
J. Pax (119); K. Providentia (120); L. Roma (122); M. Serapis
(122); N. Sol (123); O. Spes/ Salus (123); P. Victoria (124); Q.
The sources of the reverse types (125); R. The message of the
reverse types (126)

13. The d ie-stu d y............................................................................................. 128

A. Introduction: the methods (128); B. Calculated separately
and calculated together (128); C. The problem of the reverses
(132); D. The obverse statistics (133); E. Obverse die-links
(134); F. The ratio of obverses to reverses (135)

14. The evidence of f in d s ............................................................................... 136

A. The unreliability of the evidence (136); B. The evidence for
the distribution of the first series of radiates (136)

15. Weights ....................................................................................................... 138

16. D ie-a x es....................................................................................................... 139

Table of obverse die-links.............................................................................. 141

Catalogue ......................................................................................................... 146

52
Thbles and figures

Thble 1: Summary of first series of aurei and radiates at Antioch . . . 55-6

Table 2: The first three issues of Gordian at R o m e ................................... 68
Table 3: First series divided into Pink and Le Gentilhomme’s issues . . . 82
Table 4: Obverse die-links in the first series of radiates (1) reverses in Pink’s
issu es......................................................................................................... 83
Table 4: Obverse die-links in the first series of radiates (2) reverses in
alphabetical order ................................................................................. 84
Table 6: Major reversetypes of the first series of ra d ia tes........................ 88
Table 7: The occurrences of the Adventus type on the coinage
of 193-238 ................................................................................................ 96
Table 8: Die statistics .............................................................................. 128-9
Table 9: Obverse die-links.............................................................................. 130
Table 10: Proportion of coins of first series from Antioch from eight
h oard s.................................................................................................... 136
Thble 11: Summary of Weights at Antioch and Rome, AD 238-9 . . . . 137
Table 12: Die-axes ........................................................................................... 138

Figure 1: Antioch: weights of radiates of 238-9 ....................................... 140

Figure 2: Rome: weights of radiates of 238-9 .......................................... 140
Figure 3: Radiates of 238-9: Rome and Antioch compared ................. 140

53
1. Introduction
An extensive series of radiates, possibly accompanied by aurei, may be
attributed to the mint of Antioch at the beginning of Gordian’s reign. The
coins are dated to Gordian’s first and second tribunician years. Table 1
presents a summary of the issue. The radiates comprised 49 different reverse
types and four varieties of obverse bust, making a total of 65 catalogue entries,
while there are also unconfirmed records of two gold aurei, with different
reverse types, which would also appear to belong to this series. The die-study
suggests that the estimated total number of obverse dies of the radiates was
674, with a probable range of between 611 and 753, making this a substantial
issue of coins. If we adopt an average figure of 30,000 coins per obverse die,
the total number of coins produced was between 18 and 23 million.1
None of the coins bears any indication of their place of minting, and
indeed most of them have the same types as the contemporary coins of Rome.
Since the time of Voetter scholars have realized that these coins may be
distinguished from those of Rome, but no systematic attempt has been made
to do this and as a result no published catalogues of these coins can be relied
on to make the distinction accurately, unless they are illustrated. In section 2
I examine the earlier coinage of Antioch, and then, in section 3, previous
discussions of Gordian’s coinage. Since the coinages of Rome and Antioch at
the beginning of Gordian’s reign are so closely connected I examine the
structure and style of the products of the Rome mint before attempting to
explain how the Antiochene issues differ. I then proceed to look at the
structure of the coinage and the evidence it provides for the internal working
of the mint of Antioch, before examining the evidence for the date of the issue
and its historical background. Other sections discuss the obverse and reverse
types, the results of the die-study, the evidence of the hoards and the weights
and die-axes of the coins. Their silver content, on the other hand, raises wider
problems and is discussed separately in Chapter 7.

1 For this figure see Chapter 1.

54
 Thble 1: summary of first series of aurei and radiates at Antioch

Notes: a key to the obverse busts will be found on p. 7. The column headed No. refers to the specimens
included in the die-study; that headed [No.] to the specimens not in the die-study. The coins in square
brackets are those for which confirmation is required.

A: Aurei
Cat Bust Reverse Type Rome No. [No.]
1 D2* ADVENTVS AVG Emp. on horseback 1. - - [1]
1A D2* CONCORDIA AVG stg. 1., patera over altar,cornu. - - [1]

B: Radiates
2 D1 AEQ VITAS AVG stg. 1., scales & cornu. 1
3 D2 AEQVITAS AVG stg. 1., scales & cornu. Issue 3 43 [1]
4 Dll AEQ VITAS AVG stg. 1., scales & cornu. - 2
5 D2 AEQ VITAS AVG stg. 1., scales & tr. seep. - 1
6 D2 AEQ VITAS AVGVSTI stg. 1., scales & cornu. - 1

7 D2 CONCORDIA AVG std. 1., patera & cornu. Issue 3 16 [9]

8 D2 CONCORDIA AVG std. 1., patera - 3 [3]
9 D2 CONCORDIA AVG stg. 1., patera over altar, cornu. - 6
10 D ll CONCORDIA AVG stg. 1., patera over altar, cornu. - 1
11 D2 CONCORDIA AVG stg. 1., globe & tr. seep. - 2

12 D2 FIDES MILITVM stg. 1., stan. & tr. seep. Issue 1 17 [1]
12A B21 FIDES MILITVM stg. 1., stan. & tr. seep. - 1
13 D2 FIDES MILITVM stg. 1., stan. & cornu. - 13 [3]
14 B21 FIDES MILITVM stg. 1., stan. & cornu. - 3
14A Dll FIDES MILITVM stg. 1., stan. & cornu. - 1
15
16
D2
D2
FIDES
FIDES
MILITVM
MILITVM
stg. 1., stan. in each hand
std. 1., stan. & cornu.
-
-
1
3
m
[2]

17 D2 IOVI CONSERVATORI std. 1., eagle - - [2]

18 D2 LIBERALITAS AVG stg. 1., pileus & tr. seep. 25 [14]

19 D ll LIBERALITAS AVG stg. 1., pileus & tr. seep. - 1 [1]
20 D2 LIBERALITAS AVG II stg.. 1., abacus & cornu. - 1

21 D2 PAX AVGVSTI stg. 1., branch & tr. seep. Issue 1 37 [1]
22 B21 PAX AVGVSTI stg. 1., branch & tr. seep. - 2 [1]
23 D2 PAX AVGVSTI stg. 1., wreath & tr. seep. - 2
24 D2 PAX AVGVSTI stg. 1., branch & cornu. - 2
25 D2 PAX AVGVSTI Soldier (?Mars) stg. 1., branch & sp. - 5
26 B21 PAX AVGVSTI Soldier (?Mars) stg. 1., branch & sp. - 1
27 Dll PAX AVGVSTI Soldier (?Mars) stg. 1., branch & sp. - 1
28 D2 PAX AVGVSTI Soldier (?Mars) stg. 1., br.& sp., shield- ■ 2

29 D2 P M TRI P CON P P Emp. sacrificing l.over altar 3

30 D2 P M TRI P CON P P Sol stg. 1., globe - 1
31 D2 P M T R P I P COS P P Prov. stg. 1., globe & tr. seep. - 1
32 D2 PON M TRI P CON P P Serapis stg. 1., arm raised, seep. - 1

55
Cat. Bust Reverse Type Rome No. [No.]
33 D2 P M TR P II COS P P Emp. sacrificing l.over altar Issue 3 1
33A D2 P M TR P II COS P P Emp. stg. 1., hand raised & spear - 1
34 D2 P M TR P II COS P P Emp. on horseback 1. - 8
35 Dll P M TR P II COS P P Emp. on horseback 1. - 4
36 D2 P M TR P II COS P P Emp. in quadriga going r. - 1
37 D2 P M TR P II COS P P Emp., Pax & Victory - 2
38 D2 P M TR P II COS P P Concordia stg. 1., patera & cornu. - [1]
39 D2 P M TR P II COS P P Fortuna stg. 1., rudder & cornu. - 1
40 D2 P M TR P II COS P P Jupiter std. 1., thunderbolt & seep. - 3 [1]
41 D2 P M TR P II COS P P Libertas stg. 1., pileus & tr. seep. - 1 [1]
42 D2 P M TR P II COS P P Soldier (?Mars) stg. r., tr. spear & shield - 1
43 D1 P M TR P II COS P P Prov. stg. 1., globe & tr. seep. - 3
44 D2 P M TR P II COS P P Prov. stg. 1., globe & tr. seep. Issue 2 35 [2]
45 B21 P M TR P II COS P P Prov. stg. 1., globe & tr. seep. - 1
46 D ll P M TR P II COS P P Prov. stg. 1., globe & tr. seep. - 4
47 D2 P M TR P II COS P P Serapis stg. 1., arm raised, seep. - 2 [1]
48 D2 P M TR P II COS P P Sol stg. 1., globe - 2 [2]
49 D2 P M TR P II COS P P Victory adv.l., wreath & palm Issue 2 1

50 D2 PROVIDENTIA AVG stg. 1., globe & tr. seep. Issue 1 6 P]

51 D2 PROVIDENTIA AVG stg. 1., baton & vert, seep., globe - 5
52 D2 PROVIDENTIA AVG stg. 1., rudder & cornu. - 8 [5]
53 D2 PROVIDENTIA AVG stg. 1., corn over altar & cornu. - 13 m
54 D2 PROVIDENTIA AVG stg. 1., corn over altar & anchor - 2 [2]
55 D ll PROVIDENTIA AVG stg. 1., corn over altar & anchor - 2

56 D2 ROMAE AETERNAE std. 1., Victoriola & vert.scep. Issue 3 13 [2]

57 D ll ROMAE AETERNAE std. L, Victoriola & vert.soep. - 1

58 D2 SALVS AVGVSTI Sp. walking 1., flower and skirt _

1
59 D2 SPES PVPLICA walking 1., flower & skirt - 1

60 D2 VICTORIA AVG adv. 1., wreath & palm Issue 1 11 [3]

61 D2 VICTORIA AVG Emp. on horseback 1. - 3
62 D2 VICTORIA AVG Victory in biga r. - 2

63 D2 VIRTVS AVG stg. 1., shield & vert.spear Issue 1 16 [1]

Doubtful coins
63A D2 LIBERALITAS AVG stg. 1., abacus & cornu. -
[1]
64 D2 P M TR P II COS P P Emp. std. 1. holding globe -
[1]
65 D2 P M TR P II COS P P Soldier (?Mars) adv. r., spear & trophy - [1]

Abbreviations

adv. advancing std. seated

br. branch stg. standing
cornu. cornucopiae sp. spear
seep. sceptre tr. transverse
stan. standard vert. vertical

56
2. Previous discussions of the first series of Gordian’s radiates
from Antioch

As we shall see, Voetter was the first to draw attention to the series of
coins of Gordian which differed from those of Rome and which he attributed
to Antioch, and so all accounts dealing with Gordian’s coinage published
before his paper belong to the prehistory of the subject. Many general
catalogues of Roman coins which were published before the end of the
nineteenth century come into this category, and some of them, such as
Caronni’s catalogue of the Wiczay collection, contained descriptions of coins
that are not otherwise known:2 these are referred to in the catalogue below.
Another work which, although it did not distinguish between the products of
the different mints, is still used today because of its comprehensiveness is
Cohen’s Description historique des monnaies frappies sous VEmpire romain, the
second edition of which, revised by Feuardent, was published in eight volumes
between 1880 and 1892.3 His descriptions of coins, where they are first-hand,
are very accurate and the decision of Mattingly to use Cohen as the basis for
RIC has meant that it is still the first point of reference for this coinage.
In a paper published in 1893, Voetter identified a series of radiates that
differ from those of Rome:

welche (lurch ihren Stil und die nach romischer Auffassung zu den Legenden zumeist
nicht passenden Darstellungen auffallen, und mit Ruckseit darauf, dass kein Gold
und keine Bronze dazu existiert, eine andere Provinienz bekunden.4

Voetter also noted that some coins in this series have left-facing
obverse busts and gave some examples of the mistakes in their legends and

2 [P Caronni], Musei Hedervarii, Vienna, 1814. See nos. 17 and 38.

3 Volume V (1885) includes Gordian. Cohen based his work not just on the collections
of Paris, London, Vienna and Turin but also on an extremely wide range of catalogues,
published and unpublished, of private collections.
4 ‘...which attract attention, both on account of their style and because of their types,
which for the most part do not accord with the Roman interpretation of the legends, and
must have a different provenance, given that there are no gold or bronze coins’: O Voetter,
‘Die romischen Munzen des Kaisers Gordianus III. und deren antike Falschungen’, NZ 25
(1893), pp. 410-1.

57
also explains what he means when he speaks of their ‘inappropriate types’.He
finally published a list of all the types that he knew of, 33 reverse types and
39 varieties of obverse bust and reverse type in all.5 He also noted that no
coins of Tranquillina are included in this group, because the coins all dated to
before Gordian’s marriage in 241.
Unfortunately, his discussion of the attributionjjthis coinage is largely
vitiated by the fact that he believed that it accompanied the extensive series
of bronze coins signed COL CAES ANTIOCHIA S R which are listed in
Cohen (496 - 529). These coins were correctly attributed by Cohen to the
Pisidian, not the Syrian Antioch.6 Voetter never actually specified to which
Antioch he attributed the radiates, but it is clear that he meant the Syrian city
since he noted that the mint was in the hands of the Persians in the years 240
and 241.7 According to the Historia Augusta the Persians captured Syrian
Antioch during Gordian’s reign; this account is not now believed, but it was
when Voetter was writing.8 There has never been any suggestion that the
Persians captured Pisidian Antioch at this time and so Voetter must have
intended to attribute the radiates to Antioch in Syria, and Jbat^he was
mistaken in attempting to associate the bronze coinage of Pisidian Antioch
with it.
Voetter noted that all but one of the coins of Antioch in Pisidia listed
in Cohen have the early obverse legend IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS
AVG which he said was replaced by the form IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL
AVG at Rome in 240 (in fact 239); this he took as further evidence for the fall
of that city to the Persians in 240. However, he also drew attention to the fact

5 He includes the following types in his list: nos. 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22,
25, 25(a), 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56(a), 56(b), 59, 61,
61n and 63. He also includes in his list the reverse CONCORDIA MILITVM, citing C 67 as
his authority. C 67 does in fact have the obverse IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG and
is a coin of Rome (RIC 65n).
6 A Kryzanowska, Monnaies coloniales dAntioche de Pisidie, Warsaw, 1970. See also J G
Milne, ‘The Coinage of Antioch in Pisidia after A.D. 250’, NC 1947, pp. 9ff. and B Levick,
‘The Coinage of Pisidian Antioch in the Third Century A.D.’, NC 1966, pp. 47-59.
7 Voetter, op. cit. n. 4, p. 407. He in fact speaks of the years 340 and 341: this must be
a misprint for 240 and 241.
8 Historia Augusta, Gordiani Tres, 26, 5 and 27, 5: see Chapter 9.
that Cohen listed one coin with the later legend IMP GORDIANVS PIVS
FEL AVG which he interpreted as indicating that the city was recaptured by
Gordian from the Persians at the end of his reign.9 This argument is, of
course, invalidated by the fact that Voetter has confused the two Antiochs.
Finally he described two radiates with the obverse IMP GORDIANVS PIVS
FEL AVG which he believed to be in the same style as the earlier coins.
These were both cited from the Trau collection and have the reverses
ROMAE AETERNE (sic) and VICTORIA AVG (Victory left). These coins
are in all probability either hybrids or plated forgeries.
In publishing a hoard from Dura-Europos which contained 140 radiates
of Gordian, Bellinger noted his agreement with Voetter’s attribution of some
of Gordian’s radiates to Antioch but added that ‘it is clear that no distinction
can be made between the Antoniniani of this hoard struck before 240 [i.e.,
those with the IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG legend] and those
struck after [with IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG]. All certainly belong
to the same mint and the mint is certainly Antioch’.10 The only meaning this
statement can have is that Bellinger attributed all Gordian’s radiates to
Antioch, clearly an untenable position, as Pink realized.11 In his final
publication of the coins from Dura he corrected this mistake and followed
Pink’s account (see below), making in addition a number of comments on the
attributions of individual coins that show that he had a keen awareness of the
problems involved.12
In two papers published in 1935, Karl Pink provided essentially the
same list of the coinage as Voetter but divided it into two main groups: (a)
those coins that had exactly the same reverse types as at Rome and (b) those

9 Cohen 518.
10 A R Bellinger, Two Roman hoards from Dura-Europos, ANS Notes and Monographs
49, New York, 1931, p. 25.
11 K Pink, ‘Antioch or Viminacium? A contribution to the history of Gordian III and
Philip I\ NC 1935, pp. 94-113 at p. 105.
12 A R Bellinger, The Excavations at Dura-Europos. Final Report VI. The Coins, New
Haven, 1949, pp. 132-5.

59
with altered types, left-facing busts and errors.13 The first group he further
sub-divided into two, according to whether they copy the Rome coins of 238
or 239.14 He dated this issue as follows:

... a coinage of antoniniani appears at Antioch from at least the beginning of

239 but it stops about 241.15

and made the following comments on it:

That all these pieces belong to Antioch is proved primarily by the exart agreement
with the silver tetradrachms in portrait and lettering. The heads are much rounder
than in Rome, the lettering stiff and regular. But they still have the bust P.b. [D2]
as in Rome. Pattern Roman antoniniani were then sent to Antioch with exact
instructions, but nevertheless the peculiarities of Antioch style come out. In
particular the lettering remains unchanged as it was done with punches. The reason
for the coinage, namely military preparations, has already been mentioned.16

Pink then gave a list of the types in his group (b) and added the
observations:

This list is prepared from the Vienna collection, and may quite well be incomplete.
We see that the mint is now left to itself, and therefore strikes irregularly. Typical
of Antioch is the bust 1. with C.b. [B21] and also P.f. [Dll] with the band over the
breast, as on a tetradrachm of Philip. The legends no longer agree with the types (so
also with Pescennius Niger and with Septimius Severus at the beginning); as on coins
of Elagabalus, the Liberalitas, which is never struck at Rome without the numeral
of repetition, appears as Libertas, in brief all characteristics of Antioch when it is not
under Roman control.17

Pink therefore used Voetter’s list of this series of radiates and made
some corrections to it. Both scholars used the coins in Vienna as their main
source, as Pink acknowledged. He also for the first time provided the strongest
reason for assigning these coins to Antioch, namely their close stylistic
similarity to the tetradrachms. Finally he tried to sub-divide the extensive

13 K Pink, op. cit. n. 11. Pink also catalogued the coinage of Gordian in ‘Die Aufbau der
romischen Munzpragung in der Kaiserzeit, III. Von Alexander Severus bis Philippus\/VZ 1935,
12-34, but this paper only deals with the issues of Rome.
14 He lists the following types: group (a), copying coins of 238: 12, 21, 50, 60 and 63;
group (a), copying coins of 239: 3, 7, 33 and 56; group (b): 8,9, 10, 11, 13, 14,15, 16,18, 25,
26, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 40, 41, 45, 51, 52, 53, 56(a), 59, 61.
15 Pink, op. cit. n. 11, p. 97.
16 Pink, op. cit. n. 11, p. 103.
17 Pink, op. cit. n. 11, p. 104.

60
series of reverse types into three groups. We shall see below that the die-study
of this coinage means that this division into three series can no longer stand.
In 1946 Le Gentilhomme published a study of Roman coinage from
Gordian through to Valerian based on the Nanterre hoard.18 This deposit
contained 677 coins of Gordian, including eight from the first series at
Antioch, and Le Gentilhomme published a table of all the radiate types that
were known to him which owes much to Pink’s list of 1935. Like Pink, Le
Gentilhomme believed that the coins with the Roman types were the first to
be made and that they were soon followed by those with different types.
Unlike Pink, he distinguished correctly between the three different issues at
the mint of Rome (p. 85), and he made one of the best attempts to describe
the differences between the styles of the two mints:

Les types reproduisent d’abord fidelement ceux de la premiere, un de la seconde et

trois de la troisieme emission romaine, mais les deferment tres vite, en meme temps
qu’apparaissent des poin?ons d’effigies propres a Antioche, avec le buste cuirasse a
gauche vu de dos (type B) ou de face (type C). Tbutes ces pieces portent la titulature
en usage a Rome au cours des trois premieres emssions (238-9): IMP CAES M ANT
GORDIANVS AVG.
Le style des effigies, au portrait souvent characterise par le developpement anormal
du front et de la boi te cranienne, 1’epigraphie aux characteres plus gros et plus
lourdes qu’a Rome, les intervalles coupant les legendes autrement qu’a Rome
(VIRTV | S AVG, ROMAE \ AETERNAE), d’infimes details tels que les balances,
aux plateaux traces d’un trait rectiligne, formant avec les cordons de suspension deux
triangles semblables, l’association de ces memes types de revers aux effigies
presentant le buste du jeune souverain tourne vers la gauche, permettent de
distinguer les produits d’Antioche et ceux de Rome dont la description par Cohen
est identique. Sauf l’inventaire de la trouvaille de Dorchester par Mattingly et dans
celui par nous dresse, du tresor de Nanterre, toutes ces pieces sont attribuees a
Rome dans les publications de trouvailles. Des que le type original est suffisament
altere, il a fait 1objet d’une description de Cohen et nous le trouvons au contraire
facilement dans les anciennes publications. Ainsi la Concorde, a Antioche, ne tient
que’une seule corne (C. 48) au lieu de deux a Rome (C. 50).

Le Gentilhomme then went on to illustrate these differences by

reproducing on his plate 2 six Roman coins with six Antiochene coins from the
same types immediately beneath them. It is symptomatic, however, of how
difficult it can be to distinguish between the products of the two mints that
one of the coins that Le Gentilhomme attributed to Rome is, I believe, in fact

18 P Le Gentilhomme, ‘La trouvaille de Nanterre’, RN 1946, pp. 15-114 and pis. 2-4.

61
from Antioch.19 Le Gentilhomme also published the first two silver analyses
of Antiochene radiates.20
The next discussion of this coinage, and the first attempt to provide a
systematic catalogue of it, appeared in RIC IV, iii, published in 1949. This was
chiefly the work of Harold Mattingly, although Pink stated in 1935 that ‘on
Mattingly’s invitation I have rearranged the coins of Gordian and have in
many cases come to quite different conclusions from Voetter. My results will
be found in M. & S., vol. iv’.21 In fact Mattingly based his arrangement of the
coins in RIC mainly on the evidence of his study of the hoard of over 20,000
coins from Dorchester22 which had not yet been discovered when Pink was
writing, and the treatment of the coinage of Gordian in RIC seems to be
primarily Mattingly’s own, although he did make acknowledgement to the work
of Voetter and Pink. He made no reference to Le Gentilhomme’s study of the
Nanterre hoard.
Mattingly commented as follows on the attribution of this series:

One series of Antoniniani shows a marked peculiarity of style and fabric. The
portraits of Gordian III are at once distinguishable from the Roman; the head is
sometimes turned left, instead of right, as normally; the lettering tends to be stiff and
artificially regular; the reverses, both in type and legend, fall apart from the Roman.
Some of these coins are dated to the first or second tribunician year; all have the
earliest obverse legend, IMP. CAES. M. ANT. GORDIANVS AVG.
This is certainly a non-Roman issue and, probably, an eastern one. It will be wise to
follow Voetter in assigning it to Antioch. It will, then, be the threat of the invasion
of the Persians that occasioned the issue, the actual attack, leading to the capture of
Antioch, that interrupted it.23

RIC also provided the fullest catalogue so far published of these coins.
However, like the earlier works, it was based essentially on Cohen and the
coins in the Vienna cabinet, although Mattingly did also add a number of
other pieces, from the British Museum, and the Dorchester and Smederevo
hoards. He was also the first to attribute an aureus to this series, the

19 Reverse AEQVITAS AVG, Nanterre hoard no. 318, my catalogue no. 4/43.
20 Nos. 21/? and 44/10: both were 46% pure.
21 Pink, op. cit. n. 11, p. 102n.
22 H Mattingly, ‘The great Dorchester hoard’, NC 1939, pp. 21-61.
23 RIC p. 1.

62
CONCORDIA AVG piece (no. 1A). However, the other aureus which may
belong to this issue, with reverse ADVENTVS AVG, was listed under a
section headed ‘rare and irregular coins of Gordian III’.24 RIC also
confusingly listed seven types from this series as ‘scarce or irregular issues’,
some of which ‘may be of the mint of Antioch’, or ‘ancient forgeries’.25 In
fact all these coins may definitely be attributed to Antioch (see below, p. 71).
In 1967 Eddy published a hoard of 1243 radiates, including 663 coins
of Gordian, which was said to have been found near Izmir in Turkey.26 He
also included a lengthy discussion on ‘the minting of antoniniani under
Gordian III’ which is concerned with his theory that the mint of Rome worked
in three officinae at this time. In order to present this case he analysed very
closely the style of the portraits of the Rome coins, their weights, die-axes and
direction of strike27 and lastly, their frequency in hoards. The question of the
number of officinae at the mint of Rome at this time is a very unprofitable
one, since officina letters do not actually appear until late in Philip’s reign. In
addition Eddy often seemed to have an unrealistic grasp of the realities of
third century coin production, as when he stated that a difference of 0.04
grams in the average weight of two series of coins was significant.28 Also,
because the hoard only contained six coins from the first series at Antioch, he
did not discuss them as such, although he accepted that they were minted at
Antioch. But what Eddy did do very well was to provide a careful stylistic
analysis of the portraits of the Rome radiates from the beginning of the reign.
This is extremely useful, as we shall see, for he provided a reliable description

24 RIC 247.
25 RIC 27-33, p. 18.
26 S K Eddy, The Minting o f Antoniniani A.D. 238-49 and The Smyrna Hoard, A.N.S. Notes
and Monographs 156, New York, 1967.
27 The direction of strike is a concept that Eddy seems to have pioneered: he defines it
as ‘the direction the blow of the hammer took, as measured by the point of deepest
impression (here assumed always to be the heel of the hammer) on the edge of the flan’.
While the observation of the direction of strike on the coins of this period might shed some
light on the technical side of the mint’s operations, I do not understand how he has
determined it for the coins in the Smyrna hoard.
28 Eddy, op. cit. n. 26, p. 54.

63
of how the Roman coins could be distinguished from those of Antioch. We
shall look more closely at this problem in the next section.
All subsequent general accounts of Roman coinage and reports on
hoards that contain these issues have followed the attribution of Voetter and
Pink as it is summarized in RIC?9 No other full discussions of this coinage
have appeared, although Loriot has written an important note on the two
aurei that may belong to this series and the evidence they provide that
Gordian might have visited Antioch at the beginning of his reign.30 In
addition, Walker has provided an analysis of the metal content of five coins
of this series.31

3. How these coins may be distinguished from those of Rome:

general principles

This is the most important problem concerning the study of this series
of coins; it is self-evident |the coins can only be usefully studied once it has
been clearly established how they can be identified, and, in particular, how
they can be distinguished from the issues of Rome. Although scholars since the
time of Voetter have recognised the existence of a separate series of radiates
with the legend IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG none has yet
attempted to explain systematically how these coins can be separated from
those of Rome. As we shall see, some coins can easily be recognised as
belonging to Antioch, but the majority of the coins have obverse and reverse
types that are identical to those of Rome. Because none of the reference

29 Short discussions of this coinage in, for example, A S Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins
in the Hunter Coin Cabinet 3, Oxford, 1977, pp. lxxxii-lxxxvi; J P C Kent, M and A Hirmer,
Roman Coins, London, 1978, p. 38; R A G Carson, Coins of the Roman Empire, London,
1990, pp. 78-82 are all derived from the works already mentioned and add nothing new.
30 X Loriot, ‘Itinera Gordiani, Augusti, I: Un voyage de Gordien III a Antioche en 239
apres J.-C.\ BSFN 1971, pp. 18-21. Loriot has of course written many other papers on the
historical events of Gordian’s reign, including ‘Les premieres annees de la grande crise du IIIe
siecle: de l’avenement de Maximin le Thrace (235) a la mort de Gordien III (244)’, ANRW
II, 2, pp. 657-787 which is of fundamental importance.
31 D R Walker, The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage 3, p. 39. See Chapter 7.

64
works, RIC included, has ever clearly explained how the products of the two
mints can be told apart (the most helpful description is Le Gentilhomme’s
quoted on p. 61), published hoard reports and catalogues of these coins that
do not illustrate them are of little value (see below). The inadequacy of RIC
in this respect is particularly frustrating both because it is the reference that
is universally used and because it is likely that Mattingly did indeed have a
good understanding of how to identify the Antiochene radiates, but his only
reference to the problem was the single sentence in his introduction quoted
above (p. 62). The most important function this chapter can fulfil is to make
clear just how these coins can be recognised so that future catalogues of these
coins will give a better reflection of Gordian’s coinage.
A number of different criteria can be employed to identify the Antioch
coins: first, those with unusual obverse busts or reverse types stand out, and
because their types cannot be confused with those of Rome they are usually
correctly identified in published catalogues. They provide a firm starting point
from which an impression can be gained of the Antiochene style. Secondly, as
we shall see, the contemporary coinage of Rome is much more straightforward
and predictable than that of Antioch, and once its issues have been established
then anything that does not belong to it is either likely to be either a coin of
Antioch or a contemporary forgery.
However, those coins that have exactly the same types as the coins of
Rome can only be identified correctly by their style. The best method of doing
this is to start from those coins with unusual, non-Roman, types. Also helpful
is comparison with the contemporary tetradrachms of Antioch, the obverses
of which are very close to the radiates, as Pink noted. This similarity is
important in another respect as well, for it enables us to pin down the place
of minting.
Finally, we shall see that just as it is easy to identify the types that
belong to Rome and to attribute to Antioch all those that do not, so it is
easier to identify the Rome style and to assign to Antioch all those coins that
have a different style than it is to define the style of the Antiochene issues.
The first problem, therefore, is to establish exactly which types of radiates

65
were minted at Rome during 238 and 239 and what is the style of their
portraits.

4. The first issues of the mint of Rome

A. The sequence of obverse legends at Rome

The scheme of issues worked out first by Voetter, and refined by Pink
and Mattingly is relatively simple.32 There are three main obverse legends:
1. IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG
2. IMP CAES GORDIANVS PIVS AVG
3. IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG
The sequence and dates of these three legends are fixed by the fact
that the reverse P M TR P II COS P P, occurs with all three types. The legend
IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG only occurs with the date TR P II
(except at Antioch it is also found with TR P), as does the IMP CAES
GORDIANVS PIVS AVG legend, which was short-lived, for it only occurs for
one issue, Mattingly’s issue 3(b). Finally IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG
was used for the rest of the reign, occurring with TR P II to TR P VII.
As we shall show below, Gordian was recognised as emperor some time
between early May and early August 238 and his second tribunician year lasted
from 10 December 238 to 10 December 239.33 The IMP CAES M ANT
GORDIANVS AVG legend, therefore, was employed from his accession in
the summer of 238 to the middle of 239; the IMP CAES GORDIANVS PIVS
AVG legend for a short period in the second half of 239 and the IMP
GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG legend from late 239 until his death in 244.
Since all the radiates attributed to the first series at Antioch have the
IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG legend, we need only discuss here
the Roman coins with that legend.

32 Opp. citt., notes 4 (Voetter), 11 (Pink) above and RIC (Mattingly).

33 See Chapter 2.

66
B. The structure of the first three issues
It is possible to identify three separate issues with the obverse legend
IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG at Rome, and these are summarized
in Table 2. This scheme is essentially the same as the one published by
Mattingly in RIC with a few additions and one alteration;34 the numbers after
each type are the RIC references while asterisks refer to coins that have come
to light since RIC. Jiirging, in a paper not yet published, describes three new
types from the first issue: denarii with the reverses IOVI CONSERVATORI
and PAX AVGVSTI and a dupondius with VIRTVS AVG S C.35 To these
may be added the following: (a) a dupondius in the British Museum from the
third issue with the reverse ABVNDANTIA AVG S C;36 (b) denarii with the
reverses VICTORIA AVG,37 P M TR P II COS P P, Fides,38 and P M TR
P II COS P P, Jupiter and Emperor,39 P M TR P II COS P P,
Providentia,40 P M TR P II COS P P, Victoria,41 and P M TR P II COS P
P, Virtus,42 and (c) radiates with the same type as CONCORDIA AVG but
with the legend CONCORDIA MILIT: these coins are mules as this reverse
occurs with the two subsequent obverse legends 43

34 RIC pp. 4-5.

35 A Jurging, ‘Die erste Emission Gordians III.’, to be published in SNR. I am grateful
to Herr Jurging for showing me his paper before publication.
36 Registration no. R 3692.
37 British Museum.
38 Cast in British Museum.
39 Cast in British Museum.
40 Jagodina-KrusevaC hoard.
41 Caister-by-Yarmouth hoard.
42 One specimen in Glasgow (A S Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin
Cabinet 3, p. 192, no. 5), another in the Caister-by-Yarmouth hoard.
43 Examples in the Etaples hoard, Smyrna hoard (no. 184) and Singidunum hoard (no.
548).

67
 Thble 2: The first three issues of Gordian at Rome

Obverse legend always IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG (except for denarii and quinarii which ru.d
IMP C M ANT GORDIANVS AVG)

AV AR AR AR AE AE AE
Aur Rad Den Quin S Dp As
First issue (Summer - 10 December 238)
FIDES MILITVM stg.l.,std.& spear 7 1 - - 254 254 254
IOVI CONSERVATORI Jup.& Emp. 8 2 * - 255 - 255
PAX AVGVSTI stg.l.,branch & seep. 9 3 * - 256 256 256
PROVIDENTIA AVG stg.l.,globe & seep. 10 4 - - 257 - 257
VICTORIA AVG running l.,wr.& palm 11 5 * 13 258 258 258
VIRTVS AVG stg.l.^hield & spear 12 6 - - - - -

Other types (bronze coins only)

SALVS AVG stg. r. - - - - 260 260 260
SALVS AVG std. 1. - - - - 261 - 261
VICTORIA AVG Victory adv. r. - - - - 262 262 262
VIRTVS AVG Emp. adv. r. - - - - 259 * 259

Second issue (10 December 238 - Spring 239)

(Same types as for first issue, but with legend P M TR P II COS P P)
P M TR P II COS P P Fides - 15 * 26 - - -
P M TR P II COS P P Jup.& Emp. 21 16 * - - - -
P M TR P II COS P P Pax 22 17 - - - - -
P M TR P II COS P P Providentia 23 18 * - - - -
P M TR P II COS P P Victory adv. 1. 24 19 * - - - -
P M TR P II COS P P Virtus 25 20 * - - - -

Other types (bronze coins only)

P M TR P II COS P P Roma std. 1. - - - - 264 264 264
P M TR P II COS P P Victory adv. r. - - - - 265 265 265
P M TR P II COS P P Emp. adv. r. - - - - 266 - -

Third issue (Spring - Summer 239)

(New types which are also found with IMP CAES - PIVS AVG and IMP - PIVS FEL AVG)
AEQVITAS AVG stg.l.^cales &'Cornu. 40 34 - - 267 267 -
CONCORDIA AVG stg.l.,patera & cornu. 41 35 - - 268 - -
LIBERALITAS AVG II stg.l.,abacus & cornu. 42 36 45 - 269 269 -
P M TR P II COS P P Emp. sacrificing 43 37 - 46 271 - -

ROMAE AETERNAE std.l. on shield 38 - - - 272 272 272

VIRTVS AVG stg.l., branch & spear 44 39 - - 273 273 273

Other types (mainly bronze coins)

ABVNDANTIA AVG stg.r., emptying cornu. - - - - 274 *
274
LIBERALITAS AVGVSTI II stg.l.,abacus & cornu. - - - - - 270 270
LIBERALITAS AVGVSTI II distribution scene - - - - 275 - -
LIBERALITAS AVGVSTI III distribution scene - - - - 275A - -
P M TR P II COS P P Emp. in quadriga - - - - 276 - 276
VOTIS DECENNALIBVS legend in wreath - 14 - - 263 - 263
CONCORDIA MILIT stg.l.,patera & cornu. -
*
- - - - -

Notes: the numbers in the column for each denomination are the RIC references. A blank (-) indicates that
no coins are known. An asterisk indicates varieties not in RIC. The letters S C should be added to llu
reverse legends of all bronze coins.

68
 The one change to Mattingly’s scheme, proposed by Jurging, is that the
VOTIS DECENNALIBVS type, which does not fit into the normal pattern of
issues, has been moved from the first series to the third because there is a
sestertius with this reverse in Glasgow, not noted in RIC, with the second
obverse legend, IMP CAES GORDIANVS PIVS AVG.44
The structure of the gold and silver coins of the first three issues is very
simple, as three sets of six reverse types were struck for both the radiates and
the aurei; only two aureus types are missing (P M TR P II COS P P, Fides,
from issue 2 and ROMAE AETERNAE from issue 3), probably because so
few gold coins were struck at this time, while there are just two radiate types,
VOTIS DECENNALIBVS and CONCORDIA MILIT, that do not fit into the
normal scheme and are classed as ‘supernumerary’. In addition, some of these
types also occur on very rare silver denarii and quinarii.

C. Issues 1 and 2
As has already been mentioned, the position of the third series is fixed
by the fact that these types were all used again with the next two obverse
legends, IMP CAES GORDIANVS PIVS AVG and IMP GORDIANVS PIVS
FEL AVG. The position of the first two issues, on the other hand, is rather
less certain. That they are closely connected is clear from the fact that they
use the same reverse designs, accompanied either by their normal descriptive
legends or by the legend P M TR P II COS P P. It is assumed that the series
with the descriptive legends comes first because they could have been struck
during Gordian’s first tribunician year; also, some of the coins in this group
have portraits of the emperor that make him look like Balbinus or Pupienus,
a portrait type that does not occur on the coins with P M TR P II COS
P P.45 It is a common phenomenon of the third century that the earliest coins
of a new emperor J^-have a portrait that is a close copy of his predecessor’s,
presumably because the die-engravers had not yet seen the new ruler’s official

44 A S Robertson, op. cit. n. 42, p. 203, no. 100.

45 This was first observed by Mattingly in ‘The great Dorchester hoard’, NC 1939, p. 47.
imago.46 For both these reasons it seems that the reverses with the
descriptive types should come first.

D. The problem of the bronze coins

The neatness of the arrangement of the coinage into three series of six
reverse types is spoiled by the bronze coins which are rather more
complicated. However, they are important because, bearing as they invariably
do the letters S C, they were all unquestionably minted at Rome. Therefore
they provide us with a clear indication of the types and the style of the mint
of Rome at this time. All the types of the first and third issues are found on
sestertii and many of them also occur for the much rarer dupondii and asses;
however, the types of the second issue were not struck in bronze, which
instead have several designs that have no equivalents in the precious metals.
These and most of the other extra types can be assigned to one of the
three issues, although how correctly is not certain. Of the types given to the
third issue, three, ABVNDANTIA AVG, P M TR P II COS P P (Emperor in
quadriga) and VOTIS DECENNALIBVS, all occur with the next obverse
legend, IMP CAES GORDIANVS PIVS AVG. The other three types, with the
legend LIBERALITAS AVGVSTI II or III, are included in issue 3 because of
their similarity to LIBERALITAS AVG II which definitely belongs there.
The remaining extra bronze types have all been allocated to the first
or second series. Three types with the legend P M TR P II COS P P are
assigned to the second series, even though no other bronze coins appear to
have been struck at this time, while the remaining four types are placed in the
first issue. One of these four types, VIRTVS AVG with the Emperor
advancing right seems to have been intended as the equivalent of the precious
metal VIRTVS AVG type which shows a soldier standing left holding a shield
and spear and which does not appear on bronze coins. All the other five

46 Examples are the earliest coins of Postumus (on which his portrait looks like
Gallienus’s) or of Victorinus (who looks like Marius): E M Besly and R F Bland, The Cunetio
Treasure, London, 1983, pi. 23, 2367ff. and pi. 31, 2560-1; but this applies to many other
rulers at this time.

70
precious metal types of the first issue were also struck in bronze, so why this
should not have been so with VIRTVS AVG is not clear. It is equally not
clear why the precious metal types of the second series should not have had
any bronze equivalents.

£ . Coins incorrectly attributed by RIC to Rome

As we have seen above (p. 62f.), Mattingly listed under Rome in RIC
seven radiate types in a group which he headed ‘scarce and irregular issues’,
some of which he conceded in a footnote ‘may be of Antioch’.47 These types
all have the legend P M TR P II COS P P with various reverse designs which
differ from those of the second and third issues at Rome. From their style it
can be seen that they are in fact all of Antioch. Indeed it can be proven that
one of these reverses, RIC 30 with Serapis standing left (my no. 47), comes
from Antioch, because it shares an obverse die with another Antiochene piece
with the reverse AEQ VITAS AVG.48 The other reverses do not have any
obverse die-links, but that is not surprising as none of them is known from
more than three specimens. However, their style shows that they belong to
Antioch.
We have seen, then, that the radiates divide neatly into three sets of six
reverses, the only exceptions being the VOTIS DECENNALIBVS and
CONCORDIA MILIT types.

47 RIC p. 18, 27-33. It is significant that in the tables of issues of Rome in the
introduction, Mattingly did not include any of these types on the grounds that they were
‘probably either of Antioch or hybrids’ (p. 5).
48 47/2 (P M TR P II COS P P, Serapis) = 3/9 (AEQVITAS AVG).

71
5. The style of Rome

A. General considerations
The next problem is to establish the style of the Roman radiates. This
has been dealt with very well by Eddy.49 In addition to the observationsjEddy
has made, the style of the bronze coins, which were undoubtedly minted at
Rome, also provides useful guidelines.
At this point, we meet a problem. My personal view is that to attempt
to define styles of portraiture or lettering in words is of limited value and that
the best course is to illustrate as many examples of the different styles as
necessary. The descriptions will therefore be kept very brief and I shall rely
chiefly on the plates to make my points. This has the advantage that it allows
the reader to make up his own mind.
The essential point, however, is that the style of portraiture and
lettering found at Rome on the IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG
coinage is remarkably consistent and therefore easy to recognise. In contrast
the coins of Antioch show a bewildering variety of styles and although the
cruder, more local styles are easy to identify, the standard of engraving at
Antioch shades off into something quite close to the Rome style.

B. The Balbinus and Pupienus portraits

In the first series, as we have seen, some coins have portraits that lack
many of the features of Gordian that become familiar on his later coins and
instead look very like the portraits of his predecessors, Balbinus and Pupienus.
The similarity to Balbinus is clearer than that to Pupienus because Pupienus
has a long beard and Balbinus does not. Gordian, a boy of 13 in 238, is also
shown unbearded.50 These portrait types occur on perhaps about a quarter
of the radiates of the first series; they are also found on sestertii, but never on

49 Eddy, op. cit. n. 26, pp. 59 - 63 and figs. 1-3 and plates I-II.
50 Gordian was born on 20 January 225: see X Loriot, ‘Les premieres annees de la grande
crise du IIIe siecle: de l’avenement de Maximin le Thrace (235) a la mort de Gordien III
(244)’, ANRW II, 2, p. 725, n. 525.

72
the coins of Antioch, thus proving its Roman origin. Examples of Balbinus’s
and Pupienus’s portrait are shown on pi. 1, 1-4 and of Gordian’s equivalent
portrait on pi. 1, 5-10 (radiates) and pi. 2, 3-4 (sestertii). The most
characteristic features of these portraits are first that the overall shape of the
head is oval, i.e., as wide at the top as at the bottom and the outline of the
back of the head is more or less straight, rather than Gordian’s normal
portrait which shows his head wider at the top than the bottom, with a curved
outline at the back. Secondly, the nose is much smaller than on Gordian’s
proper portraits.

C. The main Rome portrait style

This shows a large head, wide at the forehead and narrower at the
rather weak chin, with a pronounced curve at the back of the head, Q . The
nose is large and very distinctive; the neck is long and narrow and the drapery
is not prominent. There are always two wreath-ties which are quite short and
nearly always parallel S . This essentially is the style that is found on most
of the radiates of the first issue and all those of the next two series. There are
many small variations on this basic style which Eddy believed can be matched
with the different reverse types, and he attempted to prove that these stylistic
differences show that the mint was divided into three officinae, an unprofitable
argument.51 However, I have not been able to divide the coins into three
groups as he described. In any case, for the present purpose it is enough
merely to show the style of portraiture characteristic of Rome and on pis. 1-4
I illustrate examples of each of the six types of radiates of the three issues and
in addition some of the accompanying gold and bronze.

51 Eddy, op. cit. n. 26, pp. 59-65. In the first and second issue he combines Fides and
Victoria in the first officina, Pax and Virtus in the second and Iovi and Providentia in the
third. In the third issue the first officina is said to have struck the Romae and Virtus types,
the second Aequitas and Concordia and the third Liberalitas and P M TR P.

73
D. Lettering
Another important criterion in distinguishing the products of the two
mints is the style of the lettering. As with portraits the lettering at Rome is
remarkably consistent and regular, whereas on Antiochene coins it tends to be
very variable. Both Pink and Mattingly describe Antiochene lettering as ‘stiff
and artificially regular’;52 Roman lettering by contrast has been described by
Eddy as ‘consistently small, sometimes being quite neat and precise’.53 I
would agree that the main features of Roman lettering are its evenness and
neatness, and would add that it has so few notable characteristics that it is
remarkably unobtrusive (see pis. 1-4).54 Antiochene lettering, on the other
hand, often attracts notice because of its eccentricities, indicative of workmen
less skilled than those at Rome. These are described below.

6. The style of Antioch

A. The style of the portraits
This style is very difficult to describe except in a most general way: Le
Gentilhomme speaks of the ‘developpement anormal du front et de la bofte
cranienne’.55 Its main characteristic is that the Antiochene coins display a
great diversity of style from the relatively careful to the grotesque, while the
contemporary radiates of Rome all conform more or less closely to a single,
easily identifiable style. So the Antioch coins can most simply be identified on
negative grounds, in that their style is different from that of Rome. Can we be
any more explicit about the style at Antioch?
One thing seems clear: the differences in style correspond to the work
of different die-engravers, some of whom were more skilled than others.
Although it is possible to identify the work of perhaps ten to twenty different
engravers, there is such a multiplicity of styles that there are many coins that

52 RIC p. l.
53 Eddy, op. cit. n. 26, p. 69.
54 One exception is that the engravers at Rome were often rather careless in joining up
the individual strokes of the letters M and N so that they can appear as IIII and III
respectively.
55 Le Gentilhomme, ‘La trouvaille de Nanterre’, RN 1946, p. 38.

74
I cannot confidently attribute to a particular stylistic group and so I have not
attempted to categorise all the coins by engraver. However, I show some of
the typical styles of engravers A - L on pi. 5, 1-12.

B. Lettering
Le Gentilhomme describes the lettering as follows: Tepigraphie aux
charactfcres plus gros et plus lourdes qu’a Rome’.56 I would add that the
letters often vary in size, usually have large serifs, and are often engraved with
exaggerated care. For example, the individual strokes of the letters M and N
are always carefully joined up, whereas at Rome they are frequently not. In
addition, coin legends at Antioch sometimes contain mistakes, details of which
are given below. These errors would seem to indicate that the Greek-speaking
workmen did not always understand the inscriptions they were cutting, but
blindly copied Roman originals.

C. The style of the reverses

So far the discussion of the different styles of Rome and Antioch has
concentrated on the obverses, but the cruder workmanship of the Antiochene
engravers comes across just as clearly on the reverses as well. The style of
figures on the reverses of the coins of Rome at this period is assured and
naturalistic; the style of Antioch, on the other hand, is normally laboured and
fussy so that the figures appear lumpy and unnatural. Once again this is better
shown by illustration than description and on pi. 4, 10-21 I illustrate
characteristic examples of the AEQVITAS AVG, FIDES MILITVM, PAX
AVGVSTI, ROMAE AETERNAE, VICTORIA AVG and VIRTVS AVG
reverses from Rome and Antioch.
Sometimes the provincial workmen have a tendency to exaggerate one
detail of a particular design, such as the point of the spear held by the soldier
on some coins with the VIRTVS AVG type (no. 63). On the Rome coins this

56 Le Gentilhomme, op. cit. n. 55, p. 38.

75
spear point is never prominent but on some of the Antiochene specimens it
is very large (pi. 4, 21). Another very characteristic feature of the Antiochene
reverses is that they introduce minor variations into details of the designs, so
that for example on some specimens with PAX AVGVSTI reverse Pax holds
a cornucopiae in her left hand instead of a sceptre as normal (no. 24). As
Voetter and all writers since have noted, Antiochene engravers have a habit
of using designs that do not belong with the legend, such as a figure of
Libertas with LIBERALITAS AVG (nos. 18-19). These peculiarities of design
are discussed below.

D. The significance of the die-study

Several different considerations show that these coins do in fact belong
to Antioch rather than Rome: (1) the similarity of their portraits to those of
the tetradrachms from Antioch; (2) the fact that coins with the normal D2
bust are so similar in style to those with the non-standard D l, D ll and B21
busts which were never used at Rome; and (3) the fact that coins with the
unmistakeably non-Roman reverse types, such as LIBERALITAS AVG with
the design of Libertas (nos. 18-9) also have this style.
Finally, the die-study has shown beyond any doubt that these coins
belong to a single series which did not originate in the Rome mint. However,
the original attribution of these coins to Antioch was not made through a die-
study but by applying the three criteria listed above and the die-study has only
served retrospectively to confirm the consistency of the attributions.
From the die-study of the obverses it has emerged that 25 Antiochene
reverse types are all linked to each other by a series of die-links (see Table 4).
These include all the major types of the series and the ones that are not
included are all represented by five examples or fewer, most of them by only
one or two.57 Since only 264 obverse dies have so far been observed, and the
estimate suggests that the total used was between 611 and 753, it is not

57 PROVIDENTIA AVG (51) is known from 5 coins and VICTORIA AVG (61) from
3. All the other types that are not die-linked are only known from one or two specimens.

76
surprising that many of the reverses that are known from only a handful of
specimens have not yet produced any obverse die-links with other types.

7. ‘Eastern’ characteristics of the mint

A. Earlier eastern coinages

Throughout this chapter reference is made to the fact that this series
of radiates has a typically ‘eastern’ feel to it. What is meant by this? Since the
time of Voetter, students of Roman coinage have been aware that some issues
of denarii and radiates have a number of features that they have characterized
as ‘eastern’ and in Section 2 I briefly describe these coinages. While it was
undoubtedly the case that most ‘eastern’ coinages were minted at Antioch,
since it was the principal mint not just of Syria but also of the whole of the
Roman east outside Egypt, some recognizably ‘eastern* issues have been
attributed elsewhere. We may cite the denarii and radiates of Elagabalus that
have been attributed to Nicomedia in Bithynia,58 the denarii of Pescennius
Niger that were undoubtedly minted at Caesarea in Cappadocia,59 and the
denarii of Septimius Severus that have been attributed both to Emisa and
Laodicea in Syria and also to Alexandria in Egypt.60 The label ‘eastern’,
therefore, is just a convenient way of referring to those coins which can be
distinguished by their style and types from those of Rome and which were
issued at mints in the eastern provinces of the Empire.

58 BMC 5, p. ccxlii.
59 The attribution was first made by D Nony, ‘Le monnayage de Pescennius Niger a
Cesaree de Cappadoce’, Latomus 30, 2 (1971), pp. 345-51. J van Heesch, ‘Les ateliers
monetaires de Pescennius Niger’, RBN 124 (1978), pp. 57-72 published a full account of the
denarii attributed to Caesarea. For the possibility that aurei were also struck there see R F
Bland, A M Burnett and S Bendall, ‘The mints of Pescennius Niger in the light of some new
aurei’, NC 1987, pp. 65-83.
60 BMC V, pp. cxiv-cxxiv. For the attribution to Emisa and Laodicea see the account of
the earlier coinage of Antioch in Chapter 1. On the other hand the (as yet unpublished) work
of R A Bickford-Smith supports the attribution of a series of denarii of Septimius and Domna
to Alexandria.

77
 These, the most extensive eastern coinages of denarii, illustrate very
well a number of typically ‘eastern’ features. For example, Pescennius Niger’s
coinage is today very rare and it only lasted for a little over 18 months; yet
RIC lists no fewer than 164 varieties and this list is now incomplete. If we
take one reverse legend the full form of which is FORTVNAE REDVCI, we
find the following six variations:

FORTVNAE RE, RED, REDV, REDVC or REDVCI

In addition we find the following eight varieties of type with this legend:

Fbrtuna seated left with patera and wreath, or branch and comucopiae, or rudder and
cornucopiae or branch and wreath.
Fbrtuna standing left with rudder and cornucopiae, or caduceus and cornucopiae, or branch
and cornucopiae or scales and comucopiae

Finally, these occur with the following nine varieties of obverse legend:

IMP CAES C PESC NIGER or NIGER AVG

or IMP CAES C PESC NIGER IVS or IVST A or IVST AV or IVST AVG
or IMP CAES C PESCI NIGER IVSTI A or AV
or IMP CAES C PESC NIGER IVS AVG COS II

It is clear that the total number of possible permutations is very high

indeed. This one example from Pescennius’s coinage illustrates well the sheer
quantity of variant legends and designs, both obverse and reverse, that can
occur in a typical eastern coinage. Pescennius has at least 16 other reverses
that show a similar diversity, while Septimius has more. Three other features
about these coins stand out. First, most of these varieties are only attested
from a very small number of specimens, often only one. Secondly, the eastern
die-engravers show very little respect for the conventional Roman
abbreviations, so that, for example, AVG is equally likely to appear as AV or
A or to be omitted altogether. Finally, the engravers had a penchant for
combining the wrong type with a particular legend. An example of this
phenomenon is provided by RIC 30 which depicts Fortuna holding scales and
a cornucopiae, the attributes of Aequitas.

78
C. Eastern features of Gordian’s coinage: incorrect and unusual combinations
of type and legend
Gordian’s Antiochene radiates have a great many varieties of type and
legend (65 in all, not counting mistakes) compared with 19 on the
contemporary and much larger issues of radiates from Rome. In fact, there are
relatively few reverse legends (18), compared with Pescennius’s or Septimius’s
coins, but most of these occur with several different designs, some of which
are appropriate, some unusual and some quite incorrect. By contrast the
typical pattern of minting at Rome at this time consisted of perhaps one or
two issues a year containing six different types; one would certainly not expect
to find the same reverse legend being used with several different designs at
Rome. There follows a list of the incorrect and unusual reverses.

(a) Incorrect
CONCORDIA AVG, Providentia standing left, holding globe and transverse sceptre (11)
LIBERALITAS AVG, Libertas standing left, holding pileus and transverse sceptre (18-19)
PAX AVGVSTI, Pax standing left, holding wreath and transverse sceptre (23).
PAX AVGVSTI, Soldier (?Mars) standing left, holding branch and spear (25)
PAX AVGVSTI, Soldier (?Mars) standing left, holding branch and spear, and shield (28)
PROVIDENTIA AVG, Fbrtuna standing left, holding rudder and comucopiae (52)
PROVIDENTIA AVG, Annona standing left, holding corn-ears over altar and comucopiae
(53)
PROVIDENTIA AVG, Annona standing left, holding corn-ears over altar and rudder (54-5)
SALVS AVGVSTI, Spes walking right, holding flower and raising skirt (58)

(b) Unusual
AEQVITAS AVG, Aequitas standing left, holding scales and transverse sceptre (5)
CONCORDIA AVG, Concordia standing left, sacrificing over altar and holding comucopiae
(9-10)
FIDES MILITVM, Fides standing left, holding standard and cornucopiae (13-14A)
FIDES MILITVM, Fides seated left, holding standard and cornucopiae (16)
PAX AVGVSTI, Pax standing left, holding branch and cornucopiae (24)
P M TRI P CON P P, Emperor standing left, sacrificing (29-30)
PON M TRI P CON P P, Serapis satnding left (32)
P M TR P II COS P P, Emperor in quadriga going right (36)
P M TR P II COS P P, Emperor, Pax and Victory (37)
VICTORIA AVG, Emperor on horseback left raising arm (61)
VICTORIA AVG, Victory in biga right (62)

D. Eastern features of Gordian’s coinage: Mistakes

There are also a large number of die-engravers’ mistakes: listed below
are two mistakes in the obverse legend and nine in the reverse inscriptions.

79
Although the occasional error can be found at Rome, that mint would never
make any mistakes in the obverse inscription. Indeed one would be hard put
to find as many errors in twenty years’ coinage from Rome as one finds at
Antioch in the space of a little more than a year. Equally, overstruck coins are
unknown at Rome at this period, although there are two from Antioch (see
below).

(a) Obverse legend errors

IMP CAE M ANT GORDIANVS AVG 7/20 (CONCORDIA AVG)
21/33-4 (PAX AVGVSTI) (2 dies in all)
IMP CAES M ANT GORIANVS AVG 56/9 (ROMAE AETERNAE)

(b) Reverse legend errors

LIBERPALITAS AVG 18/31-2; 19/1 (2 dies)
PAX AAGVSTI (Pax) 21/35-6 (1 die)
PAX AGVSTI (Pax) 21/37
PAX AVGSTT (Soldier) 25/4-5
P M TR P I P COS P P 31/1
P P SOC II P RT M P 44/34
PROVIDENTI AVG 52/10 .. v
POMAE AETERNAE 56/10-13 (3 dies)
SPES PVPLICA 59/1

(c) Overstruck coins

LIBERALITAS AVG overstruck on AEQVITAS AVG (18/21)
P M TR P II COS P P overstruck on AEQVITAS AVG (44/21)

E. Conclusion
The last feature of this coinage which is suggestive of an eastern origin
is the wide range of styles of engraving found on it; this contrasts with the
much more uniform style of Rome discussed above.
Gordian’s Antiochene radiates only differ from those of Pescennius and
Septimius in that Gordian’s coins all have the same obverse legend, except for
three dies on which the engravers got it wrong. For the rest, this series
contains all the hallmarks of an eastern coinage. To sum up, therefore, the
overall impression that this coinage gives is that it was produced in an
altogether more inexperienced and amateurish way than that of Rome.

80
8. The structure of the first series

A. Pink’s theory
We have seen that at this time the mint of Rome was producing issues
of coins that consisted of six main reverse types in gold and silver, although
the bronze coinage did not fit so well into this pattern. We shall see too in a
future chapter that the second series of radiates from Antioch, minted in 242-
4, can be divided very neatly into two issues each consisting of three principal
reverse types. It is natural, then, to expect that the present series, which we
know was issued over two tribunician years, and which had a multiplicity of
reverse types, can be divided into issues. As we have seen, Pink attempted to
do this, distinguishing three issues: (a) those coins that had the same types as
occurred on Rome coins of 238 (nos. 12, 21, 50, 60 and 63); (b) those that had
the same types as those of 239 (nos. 3, 7, 33 and 56); and (c) the remaining
coins which had types that are not found at Rome.61 Le Gentilhomme
followed Pink’s suggestion, but correctly noted that there were three issues of
Roman coins that were copied at Antioch and not two.62
This sub-division into issues has the attraction of being simple and
logical. The argument of both Pink and Le Gentilhomme was that the
sequence of the first two or three issues at Antioch depended on the sequence
of those issues at Rome, while in their view the remaining Antiochene radiates
which had reverses which were not also used at Rome were produced later.
Pink observed that ‘we see that the mint is now left to itself, and therefore
strikes irregularly’.63 However, this division into issues does not stand up to
analysis in the the light of the present state of knowledge.

61 Pink, op. cit. n. 11.

62 Le Gentilhomme, op. cit. n. 55, p. 38.
63 Pink, op. cit. n. 11, p. 104.

81
 Table 3: First series divided into Pink and Le Gentilhomme’s issues

First issue
Cat Legend Type Qty.
21-2 PAX AVGVSTI stg.l.,branch & tr. seep. 39
12-12A FIDES MILITVM stg.l.,std. & tr. seep. 18
63 VIRTVS AVG stg.l.,shield & vert.spear 16
60 VICTORIA AVG adv.l.,wreath & palm 12
50 PROVIDENTIA AVG stg.l.,globe & tr.scep. 8

Second issue
43-6 P M TR P II COS PP Prov.stg.l.,globe & tr.scep. 43
49 P M TR P II COS PP Victory adv.l.,wreath & palm 1

Third issue
2-4 AEQVITAS AVG stg.l.,scales & cornu. 47
7 CONCORDIA AVG std.L,patera & cornu. 22
56-7 ROMAE AETERNAE std.l.,Victoriola & vert.scep. 15
20 LIBERALITAS AVG II stg.l.,abacus & tr.scep. 1
33 P M TR P II COS PP Emp.sacrif.l.over altar 1

Fourth issue
18-19 LIBERALITAS AVG stg.l.,pileus & tr. seep. 34
13-14A FIDES MILITVM stg.l.,std. & cornu. 19
53 PROVIDENTIA AVG stg.l.,corn over altar & cornu. 18
34-5 P M TR P II COS PP Emp.on horseback 1. 12
52 PROVIDENTIA AVG stg.l.,rudder & cornu. 10
9-10 CONCORDIA AVG stg.l.,patera over altar,cornu. 7
25-7 PAX AVGVSTI Soldier stg.l.,branch & sp. 7
51 PROVIDENTIA AVG stg.l.,baton & vert.scep.,globe 5
54-5 PROVIDENTIA AVG stg.l.,corn over altar & anchor 4
8 CONCORDIA AVG std,lMpatera 3
16 FIDES MILITVM std.l.,std. & cornu. 3
29 P M TRI P CON PP Emp.sacrif.l.over altar 3
40 P M TR P II COS PP Jupiter std.l.,t*bolt & seep. 3
48 P M TR P II COS PP Sol stg.l.,globe 3
61 VICTORIA AVG Emp. on horseback 1. 3
11 CONCORDIA AVG stg.l.,globe & tr. seep. 2
15 FIDES MILITVM stg.l.^std.in each hand 2
23 PAX AVGVSTI stg.l.,wreath & tr. seep. 2
24 PAX AVGVSTI stg.l.,branch & cornu. 2
28 PAX AVGVSTI Soldier stg.l.,br.& sp.,shield 2
37 P M TR P II COS PP Emp.,Pax & Victory 2
47 P M TR P II COS PP Serapis stg.l.,arm raised,seep. 2
62 VICTORIA AVG Victory in biga r. 2
5 AEQVITAS AVG stg Locales & tr.scep.
6 AEQVITAS AVGVSTI stg.l.,scales & cornu,
17 IOVI CONSERVATORI std.l.,eagle
30 P M TRI P CON PP Sol stg.l.,globe
31 M TR P I P COS PP Prov.stg.l.,globe & tr.scep.
32 PON M TRI P CON PP Serapis stg.l.,arm raised,seep.
33A P M TR P II COS PP Emp.stg.l.,hand raised & spear
36 P M TR P II COS PP Emp. in quadriga going r.
38 P M TR P II COS PP Concordia stg.l.,patera & cornu.
39 P M TR P II COS PP Fortuna stg.l.,rudder & cornu.
41 P M TR P II COS PP Libertas stg.l.,pileus & tr.se.
42 P M TR P II COS PP Soldier (?Mars) stg.r.,tr.spear & shield
58 SALVS AVGVSTI Sp.walking 1.,flower and skirt
59 SPES PVPLICA walking 1.,flower & skirt

82
 Table 4: Obverse die-links in the first series of radiates
(1) reverses in Pink’s issues

As first issue at Rome

NOi Reverse Die-links

12-12A FIDES MILITVM

21-2 PAX AVGVSTI

50 PROVIDENTIA AVG

60 VICTORIA AVG

63 VIRTVS AVG

As second issue at Roie

43-6 PM TRP II COS PP

As third issue at Roie

2-4 AEQVITAS AVG
x6
7 CONCORDIA AVG

56-7 ROHAE AETERNAE

x3
Other reverses
8 CONCORDIA AVG

9-10 CONCORDIA AVG

13-4A FIDES MILITVM

15 FIDES MILITVM

16 FIDES MILITVM

18-9 LIBERALITAS AVG

25-7 PAX AVGVSTI

29 PM TRIP CON PP

34-5 PM TRP II COS PP

37 PM TRP II COS PP

39 PM TRP II COS PP

41 PM TRP II COS PP

47 PM TRP II COS PP

52 PROVIDENTIA AVG

53 PROVIDENTIA AVG

58 SALVS AVGVSTI

83
 Table 4: Obverse die-links in the first series of radiates
(2) reverses in alphabetical order

N(h Reverse Die-links

2-4 AEQVITAS AVG

7 CONCORDIA AVG

8 CONCORDIA AVG

9-10 CONCORDIA AVG

12-12A FIDES MILITVM

13-14A FIDES MILITVM

15 FIDES MILITVM

16 FIDES MILITVM

18-9 LIBERALITAS AVG

21-2 PAX AVGVSTI

25-7 PAX AVGVSTI

29 PM TRIP CON PP

34-5 PM TRP II COS PP

37 PM TRP II COS PP

39 PM TRP II COS PP

41 PM TRP II COS PP

43-6 PM TRP II COS PP

x6
47 PM TRP II COS PP

50 PROVIDENTIA AVG

52 PROVIDENTIA AVG

53 PROVIDENTIA AVG

56-7 ROMAE AETERNAE

x3
58 SALVS AVGVSTI

60 VICTORIA AVG

63 VIRTVS AVG

Note: ‘x3’ and ‘x6’ refer to the number of individual die-links between the two types in question.

84
 In the first place, Pink’s catalogue of Antiochene types is incomplete
and in fact reverses of all three issues with the IMP CAES M ANT
GORDIANVS AVG obverse from Rome also occur at Antioch, as Le
Gentilhomme saw. Therefore to bring Pink’s list up to date we should divide
the Antiochene reverses into four issues, according to whether they have the
same types as issues 1 - 3 at Rome or non-Roman types. Thus, of the eighteen
types of radiates from the first three issues of Gordian’s reign at Rome, twelve
occurred at Antioch; five from the first, two from the second and five from the
third. The remaining 37 types are not found at Rome and should be placed at
the end.
This division makes for some very strangely balanced issues, as Table
3 shows. Here the coins are divided into four issues, following Pink’s theory,
listing the types of each issue in order of the number of specimens that
survive. It immediately emerges from this that the four groups do not look like
issues, in the normal sense of the term, because both the total number of coins
and the number of types in each of the four issues varies so greatly.
Another fallacy in the theory of Pink and Le Gentilhomme is that the
Antiochene issues with the same types as occurred at Rome were necessarily
copying the Roman coins (and therefore succeeded them). As we shall see
below (p. 112), one type, showing the Emperor sacrificing (no. 29), is dated
to Gordian’s first tribunician year at Antioch, while at Rome this design is only
known from the following year. In this case at least, therefore, a type was
struck at Antioch before it was at Rome, and it is quite possible that the same
applies to other, undated, types. Since this is so, it also means that the view
that the coins that had the same designs as were used at Rome must precede
those with different types is no longer tenable.
Finally, the evidence of the die-study is sufficient to disprove the
division into three issues. Table 4 shows the reverse die-links that exist
between the different reverses at Antioch, dividing them into four issues as
Pink suggests, but omitting those types that do not have any die-links.

85
 The sheer quantity of die-links between the different reverse types
unavoidably makes this table confusing.64 However, it is very clear that the
four issues are inextricably joined together by a close-knit web of die-links with
reverses from each issue linked to reverses from every other issue.
Now, it is possible to argue that this coinage was all produced within
quite a short period, perhaps no more than a few months.65 It could further
be argued that reverse types from different issues struck over a short period
could well share the same obverse dies. Although this is a possible
interpretation it does strain the evidence quite considerably because there are
not just one or two but a great many die-links between the reverse types of
the four issues.

B. How many issues?

If, therefore, Pink’s suggested method of dividing this coinage into
issues can no longer be upheld, is there any other way in which it can be
done? There seem to me to be four different criteria that could be employed.
First of all, as we have already seen, the fact that a number of obverse dies
were shared between the different reverses provides the firmest basis for any
attempt to divide the types into issues. Secondly, as we have also seen, the
relative numbers of coins of each reverse also needs to be taken into account,
as Thble 3 shows. Thirdly, since some of the coins are dated to Gordian’s first
tribunician year (nos. 29-32), while others are dated to the next year (nos. 33-
49) we could see whether these two groups die-link with different reverses.
Finally, some reverses occur with left-facing or non-standard obverse busts and
it is possible that these form a coherent group.

64 For full details of the obverse die-links see the Table of Obverse Die-links at the
beginning of the catalogue.
65 I shall argue below that I believe it most likely that this series was produced for a
period of a year or more, from the summer of 238 to at least the summer of 239. However,
the only firm indication of date is provided by the coins that are dated TR P and TR P II, and
of course these could simply have been issued immediately before and after 10 December 238.

86
C. The die-study
The obverse die-links between different reverse types are shown in
Tables 4 and 5, the first of which arranges the reverse types according to
Pink’s issues, which can now be shown to be unsustainable, while the second
simply lists the reverses in alphabetical order. Of the 49 reverse types that
occur in this coinage, 25 have obverse dies that were also used for other
reverse types. 24 types, therefore, will not be found in this table. However, we
have already seen (above, p. 76), this is not in itself of any significance, for all
the types that are missing from it -the*are known from five specimens or fewer,
and no doubt as more coins with these types are published they too will die-
link with other reverses.
While it would not be true to say that every type listed in Tables 4 and
5 is linked to every other one directly, they certainly are all indirectly inter­
linked, and I cannot see how they could be sensibly subdivided into groups.

D. The evidence of the dated types

We have seen that the reverses dated to Gordian’s first and second
tribunician years might help us to divide the coinage into two groups. Very few
coins are known from the first year (there are four types represented by a
total of six specimens) and only one of these has an obverse die that was used
by another reverse. P M TRI P CON P P (no. 29) is linked to AEQVITAS
AVG (no. 3). The more numerous coins with the reverse P M TR P II COS
P P have no fewer than ten die-links to the AEQVITAS AVG type (nos. 34,
43, 44, four links, 46, two links, and 47). This, therefore, simply suggests that
the AEQVITAS AVG type was produced during both tribunician years. It
offers no clue as to how the coinage might be classified into issues.

E. The evidence of the size of the reverse types

It is axiomatic that coinages of this period minted at Rome were
produced in issues which consisted of a set of reverse types struck in roughly
equal quantities; often a large hoard or series of hoards offers the best guide
to the relative commonness of reverse types. This method was developed by

87
Mattingly in his study of the Dorchester hoard.66 Unfortunately, as we shall
see below, it is not possible to use the evidence of published hoard reports for
the first series of radiates from Antioch, simply because their authors cannot
be relied upon to make the distinction between Roman and Antiochene issues
correctly. Therefore we can only use two indications of the relative rarity of
the different reverse types: (a) the aggregate numbers of coins that I have
recorded in collections and sale-catalogues and also in the hoards that I have
been able to study and (b) the results of the die-studies of the reverses (see
Table 8). However, the die-studies have revealed very few shared reverse dies
(indeed some major types have no reverse die-links at all) and as a result the
statistics they provide are subject to wide margins of error and thus of limited
value (see p. 132). In default of any better figure, we therefore have to fall
back on the aggregate number of specimens which is, of course, a very crude
indicator of the relative commonness of the different reverse types. Ihble 6
lists those reverse that are represented by more than five examples in order
of size.

Ihble 6: major reverse types of the first series of radiates

Cat Reverse Qfy'■ Rome Busts

2-4 AEQVITAS AVG 47 R, 3 Dl, D2, D ll
43-6 P M TR P II COS PP 43 R, 2 Dl, D2, B21, D ll
21-2 PAX AVGVSTI 39 R, 1 D2, B21
18-19 LIBERALITAS AVG 34 - D2, Dll

7 CONCORDIA AVG 22 R, 3 D2
13-14A FIDES MILITVM 19 - D2, B21, D ll
12-12A FIDES MILITVM 18 R, 1 D2, B21
53 PROVIDENTIA AVG 18 - D2
63 VIRTVS AVG 16 R, 1 D2
56-7 ROMAE AETERNAE 15 R, 3 D2, D ll
60 VICTORIA AVG 12 R, 1 D2
34-5 P M TR P II COS PP 12 - D2, Dll
52 PROVIDENTIA AVG 10 - D2

50 PROVIDENTIA AVG 8 R, 1 D2
9-10 CONCORDIA AVG 7 - D2, D ll
25-7 PAX AVGVSTI 7 - D2, B21, D ll

66 H Mattingly, ‘The Great Dorchester hoard’, NC 1939, pp. 21-61. See also RIC.

88
 There are four reverses that are represented by 34 to 47 specimens or
more, nine from which 10 to 22 examples are known, and three with 7 or 8.
The remaining 33 types all have five coins or fewer. Nine of these major types
were copied from those of Rome, while seven were not. None of this,
however, offers any clues as to how this coinage could be divided into issues.
It could be inferred from the four most common reverses that the mint was
operating in four officinae, but the nine other types with ten or more
specimens hardly divide into four. In fact it would be possible to postulate the
existence of any number of officinae from one upwards: these figures really
give no assistance.

F. The evidence of the obverse busts

Ten reverse types in all occur with non-standard obverse busts (D l, B21
and D ll) and they are all shown in Table 6. Fewer than ten dies have these
bust types (see Thble 8) and there are therefore many die-links between the
nine different reverse types that occur with them. While it is likely that all the
coins with these busts were struck at about the same time, it is hard to see
that the reverse types with which they occur can be separated from the rest
of the coinage and placed in an issue on their own. Once again, the evidence
of both the die-links and the respective sizes of the reverse types suggests that
this was not the case.

G. The relative priority of the Roman and non-Roman types

As we have seen, both Pink and Le Gentilhomme assumed that the
mint started out by copying the types of the mint of Rome and that its more
idiosyncratic types, such as those that had the wrong reverse type for the
legend (listed on pp. 79ff.) were produced later.67 We have already seen that
these types are very closely die-linked to the types that were also used at
Rome, but it should also be noted that in fact Antioch was clearly producing
types that were distinctively ‘eastern’ right from the beginning, for the four

67 Pink, op. cit. n. 11, p. 104; Le Gentilhomme, op. cit. n. 55, p. 38.

89
reverses that are dated to Gordian’s first year all have very unusual forms of
the legend:

P M TRI P CON P P (nos. 29-30)

PON M TRI P CON P P (no. 32)
P M TR P I P COS P P (no. 31)

The first two inscriptions make sense, but they have three unorthodox
abbreviations: PON for Pontifex, TRI for Tribunicia and CON for Consul. In
the case of Pontifex, P, PONT, PONTIF and PONTIFEX were the normal
abbreviations, but PON had not been used since the time of the Flavians.68
Similarly, TR or occasionally T or TRIB are known as abbreviations for
Tribunicia, but TRI had not been used on Roman coinage since two aurei of
Antoninus Pius.69 COS, or very rarely CONS, is the standard shortening of
CONSVL,70 and I can find no other instance of the use of CON as an
abbreviation of this title on Roman coins. We can see, therefore, that these
coin legends show unfamiliarity with the conventional Roman abbreviations of
imperial titles on coin legends.71 The third legend quoted above differs from
the other two in that TR P I P does not make sense however it is expanded
and might simply be a mistake for TR P II. I have included it with the coins
of Gordian’s first tribunician year, but it could equally well belong to the
following year.
By contrast, all the coins that are definitely dated to the second year
have the same legend, P M TR P II COS P P, which follows exactly the
normal Roman contraction of these titles. It is true that some of these coins
have some rather unusual designs, but their legends all follow the Roman
idiom whereas those of the previous year do not. This suggests that Pink’s
assumption should perhaps be turned on its head and that the more

68 It had appeared most recently on a coin of Divus Vespasian, BMC p. 250,9. The only
later occasion when it occurs on a coin is on a dupondius -of Pertinax with PON M TR P
COS II S C, (RIC 27A, BMC p. 10*), which Mattingly thought had been altered from OPI.
69 Reverse: TRI POT COS DES II CONCORD, BMC Hadrian 1019-20. Before then it
occurred on a number of coins of Vespasian, BMC 57 etc.
70 On eastern coinages of Severus C and CO are also used.
71 A further anomaly in these legends lies in the fact that Gordian only held his first
consulship in 239, i.e., when he was TR P II: see below under Dates.

90
idiosyncratic, non-Roman types could in fact have preceded those that copy
the Roman types.
We shall, however, also see (p. 101 and p. 112) that in at least one case
it would appear that the mint of Rome copied a type from Antioch, rather
than vice-versa. Clearly, then, the evidence does not support any tidy division
into issues on the lines suggested by Pink and Le Gentilhomme.

H. Conclusion
It seems, therefore, that however this problem is approached it is
impossible to divide this coinage into two or more issues. It is true that it
consisted of as many as 49 different reverse types which might have been
expected to have been produced in a sequence of issues. However, all the
major reverse types are linked together, either directly or indirectly, by shared
obverse dies; secondly, the reverse types which are dated to the first and
second tribunician years do not suggest that the coinage can be sub-divided;
thirdly, the reverses cannot be divided into neat groups according to their
relative commonness; and finally the fact that some occur with non-standard
obverse busts does not seem to be significant either.
In short the picture that this coinage presents is that all the dies were
kept in a single place, which we may call an officina, and that it was perfectly
possible for any obverse die to be used with any reverse die. Indeed it is
noticeable that when an obverse die-link occurs it is as likely to be between
two coins with different reverse types as between two with the same (below,
pp. 134f.). Since the coinage was probably only struck for a period of 19
months at most, the majority of the dies must have remained in use
throughout that period and no progression can be observed in the striking of
different reverse types.

91
9. The problem of the gold

A. Introduction
So far all discussion of this coinage has concentrated on the radiates;
however, in the catalogue it will be seen that two gold coins are also listed.
Unfortunately both of them present serious problems since they are only
known from descriptions made in the nineteenth century and neither of them
has been confirmed in recent times. However, they cannot be ignored, for if
it is true that the mint was also striking gold as well as silver at this time it lifts
the significance Antioch’s issues of A.D. 238-9 to a new level and raises
important historical implications as well which will be discussed below
(Chapter 9).
Mattingly also lists a third aureus of Gordian in RIC which he suggests
might belong to Antioch. He gives its description as follows:

Obverse: IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, bust D2*.

Reverse: PAX AVGVSTI, Pax advancing left holding cornucopiae and sceptre.72

The coin is cited from an article by Gnecchi who actually describes the
coin as follows:

Obverse: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS PEL AVG, busto laur. a destra col paludamento.
Reverse: PAX AVGVSTI, La Pace a s. con un ramo d’ulivo e uno scettro traversale.73

The description of both the obverse and the reverse in RIC is,
therefore, wrong, and it is clear that the coin has no connection with the first
series of the mint of Antioch, but must rather be a coin of Rome with a
reverse type that belongs to the IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG

72 RIC 226A. Mattingly comments on it as follows: ‘Uncertain: possibly a rare aureus of

Antioch’ (p. 38n).
73 The description of the reverse type is: ‘Pax standing left holding an olive branch and
a transverse sceptre’. F Gnecchi, ‘Monete e medaglioni romani inediti nel R. Gabinetto
Numismatico di Brera’, Bollettino di Numismatica e Sfragistica 1884, pp. 121ff.; no. 133 on p.
144. The Brera collection is now in Mi.

92
series. It is mentioned here because other scholars, following RIC, have
included it with the ADVENTVS AVG and CONCORDIA AVG aurei.74

B. The CONCORDIA AVG type (no. 1A)

The manuscript catalogue of coins in the Royal Collection (as it then
was) in Paris, the ‘Ancien Catalogue’, includes the following description of a
gold coin of Gordian (no. 516):

Obverse: IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, bust D2*.

Reverse: CONCORDIA AVG, Concordia standing left, holding patera over altar in right
hand and cornucopiae in left hand.

Regrettably this coin was one of the many that were stolen from Paris
in 1831 and it has not been recorded since. It is possible that it has been lost
for ever since many of the coins that were stolen in that theft are believed to
have been melted down. However, the descriptions of coins in the ‘A ncien
Catalogue’ are generally held to be accurate and there is no reason to doubt
its correctness in this case. The coin was listed by Cohen and also by RIC.75
The reason for attributing it to Antioch is that, as it is pointed out in RIC, the
reverse type is known on radiates of Antioch (nos. 9-10), but not at Rome.

C. The ADVENTVS AVG type (no. 1)

The second aureus of Gordian which has been attributed to Antioch
was first described by Cohen in 1868,76 who cited it from the de Moustier
collection, and it was subsequently listed in the catalogue of his collection
when it was sold in Paris in 1872 (no. 2817).77 Its description is as follows:

Obverse: IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, bust D2*.

Reverse: ADVENTVS AVG, Emperor riding left on horseback. He has his right arm raised
and holds a transverse sceptre in his left hand.

74 X Loriot, ‘Itinera Gordiani Augusti, I’, BSFN 1971, pp. 18-21; see p. 19, n. 6; also A
Jurging, ‘Die erste Emission Gordians III.*, to be published in SNR.
75 Cohen 60; RIC 176.
76 Cohen1 vol. VII, p. 246, 3.
77 Catalogue des monnaies romaines composant la collection de feu M. le Marquis de
Moustier, redige sous la direction de M. H Hoffmann, Paris, 17 June 1872, no.2817.

93
 This coin, like the CONCORDIA AVG piece, has not been confirmed
in recent times. However, since we have two independent descriptions of it,
first by Cohen and then by the cataloguer of the de Moustier sale, it seems
that they should be believed. Mattingly states ‘Pink considers this coin false.
If genuine, it would have to be assigned as a rare coin to Issue I [at
Rome]’.78 Pink’s opinion, though, is of little value since he had not seen the
coin and he seems to have condemned it simply because it did not fit into his
Aufbau of issues.79 It would, I think, be best to ignore Pink’s comment and
to look instead at the problem of the attribution of this coin. As we have seen,
Mattingly assumed that it must have been Roman, but recognized that it did
not fit satisfactorily in his pattern of issues at that mint.
Loriot, however, has suggested that this coin should be attributed to
Antioch.80 He pointed out that the same type occurred twice on Antiochene
radiates with the legends P M TR P II COS P P (nos. 34-5) and VICTORIA
AVG (no. 61), whereas no coins with the Adventus type were minted at Rome
until Gordian’s third tribunician year, by which time his obverse legend had
changed to IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG.81 I think that Loriot’s
suggestion is very plausible, but the only way the mint of this coin can
definitely be established is on the basis of its style and since our only
information derives from two brief descriptions made over a century ago, this
question cannot be definitely settled. I feel, though, that the balance of
probability is that this coin is genuine and that it was minted at Antioch.

D. The historical significance

Loriot has shown that the real significance of this probable issue of gold
coins at Antioch in A.D. 238-9 is that, when taken in conjunction with other

78 RIC p. 41n.
79 Pink, op. cit. n. 12, p. 26.
80 Loriot, op. cit. n. 74.
81 RIC 80 (aureus), 81 (denarius) and 82 (radiate).

94
evidence, they suggest that the Emperor himself visited Antioch at this
time.82 The implications of this for the history of Gordian’s reign and the
patterns of coin production will be discussed in Chapter 9, but it is necessary
to ask here (a) whether the Adventus type necessarily implies an imperial visit
and (b) whether mints only struck gold coins when the emperor was present.

E. The Adventus type

This made its first appearance on a silver medallion of Trajan, and
under his successor, Hadrian, it became a recurrent theme, as befitted an
emperor who travelled so extensively. The type was next used by Commodus;
it appeared again under Septimius Severus and Elagabalus and became very
common from Gordian’s reign down to the time of Constantine I. The design
is easily recognizable, although its details can vary: the emperor is always
shown on horseback, generally unarmed, and he raises his right hand in
salutation. Occasionally he appears in military dress and he might be preceded
by a soldier or else by a personification of the city which he is honouring with
his presence. The inscription is normally ADVENTVS AVG or a variant, but
occasionally consists of just the emperor’s titles. It is assumed that this type
was struck to mark the arrival of the emperor in the city in which the mint was
located: usually this was Rome, but from the middle of the third centry
onwards the type increasingly occurs at other mints.
The purpose of the present enquiry is to establish whether the
appearance of this type at Antioch on the gold and silver coinage of 238-9
necessarily implies that Gordian was present at that time. It might be useful
to look at the previous occasions on which this type had been used and to see
whether they can be connected with an imperial visit. The type appears three
times for Septimius and his family, once for Geta and twice for Elagabalus.

82 Loriot, op. cit. n. 74. The other evidence, which is a rescript of Gordian issued at
Antioch and dated 1 April 239, will be discussed below in Chapter 9.
 Table 7: The occurrences of the Adventus type on the
coinage of 193-238

Rulers Date Mint Metal BMC V

Septimius 196-7 Rome AV, AR, AE W 150 ff., 595 ff.
Septimius, Caracalla, Geta 202 Rome AV, AR SC 267 ff.(Galley),
304 ff., p.230*, p.232*
Septimius, Caracalla, Geta 210-1 Rome AR SCG 50, 63, p.370*
Geta 211-2 Rome AE SCG230
Elagabalus ? Antioch or AR 309
Nicomedia
Elagabalus ? Rome AV, AR, AE 195-6, 347

All but one of these occurrences can plausibly be linked to imperial

visits to Rome, or, in the case of Elagabalus’s first Adventus type, to Antioch.
In 196-7 Septimius returned to Rome after his campaigns in the east; in 202
he and his sons returned to Rome from Antioch by sea after they had been
invested there as consuls (hence the galley on Caracalla’s coins); in 211
Caracalla and Geta returned to Rome after the death of their father and the
conclusion of the British campaign; in 218 Elagabalus entered Antioch in
triumph after the defeat of Macrinus and then spent the winter in Nicomedia
before arriving in Rome in 219. The Adventus coins of Elagabalus are undated
but since his visits to Antioch just after his proclamation and to Rome the
following year are well documented, it would be perverse not to associate
these coins with these events.
The only difficulty is presented by the Adventus coins of Septimius and
his two sons that are dated to 210-1. It is clear from the sources that at this
time the emperor and his family were residing in Britain and there is no
record of their visiting Rome. One possible clue is provided by the design itself
which shows each of the three rulers in military dress and armed with a spear:
the type most likely refers to their arrival in York, where they are known to
have wintered in 210-1. However, the mint of these coins is Rome and not
York.
From this we may deduce that although the striking of coins with the
Adventus type normally marks the arrival of the emperor at the city which
struck those coins, this was not always the case and sometimes coins could be

96
struck to mark the arrival of the emperor in a city at the other end of the
empire. Certainly, when the Adventus type appears very frequently in the
reigns immediately following Gordian’s, often at mints other than Rome, it is
not always easy to associate it with an imperial visit. However, so little is
known of the movements of the emperors in the mid-third century that there
is always a danger of falling into a circular argument.83
Therefore, although the occurrence of the Adventus type on gold and
silver coins of Gordian that were minted at Antioch in 238-9 makes it highly
likely that they were struck on the occasion of an imperial visit to that city, it
cannot prove it. For this, other evidence needs to be taken into account.

F. The striking of gold coins and the presence of the emperor

In recent years the theory that late Roman gold coins were only minted
when the emperor was present at the mint city has become increasingly
influential. Drinkwater has expressed this view in relation to the coinage of the
Gallic Empire, some twenty years after Gordian’s reign:

Henceforth the aureus was to be treated more or less as bullion. It is in fact

debateable whether aurei continued to be regarded as coins at all: they are perhaps
better seen as commemorative medallions given as precious objects to important
individuals. On this view, the minting of gold was a very special occasion. It has,
indeed, traditionally been seen as indicating the close proximity of a third-century
emperor to the mint concerned (the assumption being that the metal was so
politically important that the rulers insisted keeping their stock close to them, even
when they were on campaign, thus preventing the minting of gold until their return);
however, it should be noted that the complete validity of this hypothesis has yet to
be proved.84

Certainly it has been realized since the time of Elmer that the letters
COM which start to appear on gold solidi in the late 360s stand for the
comitatensian mint, that is the travelling mint that was attached to the imperial

83 By the middle of the fourth century the original meaning of the Adventus type was lost
sight of entirely when FELIX ADVENTVS AVG N became the standard design for the 1Yz
solidus gold multiple. Thus we find it being issued for Constantius II simultaneously at the
mints of Arles, Rome, Thessalonica and Antioch. Kent (RIC 8, p. 200) believes this issue was
struck to commemorate the emperor’s formal entry into Rome in 357; what is significant in
the present context is the fact that it could be struck at three other mints in addition to the
one which the emperor was visiting.
84 J F Drinkwater, The Gallic Empire, Historia Einzelschriften 52, Stuttgart, 1987, p. 157.

97
court.85 By the end of the fourth century all gold coins other than those
produced at Constantinople bore these letters, with the addition of a mint-
mark such as RoMa, MeDiolanum or RaVenna, and they are taken to indicate
that the imperial court was residing in that city at that time.
It is one thing to argue that coins actually inscribed COM must have
been produced at a mint that was attached to the court, but it is quite another
to assume that in the preceding century gold coins were only minted when the
emperor was present, when there is no explicit literary evidence to suggest that
this was the case and when the coins did^bear the letters COM. However, L
although this theory has not yet been applied systematically to the gold
coinage of the third century, Drinkwater’s comments show that it has received
quite wide circulation among historians and in a recent work on imperial
donatives Bastien takes this assumption as his starting point.86 The question
recalls the problem of the Adventus types: although it is likely that, in the
third and fourth centuries, the emperor was generally present when gold coins
were struck, there are some occasions when it can be shown that this cannot
have been so.
The clearest examples are from the fourth century, before the reforms
of 366-7, since the pattern of coinage at that time is much better known and
its attribution is certain: the large issues of solidi with the reverse GLORIA
REIPVBLICAE VOT XXX MVLT XXXX which Constantius II produced
from 353 onwards to commemorate his thirtieth anniversary were made at
fourteen mints from Lyon in the west to Antioch in the east; Julian’s VIRTVS
EXERCITVS solidi were struck at eight mints, while Valentinian I’s and

85 G Elmer, ‘Wanderang romischer Munzamter im IV. Jahrhundert n. Chr.\ Mitteilungen

der Numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien 16 (1930), p. 136 was the first to draw attention to
the connection between the striking of gold and the location of the imperial court in the
Theodosian period. The theory was developed by J P C Kent, ‘Gold coinage in the later
Roman Empire’, in R A G Carson and C H V Sutherland (eds.), Essays in Roman Coinage
Presented to Harold Mattingly, London, 1956, pp. 190-204 who connected this phenomenon
with the letters COM which first appeared on the solidi shortly before 370. He states (p. 200):
‘All gold, therefore, after the reforms of 366-7, was brought direct to the comitatus in the
form of certified ingots, and two results follow directly. Gold coinage becomes confined to
the imperial residence and early in 368 it receives the cerifying mark OB(ryziacum)’.
86 P Bastien, Monnaie et donativa au Bas-Empire, Numismatique romaine 17, Wetteren,
1988. Bastien only starts his study of donativa in the reign of Claudius II.

98
Valens’s RESTITVTOR REIPVBLICAE of 364-7 came from thirteen mints.
No-one would ever seek to argue that these large, empire-wide, issues of solidi
could only have been produced while the emperor was present in person at
each mint.
In the third century not only is less known of the emperor’s movements,
but there were also fewer mints and it is often difficult to attribute gold coins
to them correctly. For all these reasons, it is not so easy to find clear examples
of issues of gold coins that cannot have been minted in the emperor’s
presence. However, the gold coinage of Antioch between 244 and 270 offers
some instances. After Gordian’s reign Antioch issued gold on the following
occasions:
249: a radiate gold coin of Philip II has appeared at auction recently.87 It has the
reverse P M TR P VI P P (Lion walking right) and its obverse die also occurs on radiates
from Antioch RIC 238). There is some doubt as to the coin’s authenticity, but there is no
suggestion that Philip was present in Antioch in 249.
254-8: an extensive series of gold coins in two denominations (radiate and laureate)
is known for Valerian, Gallienus, Salonina, Valerian II and Saloninus; some of the coins are
dated to 254-5 and 255-6, while the one in the name of Saloninus cannot have been minted
before 258. Valerian is known to have resided in Antioch for much of this period.
261-2: a moderately large series of gold coins was issued by the two usurpers
Macrianus and Quietus: the mint is presumed to be Antioch.88 Since these two were
proclaimed emperor in Syria it is very likely that these gold coins were struck while they were
present in Antioch.
263-4: there is a unique gold coin of Gallienus from Antioch which has the standard
Antiochene reverse VICTORIAE AVG (Victory in biga) and the obverse GALLIENVS PF
AVG which may be dated to 263-4 89 There is no indication in the literaiy evidence that
Gallienus ever visited Antioch during his sole reign, but four radiates are known which come
from the mint of Antioch and which have the legend P M TR P X IIC V IP P combined with
the Adventus type.90 These suggest that he might have visited Antioch in 263-4, but the
evidence is inconclusive.
268-70: three specimens are known of an undated aureus of Claudius with the same
reverse as the previous example; the obverse (IMP C CLAVDIVS AVG) is also consistent
with an attribution to Antioch 91 Once again, no source tells us that Claudius visited the
east during his short reign, and again it is unlikely that he did since the area was still under
Palmyrene control.

87 Lanz, Munich, Auction 26 (5/12/1983), 821 = Numismatic Fine Arts, Beverly Hills,
Auction 16 (2/12/1985), 513 = Superior Galleries, 30/5/1990, 7271.
88 RIC 1-3 (Macrianus) and RIC 1 (Quietus).
89 Munzen und Medaillen, Basel, Auction 35 (16/6/1967), 115.
90 One, now in BM, is published in E M Besly (ed.), Department o f Coins and Medals.
New Acquisitions No. 1 (1976-77), BM Occasional Paper 25, 1981, p. 28, 47 (and plate 3).
91 Examples in Mi, H and Ratto 7/6/1926 (Moneta collection), 2211.

99
G. Conclusion
These examples show that the theory proposed by Drinkwater cannot
apply to every gold issue, however small, that was minted at this period, as he
himself suspects, although a substantial gold coinage generally does seem to
indicate that the emperor was present. Since that is the case, all we can say
is that it is possible that the appearance of the Adventus type and the issue
of gold coins at Antioch in 238 or 239 were occasioned by an imperial visit,
but cannot provide definite confirmation of it. For that it is necessary to turn
to the other evidence provided by Loriot, namely Gordian’s rescript, which will
be discussed below (Chapter 9).92

10. The date of the first series

A. The dated legends
The principal evidence for this is provided by the coins with reverse
legends dated to Gordian’s first and second tribunician years. However, these
legends are not without problems. Four reverse types are apparently dated to
Gordian’s first tribunician year, with the legends P M TRI P CON P P (nos.
29-30), PON M TRI P CON P P (no. 32) and P M TR P I P COS P P (no.
31). We have seen that this latter inscription may well be a mistake for P M
TR P II COS P P. All these inscriptions have unusual abbreviations, the
significance of which has been discussed above (p. 90f.), and the legend of no.
31 is so irregular that it might belong to the next year, and it would be best to
leave it out of consideration in the present context.
Another anomaly, discussed in an earlier chapter (2), is that Gordian
is named as consul on these coins, even though the evidence is that he only
held the consulship for the first time in 239. This is probably another example
of the notorious vagueness that the eastern mints showed in regard to imperial
titles.93 It is, I think, most likely that the Antioch mint gave Gordian the title

92 Loriot, op. cit. n. 80.

93 For example, the largest series of tetradrachms of Philip I and II from Antioch record
their fourth consulship (YUATO A), although Philip I only held three consulships and Philip
II, two. One may also cite the coins of Gallienus from the eastern ‘SPQR’ mint with the

100
of Consul on the assumption that all Roman emperors held this office, and
that these coins were struck during Gordian’s first tribunician year.
Alternatively, Kienast has plausibly suggested that Gordian was made consul
designate when he became Caesar in May 238, although there is no other
evidence that this was the case.94 If this is right, the titulature on the coins
of Antioch would be correct.
On the other hand, if Kienast’s proposal is rejected and more weight
is given to the reference to Gordian’s consulship than to his tribunician year,
these coins could be attributed to his second year. If that were the case, then
the whole series could have been struck in 239. Another argument in favour
of this view is that one of the two designs with the legend P M TRI P CON
P P (no. 29) shows the emperor sacrificing; this same design was used at both
Rome and Antioch with the legend P M TR P II COS P P (RIC 37 etc. from
Rome and no. 33 below from Antioch). If, as is usually assumed, Antioch
copied Rome’s types rather than vice-versa, then presumably the P M TRI P
CON P P coins must have been issued in Gordian’s second year.
However, it still seems odd to attribute the three legends P M TRI P
CON P P, PON M TRI P CON P P and P M TR P II COS P P to a single
year. On balance, I feel that a more natural interpretation of the evidence is
to attribute the legends P M TRI P CON P P and PON M TRI P CON P P
to Gordian’s first year, and the inscription P M TR P II COS P P to his
second year and that we may may follow Kienast in assuming that Gordian
was consul designate in 238, or that at least the mint officials at Antioch
believed him to be. There are no less than 18 different types that are dated
to Gordian’s second tribunician year (nos. 33-49) and since they all have the
same, correct, form of inscription, P M TR P II COS P P, their date seems
reasonably certain.

legends P M TR P XVII (RIC 605) and P M TR P XVIII (Alfoldi, Berytus 5, 1938, p. 62 and
pi. 26,13), although it is generally agreed that Gallienus only reigned for 16 tribunician years
(M Peachin, Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D. 235-284, Studia
Amstelodamensia ad Epigraphicam etc. Pertinentia, Amsterdam, 1990 pp. 74ff.).
94 D Kienast, Romischer Kaisertabelle, Darmstadt, 1990, pp. 194-6.

101
B. The calendar dates
How may these tribunician dates be converted to calendar dates? The
problems of Gordian’s dies imperii and of his tribunician year have been
discussed above (Chapter 2). Different types of evidence suggest: (a) a date
in early May suggested by an inscription from Maximianopolis in southern
Syria;95 (b) 6 or 7 June suggested by Loriot on the basis of the Fasti
Ostiensesf6 or (c) a date in August, suggested both by the papyrological
evidence gathered by Rathbone and also by the Chronography o f 354?1
Peachin has studied the problem most recently and prefers a date in August
and I agree with him that the balance of evidence favours August, although
Gordian’s dies imperii could have occurred at any time between early May and
August 238 (see Chapter 2 ) 98
As far as the tribunician year is concerned, recent opinion (including
both Sartre and Peachin) favours the traditional date of 10 December rather
than 1 January or Gordian’s accession date, and I prefer to follow this view
(se^e Chapter 2).

C. Closer dating
Therefore, it seems that Gordian’s first series may be dated to between
August 238 and 10 December 239: could it have continued being struck into
240? This must be a possibility but I think it unlikely for two reasons. First,
there were, as we have seen, no fewer than 18 different reverses with the
legend P M TR P II COS P P, but none with TR P III, and if the mint had
still been issuing radiates or aurei on 10 December 239 it seems likely that the
change of year would have been recorded on the coinage, as it was at Rome.

95 M Sartre, ‘Le dies imperii de Gordien III: une inscription inedite de Syrie’, Syria 71
(1984), pp. 49-61.
96 X Loriot, ‘Les Fasti Ostienses et le dies imperii de Gordien IIP, Melanges d ’histoire
ancienne offerts 0 William Seston, Paris, 1974, pp. 297-312.
97 D W Rathbone, ‘The dates of recognition in Egypt of the emperors from Caracalla to
Diocletianus’, ZPE 62 (1986), pp. 101-31, pp. 110-1 and the Chronography o f 354, ed. T
Mommsen, Chronica Minora I, Monumenta Germaniae Historica IX, Berlin, 1892, p. 147.
98 M Peachin, op. cit. n. 93, p. 29.

102
Secondly, we have seen that on the coinage of Rome Gordian’s obverse legend
changes twice during the course of 239, first to IMP CAES GORDIANVS
PI VS AVG for a brief issue, and then to IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG
(p. 66). One might have expected that these obverse legend changes would
have been echoed at Antioch if the mint was still striking radiates or aurei. In
fact, however, no coins with the legend IMP CAES GORDIANVS PIVS AVG
can be attributed to the eastern mint. Equally, the only coins with the legend
IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG which were produced at Antioch all
belong to the second series of radiates which, we shall see, may be dated to
242-4 (see Chapter 5).
We therefore have probable chronological limits of August 238 and
December 239 for this coinage (or between December 238 and December 239
if we attribute all the dated legends to Gordian’s second year). With one
possible exception, the coins do not provide any evidence that allows us to be
any more precise. The exception is provided by the coins with the Adventus
type which might be connected with a possible visit to Antioch by Gordian in
April 239. The significance of the Adventus type has already been discussed
(pp. 95ff.), and the reliability of the rescript which Gordian is said to have
issued from Antioch will be examined later (Chapter 9).
For the moment, we can conclude that it is likely that some of these
types, especially the aurei and those with the Adventus reverse, may have been
struck to mark Gordian’s presence in Antioch in April 239. This is in itself
perfectly consistent with the other evidence for the date of this coinage, since
April 239 falls in the middle of the period when it was produced.

D. Conclusion
Given that the upper and lower limits of the date of this coinage have
been established, can we determine whether it is likely to have been issued
over the whole of the 16 months between August 238 and December 239 or
for a shorter period? Assuming that the coins were produced during both the
first and second tribunician years, all that we can be certain about is that these
coins must have been produced immediately before and after 10 December

103
238, when Gordian changed from TR P to TR P II. Against this, we have just
seen that there is evidence that the mint was active in April 239. Furthermore,
the die-study, discussed above (p. 9 If.) shows that this coinage cannot be sub­
divided into issues.
If it is thought that all the coinage was issued during Gordian’s second
tribunician year then it is likely that it would have been issued during a short
period at the time of the imperial visit in April 239. The other view, following
the alternative, and to my mind the more normal, interpretation of the dated
types, would assume that the production of this series extended over most of
the 16 months between August 238 and December 239. It is difficult to decide
between these two possibilities, but I slightly prefer the latter, both because
I think it stretches the evidence to attribute all the dated types to Gordian’s
second year, and because the issue consists of so many different varieties that
I believe that these could better be accommodated over a period of a year or
more.

11. Obverse types

A. Legends
All the coins of this series have IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS
AVG as their obverse legend, apart from two dies on which it has been
incorrectly engraved as IMP CAE M ANT GORDIANVS AVG (nos. 7/20 and
21/33-4) and one with IMP CAES M ANT GORIANVS AVG (no. 56/9) (see
above p. 79f.). We have already seen that this was also the legend that was
employed on all coins at Rome from Gordian’s accession until the second half
of 239 (p. 66), so that its use at Antioch is to be expected. If there is anything
unusual about the obverse legend of these coins it is that there are no
variations. We have also seen (p. 76f.) that one of the more notable
distinguishing features of the eastern coinages of the Severan period are their
many variant forms of obverse inscription, and we shall see in Chapter 6 that
this is also a feature of the coinage of Caesarea in Gordian’s reign. Antioch,
however, remains remarkably consistent in its use of obverse legends for

104
Gordian: apart from the radiates of 238-9, the three series of tetradrachms all
have AYTOK K M ANT TOPAIANOC CeB, which is a direct translation of
the preceding legend, while the radiates of 242-4 all have IMP GORDIANVS
PIVS FEL AVG, the legend in use at Rome from 239 to 244.

B. Obverse busts
The great majority of Gordian’s coins from Rome used only one bust
variety, which was draped and cuirassed, seen from behind and facing right,
either radiate (D2) or laureate (D2*) according to the denomination. The only
exceptions are some bronze coins with the IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL
AVG obverse: one type of sestertius has right-facing bust seen from the front
(D l* ),99 another has left-facing bust seen from behind (D21*),100 while
several asses have a left-facing bust seen from in front (D ll*).101
Similarly the great bulk of Gordian’s radiates from Antioch also have
the normal D2 bust,102 but on a few specimens other busts occur: (a) draped
and cuirassed, seen from the front, right (D l: 4 coins from 2 dies); (b)
cuirassed, seen from behind, left (B21: 8 coins from 2 dies) and (c) draped and
cuirassed, seen from the front, left (D ll: 17 coins from 5 dies). Commentators
since the time of Voetter have drawn attention to the coins with left-facing
busts, seeing them as one of the features that distinguishes these issues from
those of Rome. On the other hand, the coins with the D l bust have not
hitherto attracted comment. Both the D l and the D ll busts may be paralleled
on the first series of tetradrachms from Antioch (Chapter 4). It needs to be
stressed, however, that the coins with these non-standard busts only form a
very minor part of the coinage, for no more than nine or ten obverse dies in
all are involved (Table 8).

99 RIC 313a.
100 RIC 308Aa.
101 RIC 304c, 308Ab, 321b, 323b, 331c, 332c, 335c, 337c and 339c. There is also an as of
Tranquillina that shows her bust facing left: RIC 341b.
102 There are 326 coins from a total of 255 dies with this bust.

105
 Before Gordian’s reign left-facing busts, while not unknown, had not
been a feature of eastern issues of aurei and denarii. Pescennius’s coins all
show him facing right; one denarius of Septimius attributed to Emisa has a
left-facing bust, as does an aureus and a denarius of him said to be from
Laodicea, and one denarius of Geta from the same series.103 The only other
eastern coins with left-facing busts are two aurei of Elagabalus attributed to
Antioch.104 Of course Antioch, like the other Syrian mints, was much less
restrained in its use of obverse busts in its tetradrachm coinage: these coins
show the emperor laureate or radiate quite indiscriminately, and they quite
often have left-facing busts as well (see Chapter 4).105 Furthermore, under
Gordian’s successor, Philip, Antioch was to strike a large number of radiates
with left-facing busts.
Rome, too, sometimes struck coins with left-facing busts: examples are
known for Septimius,106 Caracalla,107 Geta,108 Elagabalus109 and
Alexander.110 The one thing that these coins have in common is that none
of them are denarii: they are either aurei, silver quinarii, or asses or dupondii.
The imperial women of this period are shown with left-facing busts rather
more frequently than the men: there are instances for Julia Domna,111 Julia
Soaemias,112 Julia Mamaea113 and Tranquillina.114 All these coins are
of bronze.

103 RIC 376 (denarius, Emisa), 518a (aureus, Laodicea), 511b (denarius, Laodicea) and
106b (Geta, denarius, Laodicea).
104 RIC 193 and 196A.
105 A R Bellinger, The Syrian Tetradrachms of Caracalla and Macrinus, Numismatic
Studies 3, New York, 1940.
106 BMC SC 348 (aureus).
107 BMC C 135, 149 and 174 (all aurei).
108 BMC SC 799 and 837 (both dupondii or asses).
109 BMC 222B and 228 (both quinarii).
110 BMC 166 (quinarius) and 402 (as).
111 BMC SC 796 (dupondius or as) and C 216 (sestertius).
112 BMC 386 (dupondius or as).
113 BMC 54 (dupondius), 538 and 732 (small medallions).
114 RIC 341b (as).

106
 What, therefore, distinguishes the use of left-facing busts at the eastern
mints from that at Rome, is that while both centres of production only use
them very sparingly, when they are used in the east they occur on the staple
coin, be it the denarius or the radiate, whereas at Rome such busts seem to
be reserved for the minor denominations, typically the quinarius, as or
dupondius.
Left-facing busts have long attracted the attention of collectors simply
because the coins that have them are so obviously different from the general
run of issues, but it is very doubtful whether there is any wider significance in
their appearance, although attempts have been made to formulate a single
theory that accounts for them all.115 Such attempts seem to me
fundamentally misconceived since the engraving of left-facing busts on coins
was little more than a fashion that a particular mint might indulge in from
time to time.

12. Reverse types

A. Introduction
The radiates have a total of 49 different reverse designs; in addition
there are twojare classified as doubtful, and two that occur on aurei. This is
at first sight a bewildering quantity, but they fall into 11 broad groups
according to their legends: Aequitas, Concordia, Fides, Jupiter, Liberalitas,
Pax, Providentia, Roma, Spes/Salus, Victoria and Virtus, plus the dated types.
Most of these groups include several different designs. The coins with the
dated inscriptions have the following subjects for their designs: Gordian (in
five different guises), Concordia, Fortuna, Jupiter, Libertas/Liberalitas,
Providentia, Serapis, Sol, Mars/Soldier and Victoria and these coins will be
discussed together with those with descriptive legends.

115 One such theory is that coins with left-facing busts were intended as donatives: this
seems to me to be much too simplistic an explanation since these busts appear in fits and
starts and not regularly as one would expect if they were donatives. Another theory is that
they were produced by left-handed die-engravers: this is rather facile, but, I think, more
plausible.

107
B. Aequitas
The following varieties occur:

(a) AEQVITAS AVG, standing left holding scales and cornucopiae (nos. 2-4, 45).
(rf AEQVITAS AVGVSTI, same type as (a) (no. 6). / ilo
AEQVITAS AVG, standing left holding scales and transverse sceptre (no. 5). J to

Type (a), which occurs on all but two of the coins, is also found on
Roman coins of the third issue (RIC 34) and so its appearance at Antioch is
of no particular significance. AEQVITAS AVG was, in fact, one of the stock
Roman coin designs;116 the legend could sometimes be lengthened to
AEQVITAS AVGVSTI, especially on bronze coins, so this variety too is of
little interest.117
The specimen with Type (c), showing Aequitas holding a sceptre
instead of a cornucopiae, is more unusual: the type had not been used since
the time of Vespasian, when it appears on several of his aurei and denarii, and
it was not to be used again.118 In this case, then, the engravers of the
Antioch mint either used an archaic design, presumably copying a coin of
Vespasian, or they simply confused it with another type.

C. Concordia
This type appears in several variations: on an aureus, and on radiates
in five different forms, as follows:

(a) CONCORDIA AVG, seated left, holding patera and cornucopiae (no. 7).
(b) CONCORDIA AVG, seated left, holding patera (no. 8).
(c) CONCORDIA AVG, standing left, sacrificing over an altar and holding a cornucopiae
(no. 1A, aureus, and nos. 9-10)
(d) CONCORDIA AVG, standing left, holding a globe and a transverse sceptre (no. 11).
(e) P M TR P II COS P P, standing left, holding patera and cornucopiae (no. 38)

Type (a) was also used in Gordian’s third issue at Rome (RIC 35) with
the difference that at Rome Concordia is always shown holding a double

116 It had been used most recently by Severus Alexander (BMC 328ff. etc.) and Maximinus
(BMC 232f.).
117 Most recently by Severus Alexander: BMC 333ff.
118 BMC Vespasian 16ff, p. 70*, 377ff and 383ff; also p. 64, 44 (Vespasian for Titus). A
variant showing Aequitas holding a vertical instead of a transverse sceptre appears on coins
of Titus, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius.

108
cornucopiae, w hereas at Antioch she holds a single one. Severus A lexander’s
eastern denarii also depict Concordia with a single cornucopiae, although at
R om e she generally has a double o ne.119 This is a good exam ple of how,
w hen the engravers at A ntioch copied a R om an design, w hether u n d er
G ordian or one of his predecessors, they often ten d ed to get small details
wrong. Type (b) just com pounds the erro r by om itting C oncordia’s patera: | Co v ►sw.Ce>^
although three coins from th ree different dies occur with this variety, I suspect
th a t it is just a mistake.
Type (e) is the sam e as (a), except th at C oncordia is standing rath e r
than seated, and it occurs on one specim en with the legend P M T R P II COS
P P. It presents a problem since it is only known from a description in an
early-nineteenth century catalogue and it is impossible to be certain about the
mint to which it belongs.120 M attingly attributed it to R om e in RIC, although
with some hesitation, as it does not fit into the p attern of issues th e re .121 For
this reason, I believe it to be m ore likely that it belongs to Antioch, if it exists
as described. In any case the design is unrem arkable: it had occurred twice for
Septim ius Severus, possibly for Maximinus, and was to ap p ear again for
T rebonianus G alius and Volusian (with a double cornucopiae).122
Types (c) and (d) are m ore im portant: (c) is found on seven specim ens,
including one with a left-facing bust, while (d) is known from two coins. Type
(c), which is quite similar to a com mon Pietas type,123 had previously
ap p eared (with the inscription C O N C O R D IA ) for Aquilia Severa and also for
hybrid coins of Septim ius Severus and Caracalla, although in all those cases
C oncordia holds a double cornucopiae.124 The type, therefore, is an unusual
one and again the A ntiochene engravers have altered it slightly so as to

119 B M C 1050-2.

120 (P Caronni], M usei Hedervarii, Vienna 1814, (the catalogue o f the Wiczay collection)
no. 2315.

121 RIC 32.

122 Septimius: R IC 103 and 314; Maximinus: RIC p. 152; Trebonianus Gallus: R IC 19A
etc.

123 Except that Pietas holds a box instead of a cornucopiae.

124 Aquilia Severa: R IC 225-7; Septimius: RIC 313; Caracalla: RIC 318.

109
produce a new variety. It was to be used again by Valerian and Gallienus at
Viminacium.125 The fact that this type is so unusual helps to confirm the
Antiochene attribution of the aureus with this design (no. 1A).
Type (d), which shows Concordia holding a globe and a transverse
sceptre, is an example of a common habit of the mint of Antioch at this time,
that is engraving the wrong design for the legend. The globe and sceptre are
the attributes not of Concordia, but of Providentia, and no. 50, which has the
same design with the legend PROVIDENTIA AVG, is an example of this.
This type (with PROVIDENTIA AVG) occurs in Gordian’s first issue at
Rome (RIC 4).

D. Fides
There are four varieties:

(a) FIDES MILITVM, Fides standing left, holding vertical standard and transverse sceptre
(nos. 12-12A).
(b) FIDES MILITVM, Fides standing left, holding vertical standard and cornucopiae (nos.
13-14A).
(c) FIDES MILITVM, Fides standing left, holding vertical standard in each hand (no. 15).
(d) FIDES MILITVM, Fides seated left, holding vertical standard and cornucopiae (no. 16).

FIDES MILITVM was a very common reverse design in the third

century, reflecting the military character of the times. All four types are
recognized variants of Fides, although (b) and (d) are rather unusual. Type
(a), the commonest of the four, was also used in the first issue at Rome (RIC
1) and so calls for no comment here, although it was the first time that Fides
was shown thus; (c) was one of the most familiar depictions of Fides: parallels
may be be found on coins of Caracalla (RIC 266) and Maximinus (RIC 7A,
18A, 43 and 78-80).
Types (b) and (d) are essentially the same, except that on (b) Fides is
standing and on (d) she is seated; the former variety is found on considerably
more coins than the latter, and it also occurs with left-facing busts. For (c) the
only parallel is a denarius of Commodus with the reverse legend P M TRP

125 E M Besly and R F Bland, The Cunetio Treasure, London, 1983, no. 762 (CONCORD
EXERC).

110
XVII IMP VIII COS VII P P: the identification of the figure on this coin with
Fides is probable but not certain.126 The only previous occurrence of type
(d) was, interestingly, on denarii of Severus Alexander from Antioch.127 It
seems very likely that these were the source of Gordian’s type.

E. Fortuna
Fortuna only occurs on one coin, with the inscription P M TR P II COS
P P (no. 39). She is shown standing left holding a rudder and a cornucopiae:
this was one of the commmonest portrayals of Fortuna in the Severan period,
and it had most recently appeared on denarii of Severus Alexander from
Antioch, also with dated reverses.128 We shall see below (p. 121), that this
type was also used at Antioch with the incorrect legend of PROVIDENTIA
AVG.

F. Gordian
All but one of the coins that depict the emperor are dated, most of
them coming from his second tribunician year (P M TR P II COS P P), but
there is also one from the preceding year (P M TRI P CON P P). The one
coin with a descriptive legend is the aureus with ADVENTVS AVG (p. 93).
Gordian is shown in five different ways:

(a) P M TRI P CON P P (no. 29) and P M TR P II COS P P (no. 33), Gordian veiled,
standing left, holding patera over altar and short baton.
(b) P M TR P II COS P P (no. 33A), Gordian in military dress, standing left, right hand
raised and holding long vertical spear or sceptre in his left hand.
(c) ADVENTVS AVG (no. 1, aureus); P M TR P II COS P P (nos. 34-5); VICTORIA AVG
(no. 61), Gordian riding left on horseback. He has his right arm raised and holds a transverse
sceptre in his left hand.
(d) P M TR P II COS P P (no. 36), Gordian standing right in a quadriga going right, holding
the reins in his right hand and an eagle-tipped sceptre in his left hand.
(e) P M TR P II COS P P, (no. 37), Gordian, Pax and Victory (for full description, see
below).

126 BMC 316ff.

127 BMC 1071 (FIDES EXERCIV), cf. RIC 279; and BMC 1072 (FIDES MILITVM).
128 BMC 1006, 1026ff, RIC 263 (P M TR P COS); and BMC 1042, RIC 268 (P M TR P
II COS P P).

I ll
 The first design is one of the most common depictions of the emperor
on coins of this period and examples may be found for most of Gordian’s
predecessors.129 It is also found on coins of the third series at Rome
inscribed P M TR P II COS P P (RIC 37 etc.). The Antiochene coins with this
type have the legend P M TRI P CON P P, so, assuming that the dates of the
respective coin legends can be taken at face value, the type was used at
Antioch first and then copied at Rome, unless it is thought that the coins with
the legend P M TRI P CON P P were struck during Gordian’s second
tribunician year (p. 101). This has important repercussions for the
interpretation of the other Antiochene coin types that copy Roman designs
which will be discussed below (p. 125f.).
Type (c), the Adventus type, which occurs with the legend ADVENTVS
AVG on the aureus (no. 1) and with P M TR P II COS P P and VICTORIA
AVG on radiates (nos. 34-5 and 61), has been discussed in a previous section
(p. 91, 95f.). The one feature worth commenting on here is that it is unusual
to find this type without the legend ADVENTVS AVG. In fact there is no
clear example from before the time of Gordian, but it did occur at Rome in
the following year when we find the same design on aurei, denarii and bronze
coins with the inscription P M TR P III COS P P.130
The unique coin that shows Gordian standing left with his right arm
raised and holding a vertical spear or sceptre in his left hand (Type (b), no.
33A) has no exact parallel on Roman coinage, and is another example of how
the Antiochene engravers often made considerable use of their own
imagination in creating coin designs. The figure is closest to the representation
of Severus Alexander on dupondii with the inscription RESTITVTOR MON
S C: these show the emperor, bare-headed and in military dress, standing left,
extending his right arm and holding a vertical sceptre in his left hand.131 The
type is quite similar to Gordian’s, except that the emperor’s hand is bent

129 The type had been used most recently by Severus Alexander: BMC 258ff. etc.
130 RIC 80, 81 and 295.
131 RIC 601, BMC 546-50; there is also possibly a sestertius with this reverse, but it has
not been confirmed: RIC 600, BMC 546n.

112
downwards instead of upwards. Otherwise this design has some similarities
with the denarii of Severus Alexander from Antioch which have the legend
P M TR P COS [P P] and show a figure which has been identified as Mars,
who wears the same dress and has the same pose as on Gordian’s coin, except
that instead of raising his right hand he holds a branch in it.132 The
difference between an arm that is raised and one that is extended downwards
or one that holds a branch is not very great and Gordian’s might well have
been copied from one or other of Alexander’s coin designs.133
Type (d), also known from a single radiate, shows Gordian in triumphal
procession riding in a quadriga moving right. This was a common enough coin
type at this period, and it had been used most recently by Alexander and
Maximinus; Gordian’s coin is particularly similar to Alexander’s bronze coins
dated TR P VIII.134 A variation on this design with the quadriga going left
was also used by the mint of Rome on bronze medallions with the obverse
IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG.135 It was subsequently to used by
the mint of Rome on coins and medallions dated to Gordian’s fourth
tribunician year: these were, however, probably copied from the Roman issues
of his predecessors rather than from the Antiochene type.136 It is tempting
to interpret it as a reference to Gordian’s triumphal entry into Antioch in May
239.
The most remarkable variety is Type (e), which is probably the most
unusual of all the reverse types used on Gordian’s coinage from Antioch. The

132 BMC 1007ff, RIC 262; and BMC 1025 and 1032, RIC 266.
133 One may also compare a type which occurs for Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus
which show them in a similar pose with their right arm raised and holding a spear in their
left hand except that they are surrounded by four standards: BMC 1238ff. and 1256ff.
134 Alexander: BMC 11 and 318 (quadriga left); BMC 320 (quadriga right, but Victory
crowns emperor); BMC 575-86 (the same as Gordian’s type). Maximinus: BMC 55 (quadriga
right, but Victory behind emperor).
135 F Gnecchi, I medaglioni romani 2, p. 90, no. 28: Gnecchi reads the reverse legend as
PONTIFEX MAX TR P COS P P, which would mean that it was earlier than the Antiochene
radiate; however, the reading is not clear and might well be TR P II.
136 These coins (RIC 135, 139 and 320) show the quadriga going left and the emperor
being crowned by Victory as does BMC 55 of Maximinus; the medallion (Gnecchi, I
medaglioni romani 2, p. 90, no. 32) also shows the quadriga left but omits Victory.

113
scene, more elaborate than any of the others, shows three figures: in the
centre Gordian, togate, sits on a curule chair facing left. Behind him stands
Victory placing a wreath on his head, while in front of him stands a female
figure, presumably Pax, who offers Gordian a branch which he grasps in his
right hand. One would normally only expect to find a scene of this complexity
on a larger coin such as a medallion or a sestertius rather than on a radiate,
but I can find no exact parallels for it on earlier Roman coinage. Closest,
perhaps, is the type that was used on a special issue of medallions and asses
struck to commemorate Alexander’s decennalia in 230. The inscription, P M
TR P VIIII COS III P P [S C], is similar to Gordian’s and the design shows
the seated emperor being crowned by Victory as on Gordian’s type except that
Virtus is substituted for Pax (pi. 4, 8 [medallion] and 9 [as]).137 An earlier
series of medallions with portraits of Alexander and Mamaea together also
have a slightly similar scene.138 Lastly, it jagain interesting to note that a L^
more warlike version of this design was later to appear on asses and
medallions of Gordian from Rome. These types are not dated, but they have
as their obverse legend IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, and the reverses
again show the emperor seated left being crowned by Victory, while in front
of him stands a Virtus and there are two standards behind.139
Perhaps it is irrelevant to search for purely numismatic precedents for
this scene. Representations showing the emperor, seated, being crowned from
behind by Victory with another figure or figures standing in front of him are
a commonplace in imperial iconography: one of the earliest examples can be
found on the richly decorated scabbard known as the ‘Sword of Tiberius’ in
the British Museum.140

137 BMC 661-S (asses), 669 (AV medallion) and 670-1 (AE medallions).
138 FELICITAS TEMPORVM, Alexander seated left being crowned by Victory; before
him stand Felicitas and another female figure: BMC 539-41.
139 The asses read VIRTVS AVGVSTORVM (RIC 326, pi. 4, 9) and the medallions
VICTORIA AVG (F Gnecchi, I medaglioni romani, 2, p. 92, 44-8): these designs could well
have been copied from Alexander’s decennalian type.
140 GR 1866.8-6.1. The scene shows a figure, identified as Augustus, seated left shaking
hands with another figure, perhaps Tiberius, standing right; behind Augustus Victory stands
left; see S Walker and A M Burnett, Augustus. Handlist of the exhibition and supplementary

114
G. Jupiter
Jupiter appears on two types of radiates:

(a) IOVI CONSERVATOR1, seated left; at his feet, an eagle (no. 17).
(b) P M TR P II COS P P, seated left holding a thunderbolt and sceptre; at his feet, an eagle
(no. 40).

Type (a) is only known from an incomplete description in the catalogue

of the Wiczay collection and its attribution to Antioch is not certain.141
However, a type showing Jupiter seated is not otherwise known at Rome, and
its similarity to Type (b) which definitely does belong to Antioch, makes it
probable that it belongs there too, if it exists as described. This design,
showing Jupiter seated with a thunderbolt but without an eagle, was common
enough down to the time of Commodus,142 whereas in the Severan era it
became normal for Jupiter to be accompanied by an eagle but for him to hold
a Victory instead of a thunderbolt.143 Here again the Antiochene die-
engravers had slightly altered the normal way of depicting Jupiter Conservator,
thus creating a new variety.

H. Liberalitas/Libertas
There are three variations of this type:

(a) LIBERALITAS AVG, standing left holding pileus and transverse sceptre (nos. 18-19).
(b) LIBERALITAS AVG II, standing left holding abacus and cornucopiae (no. 20).
(c) P M TR P II COS P P, same type as (a) (no. 41).

Type (b), which also occurred at Rome, is an orthodox representation

of Liberalitas, while (a) and (c) are distinctly unusual. Liberalitas was a
common subject for coin designs at this period, appearing on the issues of all
of Gordian’s predecessors (except for Gordian I and II) as far back as
Hadrian. The inscription could either read LIBERALITAS AVG on its own,
or it could be followed by a number which recorded an imperial congiarium

studies, B M Occasional Paper 16, London, 1981, pp. 49-55 and p. 4, 2.

141 Op. cit., n. 120.
142 Commodus: BMC p. 71211, 151, 182, p. 812 and p. 821*.
143 Most recently for Elagabalus: BMC 326ff.

115
or distribution, as with Type (b). Gordian’s Roman coins record his second,
third and fourth Liberalities but not his first; LIBERALITAS AVG II appears
on coins of issue 3 with the legend IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG
(p. 68). It needs to be said that type (b) is only known at Antioch from a
single rather poorly preserved specimen, which might possibly belong to
Rome.
All the other Liberalitas coins at Antioch show a female figure holding
a pileus and sceptre. These are the attributes not of Liberalitas but of Libertas
and this shows once again how unfamiliar the Antiochene die-engravers were
with standard Roman coin-designs. Of course the confusion between
Liberalitas and Libertas is easily made, particularly by workmen for whom
Latin was a foreign language.144 It is significant in this context that there are
denarii of Septimius Severus attributed to Laodicea which combine the legend
LIBERTA AVG with the design of Liberalitas who stands left, holding an
abacus and cornucopiae.145 Later, eastern die-engravers were to produce
denarii in the name of Severus Alexander with the inscription LIBERITAS
AVG showing Libertas holding a pileus and sceptre.146 This confusion, then,
is very characteristic of the mint of Antioch when it struck Roman
denominations.

I. Mars/Soldier/Virtus
This heading includes the following types:

(a) PAX AVGVSTI, Soldier, helmeted and in military dress, standing left, holding branch in
right hand and vertical spear in left hand (nos. 25-7).
(b) PAX AVGVSTI, Soldier, helmeted and in military dress, standing left, holding branch in
right hand and vertical spear in left hand; at feet, to left, rests a shield (no. 28).
(c) P M TR P II COS P P, Soldier, helmeted and in military dress, standing right with knees
bent, holding transverse spear (points forward) in right hand and small round shield in left
hand (no. 42).
(d) VIRTVS AVG, Soldier, helmeted and in military dress, standing left, holding shield which
rests on ground in right hand and vertical spear (points down) in left hand (no. 63).
The following coin is doubtful:

144 A U Stylow, Libertas und Liberalitas. Untersuchungen zur innenpolitischen Propaganda

der Romer, Diss. Munich, 1972.
145 RIC 482, BMC (Wars of Succession) 446-7.
146 RIC 284; BMC 1036n.

116
(e) P M TR P II COS P P, Soldier, helmeted, but otherwise naked but for chlamys over
shoulder, advancing right, holding a spear in right hand and a trophy over left shoulder (no.
65).

It is difficult to identify the figure on these coins; he is similarly dressed

on all of them, and on type (d) he is named as Virtus. Works of reference
such as RIC or BMC have often been rather vague as to the identity of the
person who accompanies the legend VIRTVS AVG, naming him variously as
Virtus, Mars, a soldier, or the Emperor. In his recent Dictionary, Jones accepts
that there was such a personification as Virtus, but in the absence of certainty
it seems better just to refer to the figure as a soldier.147 Of course, the
figure is even harder to identify when the coin has a non-descriptive legend,
as is the case with Types (c) and (e), or an inscription that is actually
misleading, as with Types (a) and (b). Here, too, ‘soldier’ is the safest
description.
The first two types both have the legend PAX AVGVSTI. There can
be no doubt that they do not belong with this legend since Pax is invariably a
female personification (see below under Pax) and there is no parallel for a
male figure in military dress occurring with this legend. Clearly, then, these
types may be classified with the others that have inappropriate combinations
of type and legend (see above, p. 79f.).
Type (b), which has the same design as the one which accompanied the
VIRTVS AVG coins of issue 3 at Rome, had not been used before, although
Caracalla’s type MARTI PACATORI shows Mars with the same attributes,
a branch, spear and shield, but in a different pose.148 Type (c), on the other
hand, which only differs from (b) in omitting the shield, had appeared quite
frequently before the time of Gordian: it occurs for Commodus and Septimius
Severus, with a helmeted but otherwise naked figure and the legend MARS

147 J M Jones, A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins, London, 1990, pp. 322-3. One
possible method of distinguishing between Virtus and Mars could be that while Virtus is
always shown fully clothed, Mars is naked, except for a chlamys draped over his shoulder. On
this basis Types (a) - (d) depict Virtus and (e) Mars.
148 Mars stands right, with his head left, holding a branch in his right hand, and a shield
and spear in his left: RIC 222 = BMC SCG 81ff.

117
PACATOR.149 Severus Alexander issued a type that was identical to
Gordian’s on several occasions, accompanied either by a dated legend or by
the inscription MARTI PACIFERO.150 It is perhaps significant that the type
is also found, with a dated inscription, on Alexander’s eastern denarii.151
Type (c), which shows a soldier standing right, with a spear and small
round shield, is exactly the same as the design that is found on coins 01^ |£
Severus Alexander with the inscription MARS VLTOR [S C].152 It was also
to be used, with the legends MARS PROPVG[NAT] and MARTEM
PROPVGNATOREM, on Gordian’s later radiate issues from Rome.153
Type (d), which depicts a soldier standing left with a shield and spear,
also appears for Gordian at Rome, in this case on coins of the first issue. This
is a common enough representation at this time and it had most recently
occurred (also with the legend VIRTVS AVG) on the coinage of Gordian I
and II.154 Before that, it had been used, with dated legends, by Severus
Alexander.155 It is characteristic of the mint of Antioch that it should add
an exaggeratedly large tip to the spear on some coins, while on others the
spear has no point at all. The Roman coins, by contrast, generally give the
spear a small point.
The last variety listed above, (e), depicts a soldier, helmeted, but
otherwise naked, advancing right holding a spear and trophy. The only record
of this coin is a description by d’Am6court in 1886, and Mattingly suggests that

149 Commodus: BMC 256 etc.; Septimius: RIC 33 = BMC W p. 31*; also BMC W 82f.
150 RIC 6-7 and 388-9 (P M TR P COS P P [S C]); RIC 36-7 (P M TR P III COS P P);
RIC 474-5 (P M TR P VII COS II P P S C); RIC 488 (P M TR P VIII COS III P P S C); RIC
159-61 and 585 (MARTI PACIFERO [S C]).
151 RIC 262 = BMC 1007 and 1025 (P M TR P COS); RIC 266 = BMC 1032 (P M TR
P COS P P).
152 BMC 830ff., 839ff. and 975f. = RIC 158, 207, 245ff., and 635ff.
153 RIC 145-7 and 162; the type was later copied on the Antiochene coinage of
Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian, RIC 84 and 219.
154 Gordian I: BMC 17-17A = RIC 6 corr. (mistakenly describes the reverse design as on
type (b), in fact the type is the same as Type (d)) and RIC 14; Gordian II: BMC 30-2 = RIC
3 and 8.
155 P M TR P VII COS II P P: RIC 75; P M TRP X COS III P P: RIC 107-8.

118
it is likely to be a hybrid; another possibility is that it is a plated copy.156 In
any case its attribution to Antioch, rather than to Rome, is by no means
certain, but is made simply because it does not belong to the pattern of issues
at Rome. The type was one of the standard representations of Mars and it was
used several times, with dated legends, by Severus Alexander.157

J. Pax
Radiates with the inscription PAX AVGVSTI have five different
designs, three of which show a female figure who is clearly intended to
represent Pax, while the other two (nos. 25-8) which show a male figure in
military dress have been discussed under ‘Mars/Soldier/Virtus’. The Pax types
are as follows:

(a) PAX AVGVSTI, Pax standing left, holding branch and transverse sceptre (nos. 21-2).
(b) PAX AVGVSTI, Pax standing left, holding wreath and transverse sceptre (no. 23).
(c) PAX AVGVSTI, Pax standing left, holding branch and cornucopiae (no. 24).

Pax, like Liberalitas, was one of the stock themes of Roman coins and
most of the emperors of the 50 years preceding Gordian’s reign issued coins
depicting her. The commonest representation of Pax in the third century
showed her standing left holding an olive-branch and transverse sceptre as on
Type (a). This design was also used in Gordian’s first issue at Rome and it had
previously been used by Severus Alexander, Maximinus and Gordian I.158
The other two varieties of Pax were more novel. Type (c), showing Pax
with a cornucopiae instead of a sceptre is unusual, but not new: it occurred on
an unconfirmed denarius of Elagabalus from Rome;159 before then the type
appeared for Clodius Albinus on denarii at Lugdunum,160 while it was the

156 Ponton d’Amecourt in ASFN 1886, pp. 162-3; RIC 29.

157 BMC 246ff., 352ff., 407ff. and 45Iff.
158 Alexander: RIC 26 etc.; Maximinus: RIC 12 etc.; Gordian I: RIC 2.
159 Its reverse legend is P M TR P III COS III P P: RIC 29, cited from Cohen 161, where
it is incompletely described. It has not been confirmed since and in BMC Mattingly describes
it as very doubtful (p. 557).
160 Reverse legend: PAX AVG COS II (RIC 32).

119
normal representation of Pax on coins of the first and second centuries.161
So the use of this type at Antioch was an archaism, rather similar to the
AEQVITAS AVG type with Aequitas holding scales and sceptre (see above
p. 108).
Type (b), on the other hand, has no parallel in Roman coinage. The
wreath was an attribute not of Pax but of Victory or Laetitia; neither of them
normally carried a sceptre as well. The only possible previous occasion on
which Pax was shown with a wreath was on a denarius of Divus Vespasian, the
reverse of which has the legend PON MAX TR P COS II and shows a woman
who has been identified as Pax seated left holding a wreath. However, since
this coin is said to be plated, it can hardly be taken as a parallel.162 In
engraving type (b) the Antiochene craftsmen once again showed their
ignorance of Roman conventions.

K. Providentia
(a) PROVIDENTIA AVG, standing left, holding globe and transverse sceptre (no. 50).
(b) P M TR P I P COS P P, same type as (a) (no. 31)
(c) P M TR P II COS P P, same type as (a) (nos. 43-6).
(d) PROVIDENTIA AVG, standing left, holding baton and vertical sceptre; at feet, globe
(no. 51).
(e) PROVIDENTIA AVG, standing left, holding rudder and cornucopiae (no. 52).
(f) PROVIDENTIA AVG, standing left, holding corn-ears over altar and cornucopiae (no.
53).
(g) PROVIDENTIA AVG, standing left, holding corn-ears over altar and anchor (nos. 54-5).

Providentia had first occurred as a personification on coins of Trajan

and was a frequent theme on coin designs from then until the reign of
Constantine. Most commonly she is shown leaning on a column with one or
more of the following attributes: a sceptre, globe, cornucopiae or rudder.
Types (a) and (c) also occurred in Gordian’s first and second issues at Rome
respectively, while (b) also has the same design. This is in fact the first
appearance of this particular representation of Providentia with the legend
PROVIDENTIA AVG, although it had been used (with the legend

161 The type was first used by Augustus (BMC 605ff.) and occurred for all emperors from
Nero to Commodus.
162 BMC p. 250, 9.

120
AETERNITAS) on the coinage of Diva Faustina I.163 It was also to become
common under Gordian’s successors.164 It is clearly an adaptation of Type
(d) which shows Providentia holding a baton and sceptre, with a globe at her
feet. This was the normal representation of Providentia in the second and
early third centuries, appearing from the reign of Hadrian onwards.165 The
type had most recently occurred on coins of Severus Alexander from both
Rome and Antioch .166
Type (e), which shows ‘Providentia’ holding a rudder and cornucopiae,
has no parallel on earlier Roman coinage because these are the attributes not
of Providentia but of Fortuna. We have already met this type with the legend
P M TR P II COS P P, and its antecedents are discussed above (p. I l l , 112).
Types (f) and (g) are clearly borrowed from coins of Severus Alexander
which are also inscribed PROVIDENTIA AVG, but, in typical Antiochene
fashion, the engravers have not copied the earlier coins closely, thus
demonstrating their ignorance of the meaning of the design. Alexander had
struck two issues of coins in gold, silver and bronze, with the legend
PROVIDENTIA AVG, showing a figure standing left holding corn-ears over
a modius in her left hand and either an anchor or a cornucopiae in her
right.167 These are the attributes of Annona, not Providentia, and it is
unclear why Alexander’s Roman die-engravers should have confused the two.
However, when the Antiochene engravers copied these two types, they
misunderstood the corn-ears that Annona held over a modius and instead
showed her holding something that often looks like a branch over an object
that is clearly an altar.168 RIC further confused matters by attempting to

163 BMC Antoninus Pius 286ff., 1419ff., 1458ff. and 1559f.

164 E.g., Hostilian, RIC 221; Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian, RIC 23 etc.
165 E.g., Hadrian, BMC 302 etc.; Marcus Aurelius, BMC 439 etc.; Septimius Severus, RIC
92 etc.
166 Rome: BMC 110 (legend: PROVID DEORVM) and RIC 173 = BMC 138-40
(PROVIDENTIA AVG); Antioch: RIC 294-6 = BMC 1061-2 (PROVID DEORVM).
167 RIC 251-2 and 645-7 = BMC 812-7 (anchor); RIC 249-50 and 642-4 = BMC 874-93
(cornucopiae).
168 Indeed on one coin (no. 53/13) Annona holds this object up and not down, so that it
looks just like the flower that Spes carries.

121
distinguish between coins of Gordian with a modius (RIC 198) and those with
an altar (RIC 197). Indeed, on some pieces, this object does have some
resemblance to a modius, its sides tapering upwards, but on all coins it clearly
has a flame coming out of it and on most it is long, narrow and straight-sided
like an altar, so it seems sensible not to try to make any distinction. As for the
other attributes that Annona carries, either a cornucopiae (Type (f)) or an
anchor (Type (g)), these at least are correctly copied from Alexander's
prototypes.

L. Roma
There is just one type: ROMAE AETERNAE, Roma, helmeted, seated
left on throne, besides which rests a shield, holding a Victory on globe and
sceptre (nos. 56-7). This design, which had been used by most of Gordian’s
immediate predecessors, was also struck in his third issue at Rome and so
requires no further discussion.169 It is significant that it had also appeared
on Severus Alexander's issues of denarii attributed to Antioch .170

M. Serapis
(a) PON M TRI P CON P P, Serapis, with modius on head, standing left with right arm
raised and holding transverse sceptre in left hand (no. 32).
(b) P M TR P II COS P P, same type as (a) (no. 47).

Serapis, the god created by Ptolemy I for his Greek and Egyptian
subjects, first appears on coins in the reign of Hadrian.171 He is first shown
in this pose on denarii of Commodus.172 Gordian’s coins were very probably
copied from the most recent coins to depict Serapis which were Caracalla's

169 Elagabalus: RIC 1 etc.; Severus Alexander: RIC 175, 602-6, Gordian I: RIC 3-4 and
10; Gordian II: RIC 5.
170 RIC 270 = BMC 1063-6; RIC 272 = BMC 1081.
171 Together with Hadrian, Sabina and Isis: BMC p. 339+ and p. 489*. He had figured
on the coinage of Alexandria since the time of Nero.
172 SERAPIDI CONSERV AVG, BMC 359ff. and 684: Serapis’s sceptre is vertical on
these coins.

122
annual issues of denarii and radiates of 212-7.173 These, like Gordian’s types,
combine the emperor’s titles with the same representation of Serapis, which
had by this time become the standard one. It may be noted that these two
types of radiates contain the only references to Serapis on Gordian’s coinage,
and that this god was not to reappear on coinage until the reign of Gallienus.
His appearance on these coins might indicate a local, Syrian, interest in the
god.

N. Sol
(a) P M TRI P CON P P, Sol, naked but for chlamys over left shoulder, standing left with
right arm raised and holding globe in left hand (no. 30).
(b) P M TR P II COS P P, same type as (a) (no. 48).

The cult of Sol, like that of Serapis, was a relatively recent arrival in
Rome, and it was only after Septimius Severus’s reign that Sol starts appearing
regularly on Roman coins.174 Of course, Elagabalus did a great deal to
promote the worship of the stone of Emisa, which was sacred to Sol, and his
coins are full of references to this god. Sol was also a frequent subject on
Severus Alexander’s coinage and the sun god appears in the same pose as on
Gordian’s radiates on coins of Alexander issued between 228 and 233.175
This was one of the three or four standard representations of Sol on Roman
coinage and these types would not have been out of place at Rome.

O. Spes/ Salus
There are two types:

(a) SALVS AVGVSTI, Spes walking left, holding flower and raising skirt (no. 58).
(b) SPES PVPLICA, same type as (a) (no. 59).

There can be no doubt that the figure in type (a) is Spes, even though
the legend refers to Salus.176 The design shows Spes walking left holding a

173 RIC 193 etc.

174 Sol appears in this pose on coins of Caracalla (RIC 245 etc.).
175 RIC 76 etc. (AV and AR); RIC 503 etc. (Aes).
176 The attributes of Salus are: a sceptre, a patera, a feeding snake, and occasionally a
rudder or ears of grain; never does she carry a flower or raise her skirt.

123
flower and raising her skirt which is quite unmistakeable since no other
personification is ever shown like this. Once again, we see the die-engraver’s
unfamiliarity with Roman coin designs. It might not be coincidence that the
legend SALVS AVGVSTI last occurred on Severus Alexander’s eastern
denarii (although these had a normal Salus type) . 177
Spes was a common coin design of the early third century: among
Gordian’s immediate predecessors it had occurred for Pescennius, Septimius
and his family, Diadumenian, Elagabalus (at Antioch) and Severus
Alexander.178

P. Victoria
(a) VICTORIA AVG, Victory advancing left, holding wreath and palm (no. 60).
(b) VICTORIA AVG, Emperor riding left on horseback with right arm raised and holding
transverse sceptre in left hand (no. 61).
(c) VICTORIA AVG, Victory standing right in biga going right. She holds the reins in her
left hand and possibly her right hand as well (no. 62).

Type (b) is the normal Adventus type and it has been discussed above
(p. 95f.): one feature that is worth noting here, however, is that it is extremely
unusual to find this type with the legend VICTORIA AVG, just as it is also
rare to find it with P M TR P II COS P P. This would seem to make it more
likely that these two types, together with the ADVENTVS AVG aureus, were
struck on the occasion of an imperial visit to Antioch.
Type (a) is the most common representation of Victory: it had occurred
most recently on coins of Severus Alexander (including his eastern issues),
Maximinus, Gordian I and II and Pupienus.179 It also appeared in Gordian’s
first issue at Rome. In the catalogue I note several different ways in which
Victory is depicted on the Antiochene coins: on some she almost appears to
be standing with her knees straight although most show her running with knees

177 BMC 1014ff.

178 Pescennius: RIC 3ff.; Septimius: RIC 437 etc.; Domna: RIC 614 etc.; Caracalla: RIC
5 etc.; Geta: RIC 4 etc.; Diadumenian: RIC 114-7; Elagabalus: RIC 173 and 199-199A;
Alexander: RIC 253 etc.
179 Alexander: RIC 180 etc. (Rome), RIC 300ff. (Antioch); Maximinus: RIC 74 (legend:
VICTORIA GERMANICA); RIC 12 (Gordian I); RIC 2 and 7 (Gordian II) and RIC 8
(Pupienus)

124
bent. This in contrast to the Roman prototypes which consistently show
Victory running.
Type (c), showing Victory in a biga, is rather more unusual. It must
have been copied from the VICTORIAE AVGG issues of Septimius Severus
and his sons, which have exactly the same design and which were struck in all
three metals between about 208 and 211 to commemorate their British
victories.180 Although this is the most likely prototype for Gordian’s issue,
the design showing Victory in biga had first been used by Augustus and then
again in the Civil Wars of 68-9, but not since.181 The re-use of this type by
Gordian reinforces the military nature of this Antiochene coinage.

Q. The sources of the reverse types

This discussion has focused on the likely sources of the varied
repertoire of reverse types that are found on Gordian’s Antiochene radiates.
As we have already seen, many of the types also occurred in Gordian’s first
three issues at Rome. It has always been assumed by those who have discussed
this series that the Antiochene types were copied the Roman ones, and no
doubt this was true in most cases. We have, however, already seen that at least
one type appears to have occurred at Antioch before it did at Rome: this is
the design that shows Gordian sacrificing. At Antioch it was accompanied by
the legend P M TRI P CON P P, dating it to his first tribunician year, whereas
at Rome it had the legend P M TR P II COS P P, placing it in the following
year. 182 Therefore if this one type was actually used at Antioch before
Rome, might not the same be true for other undated types? It is, of course,
impossible to be certain on this point, but the possibility exists (see above, p.
101 and p. 1 1 2 ).

180 Septimius Severus: RIC 300, 813, 817, 829; Caracalla: RIC 170, 463, 476; Geta: RIC
55, 139 and 143.
181 Augustus: BMC 592f.; Civil Wars: BMC p. 293+.
182 Of course, it needs to be remembered that this was a very common type, as we have
seen (above, under Gordian), and its appearance at Rome the year after it had been struck
at Antioch might be entirely coincidental.

125
 As regards those types which did not also occur in Gordian’s Roman
coinage, many of them can be paralleled in the coinage of his immediate
predecessors, particularly Severus Alexander, who struck a greater variety of
types than most emperors at this period simply because of his relatively long
reign. Although there do not seem to be many obvious borrowings from the
earlier eastern coinages of Pescennius Niger or Septimius Severus and his
family, there does seem to be a remarkably high proportion of types from
Alexander’s eastern issue of denarii of 222-3 that were used again in Gordian’s
coinage. .Of the 11 types or legends that occurred for Alexander, all but two
can be paralleled more or less closely on Gordian’s coins.183 This seems too
many to be a coincidence.
For the rest, we have seen how many of the types in this series are
inappropriate for their legends (p. 79), and how many have unfamiliar or
archaic representations of the personifications involved. All these features are
consistent with the attribution of this coinage to Antioch.

R. The message of the reverse types

Mattingly comments as follows:

There is a considerable wealth of types, although the volume of coinage does not
appear to have been great.... A few themes are selected for special emphasis and
illustrated by a variety of types. Such are ‘Concordia Aug.’, ‘Fides Militum’, ‘Pax
Augusti’, ‘Providentia Aug.’ and ‘Victoria Aug.’. Most of these subjects are already
familiar from the mint of Rome. The types of ‘Providentia Aug.’ and ‘Fides Militum’
probably point directly to preparations, military and otherwise, to meet the menace
of Sapor.
Some details of type are unusual and interesting. Concordia with globe and sceptre
is assimilated to Providentia. The cornucopiae is a curious attribution for Fides
Militum: does it link up supply to military service? The play on words ‘Liberalitas’ -
‘Libertas’ is very clearly shown by the giving to Liberalitas of a normal Libertas type.
‘Pax Augusti’ is represented by a type of ‘Virtus Pacifera’ - a revelation of the powers
that uphold Roman peace. Providentia is represented not only by her normal types,
but also by types borrowed from Fortuna and Annona. It is probably the vital
question of supply that chiefly concerns imperial Providence at this moment - supply
so brilliantly organized later by Timesitheus for the Emperor’s triumph and so
shamefully disorganized by Philip for his ruin.184

183 These are NOBILITAS, Nobilitas standing right, and PIETAS AVG, Pietas sacrificing
left.
184 RIC p. 13.

126
 I would take issue with Mattingly over some his interpretations of the
unusual types at Antioch. For example, I doubt whether the confusion between
Liberalitas and Libertas or the depiction of Fides with a cornucopiae were
deliberate but simply a reflection of the ignorance or carelessness of the die-
engravers. However, Mattingly does note some of the subjects that are
emphasized by these reverse types, such as Providentia. I would remark on
three points of emphasis in this coinage:
(a) There is a marked stress on Gordian himself: he is depicted in five
different ways, four of which are out of the ordinary. In particular, we may
note the Adventus type which appears under three different legends, the
design showing him riding in triumph in a quadriga which is unusual on a
radiate and, lastly, the scene that shows him together with Pax and Victory is
unique.
(b) Many of the types are of an overtly military nature, especially those
with Victory, Soldier and Fides. Most remarkable is the type with the legend
VICTORIA AVG which shows Victory in a biga (no. 62); the two varieties of
PAX AVGVSTI which show a soldier (nos. 25-8) are also notable.
(c) Mattingly has rightly drawn attention to the many different designs
that appear with the legend PROVIDENTIA AVG and in particular those
that depict Fortuna and Annona. These could well refer to preparations for
a military expedition.
None of these features can be paralleled on the contemporary coinage
of Rome, although types from later in the reign do show Gordian in a variety
of military guises. To conclude, these designs are consistent with a visit to
Antioch by Gordian in 239 and preparations for a campaign against the
Persians which was finally mounted in 242-4.

127
13. The die-study

A. Introduction: the methods

Table 8 presents a summary of the results of the die-study, indicating
firstly the number of coins of each bust type or reverse type, then the number
of dies, the number of ‘non-singletons’ (i.e., the number of coins whose dies
are represented by more than one coin), and the breakdown of the dies (i.e.,
the number of dies represented by a single coin, by two coins and so on). The
last three columns of the table give the results of two alternative methods of
estimating the total number of dies: first of all there is a ‘spot’ estimate
derived from Good’s equation and then there is an estimation of the
‘coverage’ of the sample. This second method has the advantage of giving an
assessment of the margin of error and in the final column I give the estimated
‘range’ obtained in this way. The methods used to produce these estimates
have been discussed in Chapter 1.

B. Calculated separately and calculated together

For both the obverses and the reverses I have made the calculations
separately for each bust variety or reverse type, but I also present the
estimated die-statistics calculated together for the obverses and reverses. The

Thble 8: Die statistics

1. Obverses

Bust Coins Dies N-S Die breakdown •Good’ Coverage Range

D2 326 255 125 201x1; 43x2; 665 38.3% ±4% 601.7 - 743.4
7x3; 2x4; 2x5
D1 4 2 4 2x2 2 100% 2
B21 8 2 7 lxl; 1x7 2.3 87.5% ±11.7% 2 - 2.6
D ll 17 5 17 2x2; 1x3; 2x5 5 100% 5

Total 355 264 153 202x1; 47x2; 8x3; 674.3 610.7-753

2x4; 4x5; 1x7
Calculated together 612.5 43.1% ±3.8% 5619 - 671.8

128
2. Reverses

No. Reverse Coins Dies N-S Breakdown ‘Good’ ‘Good’

Coins
2-4 AEQ VITAS AVG 46 44 4 42xl;2x2 506 11
5 AEQ VITAS AVG 1 1 - lxl
6 AEQ VITAS AVGVSTI 1 1 - lxl
7 CONCORDIA AVG 16 14 3 13x1;1x3 74.7 4.7
8 CONCORDIA AVG 3 3 - 3x1
9-10 CONCORDIA AVG 7 5 4 3xl;2x2 8.8 1.3
11 CONCORDIA AVG 2 2 - 2x1
12-2A FIDES MILITVM 17 17 - 17x1
13-4A FIDES MILITVM 17 14 4 13xl;lx4 59.5 3.5
15 FIDES MILITVM 1 1 - lxl
16 FIDES MILITVM 3 3 - 3x1
17 IOVI CONSERVATORI 1 1 - lxl
18-19 LIBERALITAS AVG 26 23 6 20xl;3x2 99.7 3.8
20 LIBERALITAS AVG II 1 1 - lxl
21-2 PAX AVGVSTI 39 33 11 28x1 ;4x2; 1x3 117 3
23 PAX AVGVSTI 2 1 2 1x2 1 [0.5]
24 PAX AVGVSTI 2 2 - 2x1
25-7 PAX AVGVSTI 7 3 7 2x2; 1x3 3 [0.4]
28 PAX AVGVSTI 2 1 2 1x2 1 [0.5]
29 P M TRI P CON P P 3 1 3 1x3 1 [0.3]
30 P M TRI P CON P P 1 1 - lxl
31 P M TR P IP COS P P 1 1 - lxl
32 PON M TRI P CON P P 1 1 - lxl
33 P M TR P II COS P P 1 1 - lxl
33A P M TR P II COS P P 1 1 - lxl
34-5 P M TR P II COS P P 12 7 7 5x1; 1x3; 1x4 12 1
36 P M TR P II COS P P 1 1 - lxl
37 P M TR P II COS P P 2 1 2 1x2 1 [0.5]
[38 P M TR P II COS P P 1 1 - lxl]
39 P M TR P II COS P P 1 1 - lxl
40 P M TR P II COS P P 3 2 2 lxl; 1x2 3 1
41 P M TR P II COS P P 1 1 - lxl
42 P M TR P II COS P P 1 1 - lxl
43-6 P M TR P II COS P P 42* 35 12 30xl;3x2;2x3 122.5 2.9
47 P M TR P II COS P P 2 2 - 2x1
48 P M TR P II COS P P 2 2 - 2x1
49 P M TR P II COS P P 1 1 - lxl
50 PROVIDENTIA AVG 6 5 2 4x1; 1x2 15 2.5
51 PROVIDENTIA AVG 5 4 2 3x1; 1x2 10 2
52 PROVIDENTIA AVG 8 6 4 4xl;2x2 12 1.5
53 PROVIDENTIA AVG 13 10 6 7xl;3x2 21.7 1.7
54-5 PROVIDENTIA AVG 4 2 3 lx l;1x3 2.7 [0.7]
56-7 ROMAE AETERNAE 14 11 6 8xl;3x2 25.7 1.8
58 SALVS AVGVSTI 1 1 - lxl
59 SPES PVPLICA 1 1 - lxl
60 VICTORIA AVG 11 10 2 9xl;lx2 55 5
61 VICTORIA AVG 3 1 3 1x3 1 [0.3]
62 VICTORIA AVG 2 2 - 2x1
63 VIRTVS AVG 16 15 2 14xl;lx2 120 7.5
Total 355 299 99 256x1;32x2; 1273.3 + 50 x 3.4
9x3; 2x4 = 1443.3
Calculated together 1072.2 or 27.9% ±3.3%, Le., 959.3 - 1182.7dies
* 1 coin excluded from die-study.

129
 Xable 9: Obverse die-links

(a) Different reverses only 2/16 = 7/7 = 18/15 & 18

2/5 = 44/5 = 63/12 2/27 = 7/11 = 29/1-3
4/2 = 19/1 = 46/1 4/1 = 10/1 = 46/2-4
7/1 = 21/17 = 53/13 18/12 = 37/1-2 = 44/12
9/6 = 16/2 = 44/20
3/17 = 34/4 & 8
2/1 = 43/3 15/1 = 18/1 & 8
3/1 = 8/1 27/1 = 35/1-4
3/7 = 12/14 44/2 = 60/7 & 10
3/24 = 44/26 12/15 = 53/7 & 10 (die-identical)
3/10 = 44/34
3/42 = 44/22
3/9 = 47/2 (c) Same reverses only
3/36 = 53/6 3/3 & 34
3/32 = 56/2 12/9 & 17
3/4 = 56/3 18/14 & 23
3/38 = 56/12 21/30 & 37
7/14 = 21/22 43/1 & 2
7/8 = 63/13 44/4 & 32
9/1 = 25/2 61/1 & 2
12/6 = 16/1 63/4 & 6
13/12 = 53/4 18/2 & 5 (die-identical)
14A/1 = 57/1 18/38 & 39 (die-identical)
18/21 = 53/1 21/2 & 9 (die-identical)
21/27 = 34/7 21/33 & 34 (die-identical)
21/12 = 41/1 21/35 & 36 (die-identical)
21/1 = 50/1 23/1 & 2 (die-identical)
21/23 = 58/1 25/1 & 3 (die-identical)
39/1 = 44/6 28/1 & 2 (die-identical)
52/2 = 60/9 40/1 & 3 (die-identical).
60/6 = 63/11 53/5 & 8 (die-identical)
53/3 & 9 (die-identical)
55/1 & 2 (die-identical)
(b) Different and same 56/3 & 7 (die-identical)
reverses together 56/14 & 15 (die-identical)
7/3 = 9/5 = 13/9 = 34/1-2
12A/1 = 14/1-3 = 22/1-2 (die-identical) =
26/1

130
advantages and disadvantages of this method have been examined in Chapter
1. To summarize, it can be useful to make a joint calculation when the
individual obverse or reverse varieties produce no die-links and so do not
permit these calculations to be made. The drawback of this technique is that
if one variety is over-represented by comparison with the other varieties, then
it will produce a distorted result. This is the case both with the obverses and
the reverses of the present coinage. The left-facing obverse busts are much
better represented in the sample than the coins with the normal D2 bust
because they are sought after by collectors on account of their rarity and so
are more likely to be found in museums and dealers’ lists. Equally, there is no
need to make a joint calculation for the obverse dies since it is perfectly
possible to perform accurate calculations for each bust variety separately.

C. The problem of the reverses

However, the reverses present a problem since there are so few shared
reverse dies that many quite sizeable reverse types do not have any die-links
at all and it is impossible to make any calculations from them. Indeed, even
those reverse types for which there are die-identities often have so few that
the calculations are very imprecise. For example, the FIDES MILITVM
reverse (nos. 12-12A) is known from 18 coins, 17 of which are included in the
die-study and have no shared reverse dies at all. The AEQ VITAS AVG type
(nos. 2-4) is little better: there are 46 coins and the only reverse die-identities
are two die-pairs, giving an estimated total of 506. In fact, it is only possible
to make sensible die-estimates of about half of the reverse types.
In these circumstances a single estimate calculated together for all the
reverse dies has considerable attractions. The drawback with this method,
however, is that some of the more unusual and scarce reverse types are better
represented than the more common ones and as a result they have a higher
proportion of die-links and so distort the joint calculation. For example, the
12 coins with the unusual reverse P M TR P II COS P P, Gordian on
horseback left (nos. 34-5), produced one die that is known from four coins,
one from three coins and five dies that are only known from one specimen.
Likewise, the three coins that had the same design with the inscription

131
VICTORIA AVG (no. 61) all came from the same reverse die. Both these
types have much higher proportions of die-identities than the run-of-the-mill
AEQVITAS AVG type, as we have seen. For this reason, a single joint
estimate based on all the reverses added together will give a distorted result.
I have sought to arrive an estimate without making a joint calculation
in the following way. First, I have made calculations for all those reverse types
which have produced at least one die-link. I have then attempted to make an
estimate of the proportion of die-links that these types have by dividing the
estimated total number of dies by the total number of coins. The result is
given in the column headed ‘"Good" over Coins’. I have then taken the
average of these results, which is 3.4 (the individual figures vary from 11 to
less than one), and multiplied this by the total number of coins which come
from reverse types that do not have any die-links (50). This figure (3.4 x 50 =
170) has then been added to the cumulative total of the estimates of those
types for which the calculations could be made (1273.3) to give a total
estimated number of reverse dies for this coinage of 1443.3. This compares
with a figure of 1072.2 produced by the joint calculation. There seems little
doubt that the higher figure of 1443 is to be preferred, even though it has
been obtained by a very circuitous method. Clearly, though, it is only a very
approximate figure and not too much weight should be placed on it.

D. The obverse statistics

The obverses produced a much higher proportion of die-links than the
reverses, and so the estimates can be made with a reasonable degree of
accuracy. The first point to note is that the coins with unusual and left-facing
busts have the most die-links: there is only one coin out of the 29 with the D l,
B21 or D ll busts that does not share its die with another specimen. In other
words there are probably no new obverse dies to be discovered with these rare
busts. The incidence of die-identities is much lower among the much more
numerous coins with the normal, D2, bust. A total of 326 specimens are
known with this bust and a total of 255 dies have been observed. The estimate
indicates that these 255 dies are probably less than half of the total that were

132
originally made, since it suggests that there was a total of 665 dies, with a
likely range of between 602 and 743. This is a fairly limited range, at least
when compared with the figure for the much larger second radiate issue.
Therefore, the total estimated number of obverse dies used in this
coinage was 674, with a probable minimum of 611 and a maximum of 753.
This is* means that it was a substantial coinage, between the tetradrachms and
the later radiate issues in size. The first series of tetradrachms had an
estimated total of 205 dies, the second, 12+ and the third, 98 (Chapter 4). On
the other hand, the second series of radiates, minted between 242 and 244,
was considerably larger at 2279 obverse dies (Chapter 5).

E. Obverse die-links
It has been noted above that many reverse types are linked by common
obverse dies and in Tables 4 and 5jillustrate these links. Table 9, on the other
hand, provides a complete list of the obverse die-links. The significance of the
die-links between the different reverse types and the light they throw on the
structure of this coinage has already been discussed (p. 81f.).
One feature that emerged from the die-study was that when a obverse
die-identity was observed it was as likely to be with a coin with a different
reverse type as with one with the same reverse. There were altogether 153
‘non-singletons’, that is coins whose obverse die is shared with another coin.
Of these 80 were die-linked to coins with different reverse types and 73 to
specimens with the same type. In addition, out of these 153 non-singletons, 32
also shared the same reverse die, in other words were die-identical (Table 9).
These figures have some implications for the internal organization of the
mint during this coinage. It would seem that the obverse and reverse dies were
often kept together because almost half of the die-links that occur are between
coins with the same reverse variety (Table 9). If the obverse and reverse dies
were completely intermixed and the die-linking between them was completely
random then one would find only a few obverse die-links between coins with
the same reverse type.
 So it would appear that there was some attempt to keep the same
obverse dies together with a particular reverse type. However, this attempt
was a half-hearted one for 52% of obverse die-links were between coins with
different reverse types. The general impression that this gives, then, is that the
mint was rather loosely, not to say sloppily organized at this time. In fact this
is consistent with the sense of carelessness that one gains from the many
mistakes in inscriptions and designs (see pp. 79ff.).

F. The ratio of obverses to reverses

We have already seen that it is much harder to make an accurate
estimate of the total number of reverse dies, mainly because they produce so
many fewer die-links, but also partly because there are many more varieties.
We have also seen that the estimated total number of dies was 1443; this
means that over twice as many reverse as obverse dies were used and the
precise the* ratio of obverse to reverse dies was 1:2.14. This compares with a
ratio of 1 :1 .6 in the case of the second series of radiates and with ratios of
1:3.65, 1:1.67 and 1:10.01 for the three series of tetradrachms from Antioch.
Although these ratios vaiy greatly, two points emerge: first, in all cases
more reverse than obverse dies were used, and secondly, the difference is
smaller for the radiates than for the tetradrachms. In fact it is now a well-
known characteristic of Syrian coinage generally that many more reverse than
obverse dies were used and the fact that the present series of radiates
conforms to this pattern helps to confirm its Antiochene attribution.185

185 This will become apparent from the section dealing with the Syrian coinage in A
Burnett, M Amandry and P P Ripolles, Roman Provincial Coinage 1, B.M. forthcoming. C J
Howgego, ‘Coinage and Military Finance: the Imperial Bronze Coinage of the Augustan East’,
NC 1982, pp. 1-20, includes a die-study of a series of Syrian bronze of Augustus with reverse
AT/CA: from a sample of 26 coins he observed 2 obverse dies and 19 reverse dies. The same
phenomenon occurred at Alexandria: in an as yet unpublished die-study of the tetradrachms
of Septimius Severus and Julia Domna from Years 2,3 and 4, R Bickford-Smith has estimated
that there were a total of 245 obverse dies and 799 reverse dies.

134
14. The evidence of finds

A. The unreliability of the evidence

Although a large number of the coins in the die-study have hoard or site
provenances, the catalogues of these finds are only of very limited value
because of the difficulty of distinguishing the products of the two mints from
each other, in the case of those reverses that occur at both Rome and
Antioch. In Chapter 8 details are given of all the coins of Gordian from 75
hoards and 6 sites across the Empire, from Britain to Syria, but only those
coins of the first series which have reverses that are not found at Rome can
safely be identified in -the most of these lists (Appendix 1, Table 4). Even
when a cataloguer has tried to make a distinction between the two mints this
cannot necessarily be relied on, as is the case with Le Gentilhomme’s study of
the Nanterre hoard (p. 15). For this reason all coins that I have not myself
seen are placed in square brackets in the catalogue below and also in Thble
1.
For example, it is clear from the present collection of material that one
of the commonest reverse types at Antioch is AEQ VITAS AVG (nos. 2-4)
with a total of 46 coins included in the die-study, but since this type also
occurs at Rome (RIC 34) most catalogues do not distinguish the Antiochene
coins. Therefore the only coins of this type listed in Table 4 of Appendix 1 are
those of which I have a photograph, and there can be no doubt that the
correct total should be much higher. On the other hand, those coins of the
first series with reverse types that do not occur at Rome are generally
correctly identified in hoard reports and so the coins listed in Table 4 have a
heavy bias towards these types, such as LIBERALITAS AVG (no. 18, 20
specimens) and the various PROVIDENTIA AVG types (nos. 52-4, 17
specimens).

B. The evidence for the distribution of the first series of radiates

An accurate record of the total number of coins from the first series at
AntiocW available from only eight hoards: these include four from Britain, one
from Romania and one from Turkey that I have examined myself and two
from Austria in which every coin is illustrated. In Table 10 the quantity of
coins from the first series at Antioch is compared with that of the first three
issues at Rome. Two of the British hoards (Chalfont St Peter and Oliver’s
Orchard) only provide negative evidence in that they did not produce any
coins of Antioch at all, while the quantity of coins in the ‘Prince Napoleon’
find is too small to allow any conclusions to be drawn. This leaves the
Stevenage hoard which produced three Antiochene pieces to 34 Roman ones,
or 8 .8 %.

Thble 10: Proportion of coins of first series from Antioch

from eight hoards

Britain Austria Romania Turkey

Nap St Ch OO 7It Ap Bd Ha
Antioch 1 3 0 0 4 0 3 16
Rome 5 34 15 14 24 2 24 136
% 20.0 8.82 0.00 0.00 16.67 0.00 12.50 11.76

Key

Nap: ‘Prince Napoleon hoard’ TU: TUlln

St: Stevenage Ap: Apetlon
Ch: Chalfont St Peter Bd: Baldwin’s hoard
OO: Oliver’s Orchard Ha: Haydere

The proportion is twice as high in the Tulin hoard from Austria at 16.7%
(the Apetlon hoard is too small to count), while the two remaining finds, from
Romania and Haydere in Caria respectively, give rather lower figures of 12.5%
and 11.8%. At first sight it is surprising to find that coins of Antioch should be
more common in Austria than in Romania or Turkey, until it is remembered
that the total numbersjcoins of Antioch are so low that the figures are unlikely
to be very reliable. Only the Haydere hoard with 16 coins of Antioch and 136
of Rome offers a reasonably large sample and if this find is anything to go by
it shows that the first series of radiates from Antioch only accounted for a
relatively small proportion of total supply of radiates even in an area within

136
400 miles #ast of Antioch. It would have been interesting to have had similar
statistics for finds from Dura or Antioch itself.

15. Weights

Table 11 presents the salient facts concerning the weights of the first
series of radiates from Antioch, comparing them with the contemporary coins
of the mint of Rome with the legend IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS
AVG. In addition, Figures 1-3 present this information as histograms.
Since there is absolutely no evidence for any change in the weight
standard during the course of this coinage at either Antioch or Rome the
figures for all the types from each mint have been dealt with together. The
weight standard in operation at the two mints differs only very slightly, by 0.08
grams to be precise. We shall see in Chapter 5 that the same weight standard
was maintained during the striking of the second series of radiates between
242 and 244, since these coins averaged 4.32 grams in their first issue and
slipped very slightly in the second issue to 4.25 grams.

Table 11: Summary of Weights at Antioch and Rome, AD 238-9

Mint Qty. Range o f weights Median Mean

Antioch 317 2.60g - 5.77g 4.34g 4.34g
Rome 369 2.75g - 6.33g 4.41g 4.42g

Note: the figures for Rome are taken from the Singidunum, Smyrna and Stevenage hoards
and also from the coins in Glasgow.

We shall see in Chapter 7 that the radiate issues of the two mints
seem to contain more or less the same amount of silver, and we can now add
that their weight was roughly the same as well. This means that the
Antiochene coinage was not overvalued in relation to the Roman issues, as

137
was the case in later reigns.186 That the Antiochene radiates were not
regarded as being in any way less valuable than the Roman coins is also
suggested by the fact that they do not seem to have been discriminated against
in coin hoards and indeed they occur in finds all over the Empire (Chapter 8 ).

16. Die-axes

Die-axes of 267 coins were noted and the results are summarized in
Table 12. As was the case with the weights, there is no evidence that the axes
of coins of any individual reverse type showed any particular pattern and so
the figures for all the coins are given together. The great majority (91.8%) had
a regular axis, either vertical (12 o’clock, 55.8%) or inverted (6 o’clock, 36%),
with a clear preference for the vertical. In addition, a few coins had an axis
that was aligned slightly differently, departing a little either from the vertical,
at 11 and 1 o’clock, or from the inverted, at 5 and 7 o’clock, but these only
accounted for 8 .2 % of the total.

Thble 12: Die-axes

Die-axis (o’clock) 5 6 7 11 12 1 Total

Quantity 4 96 7 4 149 1 267
Percent 7.5 36.0 2.6 1.5 55.8 2.6

186 For example, Walker’s analyses show that Antiochene radiates of Trebonianus Gallus
and Volusian contain an average of 0.76g of silver (16 coins analyzed) compared with 1.31g
in his Roman issues (88 coins), an overvaluation of 58%. Decius’s much rarer radiates from
Antioch also seem to contain less silver than their Roman counterparts: two coins analyzed
by Walker gave an average weight of silver of 1.21g, compared with 1.65g at Rome. See D R
Walker, The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage 3, pp. 44-7. Before Gordian, eastern
denarii seem to have been as fine as Roman ones: this is the case with Septimius Severus’s
and Severus Alexander’s issues, while the denarii of Elagabalus that are attributed to an
eastern mint actually seem to contain more silver than their Roman equivalents. See Walker,
op. cit., pp. 3ff.

138
 This pattern of die-axes, with most coins either having a six or twelve
o’clock axis except for a few which deviate slightly, is similar to that of
Rome .187 The only difference is that Rome showed no preference for a
vertical over an inverted axis, for its coins seem to have had either one axis or
the other quite randomly. We may also note that the second series of radiates
from Antioch also seems to have a random pattern of six or twelve o’clock
die-axes, although in this case there are rather more coins with an inverted
than a vertical axis (264 against 220: see Chapter 5). There is no obvious
reason why more coins of this series of radiates should have had a vertical
rather than an inverted axis.

187 For a discussion of die-axes of coins of Gordian see S K Eddy, The Minting o f
Antoniniani A.D. 238-249 and the Smyrna Hoard, A.N.S. Notes and Monographs 156, New
York, 1967, pp. 55 and 66ff. i qg
 R n tio ch : u e ig h ts of r a d ia te s of 238-9
Quant i ty

2 .6 3 3 .4 3 .8 4 .2 4 .6 5 5 .4 5 .8 6 .2

Ueight (grams)
F ig u re 2
Rome: u e ig h ts o f ra d ia te s o f 238-9
Quant i ty

2 .6 3 3 .4 3 .8 4 .2 4 .6 5 5 .4 5 .8 6.2

Ueight (grams)
F ig u re 3
Radiates o f 238-9:
Rome and R ntioch compared
Q u a n tity
120
100

[ M l Rome
IRntioch

Ueinht (grams)
140
 Table of obverse die-links

D1 AEQVITAS AVG (stg. 1, scales and cornucopiae)

1 = 43/3 (P M TR P COS II P P).

D2 AEQVITAS AVG (as 2)

16 = 7/7 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 18/15 & 18 (LIBERALITAS AVG);
27 = 7/11 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 29/1-3 (P M TRI P CON P P);
5 = 4 4 /5 (P M TR P II COS P P) = 63/12 (VIRTVS AVG);
1 = 8/1 (CONCORDIA AVG);
7 = 12/14 (FIDES MILITVM);
1 7 = 34/4 & 8 (P M TR P II COS P P);
24 = 44/26 (P M TR P COS II P P);
1 0 = 44/37 (P M TR P II COS P P retrograde);
42 = 44/22 ( P M TR P II COS P P);
9 = 47/2 (P M TR P II COS P P);
36 = 53/6 (PROVIDENTIA AVG);
32 = 56/2 (ROMAE AETERNAE);
4 = 56/3 (ROMAE AETERNAE);
38 = 56/12 (ROMAE AETERNAE);
3 & 34.

D ll AEQVITAS AVG (as 2)

1 = 10/1 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 46/2-4 (P M TR P II COS P P).
2 = 19/1 (LIBERALITAS AVG) = 46/1 (P M TR P II COS P P).

D2 CONCORDIA AVG (std. 1., patera and cornucopiae)

3 = 9/5 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 13/9 (FIDES MILITVM) = 34/1-2
(P M TR P II COS P P);
7 = 3/16 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 18/15 & 18 (LIBERALITAS AVG);
11 = 3/27 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 29/1-3 (P M TRI P CON P P);
1 = 21/17 (PAX AVGVSTI) = 53/13 (PROVIDENTIA AVG);
14 = 21/22 (PAX AVGVSTI);
8 = 63/13 (VIRTVS AVG).

D2 CONCORDIA AVG (std. 1., patera)

1 = 3/1 (AEQVITAS AVG).

D2 CONCORDIA AVG (stg. 1., patera over altar and cornucopiae)

5 = 7/3 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 13/9 (FIDES MILITVM) = 34/1-2 (P
M TR P II COS P P);
6 = 16/2 (FIDES MILITVM) = 44/20 (P M TR P II COS P P);
1 = 25/2 (PAX AVGVSTI).
10 D ll CONCORDIA AVG (as 9)
1 = 4/1 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 46/2-4 (P M TR P II COS P P).

12 D2 FIDES MILITVM (stg. 1., standard and transverse sceptre)

14 = 3/7 (AEQVITAS AVG);
6 = 16/1 (FIDES MILITVM);
15 = 53/7 & 10 (PROVIDENTIA AVG);
9 & 17.

12A B21 FIDES MILITVM (as 12)

1 = 14/1-3 (FIDES MILITVM) = 22/1-2 (PAX AVGVSTI) = 26/1
(PAX AVGVSTI).

13 D2 FIDES MILITVM (stg. 1., standard and cornucopiae)

9 = 7/3 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 9/5 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 34/1-2
(P M TR P II COS P P);
12 = 53/4 (PROVIDENTIA AVG).

14 B21 FIDES MILITVM (as 13)

1-3 = 12A/1 (FIDES MILITVM) = 22/1-2 (PAX AVGVSTI) = 26/1
(PAX AVGVSTI).

14A D ll FIDES MILITVM (as 13)

1 = 57/1 (ROMAE AETERNAE).

15 D2 FIDES MILITVM (stg. 1., standard in each hand)

1 = 18/1 & 8 (LIBERALITAS AVG).

16 D2 FIDES MILITVM (std. 1., standard and cornucopiae)

2 = 9/6 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 44/20 (P M TR P II COS P P);
1 = 12/6 (FIDES MILITVM).

18 D2 LIBERALITAS AVG (stg. 1., pileus and transverse sceptre)

15 & 18 = 3/16 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 7/7 (CONCORDIA AVG);
12 = 37/1-2 ( P M T R P II COS P P) = 44/12 (P M TR P II COS P P);
1 & 8 = 15/1 (FIDES MILITVM);
21 = 53/1 (PROVIDENTIA AVG);
2 & 5 (die-identical);
38 & 39 (die-identical);
14 & 23.

19 D ll LIBEPALITAS AVG (as 18)

1 = 4/2 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 46/1 (P M TR P II COS P P).

142
21 D2 PAX AVGVSTI (Pax stg. 1., branch and transverse sceptre)
17 = 7/1 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 53/13 (PROVIDENTIA AVG);
22 = 7/14 (CONCORDIA AVG);
27 = 34/7 (P M TR P II COS P P);
12 = 41/1 ( P M T R P II COS P P);
1 = 50/1 (PROVIDENTIA AVG);
23 = 58/1 (SALVS AVGVSTI);
30 & 37;
2 & 9 (die-identical);
33 & 34 (die-identical);
35 & 36 (die-identical).

22 821 PAX AVGVSTI (as 21)

1 & 2 (die-identical) = 12A/1 (FIDES MILITVM) = 14/1-3 (FIDES
MILITVM) = 26/1 (PAX AVGVSTI).

23 D2 PAX AVGVSTI (as 21)

1 & 2 (die-identical).

25 D2 PAX AVGVSTI (Soldier stg. 1., branch and spear)

1 & 3 (die-identical);
2 = 9/1 (CONCORDIA AVG).

26 821 PAX AVGVSTI (as 25)

1 = 12A/1 (FIDES MILITVM) = 14/1-3 (FIDES MILITVM) = 22/1-2
(PAX AVGVSTI).

27 D ll PAX AVGVSTI (as 25)

1 = 35/1-4 (P M TR P II COS P P).

28 D2 PAX AVGVSTI (Soldier stg. 1., branch, spear and shield)

1 & 2 (die-identical).

29 D2 P M TRI P CON P P (Emperor stg. 1., patera over altar and

baton)
1-3 = 3/27 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 7/11 (CONCORDIA AVG).

34 D2 P M TR P II COS P P (Emperor riding 1.)

1 & 2 = 7/3 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 9/5 (CONCORDIA AVG) =
13/9 (FIDES MILITVM);
4 & 8 = 3/17 (AEQVITAS AVG);
7 = 21/27 (PAX AVGVSTI).

35 D ll P M TR P II COS P P (as 34)

1-4 = 27/1 (PAX AVGVSTI).

143
37 D2 P M TR P II COS P P (Emperor, Pax and Victory)
1-2 = 18/12 (LIBERALITAS AVG) = 44/12 (P M TR P II COS P P).

39 D2 P M TR P COS IIP P (Fortuna stg. 1., rudder and cornucopiae)

1= (P M TR P II COS P P).
4 4 /6

40 D2 P M TR P COS II P P (Jupiter std. 1., thunderbolt and sceptre;

eagle at feet).
1 & 3 (die-identical).

41 D2 P M TR P II COS P P (Libertas stg. 1., pileus and transverse

sceptre)
1 = 21/12 (PAX AVGVSTI).

43 DI P M T R P II COS P P (Providentia stg. 1., globe and transverse

sceptre)
1 & 2;
3 = 2/1 (AEQVITAS AVG).

44 D2 P M TR P II COS P P (as 43)

4 & 32;
5 = 3/5 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 63/12 (VIRTVS AVG);
12 = 37/1-2 (P M TR P II COS P P) = 18/12 (LIBERALITAS AVG);
37 = 3/10 (AEQVITAS AVG);
26 = 3/24 (AEQVITAS AVG);
2 2 = 3/42 (AEQVITAS AVG);
20 = 9/6 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 16/2 (FIDES MILITVM);
6 = 39/1 (P M TR P II COS P P).
2 = 60/7 & 10 (VICTORIA AVG).

46 D ll P M TR P II COS P P (as 43)

1 = 4/2 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 19/1 (LIBERALITAS AVG);
2-4 = 4/1 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 10/1 (CONCORDIA AVG).

47 D2 P M TR P II COS P P (Serapis stg. 1., arm raised and sceptre)

2 = 3/9 (AEQVITAS AVG).

50 D2 PROVIDENTIA AVG (stg. 1., globe and transverse sceptre)

1 = 21/1 (PAX AVGVSTI).

52 D2 PROVIDENTIA AVG (stg. 1., rudder and cornucopiae)

2 = 60/9 (VICTORIA AVG).

144
53 D2 PROVIDENTIA AVG (stg. 1., com-ears over altar and
cornucopiae)
13 = 7/1 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 21/17 (PAX AVGVSTI);
6 = 3/36 (AEQVITAS AVG);
7 & 10 (die-identical) = 12/15 (FIDES MILITVM);
4 = 13/12 (FIDES MILITVM);
1 = 18/21 (LIBERALITAS AVG).
5 & 8 (die-identical);
3 & 9 (die-identical).

55 D ll PROVIDENTIA AVG (stg. 1., corn-ears over altar and anchor)

1 & 2 (die-identical).

56 D2 ROMAE AETERNAE (std. 1., Victory on globe and sceptre)

3 & 7 (die-identical);
14 & 15 (die-identical);
3 = 3/4 (AEQVITAS AVG);
2 = 3/32 (AEQVITAS AVG);
12 = 3/38 (AEQVITAS AVG).

57 D ll ROMAE AETERNAE (as 56)

1 = 14A/1 (FIDES MILITVM).

58 D2 SALVS AVGVSTI (Spes walking 1., flower and skirt)

1 = 21/23 (PAX AVGVSTI).

60 D2 VICTORIA AVG (advancing 1., wreath and palm)

7 & 10 = 44/2 (P M TR P II COS P P);
9 = 52/2 (PROVIDENTIA AVG);
6 = 63/11 (VIRTVS AVG).

61 D2 VICTORIA AVG (Emperor riding 1.)

I & 2 (die-identical).

63 D2 VIRTVS AVG (stg. 1., shield and spear)

4 & 6;
12 = 3/5 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 44/5 (P M TR P II COS P P);
13 = 7/8 (CONCORDIA AVG);
II = 60/6 (VICTORIA AVG).

145
 CATALOGUE

Obverse legend: IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG

A. Aurei (bust D2*)

1 ? 1 coin
D2* ADVENTVS AVG Emperor riding 1. on horseback. He
has his r, arm raised and holds a
transverse sceptre in his 1. hand.
RIC 247, C 15
1 Formerly in the de Moustier collection (Catalogue des monnaies
romaines composant la collection de feu M. le Marquis de Moustier,
redige sous la direction de M. H Hoffmann, Paris, 17 June 1872, no.
2817.) It was first described in 1868 in the first edition of Cohen, vol.
VII, p. 246, 3.
Note: this coin and the next are discussed in the introduction
above. Pink condemned it as false (NZ 1935, p. 26), apparently
without having seen it, because it did not fit into his Aufbau.
Loriot (BSFN 1971, pp. 18-21) attributed it to Antioch because
the same type (with P M TR P II COS P P and VICTORIA
AVG) occurs twice on radiates of Antioch (nos. 34-5 and 61),
whereas the Adventus type at Rome is always associated with the
IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG obverse.

1A ? 1 coin
D2* CONCORDIA AVG Concordia standing 1., holding patera
over altar in r. hand and cornucopiae
in 1. hand.
RIC 176, C 60
1 Formerly in P, no weight.
Note: this coin is described in the ‘ancien catalogue’ of P (no.
516) and was stolen in 1831; it has not been recorded since. It
would appear to be from Antioch, as RIC points out, since the
reverse type is only known at Antioch and not at Rome. See
introduction.

B. Radiates (busts D l, D2, B21 and Dll)

2 1 coin
Dl AEQVITAS AVG Aequitas standing left, holding scales
in r. hand and cornucopiae in 1.
RIC -, C -
1* L, 1983-7-4-1 4.13g, 6. Analysis 1987: AR 42.8%
Obv. die-link: 1 = 43/3 (PM TRP COS II P P).

146
3 43 + 1 coins, 42 obv., 42 rev. dies
D2 AEQVITAS AVG As 2.
RIC 177b, C 17
1* V, 57082, 4.39g, 12.
2* V, 57083, 4.38g, 1.
3* V, 57084, 4.22g, 6.
4* V, 57085, 4.35g, 12.
5* V, 70215, 3.72g, 6.
6* V, 57086, 4.80g, 6.
7* L, 1937-4-6-177 (Dorchester hoard), 3.91g, 12.
8* L, 1937-4-6-180 (Dorchester hoard), 3.89g, 6.
9* L, 1937-4-6-181 (Dorchester hoard), 4.49g, 6.
10* L, 1937-4-6-182 (Dorchester hoard), 4.83g, 12.
11* L, 1937-4-6-578 (Dorchester hoard), 4.04g, 12.
12* L, 1924-1-7-167 (Plevna hoard), 3.79g, 12.
13* L, 1924-1-7-99 (Plevna hoard), 3.83g, 12.
14* L, 1988-12-1-14 (Stevenage hoard 252), 4.5 lg, 6.
15* O (Christ Church), 4.17g, 12.
16* O (Godwyn), 4.85g, 6.
17* B, ohne Nummer, 4.61g, 12.
18* H, 7216, 3.5 lg, 12.
19* I, 14688 (Hayderehoard), 3.79g, 12.
20* I, 14693 (Hayderehoard), 4.73g, 12.
21* I, 14695 (Hayderehoard), 4.37g, 12.
22* I, 14698 (Hayderehoard), 5.35g, 6.
23* Clamerey hoard 87, 4.57g.
24* Schweizerische Kreditanstalt Bern 2 (1984), 561 = idem 5 (1986), 494,
4.50g.
25* Lanz 16 (1979), 564, 4.88g.
26* Helbing 80 (1940), 1150 = Munz Zentrum 64 (1988), 559, 4.25g.
27* Elsen FPL 101 (1987), 207 = idem 107 (1988), 79 = idem 115 (1989), 83
= idem 118 (1989), 71, 4.32g.
28* Burgan 7/2/1987, 182, 4.24g.
29* Sternberg 19 (1987), 915, no weight.
30* Tellman FPL 155 (1970), 143 = idem 191 (1973), 255, no weight.
31* Shown at BM, 4.14g.
32* Private collection, Switzerland, 4.13g, 12.
33* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, 4.13g, 12.
34* NY, 1944.100.19937 (Newell ex von Ebengreutz, 1929), 4.10g, 6.
35* NY, 1944.100.19938 (Newell), 4.88g, 12.
36* NY, 1944.100.19939 (Newell), 4.80g, 12.
37* NY, 1944.100.19940 (Newell ex Reka-Devnia hoard, Stack’s, 1939), 5.17g,
12.
38* NY, 1944.100.19941 (Newell ex Wayte Raymond, 1936), 4.06g, 12.
39* NY, 1924.102.1 (Levis ex Plevna hoard), 3.88g, 12.
40* Rocquencourt hoard 131 (pi. 2), no weight, (attributed to Rome).
41* Clermont-Ferrand hoard 1 (pi. 3), 4.92g (attributed to Rome).
42* Nanterre hoard no. 868, no weight (RN 1946, pi. 2, 8).
43* Nanterre hoard no. 318 (attributed to Rome by Le Gentilhomme), no
weight (RN 1946, pi. 2, 3).
[44 Dorchester hoard, no weight. The report says that there were ‘at least’ 6
coins with this type from Antioch of which 5 are in L (nos. 7-11).]

147
 Obv. die-links: 16 = 7/7 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 18/15 & 18
(LIBERALITAS AVG);
27 = 7/11 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 29/1-3
(PM TRIP CON PP);
5 = 44/5 (PM TRP II COS PP) = 63/12
(VIRTVS AVG); 1 = 8/1 (CONCORDIA
AVG);
7 = 12/13 (FIDES MILITVM);
1 7 = 3 4 /4 & 8 (PM TRP II COS PP);
42 = 44/22 (PM TR P II COS PP);
24 = 44/26 (PM TR P II COS PP);
1 0 = 44/37 (PM TR P II COS PP retrograde);
9 = 47/2 (PM TRP II COS PP);
36 = 53/6 (PROVIDENTIA AVG);
32 = 56/2 (ROMAE AETERNAE);
4 = 56/3 (ROMAE AETERNAE);
38 = 56/12 (ROMAE AETERNAE);
3 & 34.
Rev. die-link: 4 & 35.

4 2 coins, 2 obv., 1 rev. die

D ll AEQVITAS AVG As 2.
RIC 177c, C 18
1* B, 391/1926, 5.65g, 6 = Lempertz 237 (1926), 1621 (van Vleuten).
2* Muller 17 (1976), 355, 4.34g.
Obv. die-links: 1 = 10/1 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 46/2-4 (PM
TRP II COS PP).
2 = 19/1 (LIBERALITAS AVG) = 46/1 (PM
TRP II COS PP).
Rev. die-links: 1 & 2.

5 1coin
D2 AEQVITAS AVG Aequitas standing 1., holding scales in
r. hand and transverse sceptre in 1.
hand.
RIC -, C -
1* V, 174611, 3.68g, 6.

6 1 coin, 1 obv. die

D2 AEQVITAS AVGVSTI Aequitas standing 1., holding scales in
r. hand and cornucopiae in 1. hand.
RIC -, C -
1* Lanz, Graz, 5 (1975), 656, ex Trau, 4.36g.

148
7 16 + 9 coins: 16 obv., 14 rev. dies
D2 CONCORDIA AVG Concordia seated 1., holding patera in
r. hand and cornucopiae in 1.
RIC 180, C 48
1* V, 17447, 4.70g, 6.
2* V, 57087, 3.55g, 6.
3* V, 57088, 4.10g, 6.
4* V, 57089, 4.72g, 6.
5* L, 1937-4-6-188 (Dorchester hoard), 4.32g, 6.
6* O (Bodley 362), 4.60g, 12.
7* Br, 57002, 4.76g, 12.
8* I, 14636 (Haydere hoard), 4.90g, 6.
9* Schulten, 11/4/1988, 756, 4.50g.
10* Private collection CLC, Vienna, ex Numismatica Classica SA, FPL 3 (n.d.),
145, 3.65g, 12.
11* Hirsch 151 (1986), 539, no weight.
12* Private collection GH, Texas, no weight.
13* Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 4.14g, 6.
14* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, 4.46g, 6.
15* Nanterre hoard no. 869, no weight (RN 1946, pi. 2, 9).
[16-9 Smederevo hoard 44.]
[20 Singidunum hoard 1217, 4.57g.]
[21 Gorsium hoard 132, no weight. This coin was mistakenly attributed to
Rome by Fitz.]
22 Allonnes I hoard, no weight.]
23 Jagodina-KruSevac hoard, no weight.]
24 Reka-Devnia hoard, no weight.]

Variant: obv.: IMP CAE M ANT GORDIANVS AVG

25* L, 1951-2-4-5, 3.59g, 6.

Obv. die-links: 3 = 9/5 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 13/9 (FIDES

MILITVM) = 34/1-2 (PM TRP II COS PP);
7 = 3/16 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 18/15 & 18
(LIBERALITAS AVG);
11 = 3/27 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 29/1-3 (PM
TRIP CON PP);
1 = 21/17 (PAX AVGVSTI) = 53/13
(PROVIDENTIA AVG);
14 = 21/22 (PAX AVGVSTI);
8 = 63/13 (VIRTVS AVG).
Rev. die-link: 4, 13 & 25.

8 3 + 3 coins: 3 obv., 3 rev. dies

D2 CONCORDIA AVG Concordia seated 1. on throne,
holding patera in r. hand and resting
her 1. elbow on the arm of the throne.
RIC 181, C 57
1* V, 57109, 3.74g, 12.

149
 2* Cop, 12, 4.20g, 6 (doublestruck on the rev.) = RIC 48 (wrongly attributed
to Rome).
3* Rocquencourt hoard 143 (pi. 2), no weight, (attributed to Rome).
4 Edlington Wood hoard, no weight.]
5 Jagodina-KruSevac hoard, no weight.]
6 Schwarzenacker hoard, no weight.]
Obv. die-link: 1 = 3/1 (AEQVITAS AVG).

9 6 coins: 6 obv., 5 rev. dies

D2 CONCORDIA AVG Concordia standing 1., holding patera
over altar in r. hand and cornucopiae
in 1. hand.
RIC 178a, C 58
1* V, 57127, 5.17g, 12.
2* L, 1937-4-6-186 (Dorchester hoard), 4.73g, 12 (analysis 1987: AR 44.1%).
3* L, 1937-4-6-187 (Dorchester hoard), 3.37g, 12.
4* P, 35, 3.74g, 12.
5* NY, 1944.100.19942 (Newell ex Wayte Raymond, 1936), 4.37g, 12.
6* Rocquencourt hoard 601 (pi. 4), 4.00g.
Obv. die-links: 5 = 7/3 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 13/9 (FIDES
MILITVM) = 34/1-2 (PM TRP II COS PP);
6 = 16/2 (FIDES MILITVM) = 44/20 (PM
TRP II COS PP);
1 = 25/2 (PAX AVGVSTI).
Rev. die-links: 3 = 10/1;
4 & 5.

10 1 coin
D ll CONCORDIA AVG As 9.
RIC 178b, C -
1* V, 17443, 3.12g, 12 (= NC 1935 pi. 6, 4).
Obv. die-link: 1 = 4/1 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 46/2-4 (PM
TRP II COS PP).
Rev. die-link: 1 = 9/3.

11 2 coins: 2 obv., 2 rev. dies

D2 CONCORDIA AVG Concordia standing 1., holding globe
in r. hand and transverse sceptre in 1.
hand.
RIC 179, C -
1* V, 57128, 4.99g, 6.
2* Augst 48/64, 3.25g. (H A Cahn in Provincialia: Festschrift fur R Laur-
Belart, Basel, 1969, no. 11 on p. 59.)

150
12 1 7 + 1 coins: 16 obv., 17 rev. dies
D2 FIDES MILITVM Fides standing 1., holding vertical
standard in r, hand and transverse
sceptre in 1. hand.
RIC -, as 1 (mint of Rome), C 8 6
1* V, 17450, 4.40g, 12.
2* V, 57090, 4.00g, 6.
3* V, 57091, 4.35g, 12.
4* V, 57114, 3.82g, 6 (Fides’s sceptre is very f^int on this piece).
5* L, 1937-4-6-211 (Dorchester hoard), 3.96g, 6.
6* L, 1937-4-6-206 (Dorchester hoard), 4.15g, 12.
1* L, 1946-7-7-1, 4.36g, 6.
8* L, 1985-10-40-1, 4.66g, 12.
9* L, 1988-4-17-3 (ex Schulten, 11/4/1988, 763), 4.04g, 12.
10* L, 1988-12-1-15 (Stevenage hoard 253), 4.21g, 6.
11* O (Christ Church), 3.84g, 12.
12* I, 14603 (Haydere hoard), 4.72g, 12.
13* Y ex Dura, Final Report 1200 (pi. 23), no weight.
14* Numismatica Wendt, Vienna, FPL 5 (1975), 280, no weight.
15* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, 4.09g, 12.
16* C (Friends of Fitzwilliam, 1923), 5.32g, 12.
17* Aes Rude S.A., 7/4/1983, 273, no weight.
[18 Tulin hoard 370, 2.52g. Attributed by Gobi to Rome.]
Obv. die-links: 14 = 3/7 (AEQVITAS AVG);
6 = 16/1 (FIDES MILITVM);
15 = 53/7 & 10 (PROVIDENTIA AVG);
9 & 17.
Notes: RIC 182 describes a coin with Fides stg. 1., holding only a
standard: this is based on no. 4, a specimen in L, which I believe
has a sceptre.

12A 1 coin
B21 FIDES MILITVM As 12.
RIC -, C -
1* Canlia hoard 386, 4.92g, 12.
Obv. die-link: 1 = 14/1-3 (FIDES MILITVM) = 22/1-2
(PAX AVGVSTI) = 26/1 (PAX AVGVSTI).
Note: the reverse has been excluded from the die-study.

13 13 + 3 coins: 13 obv., 13 rev. dies

D2 FIDES MILITVM Fides standing 1., holding (vertical)
standard in r. hand and cornucopiae
in 1. hand.
RIC 183a, C 90
1* V,57110, 5.73g, 12.
2* V,57111, 4.05g, 12.
3* V,57112, 4.20g, 6.
4* L,1937-4-6-198 (Dorchester hoard), 3.49g, 12.
5* L,1937-4-6-199 (Dorchester hoard), 4.46g, 6.

151
 6* L, 1937-4-6-200 (Dorchester hoard), 4.59g, 6. (analysis1990:AR 42.2%).
7* L, 1937-4-6-201 (Dorchester hoard), 4.96g, 6 (analysis1987:AR 43.1%).
8* L, 1937-4-6-197 (Dorchester hoard), 4.47g, 12.
9* P,37, 4.48g, 6.
10* Br, 55904 (Beachy Head 1964 hoard), 4.7lg, 6.
11* J, no weight.
12* NY, 1944.100.19943 (Newell ex Wayte Raymond, 1936), 5.07g, 6.
13* Rocquencourt hoard 602 (pi. 4), 4.50g.
[14-5 Smederevo hoard 54.]
[16 Beachy Head 1964 hoard, no weight.]
Obv. die-links: 9 = 7/3 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 9/5
(CONCORDIA AVG) = 34/1-2 (PM TRP II
COS PP);
12 = 53/4 (PROVIDENTIA AVG).

14 3 coins: 1 obv., 1 rev. die

B21 FIDES MILITVM As 13.
RIC 183c, C 91
1* V, 57113, 5.77g, 12.
2 B, ex von Rauch, 3.99g, 11.30.
3 Numismatica Wendt, Vienna, 13 (1976), 1519 = Dorotheum 378 (1977),
206, no weight.
Obv. die-links: 1-3 = 12A/1 (FIDES MILITVM) = 22/1-2
(PAX AVGVSTI) = 26/1 (PAX AVGVSTI).
Rev. die-links: 1-3 (die-identical) = 14A/1.
Note: see note to 14/A.

14A 1 coin
D ll FIDES MILITVM As 13.
RIC 183b, C -
1* Jacquier FPL 12 (1990), 295, 4.38g.
Obv. die-link: 1 = 57/1 (ROMAE AETERNAE).
Rev. die-link: 1 = 14/1-3.
Note: RIC 183b cites a coin in V: this must be 14/1, which has the
bust B21; however, the type can now be confirmed by the Jacquier
specimen.

15 + 1 coins: 1 obv., 1 rev. die

1
D2 FIDES MILITVM Fides standing 1., holding (vertical)
standard in each hand.
RIC 184, C -
1* L, 1927-11-1-42, 3.52g, 12.
[2 Dorchester hoard: this piece was noted by Mattingly in the catalogue but
he did not acquire it for the L and it requires confirmation.]
Obv. die-link: 1 = 18/1 & 8 (LIBERALITAS AVG).

152
 3 + 2 coins: 3 obv., 3 rev. dies
FIDES MILITVM Fides seated 1. on throne, holding
(vertical) standard in r. hand and
cornucopiae in 1. hand.
RIC 185, C 93
1* V, 57129, 3.68g, 12.
2* V, 17452, 4.78g, 12.
3* L, 1986-1-24-20, 4.63g, 12.
[4-5 Caister-by-Yarmouth hoard, no weight.]
Obv. die-links: 1 = 12/6 (FIDES MILITVM);
2 = 9/6 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 44/20 (PM
TRP II COS PP).

coins ?2
IOVI CONSERVATORI Jupiter seated 1.; at his feet stands an
eagle.
RIC -, as 50 (mint of Rome), C 102
1 Wiczay collection 2305. [P Caronni], Musei Hedervarii, Vienna, 1815.
2 Jagodina-KruSevac hoard, no weight.
Note: I have not seen an example of this type and it requires
confirmation, although it has been described from two different
sources. If it does exist, and is not an ancient forgery, it seems
likely that it should be attributed to Antioch rather than Rome,
pace RIC, since this type occurs at Antioch with the legend P M
TR P II COS P P (no. 40), and is not found at Rome.

25 + 14 coins: 20 obv., 22 rev. dies

LIBERALITAS AVG Liberalitas standing 1., holding pileus
in r. hand and transverse sceptre in 1.
hand.
RIC 187a, C 126
1* V, 57130, 4.59g, 12.
2* V, 17459, 5.16g, 6.
3* V, 57131, 4.28g, 12.
4* V, 17460, 5.07g, 12.
5 V, 57132, 4.02g, 12.
6* L, 1844-4-25-1665, 3.48g, 12.
7* L, 1937-4-6-226 (Dorchester hoard), 4.85g, 12.
8* L, 1937-4-6-225 (Dorchester hoard), 4.42g, 12.
9* L, 1937-4-6-224 (Dorchester hoard), 4.54g, 6.
10* O (Bodley 441), 4.45g, 6. Analysis MRSC 3, 4625: AR 45.00%.
11* B, ohne Nummer, 3.79g, 12.
12* B, 252/1907, 4.22g, 12.
13* P, 36, 4.26g, 6.
14* P, 7737, 4.41g, 12 (doublestruck).
15* Br, 53618, 5.12g, 6.
16* Cop, 21, 4.18g, 1.
17* I, 14586 (Haydere hoard), 4.33g, 12.
18* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, 4.56g, 12.
 19* Sternberg 15 (1985), 503, 4.34g.
20* Schulten 11/4/1988, 757, 4.34g = Munz Zentrum 65 (1988), 1122, 3.85g.
Which weight is correct ?
21* Cast in L (G B Pears collection), no weight. This coin is overstruck on a
piece with AEQVITAS AVG and is noted in RIC 23In. The AEQVITAS
undertype comes from the same rev. die as 2/14.
22* NY, 1944.100.19944 (Newell ex Wayte Raymond, 1936), 3.73g, 12.
23* Nanterre hoard no. 870, no weight (RN 1946, pi. 2, 11).
[24-5 Smederevo hoard 65.]
[26 Smyrna hoard 630, 4.74g, 12.]
[27 Smyrna hoard 631, 4.04g, 12.]
[28 Smyrna hoard 632, 4.00g, 12.]
[29 Singidunum hoard 1218, 3.85g.]
[30 Singidunum hoard 1219, 4.36g.j
[31 Beachy Head 1964 hoard, no weight.]
[32 Neuhofen hoard, no weight.]
[33-5 Schwarzenacker hoard, no weight.]
[36 Reka-Devnia hoard, no weight.]
[37 Dura hoard VII, no weight.]

Variant: rev.: LIBEPALITAS AVG

38 Tulin hoard 602, 4.27g.
39* Photo in L, 4.08g, 6.

Obv. die-links: 15 & 18 = 3/16 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 7/7

(CONCORDIA AVG);
12 = 37/1-2 (PM TRP II COS PP) = 44/12
(PM TRP II COS PP);
1 & 8 = 15/1 (FIDES MILITVM);
21 = 53/1 (PROVIDENTIA AVG);
2 & 5 (die-identical);
38 & 39 (die-identical);
14 & 23.
Rev. die-links: 15 & 19;
2 & 5 (die-identical);
38 & 39 (die-identical);
21 is overstruck on a coin with AEQVITAS
AVG and the undertype comes from the same
rev. die as 2/14.

19 1 + 1 coins
D ll LIBEPALITAS AVG As 18.
RIC 187b, C 127
1* L, R0490 (de Salis), 3.88g, 12.
[2 Plevna hoard, no weight. This coin was not acquired by Mattingly for the
British Museum: confirmation required.]
Obv. die-link: 1 = 4/2 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 46/1 (PM TRP
II COS PP).

154
 1 coin
LIBERALITAS AVG II Liberalitas standing 1., holding abacus
in r. hand and cornucopiae in 1.
RIC as 36 (mint of Rome), C 130
1* Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 4.27g, 12.

3 7 + 1 coins: 33 obv., 33 rev. dies

PAX AVGVSTI Pax standing 1., holding branch in r.
hand and transverse sceptre in 1.
hand.
RIC 189a, C 173 corr.
1* V, 57092, 4.70g, 12 (= NC 1935 pl.6, 2).
2* V, 17464, 5.23g, 5.
3* V, 57093, 4.70g, 6.
4* V, 57094, 4.44g, 12.
5* L, 1937-4-6-236 (Dorchester hoard), 4.66g, 12.
6* L, 1937-4-6-239 (Dorchester hoard), 3.91g, 12.
7* L, 1937-4-6-241 (Dorchester hoard), 4.69g, 12. (Analysis 1988: AR 44.2%).
8* L, 1924-1-7-165 (Plevna hoard), 4.21g, 12.
9 L, 1933-2-2-5 (Selsey hoard), 4.06, 6.
10* L, 1982-12-16-1, 4.17g, 6.30.
11* B, ohne Nummer, 4.92g, 12.
12* B, ohne Nummer, 3.68g, 6.
13* O (Kraay, 1950), 3.99g, 11. Analysis MRSC 3, 4626: AR 53.50%.
14* Man, 2.60g, 12.
15* Br, 53619, 5.34g, 1.
16* Cop, 22, 4.68g, 12.
17* I, 14660 (Haydere hoard), 4.32g, 6.
18* Private collection GH, Texas, 5.25g, 12.
19* Private collection GH, Texas, no weight.
20* Private collection GH, Texas, ex Sternberg 13(1983), 899, 5.07g, 6.
21* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, 3.84g, 12.Analysis MRSC
3, 4627: AR 50.50%.
22* Sternberg, 28/11/1975, 225 = Schulten, 11/4/1988, 758, 3.68g.
23* Numismatica Wendt 12 (1976), 410, no weight.
24* Dorotheum 433 (1985), 195, no weight.
25* Munz Zentrum 30 (1977), 1160, 5.38g.
26* Kricheldorf 41 (1988), 243, 4.22g.
27* NY, 1940.100.19966 (Newell ex Reka-Devnia hoard, Stack’s 1939), 4.63g,
6.
28* Y, no weight.
29* Rocquencourt hoard 51 (pi. 1), no weight, (attributed to Rome).
30* Schweizerische Kreditanstalt, Zurich, FPL 12/1987, 33, 4.37g.
31* G, RJCHCC 8, 3.70g, 6 (attributed to Rome).
32* Schulten 27/3/1990, 860, 4.81g.
[32A Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 4.45g, 12.]

Variants: (a) obv.: IMP CAE M ANT GORDIANVS AVG.

33 L, 1927-11-1-48, 4.53g, 12.
34* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, ex Galata Coins FPL
Spring 1984, 163, 4.95g, 12.
 (b) rev.: PAX AAGVSTI.
35* V, 17463, 3.77g, 12.
36 Private collection CLC, Vienna, 4.34g, 12.

(c) rev.: PAX AGVSTI.

37* Y ex Dura, Final Report no. 1231, no weight.
Obv. die-links: 17 = 7/1 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 53/13
(PROVIDENTIA AVG);
22 = 7/14 (CONCORDIA AVG);
27 = 34/7 (PM TRP II COS PP);
12 = 41/1 (PM TRP II COS PP);
1 = 50/1 (PROVIDENTIA AVG);
23 = 58/1 (SALVS AVGVSTI);
30 & 37;
2 & 9 (die-identical);
33 & 34 (die-identical);
35 & 36 (die-identical).
Rev. die-links: 2 & 9 (die-identical);
33 & 34 (die-identical);
35 & 36 (die-identical).
11 & 23;
7 = 22/1 & 2.
Note: C gives the rev. legend as PAX AVGVST: this is based on
a coin in P with that legend. This coin is, however, from Rome.

2 + 1 coins: 1 obv. die, 1 rev. die.

PAX AVGVSTI As 21.
RIC 189b, C 174 corr.
1* Schweizerische Kreditanstalt, Bern, 4 (1985), 586, 4.20g.
2 Lanz, Graz, 5 (1975), 668, 4.47g.
[3 Podastinje hoard 154, no weight. Confirmation required.]
Obv. die-links: 1 & 2 (die-identical) = 12A/1 (FIDES
MILITVM) = 14/1-3 (FIDES MILITVM) =
26/1 (PAX AVGVSTI).
Rev. die-links: 1 & 2 (die-identical) = 21/7.
Note: see note to 21. RIC 188 (= C 174, cited from the E Wigan
collection), which describes the reverse legend as PAX AVGVS,
is probably a misdescription of this type.

2 coins: 1 obv. die, 1 rev. die

PAX AVGVSTI Pax standing 1., holding wreath in r.
hand and transverse sceptre in 1.
hand.
RIC -, C -
1* Creil hoard I, 299 (illustrated, p. 101), 5.10g, 12.
2* Schulten 11/4/1988, 771, 4.01g.
24 2 coins: 2 obv., 2 rev. dies
D2 PAX AVGVSTI Pax standing 1., holding branch in r.
hand and cornucopiae in 1. hand.
RIC C -
1* I, 14652 (Haydere hoard), 4.45g, 12.
2* Clamerey hoard 45, 3.98g.

25 5 coins: 4 obv., 2 rev. dies

D2 PAX AVGVSTI Soldier (? Mars), helmeted and in
military dress, standing 1., holding
branch in r. hand and vertical spear
in 1. hand.
RIC -, C -
1* V, 17461, 4.32g, 6.
2* B, ohne Nummer, 4.80g, 6.
3 L Ciani, FPL, 1928, 3824, no weight.

Variants: rev.: PAX AVGSTI (.RIC 192; C 181)

4* V, 17462, 4.18g, 12.
5* P, 38, 5.03g, 12.

Obv. die-links: 1 & 3 (die-identical);

2 = 9/1 (CONCORDIA AVG).
Rev. die-links: 1-3 (1 & 3 are die-identical);
4 & 5.

26 1 coin
B21 PAX AVGVSTI As 25.
RIC 191, C 180
1* V, 57116, 4.46g, 12 (= NC 1935 pl.6, 5).
Obv. die-links: 1 = 12A/1 (FIDES MILITVM) = 14/1-3
(FIDES MILITVM) = 22/1-2 (PAX
AVGVSTI)
Rev. die-link: 1 = 27, 1.

27 1 coin
D ll PAX AVGVSTI As 25.
RIC -, C -
1’ Gadoury, 2 (1974), 356, no weight.
Obv. die-link: 1 = 3 5 / 1 . 4 (PM TRP II COS PP).
Rev. die-link: 1 = 26, 1 .

28 2 coins: 1 obv.', 1 rev. die

D2 PAX AVGVSTI Soldier (? Mars), helmeted and in
military dress, standing 1., holding
branch in r. hand and vertical spear
in I. hand; at feet, to 1., rests a shield.
RIC 190, C -

157
1* V, 57115, 3.26g, 12.
2 L, 1867-1-1-1761, 4.53g, 12.
Die-links: 1 & 2 are die-identical.

3 coins: 1 obv., 1 rev. die

P M TRI P CON P P Emperor, veiled, standing 1., holding
patera over altar in r. hand and short
baton in 1. hand.
RIC 169, C 187
1 V, 17379, 3.85g, 6.
2* L, 1937-4-6-572 (Dorchester hoard), 4.57g, 6. Analysis 1987: AR 44.7%.
3 P, 40, 4.19g, 6.30.
Obv. die-links: 1-3 = 3/27 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 7/11
(CONCORDIA AVG).
Rev. die-link: 1-3 (die-identical).

P M TRI P CON P P
1* V, 57133, 3.94g, 12.
1 coin
Sol, naked but for chlamys over 1.
shoulder, standing 1., with r. arm
raised and holding globe in 1. hand.
RIC 168, C -

1 coin
P M TR P I P COS P P Providentia standing 1., holding globe
in r. hand and transverse sceptre in 1.
hand.
RIC -, C -
1* L, 1988-12-1-16 (Stevenage hoard 254), 4.17g, 12.
Note: the reading of the two letters between TR P and COS in
the rev. legend is not certain. I P seems to be the most likely
reading although P P is also possible, but neither of these makes
sense. It should most probably be interpreted as an attempt at
TR P I which has been bungled by the die-engraver.

1 coin
PON M TRI P CON P P Serapis, with modius on head,
standing 1., with r. arm raised and
holding transverse sceptre in 1. hand.
RIC -, C -
1* I, 14441 (Haydere hoard), 4.17g, 12.
33 1 coin
D2 P M TR P II COS P P Emperor, veiled, standing left, holding
patera over altar in r. hand and short
baton in 1. hand.
RIC -, as 37 (mint of Rome), C 210
1* P, 7760, 4.32g, 12.

33A 1 coin
D2 P M TR P II COS P P Emperor, helmeted and in military
dress, standing 1., r. hand raised and
holding long vertical spear or sceptre
in his 1. hand.
RIC -, C -
1* Klosterneuburg, Austria (TNRB 6, 3510), 4.60g, 6.
Note: the authors of TNRB 6 state that this coin is ‘probably*
eastern: I can confirm that they were right.

34 8 coins: 6 obv., 6 rev. dies

D2 P M TR P II COS P P Emperor riding 1. on horseback. He
has his r. arm raised and holds a
transverse sceptre in his 1. hand.
RIC 174, C 219
1* V, 17386, 3.35g, 6.
2* V, 70222 (ex Trau), 4.28g, 6.
3* V, 57135, 3.74g, 6.
4* L, 1982-1-2-1 ex Asociacion Numismatica Espanola (Calico), 15/12/1981,
656, 5.19g, 12. Analysis 1987: AR 44.3%.
5* Cop, 85b, 4.14g, 6.30.
6* NY, 1944.100.19936, 4.63g, 6.
7* Bankhaus H Aufhauser 6 (1989), 504, 4.57g.
8 Hirsch 166 (1990), 1188, no weight.
Obv. die-links: 1-2 = 7/3 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 9/5
(CONCORDIA AVG) = 13/9 (FIDES
MILITVM);
4 & 8 (die-identical) = 3/17 (AEQVITAS
AVG);
7 = 21/27 (PAX AVGVSTI).
Rev. die-link: 1, 4 & 8 (4 & 8 are die-identical).
Note: RIC 50A, which attributes this type to Rome, cites as its
authority C 219, and it must be the same as this.

35 4 coins: 1 obv., 1 rev. die

D ll P M TR P II COS P P As 34.
RIC -, C -
1 V, 37389, 4.57g, 12.
2* Br, 51004, 4.13g, 1.
3 Tulin hoard 601, 5.10g.

159
 4 Lanz 52 (1990), 616, 4.02g.
Obv. die-links: 1-4 = 27/1 (PAX AVGVSTI).
Rev. die-link: 1-4 (die-identical).

36 1 coin
D2 P M TR P II COS P P Emperor standing r. in a quadriga
going r. He holds the reins in his r.
hand and an eagle-tipped sceptre in
his 1. hand.
RIC 173, C 220
1* V, 75450, 4.30g, 12.
Note: C 220 cites this coin from the Jarry collection which was
sold in 1878 (Rollin, Paris, 17/6/1878, 1658). The Vienna
specimen formerly belonged to Voetter, who formed his collection
in the late 19th century, and it is probable it is the Jarry
specimen. There might, however, be a second example.

37 2 coins: 1 obv., 1 rev. die

D2 P M TR P II COS P P Emperor, bare-headed and togate,
seated 1. on curule chair. Behind him,
to r., Victory stands 1., placing a
wreath on the Emperor’s head with
her r. hand and holding a palm in her
1. hand. In front, to the 1., Pax stands
r. offering a branch to the Emperor
which she holds in her r. hand and he
in his 1.
RIC 175, C 223
1 P, 42, 4.15g, 12.30.
2* Private collection GH, Texas, ex Bank Leu ex Malloy 5 (1975), 819, no
weight.
Obv. die-links: 1-2 = 18/12 (LIBERALITAS AVG) = 44/12
(PM TRP II COS PP).
Rev. die-link: 1 & 2 (die-identical).
Note: RIC 50C attributes this type to Rome as well: its authority
is the same as for Antioch, i.e., C 223, and there is no reason to
believe that the type was struck at both mints.

38 ?1 coin
D2 P M TR P II COS P P Concordia standing 1., holding patera
in r. hand and cornucopiae in 1. hand.
RIC -, as 32 (mint of Rome), C 204
1 Wiczay collection 2315 ([P Caronni], Musei Hedervarii, Vienna, 1814).
Note: I have not seen an example of this type and it requires
confirmation. If it does exist, it seems more likely to belong to

160
Antioch than Rome, pace RIC, since a similar type of Concordia
is known at Antioch, with the legend CONCORDIA AVG (nos.
9 and 10), but not at Rome. However, nos. 9 and 10 show
Concordia holding a patera over an altar, and Caronni does not
mention an altar, perhaps because his description is incomplete,
so these coins do not provide a complete parallel. Alternatively,
the Wiczay coin could be a confusion with the following type,
which is similar except for the substitution of a rudder for the
patera.

1 coin
P M TR P II COS P P Fortuna standing 1., holding rudder in
r. hand and cornucopiae in 1. hand
RIC -, C -
1* Br, 57001, 4.34g, 12.
Obv. die-link: 1 = 44/6 (PM TRP II COS PP).

3 + 1 coins: 2 obv., 2 rev. dies

P M TR P II COS P P Jupiter seated 1. on throne, holding
thunderbolt in r. hand and vertical
sceptre in 1. hand; at his feet to r. an
eagle stands 1. with head r.
RIC 170, cf. C 190
1* V, 17392, 3.3lg, 12.
2* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, Schulten 11/4/1988, 759,
3.88g, 12.
3 Nanterre hoard no. 867, no weight (RN 1946, pi. 2, 12).
[4 Falerone hoard, no weight.]
Die-link: 1 & 3 (die-identical).
Note: C 190 describes the reverse type simply as ‘Jupiter assis, a
ses pieds, un aigle’ and he does not give his source. Clearly the
description is incomplete, and is probably based on one of the
coins listed here. RIC 27, citing C 190, attributes this type to
Rome, but it too should be given to Antioch.

1 + 1 coins
P M TR P II COS P P Libertas standing 1., holding pileus in
r. hand and transverse sceptre in 1.
hand.
RIC 171, C -
1* V, 57134, 4.10g, 6.
[2 Pergamum hoard, no weight. Confirmation required.]
Obv. die-link: 1 = 21/12 (PAX AVGVSTI).
Note: RIC 33 cites a coin with these types from the de Quelen
sale (Rollin and Feuardent, Paris, 14/5/1888, 1545), which it
attributes to Rome: it is unlikely that this type was struck at
Rome and it is probably another Antioch piece, possibly the
specimen now in V.

1 coin
P M TR P II COS P P Soldier (? Mars), helmeted and in
military dress, standing r. with knees
bent, holding transverse spear (points
forward) in r. hand and small round
shield in 1. hand.
RIC -, as 28 (mint of Rome), C 192
1* L, Bank Collection R750, 4.62g, 6. (Analysis 1988: AR 41.9%).

3 coins: 2 obv., 3 rev. dies.

P M TR P II COS P P Providentia standing 1., holding globe
in r. hand and transverse sceptre in 1.
hand.
RIC -, C -
1* V, 57097, 4.16g, 6.
2* L, 1984-5-37-2, 3.99g, 6.
3* Br, 60288 (Oombergen hoard), 3.68g, 12.
Obv. die-links: 1 & 2;
3 = 2/1 (AEQVITAS AVG).

35 + 2 coins: 34 obv., 30 rev. dies.

P M TR P II COS P P As 43.
RIC 172a, C 196
1* V, 57095, 4.90g, 12.
2* V, 17398, 4.06g, 12.
3* V, 57096, 3.37g, 12.
4* V, 17397, 4.45g, 11.
5* V, 41920, 4.40g, 6.
6* L, 1919-3-7-52 (Napoleon hoard), 4.34g, 6.
7* L, 1937-4-6-86 (Dorchester hoard), 3.66g, 6.
8* L, 1937-4-6-87 (Dorchester hoard), 4.95g, 6.
9* L, 1946-10-4-173, 4.48g, 6.
10* P, 41, 5.32g, 12. Analysis RN 1946, p. 37: AR 46.00%.
11* Br, 53602, 4.63g, 6.
12* H, 7318, 4.36g, 12.
13* R, 35, 3.45g, 12.
14* I, 14180 (Haydere hoard), 4.00g, 6.
15* I, 14181 (Haydere hoard), 4.93g, 12.
16* Gottweig, Austria (TNRB 5, 3101), 4.37g, 6.
17* Krefeld (Heynen collection), Franke and Paar 1148, 3.84g.
18* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, 4.76g, 12.
19* Mazzini 3, p. 287, 196, 4.95g.
20* Sternberg 12 (1982), 711, 4.60g.
21* Sternberg 19 (1987), 774,5.01g (this coin is overstruck: on the rev. it reads
AS AV P II COS PP. The undertype is presumably AEQVITAS AVG.)
 22* Schulten 11/4/1988, 761 = idem 19/4/1989, 540, 4.72g.
23* Ahlstrom 6 (1974), 258, no weight.
24* H Hurtt 18 (1977), 246b, no weight.
25* NY, 1944.100.19933 (Newell ex Reka-Devnia hoard, Stack’s 1939), 4.08g,
6.
26* NY, 1944.100.19934 (Newell ex Bizot), 4.12g, 6.
27* NY, 1944.100.19935 (Newell ex Wayte Raymond, 1936), 4.30g, 6.
28* NY, 1948.19.467 (Gautier), 3.62g, 6.
29* Y, no weight.
30* PU, 1965-899, no weight., 12.
31* Rocquencourt hoard 102 (pi. 2), no weight, (attributed to Rome).
32* C (Old University collection), 4.54g, 6.
33* Guiry-en-Vexin hoard, 4.02g, 6.
34* Nanterre hoard no. 866, no weight (RN 1946, pi. 2, 6).
[35 Budaors hoard 511, no weight.]
[36 Viux-Faverges hoard 2208, 5.08g. Confirmation of attribution required.]

Variant: rev.: P P SOC II P RT M P (the previous legend

reversed).
37* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, ex Schulten 11/4/1988,762,
4.59g, 12.
Obv. die-links: 4 & 32;
5 = 3/5 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 63/12
(VIRTVS AVG);
12 = 37/1-2 (PM TRP II COS PP) = 18/12
(LIBERALITAS AVG);
22 = 3/42 (AEQVITAS AVG);
26 = 3/24 (AEQVITAS AVG);
37 = 3/10 (AEQVITAS AVG);
20 = 9/6 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 16/2
(FIDES MILITVM);
6 = 39/1 (PM TRP II COS PP).
2 = 60/7 & 10 (VICTORIA AVG).
Rev. die-links: 23, 25 & 28;
2 & 6;
14 & 17;
24 & 31.

45 1 coin
B21 P M TR P II COS P P As 43.
RIC 172b, C -
1* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, ex Munz Zentrum 64
(1988), 558, 4.30g, 6.
Note: RIC 172b describes a coin with bust B21, although it gives
as its authority C 197 which is a coin with D ll (no. 46).

46 4 coins: 2 obv., ?2 rev. dies.

D ll P M TR P II COS P P As 43.
RIC C 197

163
 1* V, 17396, 3.05g, 12.
2 L, 1976-12-2-1, 5.03g, 6.
3* P, 34, 4.12g, 12.
4 Private collection GH, Texas, ex Lanz 24 (1983), 661, 3.27g.
Obv. die-links: 1 = 4/2 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 19/1
(LIBERALITAS AVG);
2-4 = 4/1 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 10/1
(CONCORDIA AVG).
Rev. die-links: 2-4 (die-identical);
the rev. of 1 is too worn for die-linking.

47 2 + 1 coins: 2 obv., 2 rev. dies

D2 P M TR P II COS P P Serapis, with modius on head,
standing 1., with r. arm raised and
holding transverse sceptre in 1. hand.
RIC -, as 30 (mint of Rome), C 191
1* L, Bank collection R759, 4.56g, 6.
2* B, ohne Nummer, 4.54g, 12.
[3 Athens excavations no. 306, no weight.]
Obv. die-link: 2 = 3/9 (AEQVITAS AVG).
Note: there is no evidence that this type was struck at Rome, as
RIC implies. RIC 30 gives as its authority C 191, which cites
Rollin: this coin was no doubt one of the two listed here.

48 2 + 2 coins: 2 obv., 2 rev. dies

D2 P M TR P II COS P P Sol, naked but for chlamys over 1.
shoulder, standing 1., with r. arm
raised and holding globe in 1. hand.
RIC -, as 31 (mint of Rome), C -
1* Y ex Dura, Final Report 1211, no weight.
2* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, ex Schulten 11/4/1988,760,
3.87g, 12.
[3 Smederevo hoard 79.]
[4 Tarragona hoard, no weight. Hiernard describes the reverse as P M TR P I
COS P P (sic), Sol standing 1. with r. arm raised and holding globe in 1. hand,
perhaps an imitation. Probably a misdescription of no. 48. Confirmation
required.]
Note: RIC 31 cites the Smederevo coin as its authority, but there
is no reason to believe that this type was struck at Rome, whereas
it was certainly minted at Antioch.

49 1 coin
D2 P M TR P II COS P P Victory advancing 1., holding wreath
in r. hand and palm over 1. shoulder.
RIC -, as 19 (mint of Rome), C 199
1* V, 57099, 3.88g, 12.

164
50 6 + 4 coins: 6 obv., 5 rev. dies
D2 PROVIDENTIA AVG Providentia standing 1., holding globe
in r. hand and transverse sceptre in 1.
hand.
RIC 193, C 302
1* V, 57098, 4.67, 12.
2* L, 1937-4-6-246 (Dorchester hoard), 4.41g, 12.
3* L, 1988-4-17-5, 3.46g, 12.
4* Creil hoard I, 300 (illustrated, p. 101), 5.14g, 12.
5* Rauch 38 (1987), 712, no weight.
6* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, ex Hirsch, Stockholm,
17/10/1966, 1389, 4.41g, 12.
[7 Dorchester hoard: not acquired by L, confirmation required.]
[8 Gorsium hoard 511, no weight. This coin is attributed to Antioch by Fitz
but it is not illustrated so the attribution requires confirmation.]
[9 Creil hoard I, 301,4.48g. This coin is attributed to Antioch by Amandiy but
it is not illustrated and the attribution requires confirmation.]
[10 Carnuntum excavations 3866, no weight. Confirmation of attribution
required.]
Obv. die-link: 1 = 21/1 (PAX AVGVSTI).
Rev. die-link: 4 & 5.
Note: the two die-identical coins of this type in the Tulin hoard
(603-4) (pi. 18) which Gdbl attributed to Antioch are, in my
opinion, contemporary forgeries.

51 5 coins: 5 obv., 4 rev. dies

D2 PROVIDENTIA AVG Providentia standing 1., holding baton
in r. hand and vertical sceptre in 1.
hand; at feet to 1. is a globe.
RIC 194, C -
1* V, 57119, 4.59g, 12.
2* V, 57120, 3.83g, 12.
3* V, 57118, 5.34g, 12.
4* V, 17466, 4.16g, 6.
6* L, 1937-4-6-245 (Dorchester hoard), 4.72g, 6.
Rev. die-link: 3 & 4.

52 8 + 5 coins: 8 obv., 6 rev. dies

D2 PROVIDENTIA AVG Providentia standing 1., holding rudder
in r. hand and cornucopiae in 1. hand.
RIC 196, C 306
1* V, 57121, 4.15g, 12.
2* V, 57122, 5.10g, 7.
3* V, 57124, 4.16g, 12.
4* L, 1937-4-6-244 (Dorchester hoard), 4.46g, 6. Analysis 1988: AR 44.5%.
5* Br, 57853, 5.30g, 12.
6* Cop, 31, 4.37g, 12.
7* Numismatic Fine Arts 20 (1988), 344, 5.12g.
[8-9 Smederevo hoard 106-7.]
[10 Noyers-sur-Serein hoard, no weight.]

165
 [11 Wiesbach hoard, no weight.]
[12 Schwarzenacker hoard, no weight.]

Variant: rev.: PROVIDENTI AVG (RIC 196n)

13* V, 57123, 3.78g, 12.
Obv. die-link: 2 = 60/9 (VICTORIA AVG).
Rev. die-links: 3 & 6;
4 & 5.

53 13 + 7 coins: 10 obv., 10 rev. dies

D2 PROVIDENTIA AVG Providentia standing 1., holding corn-
ears over altar in r. hand and
cornucopiae in 1. hand.
RIC 197, C 307
1* V, 57125, 4.68g, 6.
2* V, 17470, 4.26g, 6.
3 V, 57126, 3.75g, 12.
4* V, 70212 (Trau), 4.27g, 7.
5* L, 1937-4-6-242 (Dorchester hoard), 5.02g, 6.
6* L, 1937-4-6-243 (Dorchester hoard), 4.48g, 12.
7* L, 1846-1-7-3, 3.41g, 12.
8 L, 1988-4-17-6, 4.38g, 6.
9* B, 639/1895, 4.59g, 6.
10 P, 39, 4.30g, 5.30.
11* Munzen und Medaillen Galerie, Koln (Knopek), 17 (1981), 770, 4.48g.
12* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, ex Bankhaus H Aufhauser,
5/10/1988, 383, 4.29g, 12.
13* Rocquencourt hoard 603 (pi. 4), 4.30g.
[14-6 Smederevo hoard 108-9.]
[17 Singidunum hoard 1220, 5.14g.]
[18 Singidunum hoard 1221, 4.58g.]
[19 Krog hoard, no weight.]
[20 Rustschuk hoard, no weight.]
Obv. die-links: 13 = 7/1 (CONCORDIA AVG) = 21/17
(PAX AVGVSTI);
6 = 3/36 (AEQVITAS AVG);
7 & 10 (die-identical) = 12/15 (FIDES
MILITVM);
4 = 13/12 (FIDES MILITVM);
1 = 18/21 (LIBERALITAS AVG).
5 & 8 (die-identical);
3 & 9 (die-identical);
Rev. die-links: 5 & 8 ,(die-identical);
3 & 9 (die-identical);
7 & 10 (die-identical).
Note: RIC 198 cites from the Smederevo hoard coins with a
similar reverse but with a modius rather than an altar (nos. 13-5).
The reverses of two of these coins are illustrated in the
publication of the hoard and it is clear that the object to the left
of Providentia is the same as on the other coins that I have listed.

166
 On nos. 2, 6 and on one of the Smederevo coins it is squat, like
a modius, whereas on the other specimens it is more elongated,
like an altar, and it always has an object like a flame coming out
of the top of it. It does not seem helpful to divide these variations
into two different types.

54 2 + 2 coins: 2 obv., 2 rev. dies

D2 PROVIDENTIA AVG Providentia standing 1., holding corn-
ears over altar in r. hand and anchor
in 1. hand.
cf. RIC 199a, cf. C 308
1* P, 43, 4.85g, 1.
2* I, 14571 (Haydere hoard), 4.10g, 6.
[3 Mainz II hoard, no weight.J
[4 Jagodina-Krusevac hoard, no weight.J
Rev. die-link: 2 = 55/1-2.
Note: C and RIC call the altar a modius. It is squat as on 53/1
and 53/6: see note to 53.

55 2 coins: 1 obv., 1 rev. die

D ll PROVIDENTIA AVG As 54.
cf. RIC 199b, cf. C 309
1* L, R0491, 4.50g, 6.
2 Spink Numismatic Circular May 1980, 3555, no weight
Obv. die-links: 1 & 2 (die-identical).
Rev. die-links: 1 & 2 = 54/2.
Note: C and RIC call the altar a modius. It is squat as on 53/1
and 53/6.

56 13 + 2 coins: 11 obv., 10 rev. dies

D2 ROMAE AETERNAE Roma, helmeted and in military dress,
seated 1. on throne, holding Victory
on globe in r. hand and vertical
sceptre in r. hand. A shield rests
beside the throne.
RIC 200, C 312
1* V, 57100, 4.74g, 6.
2* L, 1937-4-6-257 (Dorchester hoard), 3.59g, 12.
3* L, 1924-1-7-166 (Plevna hoard), 4.43g, 12.
4* L, 1988-4-17-8, 3.54g, 12.
5* O (Kraay, 1950), 4.15g, 12. Analysis MRSC 3, 4628: AR 54.00%.
6* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, 3.92g, 5.30. Analysis MRSC
3, 4629: AR 53.50%.
7 Hirsch 156 (1987), 909, no weight.
8* Nanterre hoard no. 871, no weight (RN 1946, pi. 2, 10).

167
 [9 Bu 1956-2-14 ex Intercisa hoard 21, no weight. This coin is attributed to
Antioch by Fitz but it is not illustrated so the attribution requires
confirmation.]
[10 Bale§ti hoard 346, 2.65g, 6. Confirmation of attribution required.]

Variants: (a) obv.: IMP CAES M ANT GORIANVS AVG.

11* V, 57102, 3.80g, 12.

(b): rev.: POMAE AETERNAE.

12* V, 57117, 4.59g, 6.
13* V, 57101, 4.63g, 12.
14* L, 1988-4-17-7, 4.23g, 12.
15 Private collection GH, Texas, ex Sternberg 13 (1983), 900, 3.55g.

Obv. die-links: 3 & 7 (die-identical);

14 & 15 (die-identical);
2 = 3/32 (AEQVITAS AVG);
3 = 3/4 (AEQVITAS AVG);
12 = 3/38 (AEQVITAS AVG).
Rev. die-links: 2 & 6;
3 & 7 (die-identical);
14 & 15 (die-identical).
Note: on the rev. of 2 & 6 there are traces of what appears to be
a throne behind Roma and to the left.

57 1coin
D ll ROMAE AETERNAE As 56.
RIC C -
1* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, 4.53g, 11.
Obv. die-link: 1 = 14A/1 (FIDES MILITVM).

58 1 coin
D2 SALVS AVGVSTI Spes walking 1., holding flower in r.
hand and raising skirt with 1. hand.
RIC -, C -
1* Rocquencourt hoard 659 (pi. 4), 4.24g.
Obv. die-link: 1 = 21/23 (PAX AVGVSTI).

59 1 coin
D2 SPES PVPLICA(sic) Spes walking 1., holding (?) flower in
r. hand and raising skirt with 1. hand.
RIC 201, C -
1* V, 57136, 4.36g, 12 (= NC 1935 pi. 6,6).

168
60 11 + 3 coins: 10 obv., 10 rev. dies
D2 VICTORIA AVG Victory advancing 1., holding wreath
in r. hand and palm over 1. shoulder.
Note: there is considerable variation
in the way in which the figure of
Victory is drawn. On some pieces
(e.g., nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 , 7, 8 & 11)
Victory’s two legs appear to be close
together except below the knee, as if
she is walking; on the other coins
(nos. 1, 4, 9 & 10) both her legs are
wide apart as though she is running.
RIC 202, C 357
1* V, 57105, 5.26g, 6.
2* V, 57103, 4.27g, 12.
3* V, 57104, 5.22g, 12.
4* L, 1937-4-6-260 (Dorchester hoard), 4.23g, 5.
5* L, 1988-4-17-9, 4.69g, 12.
6* B, ohne Nummer, 4.47g, 12.
7* P, 7804, 3.54g, 6.
8* R J Myers, FPL Aug. 1976, 57, no weight.
9* Kunst und Munzen 20 (1979), 431 = id., FPL 63 (1990), 268, no weight.
10* Private collection GH, Texas, no weight.
11* Munz Zentrum 68 (1990), 898, 4.55g.
[12 Singidunum hoard 1222,5.11g: this coin is attributed to Antioch by Kondic
but it is not illustrated so the attribution requires confirmation.]
[13 Canlia hoard 387, 5.74g, 12. Confirmation of attribution required.]
[14 Canlia hoard 388, 5.45g, 12. Confirmation of attribution required.]
Obv. die-links: 7 & 10 = 44/2 (PM TRP II COS PP);
9 = 52/2 (PROVIDENTIA AVG);
6 = 63/11 (VIRTVS AVG).
Rev. die-link: 5 & 6.

61 3 coins: 2 obv., 1 rev. die

D2 VICTORIA AVG Emperor riding 1. on horseback. He
has his r. arm raised and holds a
transverse sceptre in his 1. hand.
RIC 203, C 366
1* V, 57137, 4.47g, 12.
2 B, 960/1910, 4.26g, 7.
3* Mad, 4.33g, 12.
Obv. die-link: 1 & 2 (die-identical).
Rev. die-link: 1 - 3 (1 & 2 are die-identical).
Note: C 376 (= RIC 204) cites a coin with this reverse, but with
the legend VICTORIA AVGVSTI, from the ‘vente Gossellin’.
There were two sales of the Gossellin collection: on 17/1/1831
(Paris, chez M Bonnefons-Lavialle) and on 7/3/1864 (Paris, Rollin
and Feuardent). The coin is not in the second sale and I have
been unable to find a copy of the first. Until we have

169
 confirmation of this type, it seems most likely that it is a mis­
reading of VICTORIA AVG.

62 2coins, 2 obv., 2 rev. dies

D2 VICTORIA AVG Victory standing r. in biga going r. V.
holds the reins in her 1. hand and
possibly in her r. hand as well; the
horses are prancing with their
forelegs in the air.
RIC-,C-
1* B, 1929/1431, 4.11g, 6.
2* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, ex Bankhaus H Aufhauser
5/10/1988, 383, 4.54g, 12.

63 1 6 + 1 coins: 15 obv., 15 rev. dies

D2 VIRTVS AVG Soldier, helmeted and in military
dress, standing 1., holding shield which
rests on ground in r. hand and
vertical spear (points down) in 1.
hand.
RIC 205, C 381
1* V, 57106, 4.55g, 6.
2* V, 17481, 4.13g, 12.
3* V, 57107, 4.25g, 6.
4* V, 57108, 3.40g, 6.
5* L, 1984-10-17-1, 4.54g, 12.
6* O (Weder, 1980), 5.14g, 12.
7* I, 14134 (Haydere hoard), 4.04g, 6.
8* I, 14142 (Haydere hoard), 4.05g, 7.
9* I, 14139 (Haydere hoard), 4.14g, 1.
10* R, 69, 3.56g, 6.
11* Private collection GH, Texas, 4.87g, 6.
12* Tulin hoard 381, 2.84g (attributed by Gobi to Rome).
13* Cederlind, FPL 74, 151, no weight.
14* Burgan, 7/2/1987, 129, 4.99g.
15* Morruzzi FPL 1990, 30, no weight.
16* Nanterre hoard no. 872, noweight (.RN 1946, pi. 2, 7).
[17 Clamerey hoard 63, 5.14g.]
Obv. die-links: 4 & 6;
12 = 3/5 (AEQVITAS AVG) = 44/5 (PM
TRP II COS PP);
13 = 7/8 (CONCORDIA AVG);
11 = 60/6 (VICTORIA AVG).
Rev. die-link: 6 & 11.
Note: on all specimens except 8 , 9, 10 and 15 the soldier’s spear
has a large point, whereas on the coins of the same type from
Rome (RIC 6 ) it is much less prominent. On 8 , 9, 10 and 15 the
spear does not have a barb at all, in other words it is a sceptre.
Dura Final Report 1204 (now in Y), attributed by Bellinger to
Antioch, is in fact from the mint of Rome.

170
 Doubtful coins

Radiates

63A ? 1 coin
D2 LIBERALITAS AVG Liberalitas standing 1. holding abacus
in r. hand and corucopiae in 1.
RIC 186, cited from L. If this type really exists, it could just as well come from
Rome, as that type is common at that mint with the legend LIBERALITAS
AVG II (RIC 36). At Antioch the type is only known from one coin also with
the legend LIBERALITAS AVG II (20). The specimen in L is clearly plated
and I know of no other coins of this types except for one specimen in the
Jablanica hoard. Confirmation required.

64 ? 1 coin
D2 P M TR P II COS P P Emperor seated 1. holding globe.
RIC -, C -
Plevna hoard (NC 1924, p. 215). This coin was not one of the 711 specimens
from the Plevna hoard acquired by the British Museum. The type, which
Mattingly did not describe in any more detail, occurs on gold and silver of
Philip: P M TR P II COS P P , Emperor seated 1. on curule chair holding
globe and short sceptre (RIC 2). The Plevna piece would appear therefore to
be a mule with a reverse of Philip, and it might well be an ancient forgery.
There is nothing to connect it with the mint of Antioch.

65 ? 1 coin
D2 P M TR P II COS P P Soldier (? Mars), helmeted, but
otherwise naked but for chlamys over
shoulder, advancing r., holding a
spear in r. hand and a trophy over 1.
shoulder.
RIC 29, C -
This coin was described by Ponton d’Amecourt in ASFN 1886, pp. 162-3, no.
68, as coming from the collection of S Chamans. I have not seen a coin with
these types and it requires confirmation; as RIC points out the reverse was
used by Severus Alexander and it is most likely to be either a hybrid or a
plated copy. However, if it does exist as a genuine coin it is more likely to be
from Antioch (cf. no. 42 with a different type of Mars) than Rome and so it
is listed here.

171
 Chapter 4
Antioch: The Tetradrachms

Contents

1. Introduction.................................................................................................. 173

2. Previous discussions ................................................................................... 173

3. T y p e s............................................................................................................... 179
A. The reverse design (179); B. The obverse legend (180); C.
The significance of the laureate and radiate crown (181)

4. The structure of the three series of tetradrachms ............................. 182

A. Series 1 (182); B. Series 2 (184); C. Series 3 (184); D.
Differences between Series 3 and Series 1-2 (185); E. The
significance of the letters S C (186)

5. The attribution of the third series tetradrachms.................................. 188

6. The chronology of Gordian’s tetradrachms .......................................... 190

A. Introduction (190); B. The date of series 1 and 2 (191); C.
The date of series 3: the alleged fall of Antioch (193); D. The
date of series 3: the connection with Caesarea (194)

7. Die c o u n t s ..................................................................................................... 196

A. Methods of calculation (196); B. The results (197); C. The
circulation pattern (200); D. The reverses (202)

8. W e ig h ts.......................................................................................................... 204

9. D ie -a x is .......................................................................................................... 205

Catalogue .......................................................................................................... 207

Tables and figures

Table 1: Summary of tetradrachms of Gordian I I I .................................. 174

Table 2: Tetradrachms of Gordian III in hoards ..................................... 175
Table 3: Die-statistics of Gordian’s tetradrachms: obverses ................. 198
Table 4: Die-statistics of Gordian’s tetradrachms: reverses.................... 199
Table 5: Summary of w e ig h ts ....................................................................... 204
Table 6 : D ie -a x e s............................................................................................. 205

Figure 1: Weights of tetradrachms of Series 1 and 2 .............................. 206

Figure 2: Weights of tetradrachms of Series 3 .......................................... 206
Figure 3: Weights of tetradrachms of Series 1-2 and 3 compared . . . . 206

172
1. Introduction

Three series of tetradrachms were issued during Gordian’s reign with

the following reverses (the obverse legend remains AYTOK K M ANT
TOPAIANOC CeB on all three series):
1: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC, S C
202 coins; estimated number of obverse dies: 205+.
2: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATOC TO B, S C
13 coins; estimated number of obverse dies: 12-f.
3: AHMAPX eS YUATO B, ram symbol
227 coins; estimated number of obverse dies: 98+.
Table 1 summarizes all the coins known to me for each type of the
three issues giving details of numbers of coins in both hoards and collections,
together with the estimated numbers of obverse dies, while Table 2 lists the
coins from hoards.
The first two series are linked by a shared obverse die and the
engraving of the obverses and the reverses of both series is very similar; the
third series, on the other hand, has no die-links with the others and the style
is different. Also, as we shall see later, the mint was organized differently for
series 3: it would appear to have been striking in two unequal officinae,
whereas the first two series were probably struck in a single officina.

2. Previous discussions

The coins of Antioch with Greek legends have been neglected over the
years in comparison with those with Latin legends and the two series have
never been studied together. It is also curious how three of the most
distinguished scholars of the coinages of this region, Imhoof-Blumer, Wruck
and Seyrig, had nothing to say on the tetradrachms of the period from
Gordian to Trebonianus Gallus.

173
 Table 1: Summary of tetradrachms of Gordian III

Obverse legend always AYTOK K M ANT TOPAIANOC CeB

First series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC // SC

No. Rev. type Bust Hoards Colins. Total No. in Dies Est
die-study
1 eagle, head 1. Dl* 1 18 20 13 21.7
19 \
2 eagle, head r. Dl* 1 1/
3 eagle 1., head 1. D2* 2
21
4 eagle, head 1. D2* 56 95 151 } 110 81 171.3
5 eagle, head r. D2* 3 3)
6 eagle, head L A31 2 1 3 3 1 1
7 eagle, head 1. Bll 3 3 6 4 2 2
8 eagle, head 1. D ll 2 14 16 7 9.3
16 1
9 eagle, head r. D ll 1 1/
TOTAL, first series 64 138 202 153 104 205. +

Second series, rev.: AHMAPX eS YHATOC TO B // SC

10 eagle, head 1. D2* 4 4 8 5 3 5
11 eagle 1., head 1. A31 1 1 1 1 1.+
12 eagle 1., head 1. D ll 1 3 4 4 3 6
TOTAL, second series 5 8 13 10 7 12.+

Third series, rev.: AHMAPX «3 YIIATO B, ram

First officina: ram 1.
13 eagle„head l.;ram 1. A2* 3 9 15 7 8.8
12 \
14 eagle, head r.; ram I. A2* 3 3/
15 eagle, head L; ram 1. Bl* 1 2 3 3 1 1
16 eagle, head L; ram 1. D2 2 7 9 9 2 2
17 eagle, head 1.; ram 1. D2* 48 43 51 26 35.8
91 \
18 eagle, head r.; ram 1. D2* 2 3 5)
19 eagle, head 1.; ram I. B21 1 1 1 1 1.+
20 eagle, head L; ram 1. D ll 12 18 30 22 11 15.1
21 eagle, head L; ram 1. G il 3 6 9 9 2 2
22 eagle, head 1.; ram 1. Gil* 1 1 1 1 1.+
Total, first officina 72 92 164 111 51 66.7+

Second officina: ram r.

23 eagle, head 1.; ram r. D2 3 7 10 8 3 4
24 eagle, head L; ram r. D2* 21 31 52 35 19 26.6
25 eagle, head 1.; ram r. D ll 1 1 1 1 1.+
Total, second officina 21 3 38 63 44 2331.6

TOTAL, third series 93 130 227 155 74 98.3+

174
 Table 2: Tetradrachms of Gordian III in hoards

First series, rev.: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC / / S C

No. Rev. type Bust I II III IV V Cap Dura Total

1 eagle, head 1. Dl* 1 1
4 eagle, head 1. D2* 1 25 1 1 28 56
6 eagle, head 1. A31 1 1 2
7 eagle, head 1. Bll 3 3
8 eagle, head 1. D ll 2 2
TOTAL, first series 1 29 1 1 32 64

Second series, rev.: AHMAPX eS Y1IATOC TO B / / S C

10 eagle, head 1. D2* 4 4
12 eagle, head 1. D ll 1 1
TOTAL, second series 5 5

Third series, rev.: AHMAPX cE YHATO B, ram

First officina: ram L
13 eagle, head 1.; ram 1. A2* 2 1 3
15 eagle, head L; ram L Bl* 1 1
16 eagle, head L; ram 1. D2 1 1 2
17 eagle, head L; ram 1. D2* 1 16 2 1 28 48
18 eagle, head r.; ram 1. D2* 1 1 2
20 eagle, head L; ram 1. D ll 4 1 7 12
21 eagle, head 1.; ram 1. G il 3 3
22 eagle, head 1.; ram 1. Gil* 1 1

Second officina: ram r.

23 eagle, head L; ram r. D2 2 1 3
24 eagle, head 1.; ram r. D2* 1 6 2 12 21
25 eagle, head 1.; ram r. D ll 1 1

TOTAL, third series 2 35 2 4 54 97

Gordian, uncertain ? 1

Note: the hoards are described in Chapter 8 and catalogued in Appendix 2.

175
 Perhaps the earliest serious discussion of these coins was that of Eckhel
in a monograph on the coins of Antioch published in 1786.1 Eckhel for the
first time attempted to provide a systematic catalogue of the main types of
Syrian tetradrachms of the imperial period with a discussion of their
attributions to Antioch and elsewhere. He described the three main reverse
types of Gordian and provided a brief general commentary on Syrian
tetradrachms (pp. 37-46).
The coins were then almost completely neglected until the very end of
the nineteenth century when Wroth’s Catalogue of the Greek Coins o f Galatia,
Cappadocia and Syria described the coins of Antioch then in the British
Museum .2 He provided little in the way of detailed discussion of these coins,
beyond a few general remarks in the introduction (pp. lviii-bdii). A number of
other general catalogues of collections of Greek coins have included
descriptions of tetradrachms of Gordian: Macdonald’s catalogue of the coins
in Glasgow,3 Forrer’s catalogue of the Weber collection4, Grose’s Catalogue
of the McClean bequest in Cambridge5 and a number of volumes of the
Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, particularly that of Copenhagen .6 None of
these works, however, provides any commentary.
In a paper published in 1909 Dieudonng discussed the design of the
eagle that appears on the reverse of most Syrian tetradrachms of the imperial
period and looked in detail at the reasons for their attribution to Antioch,
Tyre and Emesa .7 In a later paper he catalogued the coins of Antioch in

1 J Eckhel, Descriptio Numorum Antiochiae Syriae sive Specimen Artis Criticae Numariae,
Vienna, 1786.
2 W Wroth, Catalogue o f Greek Coins in the British Museum, Volume 20. Catalogue o f the
Greek Coins o f Galatia, Cappadocia and Syria, London, 1899.
3 G Macdonald, Catalogue o f Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection III, Glasgow 1905,
nos. 279-84.
4 L Forrer, Descriptive Catalogue o f the Collection o f Greek Coins formed by Sir Hermann
Weber, Vol. II, Part II, London, 1929, no. 7971.
5 S W Grose, Catalogue o f the McClean Collection o f Greek Coins III, Cambridge, 1929.
6 Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. The Royal Collection o f Coins and Medals, Danish
National Museum, Part 36, 1959, (by O M0 rkholm), nos. 258-61.
7 A Dieudonne, ‘Numismatique Syrienne. L’aigle d’Antioche et les ateliers de Tyr et
d’£m6se\ RN 1909, pp. 458-80.

176
Paris; again, however, there is little commentary.8
The most important contribution to the study of the third-century
tetradrachm coinage of Antioch has been that of A R Bellinger. His interest
in this coinage stemmed from his cataloguing of the coins excavated by the
American and French campaigns at Dura-Europos between 1928 and 1937.9
First of all he published, with brief commentaries, ten hoards found during the
exacations10 and finally in 1949 he published his Final Report, drawing
together all the finds into a single volume. 11 In between he had published a
corpus of the Syrian tetradrachms of the Severan period (from 202 to 222) to
which reference has already been made (Chapter l ) . 12 Dura produced no
fewer than 2364 Syrian tetradrachms, all but 47 of them from the third century
AD, together with 924 denarii and 803 radiates and 8968 local bronze coins
(see Chapter 8 for more details). This enormous quantity of tetradrachms has
for the first time given a clear indication of the relative rarity of the
tetradrachm issues from Gordian through to Trebonianus Gallus as it has also
provided us with a very full picture of the currency in circulation in an
important Roman garrison town on the Euphrates in the first half of the third
century.
Baldus has written a short study of the MON VRB tetradrachms of
Philip I, making good use of Bellinger’s publication of the material from Dura.
While not directly relevant, it is obviously closely related. 13 More important

8 A Dieudonne, ‘Les monnaies grecques de Syrie au Cabinet des Medailles (suite)*, RN

1929, p. 142.
9 For a general account of the excavations see C Hopkins, The Discovery of Dura-Europos,
New Haven, 1979.
10 Only two of the hoard reports by Bellinger are relevant: Two Roman Hoards from
Dura-Europos, Numismatic Notes and Monographs 49, New York, 1931 and The Sixth, Seventh
and Tenth Dura Hoards, Numismatic Notes and Monographs 69, New York, 1935.
11 The Excavations at Dura-Europos. Final Report VI edited by M I Rostovtzeff, A R
Bellinger, F E Brown, N P Toll and C B Welles. The Coins by A R Bellinger, New Haven,
1949.
12 A R Bellinger, The Syrian tetradrachms ofCaracalla and Macrinus, Numismatic Studies
3, New York, 1940.
13 H R Baldus, MON(eta) URB(is) ANTIOXIA. Rom und Antiochia als Pragestatten
syrischer Tetradrachmen des Philippus Arabs. Busso Peus, Frankfurt, 1969.

177
is his paper on the authority for the minting of the Syrian provincial coinage
of the third century AD in which he suggested that the third series preceded
the first two.14 He proposed this for two reasons. First, because he believed
that the eagle on the third series of Gordian’s tetradrachms was similar to that
of the tetradrachms of the ‘later Severan period’ (presumably Macrinus and
Elagabalus), while the eagle of Gordian’s series 1 and 2 was similar to that of
Philip’s coins. This similarity is not apparent to me at all. The second reason
why Baldus proposed to reverse the normal order of Gordian’s tetradrachm
issues was because his first two series of tetradrachms included the letters S C,
as did Philip’s first series, while his third issue omitted them. This attempt to
reverse the conventional sequence of issues cannot stand since the obverse
die-link between series 1 and 2 (below, p. 184) shows that these two issues
must be sequential; if one follows Baldus’s theory it is necessary to postulate *-•.*&
the following sequence: series ^ then £ then This would mean that the |
reverse legend woulci
S C to AHMAPX
stretches credulity. In addition, we may note that the coins of the third series
contained substantially less silver than those of the first two, so it would be
necessary to assume that Gordian increased the fineness of his tetradrachms
rather than vice-versa. Finally, it would mean that the first and second series
must have been produced after 241, at least two years later than the first
series of radiates which they closely resemble and it would destroy the neat
connection with the coinage of Caesarea (below, p. 194f.). Baldus did,
however, raise a valid point about the significance of the letters S C on Syrian
tetradrachms and this will be discussed below (p. 186f.).
Reference has already been made to Walker’s study of the Metrology
o f the Roman Silver Coinage.15 He made available a comprehensive series of
analyses not just of the Roman silver coinages from the reign of Augustus

14 H R Baldus, ‘Zum Rechtsstatus syrischer Pragungen der 1. Halfte des 3. Jahrhunderts

n. Chr.\ Chiron 3 (1973), pp. 441-8.
15 D R Walker, TheeSOYCIAC,
Metrology of theS~C~W(AHMAPX
Roman Silver Coinage.ePart
S YIIATO B ^ h ich
III: from Pertinax to
Uranius Antoninus, B A R Supplementary Series 40, Oxford, 1978.

178
down to 253 but also of the provincial silver coinages, of which he provided
the first analyses. Although new analyses now throw doubt on many of his
results (Chapter 7) his work will remain extremely important for his brief but
incisive commentaries on the coinages he examined.
Peter Gilmore, a collector of Syrian tetradrachms, has published a
series of short notes on them over the last fifteen years.16 His opinions often
show an almost complete ignorance of the wider background, but because this
coinage has been studied so little he has sometimes posed questions that have
not been raised before (such as the significance of the ram on Gordian’s third
series of tetradrachms) and therefore his work cannot be ignored. Lastly, in
a paper published in 1988, Butcher has written an account of the bronze
coinage of Antioch produced between the reigns of Elagabalus and
Trebonianus Gallus; although Antioch struck no bronze coins under Gordian,
Butcher’s account places the output of the mint in its context.17 His doctoral
thesis will take this study much further.

3. Types

A. The reverse design

All coins have as their main design an eagle which is shown standing
on a line holding a wreath in its beak and with its wings outstretched. Usually
both its head and its tail point to the left; however, some coins of the first
(nos. 2, 5 and 9) and third series (nos. 14 and 18) show its head facing right,
while two coins from the first series show its tail pointing to the right (no. 3).

16 Those that are relevant are: ‘The third century tetradrachms of Syria and Syrian
Antioch’, Spink Numismatic Circular May 1977, pp. 198-200; ‘Dating, mints and officinae of
Syrian tetradrachms from Elagablus to Trebonianus Gallus’, Spink Numismatic Circular
September 1977, pp. 355-7; ‘The ‘Mon. Urb’ tetradrachms of Philip I’, Spink Numismatic
Circular December 1977, pp. 541-2; ‘Elagabalus’s Antioch tetradrachms’, Spink Numismatic
Circular February 1981, pp. 34-5; ‘Radiate and laureate portraits on imperial Syrian silver’,
Spink Numismatic Circular June 1984, pp. 149-50; ‘The letter S on eastern imperial silver’,
Spink Numismatic Circular July 1984, p. 180; ‘The eagle reverse on Syrian tetradrachms and
shekels’, Seaby Coin and Medal Bulletin August 1979, pp. 249-53.
17 Kevin Butcher, ‘The colonial coinage of Antioch-on-the-Orontes c. AD 218-53’, NC
1988, pp. 63-76.

179
It is the legends that enable the coinage to be divided into three series and
these are discussed below. The only other variation in the design is that the
coins of the third series include a small ram between the eagle’s legs. The ram
is always shown running with a crescent above its head which is always turned
back. On some coins the ram is running to the left and others to the right and
this difference seems to correspond to two sub-divisions of the mint (below,
p. 185). The significance of the ram for the attribution of these coins is
discussed below (p. 188f.).
The shekels of Tyre, which were produced over a period of some 180
years, from about 126/5 BC down to the reign of Nero, invariably used the
eagle as the subject of their reverses, no doubt borrowed from the Ptolemaic
coinage where it had appeared as the symbol of Zeus.18 When the striking
of shekels was discontinued at Tyre in AD 58/9 the design of the eagle was
transferred to the tetradrachms of Antioch at the same time as their silver
standard was improved to the level of the Tyrian coins.19 Previous
tetradrachms of Antioch had used different designs, such as the Tyche of
Antioch, a seated figure of Zeus and other members of the imperial family,
on their reverses.20 Clearly, then, the adoption of the eagle on the
tetradrachms of Antioch was intended to indicate their continuity with the
shekels of Tyre and from then on it became the standard reverse design for
all Syrian tetradrachms.21

B. The obverse legend

All coins of all three series have the same obverse legend: AYTOK K
M ANT TOPAIANOC CeB. This is a direct translation of the Latin legend
IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG which had been used at Rome and

18 G F Hill, Catalogue o f the Greek Coins o f Phoenicia (BMC 26), London, 1910, pp.
cxxxivff.
19 D R Walker, The Metrology o f the Roman Silver Coinage 1, pp. 68-9.
20 W Wruck, Die syrische Provinzialpragung von Augustus bis Traian, Stuttgart, 1931.
21 See A Dieudonne, ‘L’aigle d’Antioche’, RN 1909, pp. 458-480 and P Gilmore, ‘The
eagle reverse on Syrian tetradrachms and shekels’, Seaby Coin and Medal Bulletin August
1979, pp. 249-53.

180
on the radiates of Antioch on the coinage of A D 238-9. At this period Syrian
tetradrachms generally used the same obverse legend throughout the reign,
whereas at Rome it could change quite frequently and therefore its retention
on tetradrachms after 239 is of no significance.

C. The significance of the laureate and radiate crown

The different varieties of obverse bust used in each of the three series
will be noted below. Here I merely want to draw attention to the fact, already
well-known, that the mint of Antioch made no distinction in its use of the
radiate and laureate crown in the portrait of the emperor. At Rome the crown
did have a significance, for coins with a radiate crown were of a higher
denomination than those with a laureate one (Chapter 7). Equally, the radiate
crown was not used for Caesars or junior Augusti.22
However, when they struck Greek-legend, drachma-based coinages,
provincial mints like Antioch and Caesarea followed the practice of local city
mints and ignored the Roman conventions.23 During the first two centuries
AD the emperor was invariably shown either bare-headed or laureate on
Syrian tetradrachms, but under Caracalla for the first time the radiate portrait
appeared at eight different mints.24 There is no obvious reason why these
mints should have adopted the radiate crown, although, as Gilmore has
pointed out, they are all located in the northern part of Syria, close to the war-
zone and consequently they might have been intended to have some military
significance.
Macrinus’s radiate portrait only appears at one mint (Carrhae) although
three mints show his son Diadumenian wearing this crown (Beroea, Hierapolis
and Cyrrhus). This means that the other Roman convention, that the radiate

22 For the significance of the radiate crown on Roman coins see P Bastien, ‘Couronne
radiee et buste monetaire imperiale. Problfcmes d’interpretation’, Studia Paulo Naster Oblata
/, Leuven, 1982, pp. 263-72.
23 P Gilmore, ‘Radiate and laureate portraits on imperial Syrian silver’, Spink Numismatic
Circular June 1984, pp. 149-50 gives full details of the appearance of these crowns on Syrian
tetradrachms.
24 The mints are: Beroea, Hierapolis, Zeugma, Rhesaena, Cyrrhus, Edessa, Carrhae and
Heliopolis: see Bellinger, op. cit. n. 12.

181
crown was reserved for the portrait of the senior Augustus, was also ignored.
Elagabalus’s tetradrachms all show him laureate, but when their striking was
resumed25 under Gordian both radiate and laureate crowns seem to have
been used indifferently. Gilmore believed that only Gordian’s left-facing busts
were radiate: this is true of the first two series but not of the third, where one
right-facing bust is also radiate (D2, no. 16).26 Any attempt to link the
appearance of radiate busts with military campaigns, such as Gilmore seeks to
do, must be too simplistic.
Under the reigns of Gordian’s successors Philip and Trajan Decius both
crowns appear again for nearly all varieties of bust for the Augusti although
not for the Caesars. It is only in the reign of Trebonianus Gallus that any
method appears in the use of the two crowns, since the senior Augustus,
Gallus, is invariably shown laureate while the junior, Volusian, is always
radiate.

4. The structure of the three series of tetradrachms

A. Series 1
The obverses of Series 1 were apparently produced by many different
engravers, but the portrait of the emperor is always youthful and mostly he has
a distinctive rounded head, as on the radiates of 238-9. Wreath ties vary but
they are often J ) or . Although I cannot attribute individual dies to
engravers I would guess that perhaps between five and ten were involved.
They were, I believe, the same workmen as were responsible for engraving the
dies for the first issue of radiates, which are also characterized by a wide
variety of obverse styles (Chapter 3). For example, the style of the radiate with
reverse AEQVITAS AVG (3/29, pi. 6) may be compared with the tetradrachm
4/61 (pi. 21). The style of the radiates and tetradrachms with the non-standard

25 I do not believe Bellinger’s tentative attribution to Severus Alexander of three

tetradrachms from Edessa (Bellinger, op. cit. n. 12, pp. 54-7); these are surely coins of
Elagabalus, as Butcher has argued in his doctoral thesis.
26 Gilmore, op. cit. n. 23.

182
busts D1 (draped and cuirassed, seen from front, right) and D ll (as last, but
left) are also close enough to suggest that they are the work of the same hand:
in the case of the D1 bust compare the radiates nos. 2/1 (pi. 5) and 43/1-3 (pi.
13) with the tetradrachms nos. 1/1-20 and 2/1 (pi. 19). Similarly the radiates
with the left-facing bust D ll (nos. 4/1-2, 10/1, 14A/1, 19/1, 27/1, 35/1-4, 46/1-4,
55/1-2 and 57/1) may be compared with the tetradrachms nos. 8/1-16 and 9/1
(pi. 24).
In the first series there were 5 different varieties of obverse bust: two
of them laureate, D l* (21 coins) and D2* (158), and three radiate, A31 (3),
B ll (6) and D ll (17). With the substitution of the radiate for the laureate
crown in two of them, three of these busts had also occurred on the first series
of radiates: D l, D2 and D ll, reinforcing the close similarity between these two
coinages which Pink noted.27
In addition there are, as we have seen, three different varieties of
reverse: the inscription is always AHMAPX eSOYCIAC, S C, while the first
type, which was by far the most common, occurring on 197 coins, shows the
eagle standing facing on a line with its head left and its tail to left also. This
reverse occurs with all five types of obverse bust. There are also two rare
variants: in the second type the eagle’s body as well as its head faces left while
its tail is to the right: this is only known from two coins both with the normal
bust D2*, one of which has an obverse die-link with a coin with the normal
reverse type. The third reverse type shows the eagle standing facing with its
head to right and its tail to left. This is also very rare (only five specimens are
known) but it occurs with three different obverse busts (D l*, D2* and D ll)
and it too is linked by shared obverse dies to coins with the first reverse type.
In short the impression that this coinage gives is that it was struck
within a fairly short space of time at a mint in which all the dies were stored
in a common pool, in other words, in a single officina establishment.
The die statistics for this series (Table 1) suggest there were around 198
obverse dies, with a probable lower limit of 171 and an upper limit of 238. If

27 K Pink, ‘Antioch or Viminacium?’, NC 1935, p. 103.

183
we adopt a figure of an average 30,000 coins per die that implies a total
production of between five and seven million coins, the equivalent of ten to
fourteen million radiates, valuing one tetradrachm at two radiates (Chapter 7).

B. Series 2
As already stated, the short-lived second series should be seen as an
extension of the first. It is known to occur with three obverse busts (D2*, eight
coins; A31, one coin; and D ll, four coins) and with two varieties of reverse
type corresponding to the first and second types described above, although the
legend is now altered to AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATOC TO B, S C. Only
13 coins are known from this issue, of which ten were available for the die-
study and the estimates suggest that there were at least 12 dies. Seven obverse
dies in all were observed on these ten coins: there were five dies only
represented by a single specimen, one die pair and one triplet. The fact that
so few coins of this issue survive but that those that do have produced
relatively few die-links suggests that this series had a low survival rate. The
one coin with A^l came from the same obverse die as specimens from the I3
previous series, reinforcing the stylistic similarities between the two issues.
There is no reasonable doubt that they came from the same mint. The
chronology of the issue is examined below (p. 191).

C. Series 3
The legend is now shortened to AHMAPX eS YIIATO B, and instead
of the letters S C in the exergue we find a ram which is running either to left
or right with its head turned back.
Seven different obverse busts are used, compared with five in Series 1,
three of them laureate (A2*, Bl* and D2*) and four radiate (D2, B21, D ll
and G il), four of them right-facing (A2*, Bl*, D2 and D2*) and three of them
left-facing (B21, D ll and G il). Only three of them occur on the coins with the
ram running right ((D2, D2* and D ll). It is worth pointing out, however, that,
as in the first two series, the majority of the coins (149 out of a total of 229)
have the standard laureate, draped and cuirassed bust, seen from behind, right

184
(D2*).
As for the reverses, the eagle is shown in just the same way as on the
coins of the first two series, with the addition of a ram between its legs. Like
them, most coins show the eagle with its head facing left, but a few coins show
it with head right (nos. 14 and 18).

D. Differences between Series 3 and Series 1-2

The third series differs in several respects from the first two. First, as
we have seen, the reverse legend was shortened from the second series and
a ram is substituted for the letters S C. Secondly, the coins have a more
uniform obverse style than those of the first two series. The busts show a
slightly older person than do the coins of the first two series and they are
thinner and more elongated with a larger nose. Thirdly, there are no die-links
between the coins with ram right and those with ram left and indeed the two
groups can be distinguished by the style of the obverses. On coins with the
most common bust type, D2*, the wreath ties are generally drawn parallel to
each other and curling upwards on the pieces with ram left, while
on those with ram right the ties are generally stretched out behind J ) . On
the other hand, the coins with the two other busts that occur with both
varieties of ram, D2 and D ll, cannot be assigned to their respective groups on
the basis of their obverses.
The lack of obverse die-links between these two groups and the fact
that in most cases the direction in which the ram is running on the reverse can
be recognized from the style of obverse bust suggest that the mint was at this
time divided into two sections which it is convenient to call officinae. It would
further suggest that the dies belonging to the two reverse varieties were kept
separate and that in fact different engravers were responsible for engraving
both the obverse and the reverse dies of each officina. The outputs of the two
officinae were not, however, equal: the coins with ram left are nearly three
times as common as those with ram right, the numbers of specimens being 166
and 63 respectively and the estimated numbers of obverse dies 68.6+ and
31.6+.

185
 It might be expected that when a mint is divided into more than one
officina that their output would be equal, as indeed common sense would
suggest, but in this case it would seem to be otherwise.28 There is of course
no inherent reason why different officinae should all strike the same number
of coins, although when mints start to mark their different officinae this is
generally, but not invariably, the case. In many cases at this time, which was
just before officina marking became the standard practice, students have
postulated the existence of certain number of officinae if the coinage of a
particular issue can be divided into more or less equal groups according to
different reverse types.29 This might work at a mint such as Rome whose
structure is fairly well known, but there is no reason why it should necessarily
apply to other, provincial, mints. In the case of the tetradrachms of Gordian
with the ram on the reverse we can see that there were two distinct series,
differentiated by the position of the ram, and that there was no die sharing
between them. Clearly, the mint was divided into two sections which were not
of equal size.30

E. The significance of the letters S C

As we have seen, the first two series of tetradrachms contained the
letters S C in the exergue on the reverse, but in the third series these were
replaced by a ram. Baldus remarked on this change, citing it as evidence for
his belief that the third series preceded the first two, since the letters S C

28 Unless of course the other officina was striking something else, such as radiates, at this
time. On officinae see R A G Carson, ‘System and product in the Roman mint’, Essays in
Roman Coinage presented to Harold Mattingly, in R A G Carson and C H V Sutherland (eds.),
Oxford 1956, pp. 227-39.
29 Mattingly in RIC IV, iii provided a masterly exposition of the technique of dividing a
coinage into issues and officinae according to the relative frequency of the different reverse
types in hoards. His method has been followed by many, sometimes rather slavishly: cf. S K
Eddy, The Smyrna Hoard, Numismatic Notes and Monographs 156, New York 1967. See also
Carson, Op. cit. n. 28.
30 However, the officinae at Rome did not always strike equal numbers of coins. For
example in the large fifth issue of the sole reign of Gallienus the Cunetio hoard contained
the following numbers of coins from the twelve workshops: 521, 514, 479, 424, 623,754, 418,
457, 423, 241, 240 and 48: E Besly and R Bland, The Cunetio Treasure, London 1983, p. 25.

186
reappeared on the first two series of Philip’s tetradrachms.31 We have
already seen (p. 177f.) that the conventional order of issues must be correct,
but the significance of these letters on the tetradrachm coinage of Antioch,
and the reason for their replacement by a ram, is not clear.
The meaning of S C on the bronze coinage of Rome has itself been the
subject of much controversy. The traditional theory, which goes back to
Mommsen, is that the letters S C implied that the aes coinage was struck on
the authority of the senate, whereas the precious metal coinage was struck on
the direct authority of the emperor, but this view is no longer generally
held.32 At any event, whatever significance these letters may have had in the
time of Augustus, it is unlikely that they would still have retained that same
meaning in the very different circumstances of the third century and it is more
reasonable to assume that they continued to be used for no better reason than
that they were a normal part of the design of Roman bronze coins.33 When
S C appeared on silver tetradrachms from Syria, as it did for the first time in
Gordian’s reign, it is even less likely that it can have meant that the coins were
struck on the authority of the Roman senate. For this reason I feel that
Baldus’s interpretation of their appearance at Antioch under Gordian as
implying that the emperor had taken personal control over the mint’s
operations must be too simplistic.34
In Philip’s reign it would seem that the letters S C can have had no

31 Baldus, op. cit. n. 14.

32 T Mommsen, Romische Staatsrecht II, p. 1025 and III, p. 1146. For another theory see
K Kraft, ‘S(enatus) C(onsulto)’ JNG 1962, pp. 7ff. The debate is summarized in A M Burnett,
‘The Authority to Coin in the Late Republic and the Early Empire’, NC 1977, pp. 37-63. See
also M Grant, From Imperium to Auctoritas, Cambridge, 1945; A Bay, ‘The letters S C on the
Augustan bronze coinage’, JRS 1972, pp. 11 Iff.; C H V Sutherland, The Emperor and the
Coinage, London, 1977, pp. 12-22; A Wallace-Hadrill, ‘Image and authority in the coinage of
Augustus’, JRS 1986, pp. 66-87; C J Howgego, ‘Coinage and military finance : the imperial
bronze coinage of the Augustan East’, NC 1982, pp. 1-20 and A M Burnett, Coinage in the
Roman World, London 1987, p. 19.
33 Butcher argues on the contrary that the letters S C continued to have a meaning down
to the end of the civic coinage of Antioch in Valerian’s reign, although he is not explicit
about what he thinks this meaning is. I suspect rather that theyjmerely a feature of the
conservatism of the reverse designs of the silver and bronze coins of Antioch.
34 Baldus, op. cit. n. 14, p. 448.

187
meaning other than that they were thought to be a normal part of the design
of Syrian tetradrachm, whether it was actually struck in Syria or Rome. He
had five series of tetradrachms with the following reverse legends:
1. AHMAPX eEOYCIAC / / S C
2. AHMAPX eEOYCIAC YIIATO A // S C
3. AHMAPX eEOYCIAC S C / / MON VRB
4. AHMAPX eEOYCIAC YIIATO T // ANTIOXIA S C
5. AHMAPX eEOYCIAC YIIATO A // ANTIOXIA S C
What is revealing here is that all five issues of tetradrachms had the
letters S C, not only the first two which undoubtedly come from Antioch, but
also the third, which proclaims its Roman origin with the letters MON[eta]
VRB[is], and also the two final series which are the first Syrian tetradrachms
to bear the mint-signature ANTIOXIA.35 It is difficult to read any more
meaning into the use of the letters S C on Philip’s coins than that they were
an expected part of the design of Syrian tetradrachms, whether struck at
Antioch or not. In just the same way the tetradrachms of the Severan period
bore the letters A e in addition to the legend AHMAPX eEOYCIAC.36 As
for the ram that replaced S C on the third series, that too had come to be a
symbol of Antioch, as we shall see in the next section, and if there was any
significance in the replacement of S C by the ram, it is not clear today.

5. The attribution of the third series tetradrachms

The fact that the tetradrachms of the third series seem to have been
struck from two officinae marks them out as different from those of the first
two series and this, together with the addition of the ram and the omission of
the letters S C, has led to suggestions that they might come from a different
mint. Walker, noting that the third series was considerably more debased than
the first two, simply says that ‘they may be of a different mint’ without

35 For the MON VRB coinage see Baldus, op. cit., n. 13.
36 Bellinger, op. cit. n. 12.

188
pursuing the matter further.37 Gilmore is more specific.38 He points out that
the differences between the third series of Gordian’s tetradrachms and the
first two imply that it might well have come from a different mint and suggests
that the most likely alternative mint is Damascus which uses the running ram
as a mint signature.39 On the other hand, Wroth stated:

A running ram with a crescent and a star above its head, is especially characteristic
of Antioch. The ram has been explained by K O Muller as a sign of the zodiac,
indicating the period of the year at which the foundation of the city took place.40

The evidence in favour of Damascus is in fact not very convincing.

Although the ram does occur on the reverse of some bronze coins of
Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian from Damascus as a subsidiary type running
right with its head turned back in a very similar way to our tetradrachms of
Gordian (e.g., BMC 29 of Gallus, pi. 28, A), it should be noted that these coins
were issued some seven years after Gordian’s death and in fact Damascus is
not known to have struck any coins between the reigns of Severus Alexander
and Philip.41
The ram also appears in an identical form on bronze coins of Cyrrhus
from the reign of Philip (pi. 28, B).42 Recent work by Kevin Butcher on these
coins has shown that they share obverse dies with coins of Samosata and
Hieropolis which in turn link with coins of Antioch and he has proposed that
the coins of all three mints were struck at Antioch.43
It is true that tetradrachms of Caracalla with a ram’s head are

37 The Metrology o f the Roman Silver Coinage 3, p. 101.

38 P M Gilmore, ‘Dating, mints and officinae of Syrian tetradrachms’, Spink Numismatic
Circular September 1977, pp. 355-7; cf. also id., ‘The third century tetradrachms of Syria and
Syrian Antioch’, Spink Numismatic Circular May 1977, pp. 198-200.
39 Gilmore, op. cit., note 9 on p. 357.
40 BMC Galatia etc. p. lix. Bellinger, Two Roman Hoards from Dura Europos, Numismatic
Notes and Monographs 49, New York, 1931, p. 24, states the same thing: ‘The ram is the
'astronomical sign of Aries, apparently standing for the month in which the colony was
founded. It occurs as a type on the bronze from the time of Augustus’.
41 F de Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, Paris 1874, pp. 43ff.
42 E.g., BMC Cyrrhus nos. 30-4 and pi. 17, 6; Dura Final Report pi. 36, 1782.
43 K Butcher, ‘The Colonial Coinage of Antioch-on-the-Orontes, c. AD 218-53’, NC 1988,
pp. 63-75.

189
attributed to Damascus by Bellinger (pi. 28, C), but this attribution is made
solely on the parallel of the bronze coins with the ram reverse and so has no
independent authority.44 In any case Dieudonn645 had attributed Caracalla’s
ram tetradrachms to Antioch because the ram is also used as a symbol on the
bronze coinage of Antioch sporadically from the time of Augustus onwards,
as Bellinger pointed out. Most recently the ram had appeared on the large
issues of Severus Alexander and later on those of Philip and his family: all
these coins are signed ANTIOXeflN MHTPO KOAftN (pi. 28, D).46 What
is more the ram appears as a small subsidiary symbol above the seated figure
of the Tyche of Antioch47 or above the bust of Tyche48 and it is always
shown running right with its head turned back, just as on the third series of
Gordian’s tetradrachms.49 This small figure of the ram with its head turned
back may, therefore, be seen as a mint mark of Antioch, as was apparently the
case with the bronze coins of Cyrrhus.
Since there is no very convincing alternative candidate for the mint of
Gordian’s third issue of tetradrachms, it seems to me that they must have been
produced at Antioch and that the ram was intended to indicate this.

6. The chronology of Gordian’s tetradrachms

A. Introduction
The first series of tetradrachms merely have the legend AHMAPX
eEOYCIAC, S C. This is the Greek equivalent of the Latin tribuniciapotestate
(TR P); it cannot, however, be interpreted as TR P I since Syrian tetra­
drachms are never dated by tribunician years, but only by consulships

44 A R Bellinger, Syrian Tetradrachms, Numismatic Studies 3, New York 1940, p. 69: the
attribution, like many in this work, was actually Newell’s.
45 A Dieudonne, ‘L’aigle d’Antioche’, RN 1909, p. 476.
46 See Butcher, op. cit. n. 9 for the best account of the third century bronze coinage of
Antioch.
47 E.g., Dura Final Report pi. 34, 1700.
48 E.g., ibid. pi. 35, 1711.
49 Baldus, op. cit. n. 14, p. 448.

190
(YUATOC TO A etc. or YIIATO A). Since the next issue of tetradrachms, the
short-lived second series, has the legend AHMAPX eEOYCIAC YIIATOCTO
B, S C (i.e., TR P COS II), it seems reasonable to assume that the first series
was issued between Gordian’s accession and his second consulship, which he
entered into on 1 January 241.50 So for the first series we have limits of
Gordian’s accession (which occurred at some point between early May and
early August 238) and 30 December 240.51 Gordian’s third issue is similarly
dated by his second consulship (in the shortened form AHMAPX eE YIIATO
B and without the letters S C), so his second and third series must have been
struck between January 1st 241 and his death in January or February 244.52

B. The date of series 1 and 2

Can we be more precise concerning the dates of these issues? There
are two other factors that should be considered: the first concerns the links
between the first and second series and the second the parallels between the
tetradrachms and the radiates which can be more closely dated than the
tetradrachms.
It was observed that one obverse die that was used with reverses of the
first series was also used with a reverse of the second series (6/1-3 = 11/1).
Furthermore the second series is linked to the first by its very similar style of
both obverse and reverse, a style which is different from the next issue (see
above). In addition the first and second series were struck to the same weight
standard and from metal of the same silver content as each other, while the
third issue is different in both respects (see below, p. 204f.). On this basis one
would expect that the second series would follow on closely from the first
without any break.
It seems unlikely that the first issue of tetradrachms would have

t J L o lL * r o «v**.*so% k c •**.«_ t**6 2_

50 W Lie6enam, Fasti Consulares Imperii Romani, Bonn 1909, p. 29 and D Kienast,
Romische Kaisertabelle, Darmstadt, 1990, pp. 194-6.
51 For the dates see Chapter 2; the most important reference is now M Peachin, Roman
Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D. 235-284, Studia Amstelodamensia ad Epigraphicam
etc. Pertinentia, Amsterdam, 1990.
52 For the date of Gordian’s death see Chapter 2.

191
occupied the whole period of nearly two and a half years between Gordian’s
accession and his second consulship, since it was probably made from a total
of around 200 obverse dies, not an enormous number. We have seen that
Antioch was able to produce an issue of radiates containing over 670 obverse
dies within the space of at most 20 months in 238-9, and possibly in a much
shorter space of time (Chapter 3); it therefore seems unlikely that the first
series of tetradrachms would have occupied more than about a year, although
of course this is no more than speculation. On these, admittedly rather
slender, arguments one might expect that the issue was not begun much before
240, and that the second series was struck for a short time in early 241.
Although it is difficult to estimate the number of obverse dies used in the
second series, because of the lack of die-links, it cannot have been very great
and it is unlikely that it was in production for more than a few weeks.
If this is so, then it is tempting to suggest that the mint of Antioch
started producing the first issue of tetradrachms after it had stopped minting
the radiates of the first series with obverse IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS
AVG, which as we have already seen may be dated to 238-9.1 have supposed
above that the engravers of the dies of the first series of tetradrachms were
the same as those who made the dies of the first issue of radiates. However,
this does not mean that the two denominations were minted at the same time
as each other: they could have been minted consecutively, as I believe to be
more likely, but it certainly does imply that a break occurred at the mint of
Antioch between the cessation of minting in early 241 and its resumption,
probably in 242 (see below).
We may therefore postulate a sequence of issues for the first half of
Gordian’s reign as follows:
238 - end of 239: radiates (IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG):
(or 239) approximately 658 obverse dies
240 - early 241: tetradrachms (AHMAPX eEOYCIAC, SC and AHMAPX
eEOYCIAC YIIATOC TO B, SC); approximately 198 +
12 obverse dies.

192
C. The date of series 3: the alleged fall of Antioch
As we have seen, Gordian’s third series of tetradrachms is only dated
according to his second consulship which he held from January 1st 241 until
his death in early 244.53 We have also seen that the second series was most
probably issued in early 241, that there was then a break in coin production
at Antioch and that when it reopened the mint was staffed by new engravers
and was organized into two officinae.
One possible explanation for these events is that Antioch was occupied
by the Persians in 241-2. It used to be thought that this was the case, following
the evidence of the Historia Augusta.54 However, we shall see in Chapter 9
that new evidence, particularly the inscription of Shapur on the Ka’aba of
Zoroaster, has lead historians to discount the evidence of the Historia Augusta
(not for the first time) and instead to assume that while the frontier city of
Hatra fell to the Persians at this time,55 Antioch remained in Roman
hands.56 Therefore, we may discount the theory that the discontinuity in the
minting of coinage at Antioch was necessarily caused by the fall of the city to
the Persians.57

D. The date of series 3: the connection with Caesarea

This removes one possible means of dating the third series; are there
any other indications? The best clue is provided by the coinage of Caesarea.

53 Walker, however, in The Metrology o f the Roman Silver Coinage 3, p. 101, says that
‘Gordian’s tetradrachms as COS II are almost certainly confined to the year 240’: this must
surely be a mistake since there is no dispute that Gordian held his second consulship in 241.
54 E.g., W Ensslin in CAH XII, p. 130; H M D Parker, A History o f the Roman World AD
138 to 337, London, 1935, p. 149; K Pink, ‘Antioch or Viminacium?’, NC 1935, pp. 97-8; H
Mattingly in RIC p. 1.
55 At some time between April 240 and April 241: see E Kettenhofen, T he Persian
campaign of Gordian III and the inscription of Sahpuhr I at the Ka’be-ye Zartost’ in S
Mitchell (ed.), Armies and Frontiers in Roman and Byzantine Anatolia, BAR International
Series 156, 1983, pp. 151-171.
56 Such is the view of Loriot, ‘Les premieres annees de la grande crise du IIIe si6cle: de
l’avSnement de Maximin le Thrace (235) d la mort de Gordien III (244)’, A N R W II, 2, p. 765,
n. 797 and Kettenhofen, op. cit. n. 55.
57 This was suggested, for example, by Pink, op. cit. n. 54, pp. 97-8 and by Mattingly in
RIC p. 1 and n.

193
This will be discussed in detail in Chapter 6 and the connection between its
coinage and that of Antioch will be examined in detail in Chapters 6 and 9.
For the present, I propose merely to recount the conclusions from the study
of Caesarea’s coinage. This coinage consisted of a moderate issue of
tridrachms and a small series of bronze coins in Year 3 (10 December 239 -
10 December 240),58 a large issue of tridrachms, didrachms, drachms and
bronze coins in Year 4 (240-1) and a small series of the two smaller silver
denominations in Year 5 (241-2). The style of all these coins is very close to
that of Antioch and I have argued that they were the work of the same
engravers. Finally, there were small issues of bronze coins in Years 6 (242-3)
and 7 (243-4); most, if not all, of these later bronze issues were in a much
cruder style than the earlier pieces and are the work of different engravers.
It looks, therefore, as though the minting of silver in the East was
transferred from Antioch to Caesarea during 240 and 241, including the
workmen who engraved the dies.59 That this transfer must have occurred in
several stages is shown by the overlap of minting between the mints in 240 and
early 241. However, as we have seen, the mint of Antioch seems to have
stopped work altogether early in 241 and it is precisely in this year that the
output of Caesarea peaked. The correlation is very striking and can hardly be
coincidental: presumably the engravers were moved from Antioch to Caesarea,
some 175 km to the north-west, because it was thought by the authorities that
the latter city was less likely to be threatened by the Persians.
There was then a clear break in the minting of coinage at Caesarea
early in the following year (Year 5 = 242), when only a small issue of
didrachms and drachms was struck, to be followed by another limited series
of bronze coins, in a different style, in Year 6. Again, it looks as though the
authorities made a decision to transfer the staff of the mint back to Antioch
from Caesarea at this time, presumably because Antioch was now thought to

58 For the date see Chapter 2.

59 Alternatively, the Caesarean coins could have been minted at Antioch; I think that this
is a less likely possibility because there is no apparent reason why Antioch should have made
coins for Caesarea (certainly not bronze coins), while there are reasons why engravers from
Antioch might have been transferred to Caesarea.

194
be safe again.
If this interpretation of the coinage is correct then the most likely date
for the third series of tetradrachms would be after the return of the engravers
to Antioch during early 242. We shall see in Chapter 5 that the second series
of radiates from Antioch started to be struck some time during Gordian’s fifth
tribunician year, that is 242, and probably towards the end of that year, and
so the date of the tetradrachms depends on whether it is likely that they were
produced before or at the same time as the radiates. There is no evidence on
this point; it is purely a matter of interpretation. Bearing that in mind, my view
is that it is more probable that the two coinages were struck sequentially
rather than simultaneously, although it is quite likely that there was some
overlap. The reasons for this are as follows:
1. Although the styles of these two coinages have some similarities, they
are not nearly as close as the first series of radiates to the first two issues of
tetradrachms.
2. As we have seen, it seems likely that the first issue of tetradrachms
was produced in 240, after the first series of radiates ceased to be struck.
3. The tetradrachms and radiates were struck at very different silver
standards, the tetradrachms being approximately 18% pure and the radiates
over 43% (Chapter 7).
4. As we have seen, the tetradrachms seem to have been produced in
two unequal officinae; the radiates, on the other hand, were minted in three
officinae of approximately equal size (Chapter 5).
5. The two coinages were produced on a very different scale, the
tetradrachms consisting of only about 100 dies, while the radiates were struck
from nearly 2300 dies. We have seen that the radiates seem to be closely
linked to a visit Gordian made to Syria in spring 239 (Chapter 3): not only
were they produced at the time of the campaign, and in the area in which the
operations took place, but also they seem to have circulated among the troops

195
on that expedition.60 The tetradrachms, on the other hand, were produced
on a much smaller scale and as we shall see below, their circulation pattern
is indistinguishable from that of all other Antiochene tetradrachms of the
period (p. 200f.).
While none of these reasons is conclusive in itself, taken together they
do seem to suggest that the most likely date for the third series of
tetradrachms is 242, perhaps between the spring and autumn of that year.
However, this chronology must remain provisional.

7. Die counts

A. Methods of calculation
The obverse die-study was carried out on all coins of which
photographs were available: 155 of the first series, 10 of the second and 157
of the third. The results are presented below. Tables 3 and 4 also present the
die-estimates worked out in two different ways: first, by making the
calculations separately for each variety of obverse bust or of reverse type and
then adding them and secondly by taking all the figures for each series
together and making a single estimate for them all. The second method is
termed calculated together and the results are given in italics at the end of each
issue.
It is obviously best to calculate the die-estimates for each variety
separately if that is possible, so as to avoid distortion of the results caused by
one variety being over-represented in the sample. In the case of the obverses,
it might be expected that the coins with non-standard busts will be better
represented as compared with those with the normal D2* bust, since they are
more likely to be present in collections and to be illustrated in sale catalogues.
This effect can be seen in the figures of the first series: when the dies for each

60 This statement is made on the basis that the highest known concentration of these
coins is at the important frontier post of Dura, where the radiates of the second series from
Antioch comprised 36.5% of all radiates and denarii of Gordian, a higher proportion than
among the finds from Antioch itself (21.7%): see Chapter 8.

196
bust variety are calculated separately and added up the total amounts to 198.3,
while when the calculation is made for all the dies together the figure comes
to 182.9. The higher figure is to be preferred because the other is distorted
because of over-representation of the coins with the non-standard busts.
For the third series the two methods produce very similar results
because p/C there are so many die-identities even among the coins with the
normal bust that the estimates are more precise. Thus when the estimates are
calculated separately and totalled for the first officina they give a figure of
over 68.6 dies while when calculated together they come to 67.5 dies; for the
second officina the figure are over 31.6 dies (calculated separately) and 32.6
(calculated together).
It is, however, useful to make a single calculation for all the coins of an
issue when only a very few coins are known from that issue, as in the case of
the second series. Here a joint calculation gives a figure of 14 obverse dies
instead of over 12 when calculated separately, but more importantly it enables
us to set much narrower upper and lower limits to the probable number: 9.8
to 24.3 dies instead of over 8 to 54+. I think that the joint calculation is
probably valid (see Chapter 1).

B. The results
The obverse die-studies for all three series of tetradrachms have
produced enough die-links to make it possible to produce fairly accurate
estimates of the total numbers of dies used. The picture is very different for
the reverses, as we shall see. For the first series, with reverse AHMAPX
eEOYCIAC S C, Good’s equation, as we have seen, gives a figure of 198.3
dies, while Esty’s ‘coverage’ method suggests that there were between 170.5
and 238 dies. The die-study included 155 coins of this issue and these came
from 104 dies. For the second series very few coins were available and the die
estimates are less reliable because the die-links were so few. However, it is

197
 Table 3: Die-statistics of Gordian’s tetradrachms: obverses

First series: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC, S C

Bust Coins Dies N-S Die breakdown ‘Good’ Coverage Range

Dl 20 13 12 8x1; 3x2; 2x3 21.7 60% ±16.4% 17 - 29.8
D2* 110 81 52 58x1; 20x2; 1x3; 1x4; 1x5 171.3 47.3% ±7.5% 148 - 203.5
A31 3 1 3 1x3 1 100% 1
Bll 4 2 4 2x2 2 100% 2
D ll 16 7 12 4x1; 1x2; 1x3; 1x7 9.3 75% ±16.5% 7.7-12
Total 153 104 83 70x1; 26x2; 5x3; 1x4; 205.3 175.7-2483
1x5; 1x7
Calculated together 191.7 54.3% ±6.2% 172 - 216.4

Second series: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC YIIATOC TO B, S C

D2* 5 3 3 2x1; 1x3 5 60% ±21.9% 3.7 - 7.9
A21 1 1 0 lxl 1.+ ? 1+
D ll 4 3 2 2x1;1x2 6. 50% ±43.3% 3.2 - 44.8
Total 10 7 5 5x1; 1x2; 1x3 12.+ 8 -5 4 +
Calculated together 14 50% ±21.2% 9.8 - 24.3

Third series: AHMAPX eS YIIATO B, ram

First officina: ram left
A2* 15 7 12 3x1; 1x2; 2x3; 1x4 8.8 80% ±13.2% 7.5 - 10.5
Bl* 3 1 3 1x3 1 100% 1
D2 9 2 9 1x4; 1x5 2 100% 2
D2* 51 26 37 14x1; 3x2; 7x3; 2x5 35.8 72.5% ±8.5% 32.1 - 40.6
B21 1 1 0 lxl 1.+ ? 1+
D ll 22 11 16 6x1; 3x2; 1x4; 1x6 15.1 72.7% ±14.6% 12.6 - 18.9
G il 9 2 9 1x3; 1x6 2 100% 2
Gil* 1 1 0 lxl 1.+ ? 1+
111 51 86 25x1; 7x2; 11x3; 3x4; 66.7+ 59.2 - 77+
3x5; 2x6
Calculated together 65.8 77.5% ±5.2% 61.7- 70.6

Second officina: ram right

D2 8 3 6 2x1; 1x6 4 75% ±15.3% 3 - 5
D2* 35 19 25 10x1; 5x2; 1x3; 3x4 26.6 71.4% ±11.8% 22.8 - 31.9
D ll 1 1 0 lxl 1.+ ? 1+
44 23 31 13x1; 5x2; 1x3; 3x4; 1x6 31.6+ 26.8-37.9+
Calculated together 32.6 70.5% ±9.9% 28.6 - 38

Total 155 74 117 98.3+ 86 -114.9+

198
 Table 4: Die-statistics of Gordian’s tetradrachms: reverses

First series: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC, S C

Coins Dies N-S Die breakdown ‘Good’ Coverage Range

1. Eagle standing facing, head left
137 125 24 113x1; 12x2 713.5 17.5% ±4.8% 559.3 - 985
2. Eagle standing facing, head right
5 4 2 3x1; 1x2 10 40% ±41% >4.9
3. Eagle standing left, head left
2 2 0 2x1 2.+ ? >2
Total 144 131 26 118x1; 13x2 725.5+ 566.2 - 991.9
Calculated together 725.5 18.1% ±4.8% 573.6 - 986.4

Second series: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC YHATOC TO B, S C

1. Eagle standing facing, head left

9 7 4 5x1; 2x2 16 44.4% ±27.7% 10 - 42
2. Eagle standing left, head left
1 1 0 lxl 1.+ ? >1
Total 10 8 4 17.+ 11 - 43+
Calculated together 20 40% ±25.3% 12.3 - 40.6

Third series: AHMAPX e S YIIATO B, ram

First officina: ram left

1. eagle standing facing, head left
91 83 13 78x1; 2x2; 3x3 581 14.3% ±4.3% 447 - 829
2. eagle standing facing, head right
7 5 3 4x1; 1x3 12 42.9% ±18.7% 8.1 - 20.7
Total 98 88 16 82x1; 2x2; 4x3 593 455.1 - 849.7
Calculated together 539 16.3% ±4.3% 427.4 - 729.1

Second officina: ram right

1. eagle standing facing, head left
42 41 2 40x1; 1x2 861 4.8% ±4.7% >432.9

Total 140 129 18 122x1; 3x2; 4x3 1454 888->1282.6

Calculated together 1003.3 12.9% ±3.3% 796.8 - 1353.6

199
clear that these coins are very rare and it seems unlikely that the issue
comprised more than about 20 obverse dies in all.
The die-study of the third series, which was based on almost exactly the
same number of coins as that of the first, produced many fewer dies in
proportion to the total number of coins: 75 from 157 coins instead of 104 from
155 in the case of the first issue. The estimated total number of dies is
correspondingly lower: 100+ according to Good’s equation and between 88
and 116.5 by Esty’s method. The third series was, therefore, struck from half
the number of obverse dies that were used in the first series although slightly
more coins survive today. This means either that the coins of the third series
are twice as likely to survive today as are those of the first, or that more coins
were struck from the obverse dies of the third series than from those of the
first. Either conclusion is unexpected and demands explanation.
If the first explanation is correct, i.e. that coins of the third series are
more likely to survive today, it is presumably because the coins with AHMAPX
eSOYCIAC were recalled and melted down for recoinage. It is impossible to
be certain why this should be so, but it might be connected with the fact that
the coins of the first two series contained about 30% more silver than did
those of the third. Therefore, if all the tetradrachms of Gordian circulated
together at the same value, as they seem to have done, the later coins would
have been overvalued by 30% compared with the earlier ones. For this reason
one would expect the earlier coins to be removed from circulation more
quickly than those of the third issue.

C. The circulation pattern61

However, an examination of Table 2 of Chapter 8, which is a summary
of all hoards that contain tetradrachms of the period 238-53, does not seem
to support the theory that the first and second series tetradrachms of Gordian
were removed from circulation earlier than the third series coins. The 17

61 For a general discussion of the circulation of Syrian tetradrachms see Chapter 8. The
present section concentrates on the distribution of Gordian’s three issues of tetradrachms in
hoards.

200
hoards of which we have details can be divided into three groups: Hoard I, the
‘Numismatic Fine Arts’ hoard and Dura hoard 7 come in the first category
which consists of those finds that close with coins of Philip.62 The second
group, which includes ten finds, comprises those that go down to the end of
the tetradrachm coinage in the reign of Gallus. Finally there are four finds,
two from Dura (1 and 10) and the Caphamaum and Jafa hoards, that include
radiate issues struck after 253. The two Dura hoards end in 255/6, that from
Caphamaum in 270, while the Jafa hoard extends down to 294. However, it
does not seem that the earlier finds contain a higher proportion of the first
and second issues of Gordian’s tetradrachms than the later ones.
One of the difficulties of carrying out an analysis of this kind is that we
do not have adequate descriptions of four of the hoards, while another three
do not contain any tetradrachms of Gordian. This leaves ten finds, six of which
contain four coins or less. The sample is, therefore, very restricted. However,
of the two earliest hoards, one, Hoard I, does not have any tetradrachms of
Gordian’s first two issues but it does have two of his third series, while Hoard
7 from Dura has 14 of the earlier tetradrachms (42%) to 19 of the later
(58%). Of the later finds, Hoard III, which closes in 253, has a roughly similar
proportion to Dura hoard 7: 45% of the earlier coins to 55% of the later.
Similarly, Dura hoard 1, buried in 255/6, contains 8 or 44% of the earlier
tetradrachms to 10 or 56% of the later ones. It is only the two last hoards in
the table, Dura 10 and Caphamaum, that seem to have significantly fewer of
the tetradrachms of the first two series: Dura 10 has 6 (26%) and 17 (74%),
while Caphamaum has none of the earlier pieces and four of the third series.
So it seems that there is some slight evidence that the tetradrachms of the first
two series of Gordian were removed from circulation sooner than those of his
third series, but it is by no means conclusive.
If, on the other hand, the second explanation is to be preferred and the

62 The latest coin in Dura hoard 7 is actually a single radiate of Trebonianus Gallus, but
since the hoard contains no other coins later than Philip and none of the extremely common
tetradrachms of Trajan Decius it seems that the hoard must have been put together in Philip’s
reign and that, if the solitary coin of Gallus was not an intruder, then it was added to the
hoard just before it was put in the ground.

201
difference in the proportion of coins to dies between the first two and the
third issues is because the obverse dies of the third series were used to strike
more coins than were those of the first, then this underlines the picture that
we have already gained from other evidence that there was a change in
minting practice at Antioch between the two issues. There seems no clear
evidence as to which explanation is correct and of course both could be.

D. The reverses
Table 4 presents the statistics relating to the reverses of Gordian’s
tetradrachms. Whereas the obverses had a relatively high proportion of die-
identities and so allowed us to make a fairly confident guess as to the total
numbers of dies in each series, the reverses have very few die-identities and
it is for this reason that joint calculations become more important than they
had been for the obverses. Thus, out of 42 coins of the second officina of the
third series only one die pair was noted. The estimated total is correspondingly
very high, at 861 dies, while the probable range starts at 432.9 and goes up to
infinity. However, the coins of the first officina produced rather more reverse
die-links: 82 singletons, two pairs and three triples, so that the estimated total
number of dies is, at 593, rather lower than for the much less numerous coins
of the second officina. This is improbable as there is no reason to believe that
there should be a significant difference in the relative proportions of reverse
dies used for these two officinae, and so a joint calculation in which the coins
from the two officinae are added together gives a more reasonable result:
1003.3 dies (or a range of 796.8 to 1353.6), and is, I believe, to be preferred.
The first series has three variations of reverse type: the normal design
shows the eagle standing facing with its head left and its tail to left: 137 had
this type amongst which there were only twelve die-identical pairs, suggesting
that there could have been around 714 dies in all (according to Good’s
formula). The two other varieties of reverse type that occur in the first series
(eagle standing facing head right and eagle standing left, head left) are both
much rarer with five and two coins respectively, but they produced only one
more die-identical pair between them. Any die-estimate made on the basis of

202
so few die-identities is bound to be only very approximate and the ‘coverage’
method suggests a probable lower limit of 566 dies with an upper limit of
more than 992. A joint calculation, as we have seen, produces very similar
figures.
In the case of the short-lived second series the picture is much the
same: two reverse varieties are known: the first is the same as the normal first
series type (but with a different legend) and is represented by nine coins,
including two die-identical pairs, while the second variety is only represented
by a single specimen. Good’s formula suggests that there were around 17
reverse dies in all in the second series, while the ‘coverage’ method suggests
a lower limit of 11 dies and an upper limit of 43, or between 12 and 41 if
calculated together.
The reverses of the third series can be divided into those with the ram
running left and those with ram right, corresponding perhaps to two different
officinae. The first officina, with ram left, has two varieties of eagle: head left
(91 coins from 83 dies) and head right (7 coins from 5 dies). The second
workshop, with ram right, just has the eagle with head left and the 42 coins of
this type included just one die pair. As we have seen, separate calculations do
not produce very sensible figures for these coins, whereas a joint calculation
on all the coins of the third series does give a more precise result: 1003.3 dies
or between 797 and 1354.
Overall, the statistics obtained from the reverse dies suggests that there
were very approximately the same total number of reverse dies in the third
series as therewere in the first. Thisis perhapssurprising given thatalmost
exactly half as many obverse dieswere usedin the thirdseries as inthe first.
The proportion of the estimated total of obverse to reverse dies for the three
series, using joint calculations, is:
First series: 1 : 3.65
Second series: 1 : 1.67
Third series: 1 : 10.01
From this it seems clear that the life of the reverse dies of the third
series was considerably shorter, apparently nearly three times as short, than

203
those of the first issue. The figure for the second series is based on so few
specimens that it is not to be taken as reliable. This therefore provides yet
more evidence that there was a change in minting practice between the second
and third issues.

8. Weights

The weights of series 1 and 2 are shown separately in Table 5. We only

have the weights of ten coins of the second series, which is too few to make
a reliable sample, but it seems most likely that the weight standard of the first
series was maintained. This may be deduced from the fact that the mean
weight of the second series coins is slightly lower while the median is slightly
higher. A histogram (Figure 1) illustrates the weights of the coins of the first
two series combined.

Table 5: Summary of weights

Series Qty- Range of weights Median Mean

Series 1 108 9.21g - 15.94g 12.02g 12.09g
Series 2 10 9.80g - 13.13g 11.77g 12.24g
Series 1 and 2 118 9.2 lg - 15.94g 12.00g 12.09g

Series 3, first officina 79 8.59g - 17.43g 12.60g 12.48g

Series 3, second officina 23 8.43g - 14.42g 12.2 lg 12.34g
Series 3, both officinae 102 8.43g - 17.43g 12.51g 12.48g

For the third series the weights are broken down between the two
officinae and the mean weights are rather different, at 12.60g for the first
officina and 12.21g for the second. However, the median weights for the two
officinae are rather closer, at 12.48g and 12.34g respectively, and it seems
unlikely that these two series were intended to be struck at different standards.
A second histogram (Figure 2) compares the distribution of weights for the
two officinae. Paradoxically, although the coins of the third series contained
about 30% less silver than those of the first two issues, they were in fact
slightly heavier, the difference being about half a gram. The first two issues

204
have a mean weight of 12.00 grams (median 12.09) while the third has a mean
of 12.51 grams (median 12.48).

9. Die-axis

The die-axes were obtained of 61 coins of the first two series and of 59
coins of the third and the results are shown in the table below. In both cases
the die-axes cluster around the vertical (12 o’clock) and inverted (6 o’clock)
and they are fairly equally divided between them, with a higher proportion of
vertical to inverted. The proportions are 34:27 for Series 1 and 2 and 34:25 for
Series 3. No particular significance should be attached to this slight bias in
favour of 12 o ’clock die-axes since in both cases the size of the sample is
relatively small. There is no evidence that the second series has a different
pattern from the first, nor that the two officinae in operation in the third issue
are in any way different.

Table 6: Die-axes

Issue 11 12 1 5 6 7 Total

Series 1 and 2 2 29 3 2 23 2 61
% 3.3 47.5 4.9 3.3 37.7 3.3

Series 3 7 24 3 2 23 59
% 11.9 40.7 5.1 3.4 39.0

205
 F ig u re 1
U e ig h ts of tetradrachm s o f S e rie s 1 & 2
compared
Quant i ty
25

20

15

1 ■

10

1
,.wMMI . ,,,
5
■ ■ S e r ie s 1
0 1 1W W W 1 DUmHSe r i es 2
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

U e ig h ts (grams)
F ig u re 2
U eigh ts o f tetradrachm s o f S e rie s 3:
O ffic in a e 1 and 2 compared
Quant i ty

iiimllin f f . 2
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ?7

U e ig h ts (grams)
F ig u re 3
U eights o f tetradrachm s o f S erie s
1-2 and 3 compared
Quant i ty

nnnmser.
3
■ ■ S e r.
1-2
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

U eigh ts (grams)

206
 C ATA LO G U E

First series, AD 240

Obverse legend: AYTOK K M ANT IDPAIANOC CeB

Reverse: AHMAPX € HOYCIAC S C

1 20 coins, 13 obv. dies

D l* AHMAPX eSOYCIAC S C Eagle standing facing, head 1., on
line. Its tail is to 1. and it holds a
wreath in its beak. Beneath line,
SC.
Dura, Final Report BMC -
Obv. die No.
I 1 P, 718, 12.72g, 6.
I 2 Numismatic Fine Arts 18/12/1987, 859, 11.86g.
I 3* Munzen und Medaillen AG, FPL 312 (5/1970), 37, noweight.
II 4* Br, 48627, 12.92g, 12.
II 5 De Nicola FPL 6/1974, 126, no weight.
II 6 Hoard III, 237, no weight.
III 7* Private collection MP, Paris, 13.01g, 1.
IV 8* Private collection MP, Paris, 12.40g, 11.
IV 9 Seaby Coin and Medal Bulletin 9/1982, D83, no weight.
V 10* Rauch 1 (1969), 714, no weight.
VI 11* Crippa FPL 6/1964, 355, no weight.
VII 12* Numismatic Fine Arts FPL 16 (1979), 74, 12.39g.
VIII 13* Munzen und Medaillen Galerie Koln(Knopek), 17 (1981),
436, 11.56g.
IX 14* Kricheldorf 26 (1973), 187 = Munz Zentrum 64 (1988), 554
= idem 65 (1988), 1116 = idem 66 (1989), 1299 = idem 68 (1990),
914, 11.41g.
X 15 Sternberg 19 (1987), 777, 10.85g.
X 16* Hirsch 167 (1990), 1243, no weight.
XI 17* Hirsch 145 (1985), 636, no weight.
XII 18 Hamburger 11/6/1930, 450, no weight.
XII 19* NY, 1981.40.11 (Goldberg), 14.53g, 12.
XIII 20* B, Lobbecke, 12.38g, 12.
Obverse die-links: 10 = 2/1 (rev.: eagle head r.).
Reverse die-links: 18 & 19 (die-identical).

2 1 coin
D l* AHMAPX eEOYCIAC S C Eagle standing facing, head r., on
line. Its tail is to 1. and it holds a
wreath in its beak. Beneath line, S
C.
Dura, Final Report BMC -
V 1* Empire Coins 5/5/1982, 202, 13.02g.
Obverse die-links: 1 = 1/10.
Reverse die-links: 1 = 9/1 (obv. bust Dll).

207
3 2 coins, 2 obv. dies
D2* AHMAPX eSOYCLAC S C Eagle standing 1., head 1., on line.
Its tail is to r. and it holds a
wreath in its beak. Beneath line,
SC .
Dura, Final Report BMC -
Obv. die No.
I 1* Cop, SNG 260, 10.10g, 12.
II 2* B, von Rauch, 11.05g, 12.
Obverse die-links: 2 = 4/149 (rev.: AHMAPX eSOCIAC).

4 105 + 47 coins, 80 obv. dies

D2* AHMAPX eSOYCLAC S C Eagle standing facing, head 1.,
as 1.
Dura, Final Report 373; BMC 494-7
III 1* L, 1948-6-2-5 ex Hoard V, 5, 12.78g, 12. Analysis MRSC 3,
5246: AR 37.75%.
III 1A Blanton, FPL 8 (1990), 261, no weight. Note: this coin has
been wrongly paired on the plate with the reverse of 260, a
tetradrachm of Elagabalus.
IV 2* L, BMC 494 (1853-10-6-15), 12.09g, 11.30. Analysis MRSC 3,
5242: AR 34.00%.
V 3* L, BMC 495 (1897-4-5-9), 10.90g, 12. Analysis MRSC 3, 5243:
AR 38.00%.
VI 4* L, BMC 496, 12.10g, 7.Analysis MRSC 3, 5244: AR 32.00%.
VII 5* L, BMC 497, 13.37g, 12. Analysis MRSC 3, 5245: AR 31.50%.
VIII 6* P, 717, 11.43g, 12.
IX 7* P, 719, 11.49g, 6.
X 8 P, 720, 10.71g, 6.
X 9* Mu, 22963, 9.77g, 6.
XI 10* Private collection DRW, Oxford, 12.99g, 6.30. Analysis MRSC
3, 5247: AR 39.50%.
XI 11 Schulten 11/4/1988, 970, 11.56g.
XII 12* O, Amedroz (1897), 11.22g, 6. Analysis MRSC 3, 5248: AR
36.00%.
XIII 13 J, no weight.
XIII 14* Yale ex Dura hoard 1, 63 = Final Report 373 (pi. 12), 13.0g.
XIII 15 Baldwin’s stock, 1984, 12.24g, 12.
XIII 16 Kricheldorf 34 (1970), 161, no weight.
XIV 17* V, 38078, 11.73g,6.
XIV 18 Munz Zentrum 31 (1978),118, 13.48g.
XV 19 Cop, SNG 261, 13.31g, 6.
XV 20* Spink Numismatic Circular, 12/1976, 10184, no weight.
XVI 21* H, 1978/280, 12.78g, 12.
XVII 22* H, 7795, 9.21g, 6.
XVII 23 Elsen FPL 90 (1986), 28, 12.47g.
XVIII 24* Dura hoard 1, 62, 14.lg.
XIX 25* B, Imhoof-Blumer, no weight., 12.
XX 26* Br, 56353, 12.45g, 12.30.
XX 27 Hoard III, 238, no weight.
XX 28 Dorotheum 422 (1983), 309 = idem 424 (1983), 145, no weight.

208
Obv. die No.
XX 29 Peus 271 (1969), 318, 12.67g.
XX 30 N Y, 1940.100.66067 (Newell), 13.43g, 6.
XXI 31* Br, 56992, 11.51g, 6.
XXI 32 Schulten 1/4/1987, 966, 11.97g.
XXII 33* P, Chandon de Briailles 1876, 12.68g, 6.
XXIII 34* DRW cast (Baldwin’s stock), no weight.
XXIV 35* Hoard III, 239, no weight.
XXV 36* Hoard III, 240, no weight.
XXVI 37* Hoard III, 241, no weight.
XXVI 38 Kunst und Munzen 13 (1974), 472 = Ars et Nummus FPL
4-6/1977, 364, no weight.
XXVII 39* B, Fox, 12.60g, 12.
XXVII 40 Schulten 11/4/1988, 971, 10.91g.
XXVIII 41* G, Macdonald 280, 10.81g.
XXIX 42* G, Macdonald 281, 11.55g.
XXX 43* Hoard VI, 2, U.73g, 12.
XXXI 44* Hoard IV, 23, ll.Olg, 12.
XXXII 45* Hoard II, 1, U.50g, 12.
XXXII 46 Galerie fur Griech., Rom. u. Byz. Kunst FPL 1 (1970), 95,
13.63g.
XXXIII 47* Asta Ceresio 2 (1988), 233, 11.99g.
XXXIV 48* Crippa FPL 2/1971, 594, no weight.
XXXV 49* Empire Coins 5/5/1985, 203, 10.43g.
XXXVI 50* Emporium Hamburg 7 (1986), 58 = Munz Zentrum 53 (1984),
1958, 11.52g.
XXXVII 51* Weber 7971, 15.94g.
XXXVII 52 Edelstein and Holland 10/11/1975, 40 = Schulten 8/11/1982,
206, 12.97g.
XXXVIII 53* Hirsch 71 (1971), 905 = Kricheldorf 29 (1975), 415 = Muller
28 (1980), 687, 10.5g.
XXXIX 54 Hirsch 154 (1987), 672, no weight.
XXXIX 55* N Y, 1940.100.66075 (Newell), 12.11g, 6.
XL 56* Kastner 6 (1974), 376, 12.59g, 5.
XL 57 Private collection MP, Paris, 13.06g, 6.
XL 58 Munzen und Medaillen AG, FPL 534 (7/1990), 39, 12.76g.
XLI 59 Knobloch FPL 31 (1967), 262, 13.3g.
XLI 60* Formerly private collection MP, Paris, 9.78g, 12.
XLI I 61* Knopek, Koln, 30/9/1978, 604, U.90g.
XLIII 62* Kurpfalzische Munzhandlung 24 (1983), 350, no weight.
XLIII 63 Baldwin’s stock, 1989, no weight.
XLIV 64* Lanz, Graz, 10 (1977) 821, 11.14g.
XLV 65* Lanz 36 (1986), 799, 12.73g.
XLV 66 N Y, 1940.100.66066 (Newell ex Dura hoard 1, 90), 14.53g, 12.
XLVI 67* C J Martin FPL 12, 4 (1984), G34, 12.10g, 12. This coin
appears to have II under the obv. bust: possibly a die-engraver’s
error.
XLVI I 68* Muller 50 (1985), 210, 11.8g.
XLVIII 69* Muller 51 (1986), 220, 10.9g.
XLIX 70* Munz Zentrum 53 (1984), 1923, 11.28g.
L 71 Kunst und Munzen 13 (1974), 471, no weight.
L 72* Myers - Adams 6 (1973), 308, no weight.
LI 73* De Nicola FPL 6/1971, 214, no weight.
LII 74* Numismatic Fine Arts 6 (1979), 836, 10.90g.
LI 11 75* Lepczyk 56 (1984), 719 = Seaby Coin and Medal Bulletin
11/1984, C568, no weight.
LIV 76* R Ratto, Lugano, 7/6/1926 (Moneta II), 1902, no weight.

209
Obv. die No.
LV 77* Rauch 38 (1987), 750, no weight.
LVI 78* Schulten 2/11/1983, 587, 12.23g.
LVII 79* Schulten 11/4/1988, 969, 11.88g.
LVIII 80* Sobelar 5 (1974), 515, 13.52g.
LVIII 81 Baldwin’s stock, 1988, no weight.
LIX 82* Platt 26/6/1922 (Luneau II), 591 = Vinchon 22/2/1971,335, no
weight.
LX 83* Hesperia Art FPL 21 (1962), 212 = Walker FPL 25 (7/1988),
127, 11.89g.
LXI 84* Ars et Nummus FPL 9/1966,427 = idem FPL 4/1968, 406, no
weight.
LXII 85* Reichmann 30 (1924), 764, 12.38g.
LXIII 86* Dorotheum 403 (1980), 171, no weight.
LXIV 87* Munz Zentrum 29 (1977), 270, 12.11g.
LXV 88* Peus FPL 4 (1968), 81, no weight.
LXVI 89* N Y, 1977.158.653 (Kelley), 11.76g, 6.
LXVII 90* N Y, 1940.100.66068 (Newell), 12.11g, 6.
LXVIII 91* N Y, 1940.100.66069 (Newell), 10.86g, 12.
LXIX 92* N Y, 1940.100.66073 (Newell), 14.32g, 12.
LXX 93* Yale, 13.10g.
LXXI 94* Yale, 10.32g.
LXXII 95* Yale ex Dura hoard 1, 65, lO.llg.
LXXIII 96* Munz Zentrum 65 (1988), 328, 12.08g.
LXXIV 97* Bonn 2, 13.13g.
LXXV 98* Lucerne 1363, no weight.
LXXVI 99* Formerly private collection MP, Paris, 11.63g, 12.
LXXVII 100* Spink’s stock, 1982, no weight.
LXXIX 101* Tietjen 58 (1989), 281, 11.06g.
LXXX 102* Aes Rude SA, 5/4/1984, 217, no weight.
LXXXI 103* Kolner Munzkabinet 49 (1989), 582, no weight.
? 104* W, 35074, 11.77g, 6.
? 105 W, 21266, 13.40g, 6.
? [106 Dura hoard 1 63, 12.3g.]
? [107-29 Dura, Final Report 373, no weight.]
? [130-50 Hoard III, 242-62, no weight.]

Variant: rev.: AHMAPX eEOCIAC S C

II 151* B, 1085/1912, no weight, 12.

Obverse die-links: 6 = 5/1 (rev.: eagle head r.);

87 = 5/2 (rev.: eagle head r.);
149 = 3/2 (rev.: eagle standing 1.).
Reverse die-links: 14 & 15 (die-identical);
45 & 46 (die-identical);
51 & 52 (die-identical);
57 & 58 (die-identical);
71 & 72 (die-identical);
3 & 66;
5 & 29;
41 & 62.

210
5 3 coins, 3 obv. dies
D2* AHMAPX eEOYCIAC S C Eagle standing facing, head r.,
as 2.
Dura, Final Report BMC -
Obv. die No.
VIII 1* Auctiones S.A. 8 (1978), 482, 12.07g.
LXIV 2* P, 721, 10.20g, 12.
LXXVIII 3* Rauch 32 (1984), 831, no weight.
Obverse die-links: 1 = 4/6 (rev.: eagle head 1.);
2 = 4/87 (rev.: eagle head 1.).

6 3 coins, 1 obv. die

A31 AHMAPX eEOYCIAC S C Eagle standing facing, head 1.,
as 1.
Dura, Final Report 375; BMC -
I 1 O, Christ Church, 10.59g, 6. Analysis MRSC 3, 5249: AR
39.00%.
I 2 Yale ex Dura hoard 7, 113 = Final Report 375 (pi. 12), 9.42g.
I 3* Hoard III, 263, no weight.
Obverse die-link: 1-3 = 11/1 (rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCLAC YUATOCTO
B, SC).
Reverse die-link: 1 & 2 (die-identical).

4 + 2 coins, 2 obv. dies

AHMAPX eEOYCIAC S C Eagle standing facing, head 1.,
as 1.
Dura, Final Report 374; BMC -
I 1* Private collection MP, Paris ex Tkalec and Rauch 15/4/1985,
308, 13.42g, 6.
I 2 Kovacs, MBS 10 (1990), 268, no weight.
II 3* Yale ex Dura hoard 1, 66 = Final Report 374 (pi. 12), 11.85g.
II 4 Aes Rude SA, 7/4/1983, 272, no weight.
? [5-6 Dura, Final Report 374, no weight.]
Reverse die-link: 3 & 4 (die-identical).

8 15 + 1 coins, 7 obv. dies

D ll AHMAPX eEOYCIAC S C Eagle standing facing, head 1.,
as 1.
Dura, Final Report BMC 498
I 1 L, BMC 498, 12.10g, 12. Analysis MRSC 3,5250: AR 35.50%.
I 2 P, 1984/751, 12.1 lg, 6.
I 3* B, 782/1920, 11.79g, 12.
I 4 J, no weight.
I 5 Private collection DRW, Oxford, 10.44g, 6. Analysis MRSC 3,
5251: AR 34.50%.
I 6 Dombrowski Intermunz-Kurier 105, (1983),1095, no weight.
I 7 Auctiones S.A. 15 (1985), 372, 12.03g.
II 8* Hoard III, 264, no weight.

211
 Obv. die No.
II 9 Spink Numismatic Circular 6/1977, 5705 = idem Auction 40
(1984), 314, = Munzen und Medaillen AG, FPL 530, (3/1990), 40,
12.37g.
II 10 Schulten 11/4/1988, 968, 12.83g.
III 11* Numismatic Fine Arts 6 (1979), 835, 9.34g.
IV 12* Hirsch 84 (1973), 723 = Schweizerische Kreditanstalt, Bern,
4 (1985), 589, 12.23g.
V 13* N Y, 1940.100.66060 (Newell ex Horns hoard), 11.92g, 12.
VI 14* N Y, 1940.100.66062 (Newell ex Horns hoard), 12.61g, 12.
VII 15* Private collection JM, London, no weight.
? [16 Hoard III, 265, no weight.]
Obverse die-link: 12 = 9/1 (rev.: eagle head r.).
Reverse die-link: 1 & 2 (die-identical).

9 1 coin
D ll AHMAPX eSOYCLAC S C Eagle standing facing, head r.,
as 2.
Dura, Final Report BMC -
IV 1* G, Macdonald 279, 12.10g.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 8/12 (rev.: eagle head 1.).
Reverse die-link: 1 = 2/1 (obv. bust Dl*).

212
Second series, early AD 241

Obverse legend: AYTOK K M ANT IDPAIANOC CeB

Reverse: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC YIIATOC TO B, S C

10 5 + 3 coins, 3 obv. dies

D2* AHMAPX eEOYCIAC Eagle standing facing, head 1., on
YUATOC TO B line. Its tail is to 1. and it holds a
wreath in its beak. Beneath line,
SC.
Dura, Final Report 2>16\ BMC -
Obv. die No.
I 1* Mu, 56, 13.08g, 12.30.
I 2 B, Fox, 9.92g, 6.
I 3 Kricheldorf 26 (1973), 188, no weight.
II 4* B, Imhoof-Blumer, 13.13g, 6.
III 5* Yale ex Dura hoard 1, 68, = Final Report 376 (pi. 12), 12.87g.
? [6 Dura hoard 1, 67, 13.0g.]
? [7 Dura hoard 2, 4, 12.6g.]
? [8 Dura, Final Report 376, no weight.]
Reverse die-link: 1 & 2 (die-identical).

11 1 coin
A31 AHMAPX eEOYCIAC Eagle standing 1., head 1., on line.
YIIATOC TO B Its tail is to r. and it holds a wreath
in its beak. Beneath line, S C.
Dura, Final Report BMC -
I 1* Private collection MP, Paris, ex Elsen FPL 62 (1983), 90,9.88g,
6.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 6/1-3 (rev.: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC, SC).

12 4 coins, 3 obv. dies

D ll AHMAPX eEOYCIAC Eagle standing facing, head 1.,
YIIATOC TO B as 10.
Dura, Final Report BMC 499
I 1* L, G1159, 11.87g, 12. Analysis MRSC 3, 5253: AR 34.00%.
II 2* L, BMC 499 (1860-3-27-117), 11.53g, 12. Analysis MRSC 3,
5252: AR 41.50%.
III 3 Dura hoard II 6, 9.8g.
Ill 4* Private collection MP, Paris, ex Hirsch 162 (1989), 836,
11.72g, 6.
Reverse die-link: 3 & 4 (die-identical).

213
Third series, ? AD 242

Obverse legend: AYTOK K M ANT TOPAIANOC CeB

Reverse: AHMAPX e S YDATO B, ram.

First officina: ram running left

13 1 2 + 1 coins, 7 obv. dies

A2* AHMAPX e S YUATO B Eagle standing facing, head 1. Its
tail is to 1. and it holds a wreath in
its beak. Between the eagle’s legs
is a ram running 1. with head
turned back; above the ram’s
head is a crescent.
Dura, Final Report 382; BMC -
Obv. die No.
I 1* W, 21261, 14.65g, 12.
I 2 P, Chandon de Briailles 1874, 9.09g, 12.
I 3 J, no weight.
II 4 Cop, SNG 258, 11.52g, 12.
II 5* Hoard III, 266, no weight.
III 6 B, 1087/1912, no weight., 12.
Ill 7* Private collection MP, Paris, 14.75g, 12.
III 8 Yale ex Dura hoard 7 = Final Report 382 (pi. 12), 13.20g.
IV 9* G, Macdonald 284, 10.17g.
V 10* Peus FPL 39 (1975), 371, no weight
VI 11* Coin Galleries 15/11/1989, 460, no weight.
VII 12* Classical Numismatic Review (V England), FPL 15/2 (1/1990),
252, no weight.
? [13 Hoard III, 267, no weight.]
Obverse die-link: 10 = 14/1-3 (rev.: eagle head r.).
Note: theobject on Gordian’s 1. shoulder appears to be a fibula
rather than a trace of drapery. On die III it is f^int and may be |
completely missing.

14 3 coins, 1 obv. die

A2* AHMAPX eE YDATO B Eagle standing facing, head r. Its
tail is to 1. and it holds a wreath in
its beak. Between the eagle’s legs
is a ram running 1. with head
turned back; above the ram’s
head is a crescent.
Dura, Final Report -; BMC 500
V 1* L, BMC 500 (1853-10-6-16), 14.42g, 12. Analysis MRSC 3, 5254:
AR 27.50%.
V 2 Knobloch FPL 35 (4/1969), 110, no weight.
V 3 Numismatics Wendt 17 (1977), 99, no weight.
Obverse die-link: 1-3 = 13/10 (rev.: eagle head 1.).
Reverse die-link: 3 = 18/2-3 (obv. bust D2*).

214
15 3 coins, 1 obv. die
B l* AHMAPX eE YIIATO B Eagle standing facing, head 1.,
as 13.
Dura, Final Report -; BMC -
Obv. die No.
I 1* L, 1985-6-11-1, ex MidAmerican Rare CoinAuctions
24/5/1985, 1090, 12.20g, 12.
I 2 B, von Knobelsdorf, no weight, 6.
I 3 Hoard III, 268, no weight.

16 9 coins, 2 obv. dies

D2 AHMAPX eE YIIATO B Eagle standing facing, head 1.,
as 13.
Dura, Final Report 381; BMC -
I 1* W, 21262, 10.87g, 12.
I 2 Hoard III, 269, no weight.
I 3 Numismatica Wendt 15 (1977), 286, no weight.
I 4 N Y, 1940.100.66065 (Newell ex Horns hoard), 14.24g, 12.
II 5 H, 7797, 13.10g, 6.
II 6* Private collection MP, Paris, exBurganMBS 24/5/1986, 411,
12.76g, 12.
II 7 Ars et Nummus FPL 4/1968, 405, no weight.
II 8 Yale ex Dura hoard 7, 9.75g.
II 9 N Y, 1943.128.27 (Gallatin ex Horns hoard), 11.77g, 6.
Reverse die-links: 1, 6 & 7 (6 & 7 are die-identical);
5 & 9 (die-identical).

17 48 + 44 coins, 24 obv. dies

D2* AHMAPX eE YIIATO B Eagle standing facing, head 1.,
as 13.
Dura, Final Report 378; BMC 501
I 1* L, BMC 501, 12.43g, 12. Analysis MRSC 3, 5255: AR 35.75%.
II 2 P, 723, 11.33g, 6.
II 3* Auctiones S.A. 12 (1981), 248 = Peus 304 (1982), 455, 12.95g.
III 4* Private collection DRW, Oxford, 13.34g, 6.Analysis MRSC 3,
5259: AR 29.50%.
IV 5 O, Dymond, 1940,11.60g, 1. Note: this coin is said to have been
found in Yorkshire, but this seems highly unlikely. Analysis MRSC
3, 5260: AR 11.00%.
IV 6 Hoard VI, 4, 11.69g, 12.30.
IV 7* Tietjen 55 (1988), 194 = id. 56 (1988), 416 = Emporium 18
(1989), 62, 14.39g.
V 8 0 , Bouchier, 1930, 12.61g, 10.30. Analysis MRSC 3, 5258: AR
12.61%.
V 9* B, von Rauch, 12.93g, 12.
V 10 Private collection JM, London, no weight.
VI 11 Mi, 7360, no weight, 12.30.
VI 12* Cahn 84 (1933), 400, 12.48g.
VI 13 Yale ex Dura hoard 7, 11.76g.
VII 14* V, 21260, 12.18g, 6.

215
Obv. die No.
VIII 15* H, van Rede, 11.79g, 6.
IX 16* Br 60075, 12.40g, 5.30.
IX 17 N Y, 1940.100.66074 (Newell), 14.52g, 12.
IX 18 Formerly private collection MP, Paris, no weight.
X 19 P, Chandon de Briailles 1872, 13.48g, 12.
X 20 P, Chandon de Briailles 1877, 12.72g, 12.
X 21 G, Macdonald 283, 8.59g.
X 22 Formerly private collection MP, Paris, no weight.
X 23* Baldwin’s stock, 1989, no weight.
XI 24 B, Imhoof-Blumer, 12.15g, 6.
XI 25* G, Macdonald 282 (pi. 73,7), 14.30g.
XI 26 Hirsch 82 (1973), 856 = Munz Zentrum 44 (1981), 620,14.24g.
XI 27 Private collection KB, Cambridge, 15.17g, 6.
XI 28 Yale, 12.52g.
XII 29* Hoard III, 270, no weight.
XII 30 Hirsch 157 (1988), 661 = idem 159 (1988), 997, no weight.
XII 31 N Y, 1940.100.66071 (Newell), 12.87g, 6.
XIII 32* Baldwin’s stock (DRW cast), 12.48g. Analysis MRSC 3, 5261:
AR 17.00%.
XIV 33* Private collection MP, Paris, ex P M Gilmore collection (=
Spink Numismatic Circular 9/1977, p. 355, fig. 3), 13.04g. Analysis
MRSC 3, 5262: AR 22.50%.
XIV 34 Hoard I, 8, U.50g, 12.
XIV 35 J ex Caphamaum hoard 1, no weight.
XV 36* Rauch 5 (1970), 347 = Munz Zentrum 46 (1982), 142,13.06g.
XVI 37 Peus 282 (1973), 487, 10.5 lg.
XVI 38* Muller 56 (1987), 260, = Athena 3 (1990), 439, 12.0g.
XVI 39 Munz Zentrum 67 (1989), 1682, 12.01g.
XVII 40* Florange-Ciani FPL 1924, 653, no weight.
XVIII 41* Wendt 21 (1978), 964, no weight.
XIX 42* Hirsch 154 (1987), 673 = idem 156 (1987), 927, 12.27g.
XX 43* Schulten 2/4/1982, 1049, 13.36g.
XXI 44 Malloy 11 (1977), 197, no weight.
XXI 45* Schulman, Amsterdam, FPL 236 (1988), 159, 12.36g.
XXII 46* Knopek, Koln, 7/12/1979, 447, 10.62g.
XXIII 47* N Y, 1940.100.66070 (Newell), 13.97g, 6.
XLVI 48* Hirsch 167 (1990), 1245, no weight.
? 49 Hoard VI, 3, 11.61g, 11.30.
? 50 Seaby’s stock (DRW cast), no weight.
? 51 Dura hoard 1, 70, 12.2g (obv. not illustrated).
? [52 Dura hoard 1, 69, 12.3g.]
? [53 Dura hoard 1, 71, 10.9g.j
? [54-77 Dura, Final Report 378, no weight.]
? [78-92 Hoard III, 271-85, no weight.]
Reverse die-links: 29, 30 & 31 (die-identical).

216
18 4 + 1 coins, 3 obv. dies
D2* AHMAPX eE YIIATO B Eagle standing facing, head r.,
as 14.
Dura, Final Report 383; BMC -
Obv. die No.
XXIV 1* P, 724, 12.59g, 6.
XXV 2 J, no weight.
XXV 3* Yale ex Dura hoard 1, 76 = Final Report 383 (pi. 12), 12.97g.
XXVI 4* N Y, 1920.25.1 (Brett), 12.42g, 6.
? [5 Hoard III, 286, no weight.]
Reverse die-link: 2 & 3 (die-identical) = 14/3 (obv. bust A2*).

19 1 coin
B21 AHMAPX eE YIIATO B Eagle standing facing, head 1.,
as 13.
Dura, Final Report BMC -
I 1* P, 725, ll.OOg, 12.

20 23 + 8 coins, 11 obv. dies

D ll AHMAPX eE YIIATO B Eagle standing facing, head 1.,
as 13.
Dura, Final Report 379; BMC -
I 1* P, Chandon de Briailles 1875, 13-llg, 6.
I 2 Dura hoard 1, 73, 12.3g.
II 3* Private collection MP, Paris, 14.11g, 11.
II 4 Yale ex Dura, Final Report 379 (pi. 12), 13.18g.
II 5 J ex Caphamaum hoard, 2, no weight.
II 6 R Ratto, Lugano, 4/4/1927, 2580, 12.36g.
II 7 Hirsch 167 (1990), 1244, no weight.
III 8* B, Imhoof-Blumer, no weight, 6.
Ill 9 Ars et Nummus FPL 9/1963, 337 = idem, FPL 5/1967, 269 =
idem, FPL 10/1967, 309, no weight.
Ill 10 Ritter FPL 26 (11/1987), 302 = idem FPL 27 (9/1988), 631, no
weight.
Ill 11 Wendt 21 (1978), 965, no weight.
Ill 12 Kolner Munzkabinett 49 (1989), 583, no weight.
III 13 Schulten, 11/4/1988, 967, 17.43g.
IV 14* Hoard III, 287, no weight.
V 15* J, no weight.
VI 16 Numismatic Fine Arts, Journal (FPL) 6/1 (1977), S19, no
weight.
VI 17* N Y, 1940.100.66061 (Newell ex Horns hoard), 10.33g, 6.
VII 18* A Poinsignon - M Pesce MBS 3 (1986), 559, 11.53g.
VIII 19* Hess - Leu 41 (1969), 432, 13.46g.
IX 20 Kovacs FPL 24 (1985), 100 = Cederlind FPL 85 (1989), 71, no
weight.
IX 21* N Y, 1940.100.66064 (Newell), 13.61g, 12.
X 22* N Y, 1940.100.66063 (Newell ex Dura hoard 10), 14.06g, 6.
XI 23* Formerly private collection MP, Paris, 13.02g, 6.
? 24 W, 21264, 15.09g, 12.
? [25 Dura hoard 1, 73, 13.4g.]

217
Obv. die No.
? [26-8 Dura, Final Report 379, no weight.]
? [29-31 Hoard III, 288-90, no weight.]
Reverse die-link: 9, 10 & 11 (die-identical).

9 coins, 2 obv. dies

AHMAPX eE YIIATO B Eagle standing facing, head 1.,
as 13.
Dura, Final Report 380; BMC -
I 1* B, 1168/1931, 14.26g, 12.
I 2 L, 1989-4-13-1, ex Classical Numismatic Auctions 6 (1989), 268
= Toderi FPL 1/1976, 159, 10.74g, 12.
I 3 Dura hoard I 74 = Final Report 380 (pi. 12), 11.8g.
I 4 Cahn 71 (1931), 1013, 14.42g (obv. only illustrated).
I 5 Winter 31 (1976), 167, no weight.
I 6 Yale ex Dura hoard 10, 13.66g.
II 7 P U ex Dura hoard 1, 75, 11.3g, 12.
II 8* J, no weight.
II 9 Private collection HW, Hampshire, 11.86g, 12.
Reverse die-link: 1 & 2 (die-identical).
Note: the shield of the obverse bust is decorated with a Medusa’s
head on both dies.

1 coin
AHMAPX eE YIIATO B Eagle standing facing, head 1.,
as 13.
Dura, Final Report BMC -
I 1* Hoard III, 291, no weight.
Note: the decoration on the shield of the obverse bust is unclear.
Second officina: ram running right

23 8 + 2 coins, 3 obv. dies

D2 AHMAPX eE YIIATO B Eagle standing facing, head 1. Its
tail is to 1. and it holds a wreath in
its beak. Between the eagle’s legs
is a ram running r. with head
turned back; above the ram’s
head is a crescent.
Dura, Final Report 385; BMC -
Obv. die No.
III 1* Mu, 98283, 11.79g, 11.30.
III 2 Dura, Final Report 385 (pi. 12), no weight.
III 3 Private collection MP, Paris, ex Brewi, FPL 10 (8/1987), X68,
11.58g, 12.
III 4 Cahn 71 (1931), 1015, 14.42g.
III 5 C Varesi FPL 2/1987, 185, no weight.
III 6 Pilartz 6 (1964), 242, no weight.
IV 7* P, Chandon de Briailles 1873, 11.58g, 5.
V 8* Titano 15 (1985), 228, no weight.
? [9-10 Hoard III, 292-3, no weight.J

24 35 + 17 coins, 19 obv. dies

D2* AHMAPX eE YIIATO B Eagle standing facing, head 1., as
23.
Dura, F inal R eport 384; B M C 502
XXVII 1* L, BMC 502 (1895-5-8-250), 13.09g, 12. Analysis MRSC 3,5256:
AR 24.50%.
XXVII 2 P, 722, 11.24g, 6.
XXVIII 3* L, BMC 503, 10.72g, 6. Analysis MRSC 3, 5257: AR 20.00%.
XXVIII 4 Baldwin’s stock, 1988, no weight.
XXIX 5 O, New College, 13.26g (pierced), 11. Analysis MRSC 3, 5263:
AR 29.00%.
XXIX 6 Cop, SNG 259, 10.56g, 11.
XXIX 7* Hirsch 165 (1990), 898, no weight.
XXIX 8 Rauch 44 (1990), 574, no weight.
XXX 9* Mu, 57, 8.43g, 6.
XXX 10 Munzgalerie Munchen Intermunz Kurier 117 (1987), 125, no
weight.
XXXI 11* W, 21263, 12.34g, 6.
XXXI 12 Hirsch 158 (1988), 541, no weight.
XXXI 13 Lanz 24 (1983), 670, 13.29g.
XXXI 14 Hirsch 164 (1989), 717, no weight.
XXXII 15* Yale ex Dura hoard 1, 77, 11.92g.
XXXIII 16 B, 1086/1912, no weight, 6.
XXXIII 17* L, 1988-7-42-3 ex Hoard I, 7, 13.17g, 12.
XXXIII 18 Rosenberg 69 (1930) 2382, 13.30g.
XXXIV 19* Hoard III, 294, no weight.
XXXIV 20 Hirsch 32 (1962), 2603 = Pilartz 4 (1963), 199, no weight.
XXXIV 21 Schulten 8/11/1982, 207, 12.68g.
XXXV 22* J, no weight.
XXXVI 23* J ex Caphamaum hoard, 3, no weight.

219
 Obv. die No.
XXXVII 24 Munz Zentrum 59 (1986), 1188, 11.47g.
XXXVII 25* Baldwin’s stock (1984), 13.36g, 11.
XXXVIII 26* Rauch 10 (1972), 135, no weight.
XXXIX 27* Rauch 8 (1971), 422, no weight.
XL 28 Burgan MBS 11/5/1985, 318, 12.58g.
XL 29* Titano 7 (1981), 303, no weight.
XLI 30* Ahlstrom 36 (1987), 1035, no weight.
XLII 31* Muller 46 (1984), 451, 13.5g.
XLIII 32* Schulten 2/11/1983, 586, 12.13g.
XLIV 33* Malloy 9 (1977), 260, no weight.
XLV 34* N Y, 1940.100.66072 (Newell), 11.91g, 6.
? 35 J ex Caphamaum hoard, 4, no weight.
? [36 Dura hoard 1, 78, 11. lg.]
? [37 Dura hoard 2, 5, 12.8g.]
? [38-46 Dura, Final Report 384, no weight.]
? [47-51 Hoard III, 295-9, no weight.]

Variant: obverse brockage

XXXIV 52* Downie-Lepczyk 72 (1987), 1106, no weight.
Reverse die-link: 6 & 7 (die-identical).

25 1 coin
D ll AHMAPX e S YIIATO B Eagle standing facing, head 1., as
23.
Dura, Final Report BMC -
XI 1* Hoard III, 300, no weight.

220
 Chapter 5
Antioch: The Second Series of Radiates

Contents

1. Comparison with the first series ............................................................. 223

A. Size and internal structure (223); B. Reverse types (225); C. The
style of the obverses (225)

2. Previous discussions of the second s e r ie s............................................... 227

3. The structure of the second ser ies........................................................... 232

A. The six main types (232); B. The minor types (233); C. The
problem of SAECVLI FELICITAS (233); D. Issue I (234); E. Issue
II (235)

4. The reverse ty p e s ........................................................................................ 236

A. Introduction (236); B. FIDES MILITVM (237); C. IOVI
CONSERVATORI (237); D. MARTI PACIFERO (238); E. PAX
AVGVSTI (238); F. P M TR P V COS II P P (238); G. VICTORIA
AVG (239); H. FORTVNA REDVX (239); I. ORIENS AVG and
ORIENS AVG N (239); J. SAECVLI FELICITAS (240); K. - L.
VICTORIA AVGVSTI and VICTORIA GORDIANI AVG (240); M.
Conclusions (241)

5. The internal structure of the m in t........................................................... 242

A. The problem of officinae (242); B. The ratio of obverse to reverse
dies (243)

6. The date of the second s e r ie s .................................................................. 244

7. The attribution of the second series ...................................................... 244

8. The die-study............................................................................................... 247

A. The scope of the die-study (247); B. The results (250)

9. The evidence of f in d s ................................................................................ 253

A. The interpretation of the evidence (253); B. The evidence for
output: comparison with the die-statistics (254); C. The evidence for
the mint and circulation area of the coinage (259)

10. Weights ...................................................................................................... 262

11. Die-axis ...................................................................................................... 263

Catalogue ............................................................................................................... *268

221
Tables and figures

Table 1: Second series, AD 242-4 ................................................................ 224

Table 2: Die statistics: Gordian, radiates ................................................. 248
Table 3: Occurrence of radiates of the second series in 81 finds . . . . 254
Table 4: Comparison of the relative frequency of the reversesof thesecond
series as shown by thefinds withthe estimated numbersof dies . 255
Table 5: Proportion of coins of Antioch compared with those of Rome 256
Table 6: Proportion of coins of Antioch compared with those of Rome from
44 major finds ............................. 257
Table 7: Summary by country (aggregate total of all c o i n s ) ................. 257
Table 8: Summary of w e ig h ts ....................................................................... 262
Table 9: Die-axes of the types of the second seriesof radiates 262

Figure 1: Issue I: Coins with D2 b u sts....................................................... 263

Figure 2: Issue I: FIDES MILITVM rev erse ........................................... 264
Figure 3: Issue I: MARTI PACIFERO r e v e r se ...................................... 264
Figure 4: Issue I: PAX AVGVSTI reverse ............................................. 264
Figure 5: Issue I: PM TRP V COS II PP reverse ................................. 265
Figure 6: Issue I: VICTORIA AVG reverse ........................................... 265
Figure 7: Issue I: D2 busts compared with the r e s t ............................... 265
Figure 8: Issue II: FORTVNA REDVX r e v e r s e ..................................... 266
Figure 9: Issue II: ORIENS AVG rev erse................................................. 266
Figure 10: Issue II: SAECVLI FELICITAS reverse................................ 266
Figure 11: Issue II: VICTORIA AVGVSTI and VICTORIA GORDIANI
AVG reverses .......................................................................................... 267
Figure 12: Issue II: all reverses.................................................................... 267
Figure 13: Issues I and II co m p a red ........................................................... 267

222
1. Comparison with the first series
The second series of radiates from Antioch shows a number of very
marked differences from the first. These may be summarized as (a) the size
of the two coinages and their internal structure, (b) the number and content
of the reverse types, and (c) the style of the coins.

A. Size and internal structure

Perhaps the clearest difference is that the second series was much larger
than the first: the estimated number of obverse dies for the first series
amounts to 674 while for both issues of the second it comes to 2288,
approximately three and a half times as many. As we shall see, the second
series seems to divide neatly into two groups of three main reverses and the
mint was probably working in three officinae at this time. The picture for the
earlier coins, on the other hand, is much less clear-cut. The coinage of 238-9
has no less than 49 different reverse types (and four varieties of obverse bust)
which divide up as follows: there are four types with 34 to 47 specimens
recorded, nine with between 10 and 22, and the remaining 36 types are
represented by eight specimens or fewer (Chapter 3, Table 3). Moreover,
these reverses are so extensively die-linked that this coinage cannot be
subdivided into different issues, as is apparent from Tables 4 and 5 in Chapter
3, so although the fact that there are four reverse types that are commoner
than the rest suggests that the mint may have been working in four officinae
at this period also, it is equally possible that it may have had any other
number of officinae from one upwards.

223
 Table 1: Second series, AD 242-4

Die-links No. Reverse legend Bust Qty- Qty. Obv.dies Rev.dies

Obv. Rev. (Cat.) (Finds)

Issue I
66 “ 1 FIDES MILITVM D2 4 1 (below) \
l~ 67 _l FIDES MILITVM B2 48 J 80 (below) I 90
r
68 IOVI CONSERVATORI D2 1 > (below) \
69 IOVI CONSERVATORI B2 5 J 4 (below) / 2

r
i_
i_
70
L 71
72
MARTI PACIFERO
MARTI PACIFERO
PAX AVGVSTI
D2
B2
D2
3
40
8 \
1
/ 81
(below)
(below)
(below)
\
1133

73 PAX AVGVSTI B2 39 J 101 (below) 1105

1— 74 ~l P M TR P V COS II P P D2 4 x (below) \
i_ P M TR P V COS II P P B2 15 I 23 (below) ) 10
1 75
L 76 VICTORIA AVG D2 7 1 (below) 1
77 VICTORIA AVG B2 8 ) 15 (below) / 18
66, 68, 70, 72, 74 & 76 (obvs.) 57
67,69, 71, 73, 75 & 77 (obvs.) 353
Total 182 304 410 358

Issue II

78 FORTVNA REDVX B2 155 c.7081 658 1208

79 ORIENS AVG B2 151 619 583 736
80 ORIENS AVG N B2 4 1 1 1
81 SAECVLI FELICITAS D2 1 1 \
82 SAECVLI FELICITAS B2 132 1646 507 11160
1— 83 VICTORIA AVGVSTI B2 18 15 153
L 84 VICTORIA GORDIANI AVG B2 14 12 1120 42
Total 474 c.2001 1869 3300

1 For this figure see below, p. 253.

224
B. Reverse types
The second series has a total of twelve different reverse types, less than
a quarter as many as the first. There is also a great difference in the typology
of the two groups of reverses. As we have seen, the reverses of the first series
may be described as typically eastern in that (a) there are a great many
varieties in proportion to the recorded number of specimens; (b) there are
several legends that deviate from the normal Roman forms (for example, PON
M TRI P CON P P) or are actually wrong (for example, PAX AAGVSTI or
P M TR P I P COS P P); and (c) many of the personifications are shown with
either unusual or incorrect attributes (for example Fides with a standard and
comucopiae or Concordia as Providentia with a globe and transverse sceptre).
These aspects of the first series are discussed in Section 7 of Chapter 3. As we
have seen, these features are typical of eastern coinages of the Severan period
and so it is no surprise to find that they reappear in Gordian’s first coinage at
Antioch. The reverse types of the second series are, by comparison, very
conventional and would not have been out of place at Rome. The deities and
personifications all appear with their normal attributes and correct legends
(apart from two die-engravers’ errors, MARTI PACIFETI and FORTVNA
DEDVX).

C. The style o f the obverses

Their style is perhaps one of the most visible differences between the two
series and yet at the same time one of the hardest to describe. As we have
already seen, the obverses of Gordian’s first series of radiates show a typically
‘local’ style, like many of the reverse types. This style is very difficult to
characterize except in a most general way: the main characteristic of the
earlier coins is that they display a great diversity of style from relatively careful
to grotesque, while the contemporary radiates of Rome all fall within a closely
defined range of styles (Chapter 3, Sections 5 and 6).2 So the Antioch coins
can most easily be identified on negative grounds, in that their style is different

2 See S K Eddy, The Minting o f Antoniniani A.D. 238-49 and The Smyrna Hoard, A.N.S.
Notes and Monographs 156, New York 1967, pp. 59-66 and especially pis. 1-2.

225
from that of Rome which can be defined. We have also seen that because
many of the reverse types of the first series are common to both Rome and
Antioch, the only method by which many of the Antiochene issues can be
distinguished from those of Rome is by the style of the obverses.
With the second series the case is rather different: none of the reverse
types is shared by Rome,3 and also the great majority of the coins have an
obverse bust that is cuirassed only and seen from the rear (B2) which was
never used at Rome under Gordian. So most of these coins can be distin­
guished from those of Rome by both their obverse and their reverse types
rather than by their style alone. Indeed, the coins of the second series are
much more Roman in style than are those of the first series, especially the
rare pieces with the draped and cuirassed bust (D2) which was the bust that
was used at Rome. The coins with the cuirassed bust, however, have a wide
range of styles and some have a distinctly non-Roman, local, appearance.
The question of whether the workmen who produced the distinctly local
dies of the first series were also responsible for the much more professional
dies of the later coins is not easy to answer. The enormous increase in output
that happened during the second series seems perhaps to have been achieved
by the drafting into the mint of several engravers from Rome alongside the
Antiochene engravers still employed there, although they were considerably
outnumbered by their new colleagues from Rome. A comparison between the
styles of the coins of the first and second series did not produce any very
conclusive results: the obverses of the two series are indeed, by and large,
different, but this is not altogether surprising since there is a gap of over two
and a half years between the two issues.
However, there is one AEQVITAS AVG coin of the first series (3/19)
which is remarkably close in style to two pieces from the second series with
the rare D2 bust: one PAX AVGVSTI (72/2) and one VICTORIA AVG
(76/5). One may also compare two die-linked coins from the first series with

3 FORTVNA REDVX occurs both at Rome and in the second series at Antioch.
However, the products of the two mints can be distinguished according to whether there is
a wheel by the side of Fortuna’s throne (Rome, RIC 144), or not (Antioch).

226
the reverses AEQVITAS AVG (3/9) and PM TRP II COS PP, Serapis (47/2),
with the unique SAECVLI FELICITAS coin with the D2 bust (81/1). The
similarity between the portraits of these coins is, in my opinion, close enough
to allow them to be attributed to the same engravers. These are only two
examples but they are enough to show some at least of the die-engravers of
the first series at Antioch also made dies for the second. The implications of
this for the location of the mint of the second series will be discussed below.

2. Previous discussions of the second series

As we have seen in Chapter 3, the first person to distinguish the

Antiochene coins from those of Rome was Voetter.4 H e correctly identified
ten of the twelve reverse types of the second series as belonging to a separate
issue which he connected with Gordian’s Persian expedition of 242-4 and
which he tentatively attributed to Viminacium.5 He saw that these coins did
not belong to Rome, but he also believed that they could not come from
Antioch as he thought that their style was different from that of the earlier
coins of Antioch. The reasons for rejecting his attribution will be discussed
below (p. 245f.)
Pink was the next to discuss this coinage and he attributed the second
series of radiates back to Antioch, recognizing, however, that a change in
personnel had occurred since the first coinage, and that the mint was now
under Roman control.6 Pink was the first to notice that this series occurs with
two varieties of obverse bust and that there was a progression from the draped
and cuirassed bust to the cuirassed one. His comments are, however, not
altogether clear:

4 O Voetter, ‘Die romischen Munzen des Kaisers Gordianus III. und deren antike
Falschungen’, N Z 25 (1983), pp. 410-1.
5 He omits the IOVI CONSERVATORI and ORIENS AVG N types from his list.
6 K Pink, ‘Antioch or Viminacium? A contribution to the history of Gordian III and
Philip I’, NC 1935, pp. 94-113.

227
 Here also [i.e., in the second series of radiates from Antioch] the coins were at first
struck in the Roman style with P.b.r. [i.e., bust D2]; the reverses belong for the most part
to the years 240-242. Next comes an issue with C.b.r. [i.e., bust B2], large head and many
new reverses. As the emperor went to the east in 242 and captured Antioch, the coinage
with this date began, with which P M TR P V agrees remarkably. He left the town and
never returned, (p. 105)

He returned to the subject again on p. I ll:

The coinage which had ceased in 241 [i.e., the first series of radiates which I date to
238-9] began again with the issue of antoniniani in purely Roman style. But the second
series with C.b. [B2] and large heads, as well as with special reverses like VICTORIA
GORDIANI AVG and SAECVLI FELICITAS is already Antiochene.

Presumably when Pink stated that ‘the reverses [of the second series]
belong for the most part to the years 240-242’ he was referring to jdate of the
Roman prototypes and not of the Antiochene issue. In his Aufbau, which
deals only with the coinage of Rome, Pink stated that Antioch struck radiates
in 239-41 and 242-4.7 I argue below that the second series may be dated to
242-4 (p. 244f.).
In the context of a general discussion of the coinage of 238 to 260 in his
publication of the Nanterre hoard Le Gentilhomme made the following
remarks:

La presence de Gordien a Antioche, en 242, et les preparatifs de l’expedition contre les

Perses provoquent des emissions d’importance beacoup plus considerable [than the first
series of radiates]. La date initiate est fournie par une piece frappee lors de la 5e
puissance tribunice de Gordien. Toutes les pieces portent la titulature: IMP
GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG.
Le buste normalement drape du paludamentum vu de dos est tres vite remplace par un
buste cuirasse a dr., egalement vu du dos. La statistique des trouvailles semble indiquer
le fontionnement de trois officines.
Les types de la premiere serie de monnaies associes aux deux types d’effigie sont
conformes aux patrons des premieres emissions romaines de 238-239. Ceux de la seconde
serie sont au contraire contemporains de la deniere emission de Rome on le type
Fortuna Redux n’apparait qu’en 243-44. Ce sont aussi les plus communs.8

He then proceeded to comment on the distribution of these coins in

hoards (below, pp. 259ff.) and he was also the first to publish analyses of the
metal content of these coins (he examined seven coins using the wet chemical

7 K Pink, ‘Die Aufbau der romischen Munzpragung in der Kaiserzeit, III. Von Alexander
Severus bis Philippus’, NZ 1935, pp. 12-34, on p. 25.
8 P Le Gentilhomme, ‘La trouvaille de Nanterre’, RN 1946, pp. 15-114 at pp. 39-40.

228
technique) and noted that they had a rather higher silver content than the
contemporary coins of Rome (see Chapter 7).
The next discussion of this coinage appeared in RIC,9 which was
principally the work of Harold Mattingly and based for a large part on his
work on the Dorchester hoard.10 The list of this coinage in RIC remains the
fundamental reference today, and the introductions to the reigns and notes to
the catalogue contain many perceptive comments. The list of types in RIC
does include several coins which do not belong to this issue and it also has a
number of mistakes: these are corrected in the catalogue below. Mattingly
attributed this coinage to Antioch to the years 242-4, although he only
extended it to 244 because he mistakenly included in the coinage a type dated
TR P VII (RIC 206). This type in fact belongs to Rome and this coin was
attributed correctly under RIC 167A. He described the series as follows (p. 1):

There is a second, rather commoner series of Antoniniani, still distinguishable from the
Roman, but closer to it in all points than the first It shows only the last obverse of the
reign and includes coins with the dates TR.P.V (and TR.P.VII). It continues into the
beginning of the reign of Philip I. But Pink, in his careful re-examination of the
question, has given excellent reasons for thinking that it, too, is Eastern and intimately
connected with the requirements of the Persian war. The site is perhaps still Antioch,
though the possible claims of some other military mint cannot be ruled out. The
Antoniniani with TR.P.VII are probably only of the mint of Rome: the Aes with the
same date certainly is. If these conclusions are correct, Antioch will have had one issue,
in local style, beginning in AD.238 and continuing into AD.239 or 240, a second
running from AD.242 to 244, with a break between them due to Persian occupation.
The closer approximation of the second series to Roman use will be due to the presence
in the east of the Emperor and his staff.

In a footnote on p. 36 Mattingly quoted the numbers of each reverse type

in the Dorchester hoard and noted there were six principal reverse types
which appeared to have been struck in two issues, one large and one small.

9 H Mattingly, E A Sydenham and C H V Sutherland (eds.), Roman Imperial Coinage VoL

IV, Part III, Gordian III - Uranius Antoninus, London 1949. Although this volume bears the
names of three editors it is clear that the attribution and arrangement of the coinage are
chiefly the work of Mattingly and I therefore ascribe them to him alone.
10 H Mattingly, ‘The Great Dorchester Hoard of 1936’, NC 1939, pp. 21-61.

229
 Eddy discussed this coinage in his idiosyncratic publication of th e Smyrna
hoard.11 W hile agreeing with M attingly’s com m ents th at the mint seem s to
have been organized in th ree sections and to have produced two issues he also
wrote:

I think that this was the case, and would even go a bit further, and suggest that this mint
was created on the R om an model, and that personnel were transferred from R om e to
A ntioch to staff each officina, each related to on e o f the R om an ones. The branch
struck two issues, the first a small one consisting o f RIC 209, FID ES MILITVM; 212,
M A R TI PA CIFER O ; and 214, PA X A V G V STI. A larger issue followed from the same
three officinae, respectively, as shown by the similarity o f style: 210, F O R T V N A R E D V X
(no w heel); 213, O R IE N S AVG; and 216, SAECVLI FELICITAS.

Eddy often seem ed to have a totally unrealistic idea as to how to in terp ret
the evidence th at he presented:

I should, however, stress the fact that the average weights o f A ntiochene and Roman
issues vary. In the Smyrna hoard the sixty coins o f Gordian III struck at A ntioch have
an average weight o f 4.394 grams, whereas the contemporary R om an issues o f Gordian
have an average o f 4.354 grams (361 exam ples) The relationship between the positions
o f the obverse and reverse dies also differs between R om e and Antioch. A t Rom e,
between 242 and 244, 52.96% o f the coins have the relationship ; at A ntioch,
56.67% .12

T o think th a t a difference ijf 0.04 grams in the average weights of the two
groups of coins or of 3.71% in their die-axesjseem s to m e to show very little
understanding o f th e realities of third century coinage. L ater Eddy stated that
he believed th a t while R om an die-engravers and blank m akers were
transferred to A ntioch to produce this-the-coinage, the w orkm en who actually
struck the coins w ere local. This was based on his interp retatio n o f the
i
com parison betw een the die-axes found at R om e and Antioch.
In his Politique M onttaire Callu sum m arizes the hoard evidence for this
issue, exam ining bo th th e changing balance betw een th e am ount of coins
supplied to th e E ast by th e mints of R om e and Antioch and the hoard
evidence for th e sp read of the radiates of th e second series coins across the
em pire.13 H e took for granted their attribution to Antioch. Carson touched

11 S K Eddy, op. cit. n. 2, pp. 73-4.

12 Eddy, op. cit. n. 2, pp. 54-5.

13 J-P Callu, L a Politique M onetaire des Empereurs Rom ains de 238 d 311, Bibliotheque
des Ecoles F r a n c ise s d ’A thenes et de R om e 214, Paris, 1969, pp.164-7 and 199.

230
briefly on the problem of the attribution of this series of radiates in a paper
published in 1978, but did not come to any definite conclusion.14
The most recent, and radical, discussion of this issue is that of Markus
Weder, whose theory on the chronology of Gordian’s Persian campaign will
be examined in detail in Chapter 9.15 To summarize his conclusions, he
believed that Gordian’s eastern campaign occurred at the beginning of the
reign in 239-41, and that in 242 Gordian led an expedition to the Balkans to
deal with the actual or threatened invasion of the Carpi. He believed that the
second series of radiates were produced by a temporary mint located in the
Balkans (not Viminacium), which was set up to provide coins for the
immediate needs of the expedition. As I shall show below I find it impossible
to accept Weder’s reconstruction of events (chiefly because he ignored the
inscription of Sapor from the Ka’aba of Zoroaster the evidence of which for
the date of Gordian’s campaign seems to me to be decisive), and so there is
no reason to postulate the existence of a temporary mint in the Balkans for
the last two years of Gordian’s reign.
Instead we may examine his comments on the coinage itself. This he
divided into three series. The first consists of those coins with the draped and
cuirassed obverse bust: these he characterized as stylistically indistinguishable
from Roman issues and he thought that they might possibly have been struck
there.16 The second series continued the reverse types of the first but with
the cuirassed bust, and added three new ones: FORTVNA REDVX, ORIENS
AVG, and SAECVLI FELICITAS. These coins also were similar in style to
those of the mint of Rome, and the dies for these too may have been made

14 R A G Carson, ‘Mints in the mid-third century’, in R A G Carson and C M Kraay

(eds.), Scripta Nummaria Romana. Essays Presented to Humphrey Sutherland, London 1978,
pp. 65-74.
15 M Weder, ‘Seltene Munzen der Sammlung Dattari - Neuerwerbungen des Britischen
Museums’, N Z 1982, pp. 53-71, especially pp. 63-4 and n. 38.
16 He mistakenly includes IOVI CONSERVATORI, VICTORIA AVGVSTI and
VICTORIA GORDIANI AVG in the first issue along with FIDES MILITVM, MARTI
PACIFERO, PAX AVGVSTI and PM TRP V COS II PP which really do belong there,
because RIC incorrectly describes coins with these reverses with the draped and cuirassed
obverse bust.

231
in Rome, he believed. Finally Weder postulated a final issue which could be
distinguished from the previous one by the cruder style of the portraits which
now show Gordian with a moustache and side-whiskers. He admitted that
there is not necessarily a clear division between the second and the third
series: ‘ohne deutlichen tibergang aus der zweiten Serie entwickelt, stilistische
Verrohung, PortrSts mit Koteletten and Schnurrbart.’ While it is certainly the
case that Gordian’s portraiture does show a stylistic development on this
coinage, as has been discussed in the previous section, I do not think one can
usefully divide the coinage into issues solely on the basis of the portrait.
Weder also recalled Voetter’s attribution of this coinage to Viminacium,
contradicting Elmer’s assertion that there was a stylistic similarity between the
second series radiates and the bronze coins of that mint. He argued, instead,
that the radiates must have been struck at another mint in the Balkans.
Finally, he noted that the radiates of this series are well represented in the
finds from Dura, but said that that was not surprising if Rome was not
supplying coins directly to Syria.

3. The structure of the second series

A. The six main types

There are twelve reverse types in the second series, of which six were
issued in substantial quantities: FIDES MILITVM, FORTVNA REDVX,
MARTI PACIFERO, PAX AVGVSTI, ORIENS AVG, and SAECVLI
FELICITAS. These in turn may be divided into two groups of three, as
scholars from Mattingly onwards have observed. All three types in the first
group, which consists of FIDES MILITVM, MARTI PACIFERO, and PAX
AVGVSTI, occur with both varieties of obverse bust, the draped and cuirassed
(D2) and the cuirassed only (B2). Furthermore, these three types were struck
in roughly equal quantities: they account for 80, 81 and 101 specimens
respectively in the sample of finds. The second group comprises FORTVNA
REDVX, ORIENS AVG and SAECVLI FELICITAS. These three types were
all struck in much greater quantities than the first three (approximately seven

232
and a half times as great): in the finds they are represented by between 619
and about 708 specimens. In addition, only one of them, SAECVLI
FELICITAS, is known to occur with a draped and cuirassed obverse bust and
this only occurs on a single specimen (see below).
The development of the obverse busts shows that the group including
FIDES MILITVM, MARTI PACIFERO and PAX AVGVSTI must be the
earlier of the two. The draped and cuirassed bust is the one that was always
used for radiates at Rome and the coins of the second series that occur with
it are stylistically the closest to the Rome coins. The cuirassed, B2, bust, on
the other hand, is an innovation of this series and the coins that occur with it
.and* are, on the whole, more local and less Roman in style.

B. The minor types

The six remaining reverse types can be fitted into either one or other
group partly according to which obverse bust they occur with. Three of the
types, IOVI CONSERVATORI, P M T R P V COS II P P and VICTORIA
AVG, also occur with draped and cuirassed busts and so must be early, while
the remaining three types, ORIENS AVG N, VICTORIA AVGVSTI and
VICTORIA GORDIANI AVG, do not. Of these, ORIENS AVG N, which
is only known from four specimens all sharing the same reverse die, must
clearly be connected with ORIENS AVG. The VICTORIA AVGVSTI and
VICTORIA GORDIANI AVG types are joined by an obverse die-link and
may be seen as a development of the VICTORIA AVG reverse which belongs
to the first group.

C. The problem of SAECVLI FELICITAS

As was noted above there is a difficulty with the attribution of the
SAECVLI FELICITAS type to the second group because one example of this
reverse is known with the draped and cuirassed bust (no. 81/1), although this
group is otherwise distinguished by its exclusive use of the cuirassed bust. This
coin comes from the Rocquencourt hoard and I have a cast of it: I do not
believe there can be any doubt that it is a regular product of the mint (its

233
weight is above average at 5.03 grams). Nevertheless, there seems to be a
stronger case in favour of attributing the SAECVLI FELICITAS reverse to
the second series than to the first because of the relative distribution of the six
main reverse types. As we have seen, these fall into two groups of three, one
group approximately ten times as common as the other. There can be no
doubt that, both from its 646 specimens in the finds and from its estimated
1160 reverse dies, SAECVLI FELICITAS falls into the second group and that
to reattribute it to the first would give the two groups a very lop-sided
appearance. Instead I believe we simply have to see the Rocquencourt hoard
coin as representing a survival of an earlier obverse die, in other words as a
mule. Mules, coins with an obverse and a reverse that are not contemporary,
are not unknown at the mint of Rome at this time: for example, 30 are listed
in RIC (nos. 219A-46), and there is no reason why they should not occur at
Antioch also. The fact that all the FORTVNA REDVX and ORIENS AVG
pieces that are known have the cuirassed bust suggests that the single recorded
occurrence of the draped and cuirassed bust with SAECVLI FELICITAS is
most likely an accident.

D. Issue I
The division of the twelve reverse types of the second series into two
groups has been confirmed by the observation of a number of obverse die-
links between the different reverses. These are shown on Table 1, where it
can be seen that all but one of the six reverse types of the first group, which
I term Issue I, are linked to each other. There can, then, be little doubt that
the FIDES MILITVM, MARTI PACIFERO, PAX AVGVSTI, P M T R P V
COS II P P, and VICTORIA AVG types are all broadly contemporary with
each other and that they precede the second issue. The remaining type, IOVI
CONSERVATORI, does not die-link with the others (this is not surprising
because it is only known from six specimens), but it is attributed to Issue I
because, like the other reverses, it too occurs with the draped and cuirassed
bust.

234
 It seems that the coins with the draped and cuirassed bust did not
constitute a separate issue in their own right, as Pink and Weder believed,
since four reverse dies occur with both types of obverse bust (two with the
FIDES MILITVM reverse and two with P M TR P V COS II P P).
The total estimated number of reverse dies for this issue comes to 358,
while the estimated number of obverse dies is slightly higher at 410. If we use
the figure of an average of 30,000 coins per obverse die the total size of the
issue amounts to rather more than twelve million coins (12,300,000). This
means that it was that it was quite a substantial issue of coins: it compares
with an estimate of 20 million coins (20,220,000) for Gordian’s first series of
radiates from Antioch.

E. Issue II
As we have already seen, the second issue was much larger than the first.
Of its six reverse types, one is only known from a single reverse die (ORIENS
AVG N), while two more (VICTORIA AVGVSTI and VICTORIA
GORDIANI AVG) are also relatively small, producing only 15 and 12
specimens respectively in the sample of finds. This leaves the three major
types, FORTVNA REDVX, ORIENS AVG and SAECVLI FELICITAS which
respectively come from an estimated 658, 583 and 507 obverse dies and 1208,
736 and 1160 reverse dies and account for about 708, 619 and 646 specimens
in the hoards.
With one exception, no die-links were found between the different
reverses in this issue because they were not looked for (see below, p. 247f.).
The total number of coins of Issue II included in the die-study is 480, and to
have checked every obverse die against every other one would have required
more than 182,000 individual checks. The reward would not have been
commensurate with the effort. However, a sample of 157 coins of this series
was checked against each other, and this revealed no obverse die-links
between different reverse types (see discussion of die-study below, p. 247f.).
It seems quite possible, therefore, that none exist, or that if they do there will
only be a very few die-linked coins, so that the die-statistics should not be

235
greatly affected. In any case all obverse dies within each type were checked
and a number of die-identities were observed (Table 1). Only in the case of
the VICTORIA AVGVSTI and VICTORIA GORDIANI AVG reverses was
a search made for shared obverse dies and one was found. This is not so
surprising as these are two reverse types that one would have expected to be
closely associated anyway. The one obverse die that occurs with the ORIENS
AVG N reverse was also checked against those that occur with the ORIENS
AVG type, but in this case no die-link was found.
The estimated number of 1869 obverse dies for the second issue gives a
total output of over 56 million coins (56,100,000) at 30,000 coins per obverse
die. This is a large issue of coins by any reckoning and would have been
sufficient to pay a considerable military force.

4. The reverse types

A. Introduction
The difference between the types of the first and second series has already
been remarked on: in the first series there are a total of 18 different
inscriptions and 38 designs, making 66 varieties in all, whereas in this series
there are only twelve different legends, ten designs and 18 varieties. As we
have seen, the coins of the first series from Antioch often have incorrect
combinations of legend and type, or at least show familiar personifications in
unfamiliar guises. In the second series, on the other hand, there are no
examples of the typically eastern habit of using the same inscription with a
wide variety of designs, many of them inappropriate. In short, therefore, the
selection of reverse types for the second series, unlike that for the first,
suggests strong central control, perhaps direct imperial control. They are also
distinctly military in nature, as Mattingly saw:17

A first small issue,* with types of ‘Fides Militum’, ‘Marti Pacifero’, and ‘Pax Augusti’,
asserts the honourable aims of the imperial arms and appeals to the loyalty of the army.
A second, much larger issue, with types of ‘Fortuna Redux’, ‘Oriens Aug’, and ‘Saeculi

17 RIC p. 13.

236
 Felicitas’, honours Fortuna who brings emperor and army back in safety, pays homage
to Sol, as lord of the East, and acclaims Gordian, the victorious warrior, as the
‘Happiness of the Age’.
* The presence of ‘Fortuna Redux’ in the larger issue is strongly in favour of its later
date.

We may also add that the three Victory types, which Mattingly did not
mention, add to the warlike nature of this series, as does the PM TR P V COS
II PP type with its representation of Hercules in a very bellicose pose which
had not been used before on Roman coinage. The remaining type, IOVI
CONSERVATORI, is also relevant in time of war, appealing as it does to the
father of the gods as the personal protector of the Emperor. It might be
useful to look at each reverse type in turn and examine what its precedents
were.

B. FIDES MILITVM (Fides standing left holding a vertical standard in each

hand).
This legend occurred in Gordian’s first issue at Rome (RIC 1), except that
the design on that type shows Fides holding a standard and a sceptre; FIDES
MILITVM also occurred with four different designs on the first series from
Antioch, including the present one (see Chapter 3). This combination of type
and legend had previously been used by Severus Alexander.18

C. IOVI CONSERVATORI (Jupiter standing left holding thunderbolt and

sceptre).
This legend, like FIDES MILITVM, PAX AVGVSTI and VICTORIA
AVG, had occurred in Gordian’s first issue from the mint of Rome (RIC 2),
but with a different design, for a small figure of the emperor was added to the
earlier coins. IOVI CONSERVATORI was one of the commonest reverse
types of this period, although the coins of this issue are very rare. This
combination of type and legend had occurred for both Balbinus and
Pupienus19 and twice for Severus Alexander.20

18 BMC 219-30 and 243.

19 BMC 22-4 and 44-5.

237
D. MARTI PACIFERO (Mars advancing left holding up branch in right hand
and spear and shield in left hand).
This type had not previously been used by Gordian. Maximinus has coins
of this inscription with Mars standing left holding branch and spear,21 as does
Severus Alexander;22 Alexander also struck coins with this type with the
legend P M T R P VIII COS III P P.23

E. PAX AVGVSTI (Pax advancing left holding branch and sceptre).

This legend also occurred in Gordian’s first issue at Rome, but with Pax
standing left holding branch and sceptre (RIC 3). In addition, it was used in
the first series at Antioch with a variety of designs, but not this one (nos. 21-
8). The present type was, however, used by Severus Alexander with the
legends PAX AVG,24 P M T R P VI COS II P P 25 and P M T R P VII
COS II P P.26

F. P M TR P V COS IIP P (Hercules advancing right holding up club in right

hand and bow in left hand).
This was the first occurrence of Hercules on coinage since the reign of
Caracalla, and, surprisingly, the first time ever that Hercules had been
depicted in this particular way on Roman coinage. The only other coin of the
Roman period that shows Hercules in this pose that I have been able to find
is a civic bronze coin of Lucius Verus from Hadrianopolis in Thrace.27

20 BMC 55-61 and 688-96.

21 BMC 34-7.
22 BMC 67-75.
23 BMC 604.
24 BMC 362-71.
25 BMC 420-7.
26 BMC 458-62.
N A Mouchmov, Ancient Coins o f the Balkan Peninsular and Coins o f the Bulgarian
Czars, Sofia 1912 (in Bulgarian), p. 143, 2536 and pi. 19, 1.

238
G. VICTORIA AVG (Victory advancing right holding wreath and palm).
As with Fides and Pax, this legend had been used on Gordian’s first issue
at Rome (RIC 5), although Victory was advancing left on that type. This
inscription was also used on the first series from Antioch with three different
designs (nos. 60-2), but not this one. Victory advancing right coupled with the
legend VICTORIA AVG occurs on the coinage of Maximinus28 and also on
Alexander’s eastern denarii.29

H. FORTVNA REDVX (Fortuna seated left on throne holding rudder and

comucopiae).
This is the only type that could be confused with one from the mint of
Rome, where it occurs in the last issue of the reign (RIC 144, A.D. 242-4), but,
as I have explained already, this confusion need not exist, for the Rome coins
always have a wheel beneath Fortuna’s throne, whereas at Antioch the wheel
is never included in the design. Traditionally this type was struck to mark the
safe return of the emperor to Rome from a campaign or a visit to the
provinces, but this can hardly apply in this case, since the type occurs almost
simultaneously at Rome and Antioch. Fortuna Redux had not been used by
Gordian’s immediate predecessors, but it did occur frequently on the eastern
coinages of Septimius Severus.

I. ORIENS AVG and ORIENS AVG N (Sol standing left with right arm raised
and holding globe in left hand).
This design had already been used with the legend AETERNITATI AVG
on Gordian’s coinage of 241-3 from the mint of Rome; it was alsojby Severus
Alexander with the legends P M TR P X COS I I P P and P M T R P XI
COS III P P.30 For the use of the term ORIENS to refer to Sol, the only
precedent is a denarius of Hadrian with a bust of the Sun god and the legend

28 BMC 25-30, 104-11 and 181-2.

29 BMC 1018-24.
30 BMC 807-11 and 854-60.

239
P M TR P COS II, ORIENS.31 By the reign of Gallienus, and especially
under Aurelian, Oriens had become the standard way of referring to Sol on
coins, and consequently one of the commonest coin legends; this type of
Gordian was to set a trend. As for the rare variant form of the legend,
ORIENS AVG N(ostri), I can think of no particular reason for its use. The
form AVG N occurs at Rome under Gordian with the legend LAETITIA
AVG N (RIC 86), and perhaps the die-engraver was thinking of that.

J. SAECVLI FELICITAS (Gordian standing right holding spear and globe).

The design was an completely standard one at this period. It had
occurred with the legend P M TR P III/IV/V COS IIP P on Gordian’s Roman
coinage of 241-3, just as the type of ORIENS AVG had occurred in that issue.
The design showing the emperor standing right with spear and globe was also
used by Severus Alexander with a dated legend, P M TR P VIIII COS III
P P.32 The legend SAECVLI FELICITAS, however, had not been used since
the death of Elagabalus. It occurred frequently on coins of the Severan period
with the following designs: (a) Felicitas, (b) Isis suckling Horus, (c) dynastic
types, (d) a crescent and stars, or (e) a scene of the emperor distributing
largesse, but not with a standing figure of the emperor.

K. - L VICTORIA AVGVSTI and VICTORIA GORDIANI AVG (same type

as for VICTORIA AVG above).
These two types, together with VICTORIA AVG from the first series, are
very similar to the reverses of Gordian’s final issue from Rome which also
show a progression from short to longer versions of the same basic legend,
such as FELICIT TEMP, FELICIT TEMPOR and FELICITAS TEMPORVM
(RIC 140-2), or VICTOR AETER, VICTORIA AETER and VICTORIA
AETERNA (RIC 154-6). The precedents for the Victoria type have been
discussed above; the legend VICTORIA AVGVSTI occurred for Severus

31 BMC 75-6.
32 BMC 616.

240
Alexander,33 though not with this design, while the form VICTORIA
GORDIANI AVG had not of course been used before, but one may compare
VICTOR SEVER AVG for Septimius Severus34 and VICTOR ANTONINI
AVG for Elagabalus.35

M. Conclusions
It is remarkable both that four of these twelve reverse legends, FIDES
MILITVM, IOVI CONSERVATORI, PAX AVGVSTI and VICTORIA AVG,
had occurred in Gordian’s first issue from the mint of Rome, although in all
four cases with different designs, and also that three more reverse types
occurred with different legends in the later issues of Gordian from Rome
(FORTVNA REDVX, ORIENS AVG and SAECVLI FELICITAS). This fact
could be interpreted in different ways: it could imply that the official who
chose the types of this coinage was making a safe (or unimaginative) choice
in selecting types that had already occurred during Gordian’s reign, or else
it could imply that the choice of types was made by the emperor himself.
With one exception, the designs themselves are conventional enough, but
sometimes they are accompanied by rather unusual legends, such as Sol with
ORIENS AVG, which had not been used since Hadrian, and the emperor
standing right with the legend SAECVLI FELICITAS, which has no exact
parallel. However, the most unusual design is undoubtedly the figure of
Hercules striding to the right brandishing a club in his right hand and holding
a bow in his left (P M TR P V COS II P P); as noted above, this is the first
time that Hercules had been shown in this particular way on Roman coinage
and the closest parallel that I could find was on a local bronze coin from
Hadrianopolis in Thrace. However, it is doubtful whether this has any bearing
on the mint of this series.

33 BMC 638-41 and 785.

34 BMC Wars of Succession 99.
35 BMC 30-7 and 121-5.
5. The internal structure of the mint

A. The problem of officinae

The structure of both this issue and the next in the name of Philip,
suggests that the mint was working in three officinae. According to this
theory, each of the three main types, Fides, Mars and Pax, would have been
struck in a separate officina while either one or two of these officinae would
have been responsible for the three minor types, Iovi, PM TR P and Victoria,
as well. However, if this was the case, all three officinae shared a common
pool of obverse dies. While it is perfectly possible for different officinae to
share common obverse dies, we have seen that Gordian’s second issue of
tetradrachms with the ram on the reverse are divided into two unequal groups
with ram left and right, which perhaps correspond to two officinae, and that
there is no sharing of dies, either obverse or reverse, between the two groups
(Chapter 4).
In fact, to talk about officinae at this period before the mint started to use
officina marks, is to risk becoming bogged down in sterile arguments about
terminology. What is more useful is to compare the evidence for the internal
structure of the mint at this time with that for the previous issues of both
radiates and tetradrachms of Gordian’s reign. This can be summarized as
follows:
Radiates, 1st series (AD 238-9): single group with a com-
mon pool of obv. dies,
Tetradrachms, 1st & 2nd series (AD 240-1): as last.
Tetradrachms, 3rd series, (?AD 242): two unequal groups with
no shared dies,
Radiates, 2nd series (AD 242-4): three approximately equal
groups with shared obv.
dies.
The internal structure of the first series of radiates is similar to that of the
first two series of tetradrachms, as is the style of the coins themselves.
However, as we have seen already, there was a change in the internal

242
structure of the mint between the second and third series of tetradrachms and
there was yet another change between the third series of tetradrachms and the
second series of radiates.

B. The ratio of obverse to reverse dies

Issue I
Obverse dies: 410; reverse dies: 358; ratio of obv. to rev.: 1 : 0.87
Issue II
Obverse dies: 1869; reverse dies: 3300; ratio of obv. to rev.: 1 : 1.77

As this shows, the two issues have surprisingly different ratios of obverse
to reverse dies. The second series, which has substantially more reverse than
obverse dies, follows the normal pattern for radiates minted at Antioch. On
the other hand, the first issue, which has slightly more obverses than reverses
is definitely aberrant. Normally the mint of Antioch seems to have used about
twice as many reverse dies as obverse dies on its radiates: in the first series of
238-9 there were 674 obverses to 1443 reverses (Chapter 3). In the case of
the tetradrachms the reverse dies are sometimes ten times more than the
obverses and the same is true of Caesarea as well (Chapters 4 and 6), so to
find that there slightly more obverses than reverses in the first issue of radiates
is unexpected.
What makes this more surprising is the fact that all the obverse dies of
the first issue have been checked against each other and we can be fairly
confident that the estimated figure of 410 dies is not an underestimate; with
the second issue, on the other hand, not all the obverse dies have been
checked against each other and the figure of 1869 dies could be too high (see
below, p. 247f.). Although I can find no reason why the proportions of
obverse to reverse dies for the two issues should be so different, I do not think
it is because they were produced at different mints: the similarities between
the two series in other respects are too great.

243
6. The date o f the second series

The best evidence for this is the one dated type, P M TR P V COS II P
P. Assuming that the change in the tribunician year still occurred on 10
December,36 then this must belong to the twelve months beginning 10
December 241. We shall see in Chapter 9 that Gordian did not arrive at
Antioch until late in 242 and it is likely that this coinage was not issued until
the emperor arrived at Antioch. If that is the case, the start of its production
may be dated to the end of 242. It also seems likely that this coinage
occupied the rest of Gordian’s reign; although there is no external evidence
for this, the size of the issue, the circumstances under which it was produced,
and its continuity with the corresponding series of coins struck by Philip, all
point to that fact that it was still being struck at the time of Gordian’s death.
The relative duration of the first and second issues of this series is a matter
of conjecture, but I would think it most likely that, because of its sheer size,
the second, much larger, phase started to be struck early in 243.

7. The attribution of the second series

A. Introduction
As we have seen, apart from Antioch, these coins have been attributed to
Viminacium and an uncertain Balkan mint. Voetter suggested an attribution
to Viminacium for two reasons: (a) because that mint had recently started
producing a large bronze coinage and (b) because the Viminacium bronzes of
Philip’s reign used the same obverse legend, IMP C M IVL PHILIPPVS P F
AVG P M, that is found on the issue of radiates of Philip which follows on
immediately after Gordian’s second series.37

36 The evidence for the date of the renewal of the tribunician year in Gordian’s reign is
discussed in Chapter 02; in default of any conclusive evidence to the contrary it is, I suggest,
best to continue to use the traditional date of 10 December.
37 Voetter, op. cit. n. 4.

244
B. The bronze coinage of Viminacium
In order to examine the reasons for Voetter’s attribution of this coinage
to Viminacium a brief digression on its bronze coinage might be useful. This
city, the capital of Moesia Superior and an important military base on the
lower Danube, produced a large series of bronze coins dated, according to a
local era, Years 1 to 14.38 The date of this era has been the subject of much
discussion, but it is most likely to have begun in October 239.39 Gordian’s
coins have the legend IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG in Years 1 to
3 and IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG in Years 3 to 5. So the change
takes place in October 241-2, more than two years later than at Rome. The
larger denomination, weighing between 16 and 18 grams, shows Gordian
laureate, normally with a draped and cuirassed bust seen from behind, but
occasionally with an undraped head. The smaller denomination, a half of
about 5.5 to 7.5 grams, has the same bust varieties as the larger coin but also
adds a radiate, draped and cuirassed bust seen from behind. Significantly, the
cuirassed bust seen from behind is never found at Viminacium. The standard
of engraving is rather poor, and I do not note any close similarities with the
radiates (plate 29).
Voetter’s second argument, based on the similarity between Philip’s first
series from Antioch and the bronze coinage of Viminacium, is at first sight
more convincing, for the obverse legend that is found on both these coinages,
IMP C M IVL PHILIPPVS P F AVG P M is unusual and never occurs at
Rome. However, this argument too loses some of its point when it is
remembered that this legend also occurred on the coinage of several other

38 The literature on this coinage is extensive. The main catalogues are: B Pick, Die antiken
Manzen Nord-Griechenlands. Band 1,1 Dacien und Moesien, Berlin 1898, pp. 21ff. and B Boric-
BreSkovic, Coins o f Viminacium in the Collection o f S S DuSaniC, Belgrade, 1976.
39 This is based on the fact that Viminacium’s Year 14 includes coins for Gallus, Aemilian
and Valerian. Since Aemilian ruled in July-September 253 (M Peachin, Roman Imperial
Titulature and Chronology, A.D. 235-84, Amsterdam, 1990, p. 36), therefore the change in Year
at Viminacium should be after September. Pick, op. cit. n. 38, p. 25 suggested October 239,
as did S DuSanifc, ‘The era of Viminacium’, Frappe et Ateliers Monetaires dans lAntiquite et
Moyen Age, Actes du Symposium, Belgrade, 1976, pp. 53-8 (21 October); G Elmer, ‘Die
Munzpragung von Viminacium und die Zeitrechnung der Provinz Ober Moesien’, NZ 1935,
pp. 35-43, on the other hand, suggested 1 July.

245
mints, including Antioch in Pisidia, as Pink pointed out.40 Furthermore, as we
have seen in Chapter 3, Voetter confused the two Antiochs. This inscription
was presumably used at Antioch in Pisidia and elsewhere because these mints
were copying the Antiochene radiates which were the first coins to be minted
in Philip’s reign.

C. Weder’s attribution
We have also seen that Weder favoured an attribution to a mint in the
Balkans, although not to Viminacium, basing his arguments on his historical
reconstruction of events in Gordian’s reign which will be discussed in Chapter
9.411 have already stated why I do not accept his interpretation of events on
which his attribution of this coinage to the Balkans depends (above, p. 23 If.).

D. The pattern of coin circulation

We shall see below that the pattern of circulation of these coins, while not
without some anomalies, points strongly to an eastern provenance, and more
specifically a Syrian provenance, for these coins, rather than a Balkan one.
Given the stylistic similarities that have been noted between the present series
of radiates and the first one, which may definitely be attributed to Antioch
(above, p. 226f.), there seems to be no reason to doubt that both issues of
radiates were in fact minted at Antioch. The size of the issue suggests very
strongly that this was a military coinage produced to pay the heavy costs of
maintaining an expedition in the field during the during the last eighteen
months of Gordian’s reign.

40 Pink, op. cit. n. 6.

41 Op. cit. n. 15.

246
8. The die-study
A. The scope of the die-study
The die-study was carried out on all coins of which photographs were
available, with the exception of a few specimens which were too badly
preserved to permit die-identification42. The results are presented in Table
2. All the reverses were checked since they divided into twelve groups. The
obverses were, however, a different matter, since, apart from the 26 coins with
the draped and cuirassed obverse bust, they all had the same type, and so it
might have been thought that they should all be checked against each other;
but with a total of 604 coins with the cuirassed bust this would involve more
than 182,000 individual die-checks, which is not a feasible undertaking.43 As
an alternative, I checked a sample of 157 obverses, including specimens with
all twelve reverse types, and this produced the following figures:44

157 coins; 152 dies; 10 non-singletons (147x1; 5x2)

Good’s estimate: 2386.4 dies
Coverage: 6.39% ±2.80% = 1654-4234 dies

This sample obverse die check revealed two things: first, all the five die-
identities that were observed were within the same reverse types, suggesting
that obverse dies were not shared between the major reverse types or only to
a limited extent45 Secondly, these results are consistent with the figures in
Table 2 in which the estimated total number of obverse dies with the cuirassed
bust is 2222.

42 23 obverses and 11 reverses were excluded from the die-study.

43 To estimate the number of individual die-checks involved in the die-study of a
particular issue the total number of coins should be multiplied by half its number minus 0.5,
assuming that no die-identities are found. So in the case of an issue of 604 coins you would
multiply 604 by 301.5 = 182,106. The number increases steeply as more coins are added to
an issue. With an issue of half as many coins the number of individual checks needed is less
than a third: 300 x 149.5 = 44,850.
44 The sample consisted of 90 coins in L, 23 in V, 21 from the Stevenage hoard and 23
from the Creil hoard.
45 The die-links were as follows: 71/10 & 17; 71/13 & 29; 78/58 & 116; 84/3 & 4; and 84/5
& 12. Some obverse dies were found to be shared by different reverse types: see below.

247
 Table 2: Die statistics: Gordian, radiates

Second series: AD 242-4

1. Obverses

Issue I
Rev. Coins Dies N-S Die breakdown ‘Good’ Coverage Range
D2 busts 27 21 10 17x1; 2x2; 2x3 56.7 37% ±11.9% 42.9-83.5
B2 busts 147 120 50 97x1;20x2;2x3; 1x4 352.8 34% ±5.8% 301.4-425.5
Total 174 141 60 409.5 344-509

Issue II
Fortuna 151 135 31 120x1; 14x2; 1x3 657.6 20.5%±4.9% 531.5-865.4
Oriens 141 124 30 lllx l; 9x2; 4x3 582.8 21.3% ±4.6% 479.5-742.5
Oriens N 4 1 4 1x4 1 100% 1
Saeculi (D2) 1 1 - lxl ?1 ?1
Saeculi 129 114 29 100x1; 13x2; 1x3 507.1 22.5% ±5.4% 409-667.1
Viet. 2+3 31 27 7 24x1; 2x2; 1x3 119.6 22.6% ±9.9% 83.1-212.9
Total 457 402 101 1869.1 1505-2490

Total, I +11 631 543 161 2278.6 1849-2999

2. Reverses

Issue I
Rev. Coins Dies N-S Die breakdown ‘Good’ Coverage Range
Fides 52 40 23 29x1; 10x2; 1x3 90.4 44.2% ±11% 72.4-120.4
Iovi 6 2 5 lxl; 1x5 2.4 68.1% ±15.2% 2-2.9
Marti 43 37 12 31x1; 6x2 132.6 27.9% ±10.6% 96.2-213.4
Pax 47 38 17 30x1; 7x2; 1x3 105.1 36.2% ±10.8% 80.9-149.6
PM TRP 19 8 16 3xl;2x2;lx3;lx4;lx5 9.5 84.2% ±13.4% 8.2-113
Victoria 14 9 7 7x1; 1x3; 1x4 18 50% ±13.4% 14.2-24.6
Total 181 134 80 358 274-522

Issue II
Fortuna 152 143 18 134x1; 9x2 1207.6 11.8% ±7.2% 752.6-3108.
Oriens 145 132 26 119x1; 13x2 736.2 17.9% ±5% 575.9-1020.
Oriens N 4 1 4 1x4 1 100% 1
Saeculi 131 124 14 117x1; 7x2 1160.3 10.7% ±3.9% 848.2-1834.:
Viet. 2 18 17 2 16x1; 1x2 153 11.1% ±10.8% 77.6-7450
Viet. 3 14 12 4 10x1; 2x2 42 28.6% ±18.7% 25.4-121.6
Total 464 429 68 3300 2281-6536

Total, I +11 645 563 148 3658 2555-7058

248
 The obverse die-study was then extended to the remaining coins of the
second series. At first only the coins of each reverse type were checked
against each other. Then all the types of the first issue were checked against
each other, and this did reveal that a number of obverse dies -that were shared
by different reverse types (see Table 1). Lastly, the obverses of the three
Victory types were checked against each other and this also showed that one
die was shared by the VICTORIA AVGVSTI and VICTORIA GORDIANI
AVG reverse types, which is not surprising.46 These two types, however, did
not share any dies with VICTORIA AVG, and this confirms their position in
the second issue.
The obverse dies of the remaining types of the second issue (FORTVNA
REDVX, ORIENS AVG, ORIENS AVG N and SAECVLI FELICITAS) have
not, then, been checked against each other nor were they checked against the
coins of the first series. It is possible, therefore, that some die-links between
the different types of the second issue have been missed, but it is equally likely
that there were none. In any case since the sample die check quoted above
produced roughly the same result as the sum of individual die checks within
each reverse type, then the latter figure is probably not too far out. However,
it must be remembered that it is possible that a number of obverse dies were
shared between the different reverse types of the second issue and also
between them and the types of the first issue, and that as a result the
estimated number of obverse dies for the second issue might be rather too
high.

B. The results
What, then, do these die-estimates tell us? First, and most importantly,
they give us an idea of the total size of the second series which we can
compare with the figures obtained from the die-studies of the first series of
radiates and the tetradrachms. The second series of radiates dwarfs the rest
of the coinage: it was more than three times as large as the first series of

46 83/4 (VICTORIA AVGVSTI) = 84/1 & 2 (VICTORIA GORDIANI AVG).

249
radiates and, in terms of numbers of dies, seven times as large as all three
series of tetradrachms put together (Chapter 4).
The individual figures obtained from the die-studies help to clarify the
structure of this large coinage (Table 2), although the evidence of the finds
offers a rather different and more reliable picture of the relative frequency of
the different reverse types (below, p. 254f.). The first issue accounts for a
total of 410 obverse dies which divides into 57 with the draped and cuirassed
bust (D2) and 353 with the cuirassed bust (B2), while the second issue, all but
one of whose coins have the cuirassed bust, amounts to a total of 1869 dies,
4.56 times larger than the first issue. The finds, on the other hand, suggest that
the second issue was 6.58 times larger than the first, implying that the obverse
dies were more heavily used in the second issue than the first.
As was explained above, the obverses of the first issue were all checked
against each other and it was found that a number of dies were shared by
different reverse types, so it is not possible to break the obverse die-estimates
down between the different reverse types.
Both the die-estimates and the finds confirm that FIDES MILITVM,
MARTI PACIFERO and PAX AVGVSTI were the three main types of the
first issue and that they were all struck in approximately equal numbers, with
MARTI PACIFERO being the largest types; the figures are 90, 133 and 105
reverse dies respectively.47 On the other hand, the finds gave figures of 80,
81 and 101 specimens for these three types, thus confirming that they were
produced in broadly equal quantities, but implying that PAX AVGVSTI was
the most common reverse. The evidence of the finds is to be preferred, not
least because the die-estimates are so approximate.
The three remaining types of the first series, IOVI CONSERVATORI,
P M TR P V COS II P P and VICTORIA AVG, gave figures of 2.4, 9.5 and
18 reverse dies respectively, and the finds produced similarly low figures from
the finds, so they formed only a very small part of the first series. Both the
finds and the die-study showed that the three minor types are heavily over­

47 If we take the range figures for the three types they all overlap between 96 and 120
dies.

250
represented in our sample: in the case of IOVI CONSERVATORI the die-
study included six specimens which came from an estimated 2.4 dies; for P M
TR P V COS II P P, these figures were 19 specimens from an estimated 9.5
dies, while for VICTORIA AVG there were 14 coins from 18 dies. This
compares with figures of 52 coins and 90 dies for FIDES MILITVM, 43 coins
and 133 dies for MARTI PACIFERO and 47 coins and 105 dies for PAX
AVGVSTI. The reason for this over-representation of the minor types in the
body of material that made up the die-study is that collections tend naturally
to have a high proportion of the rarer types.
The second issue, on the other hand, was dealt with differently from the
first, for, as has been explained above, obverse die-estimates were obtained for
each reverse type individually and no attempt was made to look for die-links
between different types. This issue consists of three main types, FORTVNA
REDVX, ORIENS AVG and SAECVLIFELICITAS and three smaller ones,
ORIENS AVG N, VICTORIA AVGVSTI and VICTORIA GORDIANI
AVG. The die-statistics for each of these types, obverse and reverse, are set
out in Table 2. As with the first issue, so in this case the three main types are
of roughly equal size and comprise the great bulk of the coinage, accounting
respectively for c.708, 619 and 646 specimens in the sample of finds. Thus the
finds show that FORTVNA REDVX was the largest type, followed by
SAECVLI FELICITAS and ORIENS AVG.
The estimated number of reverse dies both confirms that these three
reverse types dominate the second issue, and it also confirms that Fortuna was
the most common reverse of the three, followed by Saeculi and Oriens, with
figures of 1208, 736 and 1160 dies respectively. The figure of 736 reverse dies
for ORIENS AVG is rather lower than the 1208 dies for FORTVNA REDVX
and the 1160 for SAECVLI FELICITAS, but the range estimates for the three
types still overlap at between 848 and 1020 dies. Of the remaining types of
the second issue, ORIENS AVG N only accounts for one die, while only 27
specimens of the two Victory types occur in the finds. The estimated number

251
of reverse dies for these two types is, at 153 and 42 respectively,
disproportionately large, but the estimates are very approximate.48

9. The evidence of finds

A. The interpretation of the evidence
We have seen that only very limited use could be made of hoard evidence
for the first series of radiates because it is impossible to rely on the correct
identification in most published reports of the types which occur at both Rome
and Antioch. This is not the case with the second series, since all but one of
the types are distinct from those of Rome, and catalogues of the numerous
hoards and finds containing coins of Gordian have produced a large amount
of relevant material which is listed in full in Appendix 1.
The one type that has sometimes been confused with a Roman design is
FORTVNA REDVX (no. 78). As we have seen, there is a clear difference
between the products of the two mints since the Roman type (RIC 144) can
be identified both by the obverse bust, which is always draped and cuirassed
(D2) at Rome and cuirassed (B2) only at Antioch, and by the wheel that is
invariably shown beside the throne of Fortuna on coins of Rome, but which
is always omitted at Antioch. However, Cohen’s entry for FORTVNA
REDVX (no. 98) does not specify the bust variety and refers equally to coins
with and without a wheel under the throne on the reverse; RIC, on the other
hand, does make the distinction. As a result, catalogues of finds that are only
identified with reference to Cohen do not enable us to distinguish between the
products of the two mints, although all the other types from the second series
at Antioch can be identified. In addition, most find reports do not note the
distinction between the cuirassed (B2) and draped and cuirassed (D2) busts,
so these entries have to be grouped together.
With these provisos, then, the find evidence can be used to throw light on
two areas: first, the relative frequency of the different reverse types (with the

48 In the case of VICTORIA AVGVSTI, the 18 coins produced only one die-identical
pair, whereas the 14 VICTORIA GORDIANI AVG pieces produced two die-pairs.

252
partial exception of FORTVNA REDVX), for which the finds should be a
more reliable indicator than the estimated numbers of dies (see Chapter 1),
and, secondly, the circulation area of these coins, as shown by the varying
proportions of Antiochene coins to Roman coins in hoards and site-finds from
across the Empire.

B. The evidence for output: comparison with the die-statistics

Table 3 shows the numbers of specimens of each type recorded from a
sample of 75 hoards and six sites across the Empire from Britain to Syria. The
principles on which these finds have been selected are discussed in Chapter
8. The first part of the table (A) shows all hoards, including those in which the
FORTVNA REDVX type has not been correctly identified, while the second
part (B) just includes those finds in which the Antiochene coins of this type
have been distinguished from those of Rome.
Comparison between parts A and B of this table show that, as regards the
reverses other than Fortuna, there is little difference between them. As far as
FORTVNA REDVX itself is concerned, part B shows that the true
percentage of this reverse, calculated only from those hoards where it is
correctly identified, is 30.44%. If we add all the FORTVNA REDVX coins
together from Part A, both those that have been identified as Antiochene and
those that could be either Antiochene or Roman, we obtain a figure of
31.37%. This would suggest that out of the 138 unattributed Fortuna coins,
about 116 (84.06%) probably belong to Antioch and the remaining 22
(15.94%) to Rome. In other words, the distortion produced by those hoards
in which the Fortuna coins have not been correctly identified is relatively
small.
Table 3 also shows that the relative frequency of the different reverses
remains broadly the same in all seven groups of hoard from Britain to Turkey
and Syria, and when variations occur they may be attributed to the small size
of some of the find groups, especially D, from Spain and Italy.

253
 Table 3: Occurrence of radiates of the second series in 81 finds

A. All finds

Issue I
Reverse type Cat RIC A B C D E F G A ll %
FIDES MILITVM 66-7 209 29 8 8 1 16 9 9 80 3.44
IOVI CONSERVATORI 68-9 211 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 4 0.17
MARTI PACIFERO 70-1 212 26 5 0 3 26 11 10 81 3.48
PAX AVGVSTI 72-3 214 27 9 5 1 27 16 16 101 4.34
PM TRP V COS II PP 74-5 206 5 2 8 1 5 2 0 23 0.99
VICTORIA AVG 76-7 217 3 0 2 0 3 2 5 15 0.64
Total, issue I 304 13.06

Issue II
FORTVNA REDVX (R./Ant) ?78 144/210 7 6 0 7 62 56 0 138 5.93
FORTVNA REDVX (Ant) 78 210 182 59 87 6 170 21 68 593 25.47
ORIENS AVG 79 213 161 53 59 7 196 81 62 619 26.59
ORIENS AVG N 80 - 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.04
SAECVLI FELICITAS 81-2 216 172 46 59 8 196 92 73 646 27.75
VICTORIA AVGVSTI 83 218 3 2 2 1 5 2 0 15 0.64
VICTORIA GORDIANI AVG 84 219 3 1 1 0 5 2 0 12 0.52
Total, issue II 2024 86.94
Grand total 2328

B. Only finds with FORTVNA REDVX correctly identified

Reverse type Cat RIC A B c D E F G A ll %

FIDES MILITVM 66-7 209 28 8 8 0 11 3 9 67 3.44
IOVI CONSERVATORI 68-9 211 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0.15
MARTI PACIFERO 70-1 212 25 5 0 1 22 5 10 68 3.49
PAX AVGVSTI 72-3 214 27 9 5 1 22 6 16 86 4.42
PM TRP V COS II PP 74-5 206 5 2 8 1 5 0 0 21 1.08
VICTORIA AVG 76-7 217 3 0 2 0 3 1 5 14 0.72
Total, issue I 259 13.30

Issue II
FORTVNA REDVX 78 210 182 59 87 6 170 21 68 593 30.44
ORIENS AVG 79 213 160 53 59 4 167 26 62 531 27.26
ORIENS AVG N 80 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SAECVLI FELICITAS 81-2 216 169 43 59 8 165 28 73 545 27.98
VICTORIA AVGVSTI 83 218 3 2 2 1 4 0 0 12 0.62
VICTORIA GORDIANI AVG 84 219 3 0 1 0 4 0 0 8 0.41
Total, issue II 1689 86.70
Grand total 1948

Key

A. Britain E. Hungary and Yugoslavia

B. France and Belgium F. Albania, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece
C. Germany and Austria G. Turkey and Syria
D. Spain and Italy

254
 Table 4: Comparison of the relative frequency of the reverses of the second series
as shown by the finds with the estimated numbers of dies
(expressed as percentages of the total number of specimens or dies)

A Using Good’s estimate of the number of dies

Issue I
Reverse type Cat RIC Finds Estimated number o f dies
Obv. Rev.
FIDES MILITVM 66-7 209 3.44 - 147
IOVI CONSERVATORI 68-9 211 0.15 - 0.07
MARTI PACIFERO 70-1 212 3.49 - 3.62
PAX AVGVSTI 72-3 214 4.42 - 187
PM TRP V COS II PP 74-5 206 1.08 - 0.26
VICTORIA AVG 76-7 217 0.72 - 0.49
Total, issue I 13.06 17.97 9.79
Total quantity 259 409.5 358

Issue II
FORTVNA REDVX 78 210 30.44 28.86 33.01
ORIENS AVG 79 213 27.26 25.58 20.13
ORIENS AVG N 80 - 0.00 0.04 0.03
SAECVLI FELICITAS 81-2 216 27.98 2129 31.72
VICTORIA AVGVSTI 83 218 0.62 1 5.25 4.18
VICTORIA GORDIANI AVG 84 219 0.41 ) 1.15
Total, issue n 86.70 82.03 90.21
Total quantity 1688 1869.1 3658

B Using an estimated range of dies

Issue I
Reverse type Cat RIC Finds (%) Estimated range dies (%)
Obv. Rev.
FIDES MILITVM 66-7 209 3.44 - 1.98 - 3.29
IOVI CONSERVATORI 68-9 211 0.15 - 0.05 - 0.08
MARTI PACIFERO 70-1 212 3.49 - 163 - 5.83
PAX AVGVSTI 72-3 214 4.42 - 2.21 - 4.09
PM TRP V COS II PP 74-5 206 1.08 - 0.22 - 0.31
VICTORIA AVG 76-7 217 0.72 - 0.39 - 0.67
Total, issue I 13.06 15.10 - 22.34 7.49 - 14.27
Total quantity 259 409.5 358

Issue II
FORTVNA REDVX 78 210 30.44 23.33 - 37.98 20.57 - 84.98
ORIENS AVG 79 213 27.26 21.04 - 3159 15.74 - 27.89
ORIENS AVG N 80 - 0.00 0.04 0.03
SAECVLI FELICITAS 81-2 216 27.98 17.95 - 29.28 23.19 - 50.14
VICTORIA AVGVSTI 83 218 0.62 \ 3.65-9.34 112 -1 1 3 0
VICTORIA GORDIANI AVG 84 219 0.41 \ 0.69 - 3.32
Total, issue II 86.70 66.05 - 109.28 62.36 - 178.68
Total quantity 1688 1869.1 3658

255
 Table 5: Proportion of coins of Antioch compared with those of Rome

A. Britain

El LS Do Nap Ed Mat St Cai BH Sel OO Ch Cu

Antioch 2 [3] 530 1 [5] 9 22 [4] 24 5 2 9 1
Rome 72 [112] 5740 29 [41] 89 114 [48] 164 31 15 76 8
% 2.78 [17] 9.23 3.45 [12.2] 10.11 19.30 [8.3] 14.63 16.13 13.33 11.84 1250

B. France

V-F Na Cl No Bas Rq Cr Rv Cht Et A l M-B Mo

Antioch 2 26 27 8 2 54 24 [8] 1 18 17 1 3
Rome 192 394 184 78 20 353 182 [78] 61 214 164 35 29
% 1.04 6.60 14.67 10.26 10.00 15.30 13.19 [10.3] 1.64 8.41 10.37 286 10.34

C. Germany and Austria

Bur Wie Neu Sch Lei Ma Alz Tul Ap Ca

Antioch 3 6 17 104 1 31 4 53 4 8
Rome 3 44 93 1036 16 268 12 179 17 39
% 100.00 13.64 18.28 10.04 6.25 11.57 33.33 29.61 23.53 20.51

D. Spain and Italy

Gib A lt Tar Tq Cal Fa

Antioch 5 2 3 0 12 [12]
Rome 18 12 12 8 53 [33]
% 27.78 16.67 25.00 0.00 2164 [36.4]

E. Hungary and Yugoslavia

Bu Go Fe Nag Se Jag Sin Jab Sm Os Ot Po Kr

Antioch 73 76 18 [37] [24] [9] 82 54 [249] 0 6 2 [61]
Rome 560 309 82 [215] [196] [38] 522 290 [1497] 20 31 37 [298]
% 13.04 24.60 21.95 [17.2] [112] [23.7] 15.71 18.62 [16.6] 0.00 19.35 5.41 [20.5]

F. Albania, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece

Ba Can Ic Us Ni Ru RD PI Te Bd Alb At Co
Antioch 2 41 7 [27] [35] m 0 [70] [81] 17 23 [1] 0
Rome 32 99 35 [133] [148] [19] 17 [216] [202] 62 109 [19] 2
% 6.25 41.41 20.00 [20.3] [23.7] [42.1] 0.00 [32.4] [40.1] 27.42 21.10 [5.3] 0.00

G. Turkey and Syria

Ea Smy Ca Pe Ha Sa Ep An D7 D1 D10 D2 Rest D

Antioch 4 60 4 2 93 0 1 6 21 38 4 1 21 85
Rome 25 361 10 1 364 2 1 14 25 71 4 3 58 171
% 16.00 16.62 40.00200.00 25.55 0.00100.00 42.86 84.00 54.93 28.57 33.33 36.21 49.71

Notes: For a key to the abbreviations of hoards see Appendix 1. In those finds whose figures are enclosed
in square brackets the quantities of FORTVNA REDVX coins are only estimated.

256
 Table 6: Proportion of coins of Antioch compared with those of Rome
from 44 major finds

Britain France Germany Austria Hungary Spain and Italy

% % % % % %
Do 9.23 Na 6.60 Sch 10.04 Ca 20.51 Bu 13.04 Cal 2164
Mat 10.11 Et 8.41 Ma 11.57 Tul 29.51 Na [17.21] Gib 27.78
Ch 11.84 A1 10.37 Neu 18.28 Fe 21.95 Fa [3636]
BH 14.63 Cr 13.19 Go 24.60
St 19.30 Cl 14.67
Rq 15.30
Av. 9.44 11.42 13.30 25.01 19.20 28.93

Yugoslavia Romania Bulgaria W. Turkey E. Turkey

% % % % %
Se [1124] Alb 21.10 Ic 20.00 Smy 16.62 D 3621
Sin 15.71 Bd 27.42 Ni [23.65] Ha 25.55 Ca 40.00
Sm [16.63] Can 41.41 PI [3141] An 4186
Jab 18.62 Te [40.10] D1 54.93
Us [20.30] Ru [42.11] D7 84.00
Kr [20.47]
Av. 17.33 29.98 31.65 21.09 51.60

Table 7: Summary by country (aggregate total of all coins)

Britain France Germany Austria Spain Italy

Antioch 617 191 105 41 10 24
Rome 6539 1984 1432 229 42 94
% 9.44 9.63 7.33 17.90 23.81 25.53

Hungary Yugoslavia49 Romania Bulgaria W. Turkey50 E. Turkey51

Antioch 204 514 83 201 156 95
Rome 1166 3062 302 620 729 195
% 17.50 16.79 27.48 32.42 21.49 48.72

49 Includes the Uskub hoard from Albania.

50 Includes the Smyrna, Pergamum and Haydere hoards and the finds from Ephesus and
Sardis.
51 Includes the finds from Antioch, the finds and hoards from Dura and the Caesarea
hoard.

257
 The next part of this exercise is to compare the figures for the relative
frequency of these reverse types obtained from the finds with the estimated
numbers of obverse and reverse dies. This is done in Table 4, first of all
quoting the estimated numbers of dies obtained from Good's equation (part
A) and secondly quoting the estimated upper and lower limits for the numbers
of dies (part B). It will also be noted that the obverse dies for the reverses of
issue I were counted as a single group and not sub-divided between the
different reverse types. The correlation between the three sets of data does
not appear to be very close at all in the first section of the table: this is mainly
due to two factors. First, there is a wide difference between the figures
obtained from the obverse and reverse die-studies. The finds data generally
falls between the two figures. Secondly, it must be remembered that the die-
estimates are themselves only very approximate, and in the second part of the
table, where the upper and lower limits of the estimated numbers of dies are
quoted, it will be seen that the figures obtained from the finds nearly always
fall within this range. There are only a few exceptions to this rule: for
example, there is an unusually high number of obverse dies from the first issue
(17.97%), and the number of reverse dies, which is very much lower (9.79%),
corresponds more closely to the figure presented by the finds (13.06%). We
have also seen that the VICTORIA AVGVSTI and VICTORIA GORDIANI
AVG types were struck from a higher number of both obverse (5.25%) and
reverse dies (5.33%) than their appearance in hoards would suggest (1.03%).
There is no obvious reason for either of these anomalies, beyond the
approximate nature of the die-estimates. By and large, however, the frequency
suggested by the finds does correspond reasonably closely to the die-estimates.

C. The evidence for the mint and circulation area of the coinage
The remaining problem that the study of finds might help to clarify is that
of the location of the mint which produced this coinage. At the least, the finds
should help us to determine the circulation area of these coins and this should
in turn offer some clue as to their place of minting. Table 5 presents the
evidence for all 75 hoards and 6 sites in full, comparing the total number of

258
coins of the second series from Antioch with the total number from issues IV
and V at Rome, which were minted between 241 and 244. In the case of those
hoards in which the Antiochene FORTVNA REDVX coins have not been
distinguished from those of the Rome, these coins have been allocated on the
basis described above (p. 254) and the figures have been enclosed in square
brackets to indicate that they are not certain.
The data presented in this table is confusing partly because there is so
much of it and partly because there is so much variation between individual
finds. Those finds that have the fewest numbers of coins of Antioch are clearly
the least useful and so in Table 6 I have selected only the finds that contain
reasonably substantial numbers of coins of Antioch (except for areas such as
Spain and Italy which have produced very few hoards) and have then given the
average of the finds listed. Finally, in Table 7 I have listed the aggregate
numbers of coins from finds in each country, excluding only two hoards, those
from Reka-Devnia in Bulgaria and the ‘Eastern hoard’ from Turkey which
exclude coins of the second series from Antioch.52 Although the method of
assembling the data may be crude, Table 7 does in fact present the pattern of
the finds most clearly.
The proportion of eastern radiates in finds from the western provinces of
Britain, France and Germany is fairly constant at between 7.3% and 9.6%.
This figure rises as one goes east: Austrian, Hungarian and Yugoslavian finds
contain on average between 16% and 17% of Antiochene coins, while in
Romania this figure rises to 27.5% and in Bulgaria to 32.4%. The eastern
content of hoards from the Mediterranean provinces of Spain and Italy is also
high at 23.8% and 25.5% respectively. This just leaves the finds from present-
day Turkey and Syria where there is a marked difference between those from
the west of the country and those from further east. The hoards from Smyrna,
Pergamum and Haydere and the finds from Sardis and Ephesus all have a

52 Although these hoards close well after Gordian’s death, in the reign of Decius, they
both contain practically no coins from the end of Gordian’s reign (Reka-Devnia has no coins
of issue V from Rome and the 'Eastern hoard’ only one), so it is not surprising that they are
also lacking in the contemporary issues of Antioch.

259
much lower proportion (21.5%) than those finds from further east including
the hoard from Caesarea in Cappadocia (40%), and the finds from Dura
(49.7%) and Antioch itself (42.9%).
This pattern, then, is reasonably consistent. The way in which, by and
large, the proportion of eastern coins increases as one goes eastwards, and
most of all the fact that the highest proportion occurs in the finds from
Caesarea, Antioch and Dura, is certainly consistent with a Syrian origin. The
high proportion of eastern coins in the Mediterranean provinces is also
consistent with this, since large numbers of coins from eastern mints from later
periods occur in finds from Spain and Italy.53
However, it is strange that the proportion of eastern coins in the finds
from the western part of Turkey should, at 21.5%, be lower than in Romania
(27.5%) and Bulgaria (32.4%). It is true that, apart from a number of very
small finds, the data from western Turkey consist only of a two large hoards,
from Smyrna and Haydere, and that the former does have an unusually small
number of these coins (16.6%). Therefore it is possible that the sample might
be inadequate. On the other hand, if the radiates were produced at a mint in
Bulgaria, then it would be even more difficult to explain why the finds from
Antioch itself and especially from Dura should have so high a proportion of
them.
The most likely explanation is that this issue of radiates was produced in
order to meet the expenses of Gordian’s expedition against the Persians and
the fact that the highest known concentration of these coins is in the military
stronghold of Dura is consistent with the hypothesis that these coins circulated
primarily among the troops serving on that expedition. This hypothesis would
also explain why more of these radiates are found in Bulgaria and Romania
than in western Turkey since the Danubian provinces had a much stronger
military presence than Asia Minor.
We may, therefore, conclude that the strong concentration of eastern
radiates in the finds from the provinces of Cappadocia and Syria points

53 For example, both the Gibraltar and the ‘Calabria’ hoards have high proportions of
Antiochene coins of the reigns of Valerian and Gallienus.

260
strongly to an eastern provenance for them, and more specifically a Syrian
provenance, rather than a Balkan one, as had been suggested by Voetter and
Weder (above, p. 245f.).

10. Weights

The figures in Table 3 show the average weights for each of the types of
the first and second issues separately and combined and also compares the
coins of the first series with the draped and cuirassed bust (D2) with the
remaining coins of the issue with the cuirassed bust (B2). In addition a series
of histograms show the frequency of weights within each reverse type and issue
(figs. 1-13).
It seems that there was a slight decline in weight during the course of the
second series. The earliest coins, the 27 specimens with the draped and
cuirassed bust, have a mean of 4.45g, while for the remaining 152 coins of the
first series the mean is 4.32g; lastly, the 487 coins of the second series have a
mean weight of 4.25g. 27 coins is not, perhaps, a large enough sample to
enable any conclusions to be drawn as to whether there was a decline in
weight during the course of the first issue, but there are enough weights of
coins from the first and second issues to show that there was a very slight drop
in weight (0.07g) between them. We may recall that the coins of the first
series of the mint of Antioch (238-9) had a mean of 4.34g, which is almost
exactly the same as the mean weight of the first issue of the second series
(4-32g).
The histograms give details of the weight distribution within each reverse
type, except for the five IOVI CONSERVATORI specimens (figs. 2-6 for the
first issue and 8-11 for the second). They show that there are no significant
differences in the weight standards of the individual types of each series.
Another histogram includes just the coins from the first issue with the draped
and cuirassed bust (fig. 1), while figure 7 compares these coins with the
remaining specimens of the first issue, showing that the former tend to be
slightly heavier than the latter. Finally, figure 12 shows all the coins of the

261
second issue together and figure 13 compares issues I and II. It can be seen
that the coins of the first issue have a very similar pattern to those of the
second, although they are, on average, 0.05g heavier.

Table 8: Summaiy of weights

Series Qty- Range o f weights Median Mean

FIDES MILITVM 49 2.81g - 6.22g 4.21g 4.33g

IOVI CONSERVATORI 5 3.10g - 5.46g 4.71g 4.5 lg
MARTI PACIFERO 39 3.03g - 4.91g 4.20g 4.17g
PAX AVGVSTI 39 3.49g - 5.32g 4.23g 4.3 lg
PM TRP V COS II PP 13 3.87g - 5.09g 4.57g 4.53g
VICTORIA AVG 8 4.12g - 5.7 lg 4.37g 4.61g
Issue 1 (D2 busts) 27 3.35g - 5.75g 4.44g 4.45g
Issue 1 (B2 busts) 152 2.81g - 6.22g 4.3 lg 4.32g
Issue 1 (all coins) 179 2.81g - 6.22g 4*32g 4.33g

FORTVNA REDVX 162 2.36g - 5.73g 4.26g 4.28g

ORIENS AVG 158 2.54g - 6.13g 4.32g 4.32g
SAECVLI FELICITAS 136 3.02g - 6.46g 4.2 lg 4.24g
VICTORIA types 31 2.86g- 5.50g 4.22g 4.18g
Issue 2 (all coins) 487 2*36g - 6.46g 4.25g 4.28g

11. Die-axis

Table 9: Die-axes of the types of the second series of radiates

Issue 1
Die-axis (o’clock) 4 5 6 7 11 12 1
FIDES MILITVM 17 2 23 4
IOVI CONSERVATORI 3 2
MARTI PACIFERO 1 15 1 19 1
PAX AVGVSTI 23 1 16
PM TRP V COS II PP 10 1 3 1
VICTORIA AVG 8 5 1
Total, issue 1 - 1 76 5 - 68 7

Issue 2
FORTVNA REDVX 1 1 53 18 2 39 11
ORIENS AVG [N] 1 2 66 4 2 51 6
SAECVLI FELICITAS 60 5 - 47 3
VICTORIA AVGVSTI 4 9
VICTORIA GORDIANI AVG- 5 - 6 1
Total, issue 2 2 3 188 27 4 152 21

Total 2 4 264 32 4 220 28

262
 The die-axes of 555 coins of the second series have been recorded and the
results are given in Table 9. They deviate from a random distribution between
vertical and inverted die-axis in two ways. First, they show a slight bias
towards an inverted axis : 302 coins have an axis of 4, 5, 6 or 7 o’clock, as
opposed to 253 with an axis of 11,12,1 or 2 o’clock. This is in contrast to the
three series of tetradrachms which showed a slight bias towards a vertical
rather than an inverted axis (see Chapter 4). Secondly, when the second
series radiates do deviate from the vertical or inverted axis they show a
definite tendency towards 7 (32 coins) and 1 (28) rather than to 5 (4) or 11
o’clock (4).

F ig u re 1
Issu e I : Coins u i t h D2 b u s ts
Q u a n tity

2 .2 2 .6 3 3 .4 3 .8 4 .2 4 .6 5 5 .4 5 .8 6 .2

Weight (grams)

263
 F ig u re 2
Issue I : FIDES MILITVM reverse
Quant i ty
12

10

Weight (grams)
F ig u re 3
Issu e I : MRRTI PRCIFERO re ve rse
Q u a n tity

Weight (grams)
F ig u re 4
Is su e I : PRX RVGVSTI reve rse
Q u a n tlty
12

10

I I I "I 11 1 I I

2 .2 2 .6 3 3 .4 3 .8 4 .2 4 .6 5 5 .4 5 .8 6 .2

Weight (grams)

264
 F ig u re 5
Issue I : PM TRP V COS I I PP reverse
Quant i ty
12

10

0
2^2 2^6 3 ’ 3V
jL
3 .8 4 .2 4 .6 5 5 .4 5 .8 6 .2

Weight (grams)
F ig u r e 6
Issu e I : VICTORIR RVG re ve rse
Q u a n tity
12

10

2 .2 2 .6 3 3 .4 3 .8 4 .2 4 .6 5 5 .4 5 .8 6 .2

Weight (grams)
F ig u r e 7
Issu e I-. D2 b u s ts compared u i t h r e s t
Q u a n tity
30

25

20

15 I
10
5 nnHD]B2 b u s ts
0 T^ ■ ■ D 2 b u s ts
2 .2 3 3 .4 4 .2 5 5 .4 6 .2
2 .6 3 .8 4 .6 5 .8

Weight (grams)

265
 F ig u re 8
Issue I I : FORTVNR REDVX reverse
Q u a n tity

5 .4 5 .8 6 .2

Weight (grams)
F ig u re 9
Issu e I I : ORIENS RVG re ve rse
Q u a n tity

2 .2 2 .6 3 3 .4 3 .8 4 .2 4 .6 5 5 .4 5 .8 6 .2

Weight (grams)
F ig u re 10
Issu e I I : SRECVLI FELICITRS re verse
Quant i t y

2 .2 2 .6 3 3 .4 3 .8 4 .2 4 .6 5 5 .4 5 .8 6 .2

Weight (grams)

266
 F iq u re 11
Issu e I I : VICTORIR RVGVSTI and
VICTORIA GORDIANI RVG re v e rs e s
Quant i ty
30

25

20

15

10
5

0
2 .2 2 .6 3 3 .4 3 .8 4 .2 4 .6 5 5 .4 5 .8 6 .2

U e ig h t (grams)
F ig u r e 12
Issu e I I : a l l re v e rse s
Q u a n tity

2 .2 2 .6 3 3 .4 3 .8 4 .2 4 .6 5 5 .4 5 .8 6 .2

Weight (grams)
F ig u r e 13
Issu e s I and I I compared
Q u a n t it y

Issue I I
mpnp^- Issue I
2 .2 3 3 .4 4 .2 : 5 5 .4 6 .2
2 .6 3 .8 4 .6 5 .8

Weight (grams)
267
 CATALOGUE

Obverse legend: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG

First issue: busts D2 and B2

66 4 coins
D2 FIDES MILITVM Fides standing left, holding vertical
standard in each hand.
RIC 209b, C -

1* I, 14602 (Haydere hoard), 4.70g, 1.

2* L, 1927-11-1-40 (Lincoln), 4.51g, 12.
3* NY, 1948.19.735 (Gautier), 4.08g, 12.
4* V, 35784, 5.30g, 12.
Rev. die-links: 1 = 67/14 (obv. B2).
3 = 67/13 (obv. B2).

67 48 coins
B2 FIDES MILITVM As 66.
RIC 209e (see note), C 92

1 B, ohne Nummer, 2.84g, 7.

2 B (Adler), 4.23g, 6.
3* Br, 51008, 4.57g, 6.
4 Br, 55906 (Beachy Head 1964 hoard), 3.68g, 1.
5 Cop, 167, 5.65g, 6.
6 I, 14600 (Haydere hoard), 4.82g, 12.
7 I, 14601 (Haydere hoard), 4.33g, 6.
8* L, Bank Collection R765, 4.06g, 6.
9* L, 1924-1-7-168 (Plevna hoard), 4.22g, 12.
10* L, 1924-1-7-169 (Plevna hoard), 4.01g, 12.
11* L, 1924-1-7-170 (Plevna hoard), 4.33g, 6.
12* L, 1933-3-2-3 (Selsey hoard), 3.83g, 6.
13* L, 1937-4-6-579 (Dorchester hoard), 4.2 lg, 6.
14* L, 1937-4-6-580 (Dorchester hoard), 3.94g, 12.
15* L, 1937-4-6-581 (Dorchester hoard), 5.3 lg, 12. Analyzed 8/1987: AR
45.3%
16* L, 1937-4-6-582 (Dorchester hoard), 3.50g, 6.
17* L, 1937-4-6-583 (Dorchester hoard), 4.01g, 12.
18* L, 1937-4-6-584 (Dorchester hoard), 4.61g, 12.
19* L, 1937-4-6-585 (Dorchester hoard), 4.16g, 12.
20* L, 1937-4-6-586 (Dorchester hoard), 4.62g, 6.
21* L, 1937-4-6-587 (Dorchester hoard), 4.14g, 6.
22 Mad, 4.80g, 6.
23 Mad, 6.22g, 12.
24 Mad, 3.98g, 6.
25 Mu, 3.46g, 1.
26 Mu, 3.77g, 12.
27 NY, 1940.100.19946 (Newell ex Wayte Raymond, 1937), 4.20g, 6.

268
28* O (New College), 4.1 lg, 1. Analysis MRSC 3, 4631: AR 44.00%. Note:
Walker has transposed the description of this coin with that of MRSC
4632 = 76/71.
29 P, 44, 3.80g, 1.
30* V, 17508, 3.75g, 12.
31* V, 17514, 4.93g, 12.
32* V, 36089, 5.72g, 6.
33 Y ex Dura (Final Report 1233, pi. 24), no weight.
34* Private collection CLC, London, 4.91g, 12 (the rev. is doublestruck).
35* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, 5.00g, 6.
36 Mazzini 3, p. 280, 92, 3.70g.
37 Clamerey hoard 324 (pi. 6), 4.22g.
38* Guiry-en-Vexin hoard, 4.84g, 12.
39* Rocquencourt hoard 653 (pi. 4), 3.74g.
40 Smyrna hoard 635 (pi. 4), 4.36g, 12.
41 Stevenage hoard 256/1, 6.09g, 12.
42 Stevenage hoard 256/2, 2.81g, 6.
43* Stevenage hoard 256/3, 4.12g, 12.
44 Stevenage hoard 256/4, 3.67g, 12.
45 Tulin hoard 605 (pi. 15), 4.99g.
46 Tulin hoard 606 (pi. 15), 4.19g.
47 Burgan 7/2/1987, 183, 3.83g.
48 Rauch 42 (1989), 3546, no weight.

Obv. die-links: 11 = 71/2 (MARTI PACIFERO);

19 = 71/23 (MARTI PACIFERO);
31 = 73/7 (PAX AVGVSTI);
3 = 75/2 & 5 (PM TRP V COS II PP);
20 = 75/13 (PM TRP V COS II PP);
10 & 43 (die-identical);
2 & 47;
8 & 39;
27 & 37.
Obverses excluded from die-study: 1, 25, 26, & 40.
Rev. die-links: 13 = 66/3;
14 = 66/1;
10 & 43 (die-identical);
20, 29 & 33;
3 & 21;
7 & 38;
15 & 23;
22 & 28;
24 & 45;
35 &46;
40 & 47.
Note: RIC 209 c (= bust D ll), is clearly a misprint for
209 e (= bust B2).

269
 1 coin
IOVI CONSERVATORI Jupiter, naked but for chlamys draped
over 1. shoulder, standing left, holding
thunderbolt in r. hand and long
vertical sceptre in 1. hand.
RIC 136 (under Rome), cf. C 103

1* Creil hoard 180, 4.7 lg. (Attributed by Amandry to Rome.)

Note: Cohen does not distinguish between the D2 and B2 busts.

5 coins
IOVI CONSERVATORI As 68.
RIC 21 le, cf. C 103
1 Br, 51005, 5.32g, 6.
2* Mad, 5.46g, 6.
3* V, 17513, 3.10g, 12.
4* V, 35783, 3.97g, 6.
5* Y, from Dura, = Final Report 1235 (pi. 24.), no weight
Obv. die-links: 1, 2, 4 & 5 (die-identical).
Rev. die-links: 1 - 5 (1, 2, 4 & 5 are die-identical).
Note: Cohen does not distinguish between the D2 and B2 busts.

3 coins
MARTI PACIFERO Mars, helmeted and in military dress,
advancing left, holding branch in right
hand and spear (points down) and
small round shield in left hand.
RIC 212b, cf. C 162

1* L, 1937-4-6-598 (Dorchester hoard), 4.72g, 12.

2* P, 47, 4.8lg, 12.
3* V, 17538, 4.56g, 12.
Obv. die-link: 1 = 72/1 (PAX AVGVSTI).
Note: Cohen does not distinguish between the D2 and B2 busts.

40 coins
MARTI PACIFERO As 70.
RIC 212e, cf. C 162

1 B, ohne Nummer, 3.55g, 6.

2* B, ohne Nummer, 4.02g, 12.
3 Br, 51006, 4.55g, 1.
4 Car, 83-396, 4.42g, 6.
5 Cop, 204, 4.74g, 1.
6 G, RICHCC 166, 4.6lg, 12.
7 H, 7302, 3.60g, 12.
8 I, 14766 (Haydere hoard), 3.79g, 6.
9 I, 14767 (Haydere hoard), 4.40g, 6.
10* L, R0493 (de Salis), 4.86g, 12. Analyzed 10/1990: AR 43.3%.
11* L, 1924-1-7-176 (Plevna hoard), 4.20g, 6.
12* L, 1937-4-6-594 (Dorchester hoard), 4.39g, 6.
13* L, 1937-4-6-595 (Dorchester hoard), 4.56g, 6.
14* L, 1937-4-6-596 (Dorchester hoard), 3.88g, 12
15* L, 1937-4-6-597 (Dorchester hoard), 3.99g, 6.
16* L, 1946-10-4-175 (Oldroyd), 4.09g, 12.
17* L, 1983-1-1-288 (Cunetio hoard 288), 3.22g, 12.
18 Mad, 3.81g, 6.
19 Mad, 3.93g, 6.
20 Mi, 7247 (Brera), no weight., 6.
21 Mu, 4.30g, 6.
22 Mu, 4.00g, 5.
23* NY, 1940.100.19951 (Newell ex Wayte Raymond, 1939), 4.80g, 12.
24 NY, 1940.100.19952 (Newell ex Wayte Raymond, 1939), 4.25g, 6.
25 NY, 1987.26.226, 4.27g, 12.
26* O (Bodley 436), 4.61g, 6. Analysis MRSC 3, 4635: AR 52.50%.
27* O (Bodley 437), 4.43g, 12.
28 P, 46, 4.33g, 7.
29* V, 17357, 4.81g, 6.
30* V, 57142, 3.04g, 12.
31 Y ex Dura {Final Report 1236, pi. 24), no weight.
32* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, 4.02g, 12.
33 Clamerey hoard 344 (pi. 6), 4.5lg.
34 Creil hoard 314 (illustrated, p. 101), 4.91g, 12.
35 Smyrna hoard 655 (pi. 4), 3.87g, 12.
36 Tulin hoard 629 (pi. 16), 3.49g.
37 Tulin hoard 630 (pi. 16), 3.03g.
38 Burgan 7/2/1987, 186, 3.90g.
39 Nummorum Auctiones S.A. 2 (1975), 244, no weight.

Variant: reverse legend: MARTI PACIFETI

40* Mad, 4.02g, 12.

Obv. die-links: 2 = 67/11 (FIDES MILITVM);

23 = 67/19 (FIDES MILITVM);
I & 20 (die-identical);
32 & 38 (die-identical);
3 & 21;
10 & 17;
13 & 29;
15 & 35.
Obverse excluded from die-study: 27.
Rev. die-links: 1 & 20 (die-identical);
32 & 38 (die-identical);
6 & 25;
II &28;
13 & 15;
17 & 30.
Note: Cohen does not distinguish between the D2 and B2 busts.

271
72 8 coins
D2 PAX AVGVSTI Pax advancing left, holding branch in
right hand and transverse sceptre in
left hand.
RIC 214b, cf. C 179

1* I, 14649 (Haydere hoard), 5.00g, 12.

2* L, 1937-4-6-607 (Dorchester hoard), 4.41g, 6.
3* Mad, 4.45g, 12.
4* Mu, 3.56g, 12.
5* V, 17546, 5.75g, 6.
6* V, 57139, 4.33g, 6.
7* Private collection CLC, London, 4.5 lg, 12.
8 Smyrna hoard 673 (pi.4), 4.33g, 12.
Obv. die-links: 1 = 70/1 (MARTI PACIFERO);
5, 7 & 8 (5 & 7 are die-identical).
Rev. die-links: 1 & 4;
2 & 6;
5 & 7 (die-identical).
Note: Cohen does not distinguish between the D2 and B2 busts.

73 40 coins
B2 PAX AVGVSTI As 72.
RIC 214e, cf. C 179

1 B, ohne Nummer, 5.15g, 12.

2 B, ohne Nummer, 3.49g, 12.
3 Br, 51007, 4.26g, 6.
4 C (Emmanuel 99), 4.40g, 6.
5 Cop, 209, 4.18g, 6.
6 I, 14641 (Haydere hoard) 4.79g, 6.
7* I, 14642 (Haydere hoard) 3.71g, 6.
8 I, 14643 (Haydere hoard) 4.35g, 6.
9 I, 14644 (Haydere hoard) 3.81g, 6.
10 I, 14645 (Haydere hoard) 3.79g, 12.
11 I, 14646 (Haydere hoard) 5.27g, 6.
12 I, 14647 (Haydere hoard) 5.32g, 6.
13 I, 14648 (Haydere hoard) 3.96g, 6.
14 I, 14650 (Haydere hoard) 3.69g, 12.
15* L, 1846-1-7-10, 4.04g, 6.
16* L, 1920-9-2-1, 4.57g, 12.
17* L, 1924-1-7-183 (Plevna hoard), 4.19g, 6.
18* L, 1924-1-7-184 (Plevna hoard), 4.23g, 6.
19* L, 1937-4-6-604 (Dorchester hoard), 4.66g, 12.
20* L, 1937-4-6-605 (Dorchester hoard), 3.68g, 12.
21* L, 1937-4-6-606 (Dorchester hoard), 4.81g, 12. Analyzed 10/1990: AR
46.4%.
22* L, 1937-4-6-608 (Dorchester hoard), 3.96g, 6.
23 Mad, 4.65g, 6.
24 Mi, 7341 (Brera), no weight., 6.
25 NY, 1940.100.19956 (Newell), 3.80g, 6.
26 NY, 1940.100.19957 (Newell ex von Ebengreuth), 4.42g, 12.

272
 27* O (Browne Willis 442), 4.17g, 6. Analysis MRSC 3, 4639: AR 46.00%.
28 P, 50, 4.70g, 6.
29* V, 17547, 4.60g, 6.
30* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, 4.88g, 7.
31 Mazzini 3, p. 286, 179, 4.44g.
32 Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 5.3lg, 12.
33 Clamerey hoard 345 (pi. 6), 4.20g.
34 Dura, Final Report 1238, no weight, (rev. only illustrated).
35 Gorsium hoard 562 (pi. 28), no weight.
36* Roquencourt hoard 639 (pi. 4), 3.53g.
37 Tulin hoard 644 (pi. 16), 4.72g.
38 Tulin hoard 645 (pi. 16), 3.70g.
39 Schulten 2/11/1983, 582, 3.77g.
40 Munz Zentrum 67 (1989), 201, 4.88g.

Obv. die-links: 7 = 67/31 (FIDES MILITVM);

4, 33 & 39 (4 & 33 are die-identical);
6 & 23;
19 & 36.
Obverses excluded from die-study: 14, 34 & 35.
Rev. die-links: 4 & 33 (die-identical);
5, 6, & 22;
24 & 34;
28 & 37;
32 & 39.
Reverse excluded from die-study: 34.
Note: Cohen does not distinguish between the D2 and B2 busts.

74 4 coins
D2 P M TR P V COS II P P Hercules, naked but for lionskin over
left shoulder, advancing right, holding
club in right hand and bow in left
hand.
RIC 206b, cf. C 264

1 B, 246/1926 (ex Hamburger), 4.55g, 12.

2* V, 17429, 4.34g, 6.
3* V, 57138 (Voetter), 4.40g, 6.
4* V, 70219 (Trau), 3.99g, 6.
Obv. die-links: 4 = 76/1 (VICTORIA AVG).
Rev. die-links: 2 = 75/5, 7, 10 & 12 (obv. B2);
4 = 75/2, 8 & 14 (obv. B2).
Note: Cohen does not distinguish between the D2 and B2 busts.

75 15 coins
B2 P M TR P V COS II P P As 74.
RIC 206e (see note), cf. C 264

1 Br, 53620, 4.06g, 1.

2* L, Bank collection R764, 4.57g, 12.
3* L, 1937-4-6-573 (Dorchester hoard), 4.60g, 6.

273
 4* L, 1937-4-6-574 (Dorchester hoard), 4.79g, 6.
5* L, 1937-4-6-575 (Dorchester hoard), 3.87g, 6.
6* L, 1937-4-6-576 (Dorchester hoard), 4.59g, 12. Analyzed 8/1987: AR
42.8%.
7* L, 1937-4-6-577 (Dorchester hoard), 4.16g, 6.
8* Mad, 4.23g, 6.
9* P, 49, 4.48g, 6.
10* V, 57143, 4.52g, 7.
11* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, 5.02g, 6.
12 Gibraltar hoard (formerly H D Gallwey collection), no weight.
13* Bankhaus H Aufhauser 5/10/1988, 385, 4.92g.
14 Schulten 11/4/1988, 765, 5.09g.
15 Seaby Coin and Medal Bulletin April 1983, C161, no weight.

Obv. die-links: 2 & 5 = 67/13 (FIDES MILITVM);

13 = 67/20 (FIDES MILITVM);
8 = 77/1 (VICTORIA AVG);
9 = 77/5 (VICTORIA AVG);
10 = 77/7 (VICTORIA AVG);
4 & 9 (die-identical).
Rev. die-links: 5, 7, 10 & 12 = 72/2 (obv. D2);
2, 8 & 14 = 72/4 (obv. D2);
4 & 9 (die-identical);
3, 6 & 15;
1 & 11.
Note: RIC 206 c (= bust D ll.), is clearly a misprint for
209 e (= bust B2); Cohen does not distinguish between the D2
and B2 busts.

76 7 coins
D2 VICTORIA AVG Victory advancing right, holding
wreath in right and and palm over
left shoulder.
RIC 217b, cf. C 362

1* L, 1927-11-1-60 (Lincoln), 3.25g, 6.

2* L, 1937-4-6-545 (Dorchester hoard), 3.85g, 12.
3* L, 1937-4-6-624 (Dorchester hoard), 4.38g, 12.
4* Mad, 3.95g, 12.
5* NY, 1940.100.19961 (Newell), 4.31g, 12.
6* P, 7803, 4.72g, 8.30.
7* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, 4.59g, 1.

Obv. die-links: 1 = 74/4 (PM TR P V COS II PP);

3, 4 & 7 (die-identical).
Rev. die-link: 3, 4 & 7 (die-identical).
Note: Cohen does not distinguish between the D2 and B2 busts.

274
77 8 coins
B2 VICTORIA AVG As 76.
RIC 217e, cf. C 362

1* Br, 53621, 4.14g, 6.

2 1 ,14400 (Haydere hoard), 4.59g, 6.
3* L, 1937-4-6-621 (Dorchester hoard), 4.24g, 12.
4* O (Weder, 1980), 5.21g, 6.
5* P, 28821, 4.12g, 6.
6* V, 57144 (Voetter), 4.73g, 6.
7* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum ex Schulten 4/11/1988,
768, 5.71g, 6.
8 Dura, Final Report 1240 (pi 24) = Hoard I, 199, no weight, (rev. only
illustrated).

Obv. die-links: 1 = 75/8 (PM TRP V COS II PP)

5 = 75/9 (PM TRP V COS II PP);
7 = 75/10 (PM TRP V COS II PP).
Obverse excluded from die-study: 8.
Rev. die-link: 1, 2, 3 & 4.
Note: Cohen does not distinguish between the D2 and B2 busts.

Second issue: bust B2 (and D2 very rarely)

78 155 coins
B2 FORTVNA REDVX Fortuna seated left on throne, holding
rudder in right hand and comucopiae
in left hand.
Note: on some specimens the back of
the throne is seen to the left of
Fortuna’s shoulder. These have been
marked with a cross after the
number.
RIC 210e, cf. C 98

1+ B, (Friedlander), 4.36g, 6.
2+ B, ohne Nummer, 4.04g, 6.
3+ B, ohne Nummer, 2.47g, 6.
4 B, ohne Nummer, 4.56g, 12.
5+ B, ohne Nummer, 3.88g, 12.
6 B, (Friedlander), 5.23g, 6.
7 Br, 4.2 lg, 1.
8 Br, 54116, 4.23g, 7.
9 C, (Gonville and Caius), 4.54g, 7.
11+ C, (Old University collection), 3.97g, 12.
12*+ C, (Old University collection), 4.10g, 12.
13* C, (Trinity 3971), 3.59g, 6.
14* C, (Bromsall), 3.65g, 6.
15 Car, 45-198, 4.1 lg, 12.
16+ Cop, 174, 3.99g, 4.30.
17 G, RICHCC 50, 4.50g, 6 (mistakenly attributed to Rome).

275
18+ H, 7258, 4.24g, 6.
19+ H, 7259, 4.60g, 12.
20 I, 14700 (Haydere hoard), 4.52g, 12.
21 I, 14701 (Haydere hoard), 4.08g, 12.
22 I, 14702 (Haydere hoard), 4.5 lg, 12.
23 1 ,14704 (Haydere hoard), 4.63g, 6.
24 I, 14705 (Haydere hoard), 3.58g, 7.30.
25+ I, 14707 (Haydere hoard), 4.54g, 6.
26 1 ,14709 (Haydere hoard), 5.25g, 6.
27 I, 14710 (Haydere hoard), 4.92g, 6
28+ I, 14711 (Haydere hoard), 4.59g, 12.
29+ I, 14715 (Haydere hoard), 4.58g, 7.
30 1 ,14716 (Haydere hoard), 4.89g, 6.
31 1 ,14717 (Haydere hoard), 4.44g, 6.
32 1 ,14718 (Haydere hoard), 4.85g, 12.
33+ 1 ,14721 (Haydere hoard), 4.87g, 12.
34+ I, 14722 (Haydere hoard), 4.45g, 12.
35 I, 14723 (Haydere hoard), 4.86g, 6.
36 1 ,14724 (Haydere hoard), 3.89g, 6.
37 I, 14725 (Haydere hoard), 4.60g, 6.
38 I, 14727 (Haydere hoard), 4.77g, 6.
39 I, 14728 (Haydere hoard), 4.04g, 12.
40 I, 14729 (Haydere hoard), 4.00g, 6.
41 1 ,14730 (Haydere hoard), 4.06g, 6.
42 1 ,14731 (Haydere hoard), 3.80g, 6.
43 1 ,14732 (Haydere hoard), 4.52g, 12.
44 Kremsmunster (TNRB 4, 1038), 4.06g, 12.
45+ L, R0446, 3.61g (broken), 6.
46* L, R0492 (Cracherode), 4.42g, 12.
47* L, 1924-1-7-171 (Plevna hoard), 4.60g, 12.
48* L, 1924-1-7-172 (Plevna hoard), 4.00g, 6.
49* L, 1924-1-7-173 (Plevna hoard), 4.90g, 12.
50* L, 1924-1-7-174 (Plevna hoard), 4.33g, 12.
51* L, 1924-1-7-175 (Plevna hoard), 3.83g, 12.
52*+ L, 1937-4-6-380 (Dorchester hoard), 4.22g, 6.
53*+ L, 1937-4-6-588 (Dorchester hoard), 5.04g, 6.
54* L, 1937-4-6-589 (Dorchester hoard), 4.33g, 6.
55*+ L, 1937-4-6-590 (Dorchester hoard), 5.19g, 12. Analyzed 10/1990: AR
43.9%.
56*+ L, 1937-4-6-591 (Dorchester hoard), 4.24g, 12.
57* L, 1937-4-6-592 (Dorchester hoard), 4.25g, 1.
58* L, 1937-4-6-593 (Dorchester hoard), 4.80g, 12.
59 Mad, 3.72g, 6. Note: this coin may be irregular.
60+ Mad, 4.26g, 6.
61 Mad, 4.34g, 6.
62 Mad, 4.21g, 6.
63 Mad, 4.88g, 6.
64 Man (Raby), 4.13g, 6.
65 Mi 7274 (Brera), no weight., 12.
66 NY, 1924.102.46 (Plevna hoard), 4.47g, 7.
67 NY, 1940.100.19947 (Newell ex Wayte Raymond, 1936), 4.23g, 1.
68 NY, 1940.100.19948 (Newell ex von Ebengreuth), 4.75g, 6.
69 NY, 1940.100.19949 (Newell ex Dura), 4.21g, 12.
70 NY, 1940.100.19950 (Newell ex Dura hoard 1), 3.42g, 12.

276
71* O, (Bodley 443), 4.48g, 1. Analysis MRSC 3, 4630: AR 49.50%. Note:
Walker has transposed the description of this coin with that of MRSC
3, 4631 = 67/28.
72* O, (Keble), 4.84g, 7.30. Analysis MRSC 3, 4632: AR 41.00%.
73* O, (Queen’s), 4.15g, 12. Analysis MRSC 3, 4633: AR 54.50%.
74* O, (Williams, 1941), 3.21g, 6.
75+ P, 45, 4.97g, 1.30.
76+ P, 55, 4.52g, 1.30.
77 P (Hotel de la Monnaie), 3.91g, 6. Depeyrot 434 (attributed to Rome).
78 PU, 1964-2036 (ex Dura), no weight., 6.
79 PU, 1965-195, no weight, 12.
80+ R, (Gnecchi), 3.24g, 12.
81* V, 17509, 4.90g, 12.
82* V, 36087, 5.57g, 6.
83* V, 57140, 4.46g, 6.
84* V, 57141, 4.81g, 6.
85 Y, no weight.
86 Y, no weight.
87 Y, from Dura, no weight. Obverse illustrated in Dura, Final Report, pi.
24,1234, where the coin is mistakenly combined with the wrong reverse.
See below, no. 110.
88* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, 4.64g, 7. Analysis MRSC
3, 4634: AR 49.50%.
89 Private collection RW, Aleppo, 3.21g, 12.
90 Mazzini 3, p. 281, 98*, 4.07g.
91 Cast in L (‘Feuardent, 1870’), no weight.
92 Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 3.68g, 6.
93+ Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 4.06g, 5.
94+ Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 4.50g, 1.
95 Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 3.70g, 12.
96 Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 4.90g, 2.30.
97+ Clamerey hoard 333 (pi. 6), 3.81g.
98 Creil hoard 302, 5.34g, 7.
99+ Creil hoard 303, 5.10g, 7.
100 Creil hoard 304 (illustrated, p. 101), 4.90g, 7.
101 Creil hoard 305, 4.24g, 6.
102 Creil hoard 306, 4.12g, 7.
103 Creil hoard 307, 3.98g, 12.
104+ Creil hoard 308, 3.66g, 7.
105 Creil hoard 309, 3.56g, 12.
106+ Creil hoard 310, 3.53g, 1.
107 Creil hoard 311, 3.45g, 1.
108 Creil hoard 312, 3.26g, 6.
109 Creil hoard 313, 3.16g, 6.
110 Dura, Final Report 1234, (pi. 24), n.w (reverse only). On pi. 24 this coin
has been incorrectly paired with the obverse of no. 87.
111 Oliver’s Orchard hoard 52/1, 4.54g, 7.
112+ Oliver’s Orchard hoard 52/2, 4.55g, 6.
113* Roquencourt hoard 605 (pi. 4), no weight
114 Smyrna hoard 641 (pi. 4), 4.56g, 7.
115 Stevenage hoard 257/1, 3.83g, 6.
116* Stevenage hoard 257/2, 4.16g, 6.
117 Stevenage hoard 257/3, 4.79g, 12.
118 Stevenage hoard 257/4, 4.06g, 6.
119 Stevenage hoard 257/5, 3.5lg, 12.

277
120* Stevenage hoard 257/6, 3.88g, 7.
121 Tulin hoard 607 (pi. 15), 5.22g.
122+ Tulin hoard 608 (pi. 15), 5.08g.
123 Tulin hoard 609 (pi. 15), 4.90g.
124+ Tulin hoard 611 (pi. 15), 4.71g.
125 Tulin hoard 612 (pi. 15), 4.70g.
126 Tulin hoard 613 (pi. 16), 4.55g.
127 Tulin hoard 614 (pi. 16), 4.53g.
128 Tulin hoard 615 (pi. 16), 4.53g.
129 Tulin hoard 616 (pi. 16), 4.40g.
130 Tulin hoard 618 (pi. 16), 4.05g.
131+ Tulin hoard 620 (pi. 16), 3.86g.
132 Tulin hoard 621 (pi. 16), 3.85g.
133 Tulin hoard 622 (pi. 16), 3.85g.
134+ Tulin hoard 623 (pi. 16), 3.79g.
135 Tulin hoard 624 (pi. 16), 3.77g.
136+ Tulin hoard 625 (pi. 16), 3.39g.
137+ Tulin hoard 626 (pi. 16), 3.21g.
138 Tulin hoard 627 (pi. 16), 2.39g.
139 Tulin hoard 628 (pi. 16), 2.36g.
140 Asociacion Numismatica Espanola 15/12/1981, 651, no weight
141 Asociacion Numismatica Espanola 16/2/1988,302,no weight
142 Burgan 7/2/1987, 184, 5.25g.
143 Burgan 7/2/1987, 185, 3.52g.
144+ Cederlind FPL 86 (1989), 176, no weight.
145 Dorotheum 15/4/1983, 578, no weight.
146 Elsen FPL 87 (3/1986), 103, 4.11g.
147 Galerie fur Griech., Rom. und Byz. Kunst, Frankfurt, FPL 1,174,3.82g.
148 Galerie fur Griech., Rom. und Byz. Kunst, Frankfurt, FPL 1,175,4.93g.
149 Munz Zentrum 31 (1978), 123, 4.94g.
150+ Munz Zentrum 64 (1988), 571, 4.17g.
151 Peus 321 (1988), 602, 4.27g.
152 Rauch 2 (1969), 406, no weight.
153 Schulten 8/11/1982, 868, 4.83g.
154* O, (Christ Church), 3.91g, 12.

Variant: rev.: FORTVNA DEDVX

155+ Tulin hoard 619 (pi. 16), 3.99g.

Obv. die-links: 79, 81 & 148;

31 & 83 (die-identical);
56 & 80 (die-identical);
6 & 23;
18 & 48;
32 & 146;
33 & 52;
37 & 67;
46 &89;
47 & 92;
54 & 145;
58 & 116;
73 & 152;
93 & 155;
105 & 142.
Obverses excluded from die-study: 45, 77, 95 & 110.

278
 Rev. die-links: 31 & 83 (die-identical);
56 & 80 (die-identical);
7 & 14;
30 & 90;
47 & 64;
75 & 97;
85 & 146;
92 & 141;
94 & 112.
Reverses excluded from die-study: 36,134 & 153.
Notes: Tulin hoard nos. 610 (4.74g) and 617 (4.39g) are both, in
my opinion, contemporary imitations.

79 151 coins
B2 ORIENS AVG Sol, naked but for chlamys draped
over 1. shoulder, standing facing, head
1., raising r. arm and holding globe in
1. hand.
RIC 213e, C 167

1 B, ohne Nummer, 4.92g, 12.

2 B, alte Bestand, 4.62g, 12.
3 B, ohne Nummer, 3.71g, 6.
4 B, ohne Nummer, 4.32g, 12.
5 Br, 4.49g, 6.
6 C, (Friends of Fitzwilliam, 1923), 4.61g, 6.
7 C, (Sanders, 1944), 4.41g, 12.
8 C, (Bromwich loan, now dispersed), 4.95g, 6.
9 Car, 1886-202, 2.95g, 12.
10 Car, 1922-401/40 (ex Plevna hoard), 4.46g, 12.
11 Charleville-Mezieres, Doyen 366, 3.97g, 1.
12 Charleville-Mezieres, Doyen 367, 4.40g, 1.
13 Cop, 205, 4.76g, 4.30.
14 G, RICHCC 168, 4.79g, 12.
15 I, 14741 (Haydere hoard), 3.88g, 6.
16 I, 14742 (Haydere hoard), 4.27g, 12.
17 I, 14743 (Haydere hoard), 4.76g, 12.
18 I, 14744 (Haydere hoard), 4.33g, 12.
19 I, 14745 (Haydere hoard), 3.88g, 12.
20 I, 14746 (Haydere hoard), 4.23g, 12.
21 I, 14747 (Haydere hoard), 3.78g, 6.
22 I, 14748 (Haydere hoard), 4.80g, 6.
23 I, 14749 (Haydere hoard), 4.73g, 6.
24 I, 14750 (Haydere hoard), 3.76g, 6.
25 I, 14751 (Haydere hoard), 4.05g, 6.
26 1, 14752 (Haydere hoard), 3.89g, 12.
27 I, 14753 (Haydere hoard), 5.57g, 6.
28 1, 14754 (Haydere hoard), 4.83g, 6.
29 1 ,14755 (Haydere hoard), 3.96g, 12.
30 I, 14756 (Haydere hoard), 4.73g, 12.
31 I, 14757 (Haydere hoard), 5.15g, 12.
32 I, 14758 (Haydere hoard), 5.22g, 6.
33 I, 14759 (Haydere hoard), 4.00g, 6.

279
34 I, 14760 (Haydere hoard), 4.47g, 6.
35 I, 14761 (Haydere hoard), 3.62g, 7.
36 I, 14762 (Haydere hoard), 4.34g, 12.
37 I, 14763 (Haydere hoard), 4.93g, 6.
38 1, 14764 (Haydere hoard), 6.01g, 12.
39 1,14765 (Haydere hoard), 4.30g, 6.
40* L, R0494 (Hobhouse, 1838), 4.32g, 12.
41* L, 1919-3-7-51 (Prince Napoleon hoard), 3.42g, 12.
42* L, 1924-1-7-177 (Plevna hoard), 4.74g, 12.
43* L, 1924-1-7-178 (Plevna hoard), 4.61g, 6.
44* L, 1924-1-7-179 (Plevna hoard), 3.78g, 6.
45* L, 1924-1-7-180 (Plevna hoard), 3.36g, 6.
46* L, 1924-1-7-181 (Plevna hoard), 4.12g, 6 (Principal Coins o f the Romans,
2, 784).
47* L, 1924-1-7-182 (Plevna hoard), 6.13g, 6. Analyzed 8/1987: AR 43.5%.
48* L, 1927-11-1-49 (Lincoln), 4.01g, 12.
49* L, 1933-2-2-4 (Selsey hoard), 3.95g, 12.
50* L, 1937-4-6-599 (Dorchester hoard), 5.20g, 12.
51* L, 1937-4-6-600 (Dorchester hoard), 3.28g, 6.
52* L, 1937-4-6-601 (Dorchester hoard), 4.81g, 6.
53* L, 1937-4-6-602 (Dorchester hoard), 4.13g, 6.
54* L, 1937-4-6-603 (Dorchester hoard), 4.28g, 6.
55 Mad, 4.44g, 6.
56 Mad, 4.40g, 6.
57 Mad, 3.86g, 6. *
58 Mad, 5.72g, 12.
59 Mi, 7221 (Brera), 3.56g, 12.
60 Mi, 7248 (Brera), no weight., 5.
61 Mi, 1413 (Civico), 3.77g, 1.
62 Mi, 1414 (Civico), 4.01g, 7.
63 Mu, 5.35g, 1.
64 Mu, 4.26g, 12.
65 Mu, 3.59g, 6.
66 Mu, 3.36g, 12.
67 Mu, 4.03g, 12.
68 Mu, 3.59g, 6.
69 Mu, 3.69g, 11.
70 Mu, 3.33g, 6.
71 Mu, 3.96g, 12.
72 Mu, 84404, 4.69g, 6.
73 NY, 1923.151.40 (Plevna hoard), 3.76g, 6.
74 NY, 1940.100.19953 (Newell ex von Ebengreuth), 5.12g, 12.
75 NY, 1940.100.19954 (Newell ex Dura hoard 1), 4.84g, 6.
76 NY, 1940.100.19955 (Newell ex Robin), 4.37g, 6.
77 NY, 1947.97.174 (Petrie), 5.18g, 6.
78 NY, 1948.19.736 (Gautier), 4.47g, 6.
79* O, (Christ Church), 3.75g, 7.
80* O, (Browne Willis 31), 4.00g, 7. Analysis MRSC 3, 4637 (weight given
as 4.32g): AR 52.50%.
81* O, (Timberlake, 1926, from Alchester), 4.57g, 5. Analysis MRSC 3,
4636: AR 39.00%.
82* O, (New College), 3.67g, 12. Analysis MRSC 3, 4638: AR 41.00%.
83 P, 48, 4.56g, 6.
84 PU, 1964-2034 (ex Dura), no weight., 6.
85 PU, 1364, no weight., 12.

280
86 PU, 1965-193, no weight., 6.
87 PU, from Antioch (Waage 1092), no weight.
88 R, (Gnecchi 28), 4.43g, 11.
89* V, 17544, 4.25g, 12.
90* V, 17545, 5.56g, 6.
91 Y, no weight.
92 Y, from Dura, n,w. Final Report 1237 (pi. 24).
93 Y, no weight.
94* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, 4.32g, 6.
95 Mazzini 3, p. 285, 167, 4.38g.
96 Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 4.3lg, 6.
97 Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 5.75g, 6.
98 Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 4.47g, 6.
99 Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 4.99g, 12.
100 Baldwin's hoard (from Romania), 3.37g, 1.
101 Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 4.30g, 6.
102 Clamerey hoard 340 (pi. 6), 4.06g.
103 Creil hoard 315, 4.98g, 1.
104 Creil hoard 316, 4.69g, 6.
105 Creil hoard 317 (illustrated, p. 101), 4.44g, 12.
106 Creil hoard 318, 4.26g, 12.
107 Creil hoard 319, 4.18g, 12.
108 Creil hoard 320, 3.86g, 6.
109 Creil hoard 321, 3.85g, 12.
110 * Guiry-en-Vexin hoard, 4.39g, 6.
111 Oliver’s Orchard hoard 53/1, 4.17g, 6.
112 Oliver’s Orchard hoard 53/2, 3.87g, 6.
113 Oliver’s Orchard hoard 53/3, 4.47g, 6 (obv. doublestruck).
114* Rocquencourt hoard 623 (pi. 4), no weight.
115 Smyrna hoard 656 (pi. 4), 5.68g, 6.
116 Stevenage hoard 258/1, 3.04g, 6.
117* Stevenage hoard 258/2, 4.04g, 12.
118 Stevenage hoard 258/3, 3.96g, 6.
119 Stevenage hoard 258/4, 3.77g, 12.
120* Stevenage hoard 258/5, 4.75g, 12.
121 Stevenage hoard 258/6, 4.61g, 6.
122 Tulin hoard 631 (pi. 16), 5.34g.
123 Tulin hoard 632 (pi. 16), 5.34g.
124 Tulin hoard 633 (pi. 16), 4.42g.
125 Tulin hoard 634 (pi. 16), 4.25g
126 Tulin hoard 635 (pi. 16), 4.25g.
127 Tulin hoard 636 (pi. 16), 4.18g.
128 Tulin hoard 637 (pi. 16), 4.08g.
129 Tulin hoard 638 (pi. 16), 4.02g.
130 Tulin hoard 639 (pi. 16), 3.78g.
131 Tulin hoard 640 (pi. 16), 3.72g.
132 Tulin hoard 641 (pi. 16), 3.48g.
133 Tulin hoard 642 (pi. 16), 3.44g.
134 Tulin hoard 643 (pi. 16), 3.38g.
135 Asociacion Numismatica Espanola 16/2/1988, 305, no weight.
136 Ball 6 (1932), 2134, no weight, (obv. doublestruck).
137 Burgan 7/2/1987,187, 5.11g.
138 Burgan 7/2/1987, 188, 3.82g.
139 Cederlind FPL 83 (1989), 240, no weight, (see note below).
140 Dombrowski FPL 43 (1971), 141, no weight.
141 Dorotheum 15/4/1983, 580, no weight.

281
 142 Galata Coins FPL 10/1989, 142, no weight.
143 Hirsch 149 (1986), 463, no weight.
144 Malter 29 (1985, Rindge collection), 774, 3.39g.
145 Rauch 38 (1987), 737, no weight.
146 Rauch 42 (1989), 3535, no weight.
147 Rauch 42 (1989), 3551, no weight.
148 Schulten 2/11/1983, 581, 5.16g.
149 Schulten 11/4/1988, 766, 3.90g.
150 Schweizerische Kreditanstalt, Bern, 8 (1987), 31, 4.59g.
151 Wendt 13 (1976), 1521, no weight.

Obv. die-links: 1, 78 & 84;

10, 11 & 110;
36, 63 & 90;
54, 72 & 129 (54 & 72 are die-identical):
43 & 81 (die-identical);
50 & 114 (die-identical);
2 & 134;
6 & 108;
9 & 86;
22 & 111;
100 & 120;
117 & 135;
139 & 150.
Obverses excluded from die-study: 37, 57, 67-71, 87, 113 & 136.
Rev. die-links: 43 & 81 (die-identical);
50 & 114 (die-identical);
54 & 72 (die-identical);
5 & 40;
8 & 93;
15 & 107;
32 & 47;
36 & 111;
38 & 105;
49 & 140;
51 & 130;
77 & 98;
120 & 149.
Reverses excluded from die-study: 63-5, 67, 87 & 97.
Note: Cederlind, FPL 83 (1989), 237, apparently describes and
illustrates a coin with this reverse and with the D2 obverse bust.
In fact the photographs of obv. and rev. have been mismatched
and the coin with the D2 obv. in fact has the Rome reverse PM
TRP IIII COS II PP (RIC 92). The reverse of no. 237 in
Cederlind’s list is the same as no. 139 above.

80 4 coins
B2 ORIENS AVG N As 78.
RIC -, C

1* L, 1984-10-17-2 (Weder), 3.64g, 12.

2* Mad, 4.36g, 12.

282
3 NY, 1987.123.1 (His), no weight., 12.
4* Cast in L, 4.43g, 12.
Die-links: 1 - 4 are die-identical.

SAECVLIFELICITAS
1 coin
Emperor, laureate, standing right,
holding transverse spear (points
forward) in right hand and globe in
left hand.
RIC 216b, cf. C 319

1* Rocquencourt hoard 640 (pi. 4), 5.03g.

Note: Cohen does not distinguish between the D2 and B2 busts.

132 coins
SAECVLI FELICITAS As 81.
RIC 216e, cf. C 319

1 B, (Cassel, 1925), 4.84g, 1.

2 B, ohne Nummer, 4.67g, 6.
3 B, ohne Nummer, 5.02g, 6.
4 B, (Friedlander), 3.85g, 6.
5 B, ohne Nummer, 3.73g, 12.
6 Br, 35989, 3.89g, 12.
7 C, (Trinity, 3795), 3.91g, 12.
8 C, (Searle, 1912, no. 2824), 4.66g, 6.
9 Charleville-Mezieres, Doyen 368, 3.93g, 7.
10 Cop, 217, 4.21g, 6.
11 G, RICHCC 170, 4.27g, 6.
12 H, 7370, 4.80g, 12.
13 I, 14218 (Haydere hoard), 3.84g, 12.
14 I, 14219 (Haydere hoard), 4.60g, 12.
15 I, 14220 (Haydere hoard), 3.94g, 12.
16 I, 14221 (Haydere hoard), 3.70g, 6.
17 I, 14222 (Haydere hoard), 3.87g, 12.
18 I, 14223 (Haydere hoard), 4.57g, 6.
19 I, 14224 (Haydere hoard), 5.19g, 12.
20 I, 14225 (Haydere hoard), 4.75g, 6.
21 I, 14226 (Haydere hoard), 4.34g, 12.
22 I, 14227 (Haydere hoard), 4.14g, 12.
23 I, 14228 (Haydere hoard), 4.56g, 6.
24 I, 14229 (Haydere hoard), 5.7lg, 12.
25 I, 14230 (Haydere hoard), 4.29g, 12.
26 I, 14231 (Haydere hoard), 3.88g, 6.
27 I, 14232 (Haydere hoard), 4.54g, 6.
28 I, 14233 (Haydere hoard), 4.93g, 6.
29 I, 14234 (Haydere hoard), 3.55g, 6.
30 I, 14235 (Haydere hoard), 4.23g, 12.
31 I, 14236 (Haydere hoard), 4.30g, 6.
32 I, 14237 (Haydere hoard), 5.00g, 12.
33 I, 14238 (Haydere hoard), 4.55g, 12.
34 I, 14239 (Haydere hoard), 4.24g, 12.
35 I, 14240 (Haydere hoard), 4.14g, 6.
36 I, 14241 (Haydere hoard), 4.36g, 12.
37 I, 14242 (Haydere hoard), 4.42g, 6.
38 I, 14243 (Haydere hoard), 3.99g, 6.
39 I, 14244 (Haydere hoard), 5.17g, 6.
40* L, R0495, 3.94g, 6.
41* L, 1924-1-7-185 (Plevna hoard), 3.13g, 12.
42* L, 1924-1-7-186 (Plevna hoard), 3.61g, 6.
43* L, 1924-1-7-187 (Plevna hoard), 5.09g, 12. Analyzed 8/1987: AR 42.9%.
44* L, 1924-1-7-188 (Plevna hoard), 3.60g, 6.
45* L, 1924-1-7-189 (Plevna hoard), 4.43g, 12.
46* L, 1924-1-7-190 (Plevna hoard), 3.90g, 12.
47* L, 1937-4-6-609 (Dorchester hoard), 3.23g, 6.
48* L, 1937-4-6-610 (Dorchester hoard), 4.46g, 12.
49* L, 1937-4-6-611 (Dorchester hoard), 4.31g, 12.
50* L, 1937-4-6-612 (Dorchester hoard), 3.72g, 12.
51* L, 1937-4-6-613 (Dorchester hoard), 4.61g, 6.
52* L, 1937-4-6-614 (Dorchester hoard), 4.52g, 12
53* L, 1937-4-6-615 (Dorchester hoard), 6.46g, 6. Analyzed 10/1990: AR
41.7%.
54* L, 1937-4-6-616 (Dorchester hoard), 4.14g, 6.
55 Mad, 3.22g, 6.
56 Mad, 3.36g, 12. This coin may be irregular.
57 Mad, 4.45g, 12.
58 Mad, 3.84g, 12.
59 Mi, 1415 (Civico), 4.12g, 6.
60 Mi, 1416 (Civico), 4.75g, 7.
61 Mi, 7220 (Brera), 4.29g, 12.
62 Mi, 7221 (Brera), 4.10g, 12.
63 Mi, 7231 (Brera), no weight., 6.
64 Mi, 7258, no weight., 6.
65 Mu, 4.25g, 1.
66 Mu, 3.95g, 6.
67 Mu, 3.50g, 7.
68 Mu, 4.20g, 6.
69 Mu, 3.42g, 12.
70 NY, 1923.151.41 (Plevna hoard), 4.64g, 6.
71 NY, 1940.100.19958 (Newell), 3.75g, 6.
72 NY, 1940.100.19959 (Newell ex von Ebengreuth), 4.21g, 6.
73 NY, 1940.100.19960 (Newell), 5.92g, 6.
74 NY, 1964.134.5, 4.15g, 12.
75* O, (Bodley, 449), 3.78g, 6. Analysis MRSC 3, 4641: AR 46.50%.
76* O, (Christ Church), 4.04g, 6. Analysis MRSC 3, 4640: AR 35.00%.
77 P, 51, 4.23g, 12.
78 PU, 1965-901, no weight., 12.
79 PU, 1965-902, no weight., 6.
80 PU, from Antioch (Waage 1093), no weight.
81 R, (Gnecchi 57), 3.16g, 6.
82* V, 17561, 4.33g, 6.
83* V, 35788, 4.01g, 12.
84* V, 36090, 5.18g, 6.
85 Y, no weight.
86 Y, no weight.

284
87 Y, no weight.
88 Y, no weight.
89 Y, from Dura, no weight. Final Report 1239 (pi. 24).
90* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, 3.87g, 6.
91 Mazzini 3, p. 295, 319, 3.39g.
92 Photograph in L (shown, 1981), 4.39g, 6.
93 Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 4.04g, 6.
94 Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 3.60g, 12.
95 Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 4.27g. 1.
96 Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 4.94g, 12.
97 Baldwin’s hoard (from Romania), 3.99g, 7.
98 Cadeby hoard (1981), 4.20g, 7.
99 Clamerey hoard 349 (pi. 6), 3.49g.
100 Creil hoard 322, 4.63g, 6.
101 Creil hoard 323 (illustrated, p. 101), 4.19g, 12.
102 Creil hoard 324, 3.02g, 12.
103 Gibraltar hoard (formerly H D Gallwey collection), no weight.
104* Rocquencourt hoard 641 (pi. 4), no weight.
105 Smyrna hoard 685 (pi. 4), 4.20g, 6.
106 Stevenage hoard 259/1, 3.56g, 6.
107 Stevenage hoard 259/2, 4.97g, 6.
108* Stevenage hoard 259/3, 4.60g, 12.
109 Stevenage hoard 259/4, 3.42g, 12.
110 Stevenage hoard 259/5, 5.06g, 12.
111 Tulin hoard 646 (pi. 17), 5.26g.
112 Tulin hoard 647 (pi. 17), 4.77g.
113 Tulin hoard 648 (pi. 17), 4.47g.
114 Tulin hoard 649 (pi. 17), 4.21g.
115 Tulin hoard 650 (pi. 17), 4.19g.
116 Tulin hoard 651 (pi. 17), 3.94g.
117 Tulin hoard 652 (pi. 17), 3.93g.
118 Tulin hoard 653 (pi. 17), 3.85g.
119 Tulin hoard 654 (pi. 17), 3.44g.
120 Tulin hoard 655 (pi. 17), 3.38g.
121 Tulin hoard 656 (pi. 17), 3.13g.
122 Burgan 7/2/1987, 189, 5.91g.
123 Burgan 7/2/1987, 190, 4.56g.
124 Dorotheum 15/4/1983, 581, no weight.
125 Galerie fur Griech., Rom. und Byz. Kunst, Frankfurt, FPL 1,178,4.01g.
126 Kricheldorf 41 (1988), 261, 4.36g.
127 Kurpfalzische Munzhandlung 21 (1981), 221, no weight.
128 Rauch 38 (1987), 738, no weight.
129 Schulten 2/11/1983, 583, 3.86g.
130 Schulten 8/11/1982, 869 = id., 11/4/1988, 767, 4.19g.
131 Schulten FPL 12/1988, 42, no weight.
132 Wendt 13 (1976), 1522, no weight.

Obv. die-links: 28, 72 & 111;

18 & 78 (die-identical);
19 & 33 (die-identical);
6 & 37;
16 & 17;
22 & 126;
34 & 51;
39 & 90;
46 & 98;

285
 48 & 129;
57 & 80;
66 & 99;
74 & 95;
92 & 100.
Obverses excluded from die-study: 7, 69 & 119.
Rev. die-links: 18 & 78 (die-identical);
19 & 33 (die-identical);
17 & 87;
41 & 121;
42 & 86;
75 & 103;
79 & 117.
Reverses excluded from die-study: 69 & 80.
Note: Cohen does not distinguish between the D2 and B2 busts.

83 18 coins
B2 VICTORIA AVGVSTI Victory advancing right, holding
wreath in right hand and palm over
left shoulder (as 76).
RIC 218e, cf. C 375

1* L, Bank collection R766, 3.82g, 12.

2* L, 1924-1-7-191 (Plevna hoard), 4.56g, 12.
3* L, 1937-4-6-620 (Dorchester hoard), 5.50g, 6. Analyzed 10/1990: AR
41.5%.
4* L, 1937-4-6-622 (Dorchester hoard), 4.49g, 6.
5* L, 1937-4-6-623 (Dorchester hoard), 4.3 lg, 12.
6 Mad, 4.01g, 12.
7 Mad, 3.55g, 12.
8 Mu, 3.77g, 12.
9 Mu, 4.84g, 12.
10 NY, 1940.100.19962 (Newell ex Wayte Raymond), 4.76g, 6.
11* P, 53, 4.69g, 12.
12* V, 17574, 4.20g, 6.
13* V, 57145, 4.52g, 12.
14* Private collection DRW, Ashmolean Museum, 4.36g, 6.
15* Rocquencourt hoard 651 (pi. 4), 4.2 lg.
16 Tulin hoard 657 (pi. 17), 3.48g.
17 Burgan 7/2/1987, 191, 4.59g.
18 Dombrowski FPL 42 (6/1971), 147, no weight.
Obv. die-links: 4 = 84/1 & 2 (VICTORIA GORDIANI AVG).
Rev. die-links: 1 & 11.
Note: C ohen does not distinguish between the D2 and B2 busts.

286
84 14 coins
B2 VICTORIA GORDIANI As 83.
AVG RIC 219e, cf. C 380

1* B, 955/1925, 3.85g, 12.

2 Br, 51009, 3.73g, 1.
3* L, 1927-11-1-61 (Lincoln), 3.40g, 12.
4* L, 1937-4-6-617 (Dorchester hoard), 4.22g, 12.
5* L, 1937-4-6-618 (Dorchester hoard), 3.90g, 6.
6* L, 1937-4-6-619 (Dorchester hoard), 5.00g, 6.
7 Mad, 3.61g, 12.
8 Mu, 4.24g, 6.
9 NY, 1940.100.19963 (Newell), 4.02g, 6.
10 P, 7806, 4.29g, 6.
11* V. 57146 (Voetter), 4.80g, 12.
12* V, 57147 (Voetter), 4.24g, 12.
13 Lanz 24 (1983), 663, 3.67g.
14* Sternberg 12 (1982), 712, 2.86g.
Obv. die-links: 1 & 2 (die-identical) = 83/4 (VICTORIA AVGVSTI);
3 & 4 (die-identical);
5 & 12.
Rev. die-links: 1 & 2 (die-identical);
3 & 4 (die-identical).
Excluded from die-study: 8.
Note: Cohen does not distinguish between the D2 and B2 busts.

85 2 coins
B2 Obverse brockage
RIC-,C-

1* V, 17587, 4.37g, 12.

2* V, 70204 (Trau), 4.57g, 12.

Contemporaiy forgeries

To provide complete descriptions of all ancient forgeries of these types falls

outside the scope of this work, but the following coins are of more interest
than usual:

A 1 coin
B2tr FIDES MILITVM As 66.

1* Y, ex Dura, no weight.
Obv. die-link: 1 = B/l.
Note: this coin and the next, which shares the same obverse die,
both come from Dura and both copy types of the mint of Antioch.
In the case of no. 2, the obverse and reverse types come from
different issues, as is commonly found with plated forgeries.
Bellinger believed these coins to be official issues (.Final Report p.

287
 134), but the crude style, the shared obverse die and the mis­
matched pairing of obverse and reverse in the case of B all make
this unlikely. It is possible that these coins are of local
manufacture.

B 1 coin
B2 P M TR P II COS P P Providentia standing left, holding
globe in right hand and transverse
sceptre in left hand (as 43-6).
1* Y, ex Dura, no weight. Final Report 1232 (pi 24).
Obv. die-link: 1 = A/1.
Note: see preceding entry.

C 1 coin
D2 SAECVLI BELICITAS (sic) As 81.

1* L, 1979-4-9-1 (P M Walker), 4.63g, 12.

Note: this coin combines the SAECVLI FELICITAS type with the
D2 bust, but it is clearly irregular, as the mis-spelling of the
reverse legend shows.

Corrections to RIC

Of the other types in this series attributed by Mattingly in RIC to

Rome, no. 207, with D2 obverse bust and reverse P M TR P VII COS II P P,
Mars advancing right with spear and shield, is a coin of the last issue of Rome.
It appears again in RIC as 167A, where it is correctly attributed.
RIC 208, also with D2 obverse bust, has the reverse CONCORDIA
AVG, Concordia standing left sacrificing out of patera over altar and holding
a comucopiae. The authority for this coin is C 59 who cites a specimen in
Turin. I have not seen this piece, but the reverse is the same as no. 9 from the
first series of Antioch, and I think it likely that it is a contemporary forgery
similar to A and B above.
I suspect that the same explanation applies to RIC 215 which is a coin
with the D2 bust with the reverse PAX AVGVSTI, Pax standing left holding
branch and sceptre. This is quoted from C 178, which is cited from the
collection of M. Dancoisne, and the coin can no longer be confirmed. It is
most likely an ancient forgery.
I have not found any specimens of bust D2 with the reverses
FORTVNA REDVX (RIC 210b), VICTORIA AVGVSTI (RIC 218b) or
VICTORIA GORDIANI AVG (RIC 219b), and these entries should be
deleted since they are simply based on the incomplete description of Cohen
(‘buste radi6 & droite’), which could equally be applied to the cuirassed B2
bust, which is of course well attested with these reverses.

288
 Chapter 6

Caesarea in Cappadocia
Contents

1. Previous co in a g e........................................................................................... 291

2. Gordian’s co in a g e........................................................................................ 292

A. Year 3 (12 December 239 - 12 December 240) (292); B.
Year 4 (12 December 240 - 12 December 241) (293); C. Year
5 (12 December 241 - 12 December 242) (294); D. Year 6 (12
December 242 - 12 December 243) (294); E. Year 7 (12
December 243 - Spring 244) (295); F. Conclusion (295)

3. Reverse designs and le g en d s.................................................................... 296

A. Silver (296); B. Bronze (299)

4. Internal chronology of the reverse types ............................................... 303

A. Silver (303); B. Bronze (305)

5. Obverse b u sts............................................................................................... 306

A- Silver (306); B. Bronze (307); C. Conclusion (307)

6. Obverse le g e n d s .......................................................................................... 308

A. Silver (308); B. Bronze (308); C. Conclusion (309)

7. D ie-stu d ies.................................................................................................... 310

A. Methods of calculation (310); B. Silver (317); C. Bronze
(319); D. Differential survival rates (320); E. Mint Output (322)

8. Countermarks................................................................................................ 324

9. Metrology: w e ig h ts ...................................................................................... 325

A. Silver (325); B. Bronze (327)

10. Die-axis ....................................................................................................... 329

11. D enom inations........................................................................................... 331

A. Silver (331); B. Bronze (332)

12. The connection with A ntioch.................................................................. 335

Summary of die-links: silver ......................................................................... 342

289
Summary of dies: bronze .............................................................................. 343

Summary of obverse busts ............................................................................ 351

Catalogue ......................................................................................................... 352

Tables and figures

Table 1: Die-links between reverse types on bronze coins of Year 4 . 304

Table 2: Obverse legends at C aesarea....................................................... 309
Table 3: Die-statistics: silver, obverses....................................................... 311
Table 4: Die-statistics: silver, reverses....................................................... 312
Table 5: Die-statistics: bronze, obverses ............................................. 313
Table 6: Die-statistics: bronze, reverses................................. 314
Table 7: Obverse die-statistics: bes't g u e s s ............................ 315
Table 8: Relative survival rate of silver andbronzecoinsatCaesarea 316
Table 9: Estimated production of silver andbronzecoinsindrachms . 317
Table 10: Weights of coins of Caesarea ................................................... 326
Table 11: D ie -a x e s................................................................. 330

Figure 1: Weights of tridrachms of Year 3 ............................................ 337

Figure 2: Weights of tridrachms of Year 4 ............................................ 337
M

Figure 3: Weights of tridrachms of Years 3 and 4 to g e th e r ................. 337

Figure 4: Weights of didrachms of Years 4 and 5 compared ............... 338
Figure 5: Weights of drachms of Year 4 ................................................... 338
Figure 6: Weights of drachms of Year 5 ................................................... 338
Figure 7: Weights of drachms of Years 4 and 5 com pared................... 339
Figure 8: Weights of AE 2 coins of Years 3 and 4 with Tyche and
Argaeus reverses . . ............................................................................ 339
Figure 9: Weights of AE 2 coins of Year 4 with inscriptional reverses 339
Figure 10: Weights of AE 2 coins of Year 6 ............................................ 340
Figure 11: Weights of AE 2 coins of Years 3, 4 and 6 compared . . . . 340
Figure 12: Weights of AE 3 coins of Years 4 and 6 com pared 340
Figure 13: Weights of Reduced AE 2 coins of Year 7 ........................... 341

290
1. Previous coinage
Caesarea, the provincial capital of Cappadocia, struck a large coinage
in silver and bronze from the reign of Archelaus, the last king of Cappadocia
(36 B.C. - A.D.17) until that of Gordian III (A.D. 238-44).1 The mint was not
in continuous production, but it struck an issue of coins for most reigns and
at some periods, such as under Nero, Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, it was a
major supplier of silver coinage. Burnett has noted that all these three major
issues may be connected with eastern campaigns by the emperor or one of his . *
generals.2 It is clear that Caesarea’s silver coins must have been intended for
more than just local circulation and that they must in fact have been struck to
supply imperial needs and the mint may be compared in importance with
those of Antioch and Alexandria. The circulation area of Caesarean coinage
is discussed in Chapter 8.

1 For the coinage of Caesarea in general see E A Sydenham, The Coinage o f Caesarea in
Cappadocia, 2nd edition with a supplement by Alex G Malloy, New York, 1978 (referred to
as Sydenham), although this list is, as we shall see, now very incomplete. W Wroth, Catalogue
o f Greek Coins in the British Museum, 20: Galatia, Cappadocia and Syria, London 1899, still
contains information of value in the introduction, pp. xxxiv - xli. B L Marthaler, Two Studies
in the Greek Imperial Coinage o f Asia Minor, Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1968,
reprinted University Microfilms, publishes three hoards containing Caesarean coins and gives
a general account of the bronze coinage. D R Walker, The Metrology o f the Roman Silver
Coinage Parts 1 - 3 , B A R . Supplementary Series 5, 22 and 40, Oxford 1976-8, analyses a
selection of the coins and provides a brief but incisive discussion of the whole coinage. Part
3 covers the period from 193 to 253. J-P Callu discusses Caesarea in La politique monetaire
des empereurs romains de 238 d 311, Paris, 1969, pp. 156-62. For the countermarks see C J
Howgego, Greek Imperial Countermarks, R N S Special Publication 17, London, 1985. The
following catalogues contain important selections of Caesarean coins: BMC, SNG Cop, SNG
von Aulock and Lindgren. The circulation area of Caesarean coins is discussed in detail in
Chapter 8. Hoards of Caesarean coins have been published by E A Sydenham, ‘A small find
of Caesarean drachms*, NC 1932, 68-9 (22 coins to Nero); A Baldwin, ‘Un tresor monetaire
decouverte & Cesaree’, Arethuse 4 (1927), pp. 145-172 (210 coins to Hadrian) and M M
Ivashchenko, ‘Gerzeulvskiye Klad Monet Kesarie Kappadokiyckoe’ (in Russian), Leningrad
1931 (469 coins to Marcus Aurelius). On the other hand, W E Metcalf has shown that the
311 drachms and 18 tridrachms of Trajan of types that have been traditionally attributed to
Caesarea in the Tell Kalak hoard (from Jordan), should be reattributed to a mint in Arabia,
so this hoard does not belong in the catalogue of finds of Caesarean silver: W E Metcalf, 'The
Tell Kalak Hoard and Trajan’s Arabian Mint’, ANSM N 20 (1975), pp. 39-108. For the
circulation of Caesarean coins in Colchis (in modem Georgia) see K Golenko, The Monetary
Circulation o f Colchis during the Roman Period, Leningrad, 1964, unpublished English
translation by C B Welles (copy in B.M.), p. 131.
2 A M Burnett, Coinage in the Roman World, London 1987, 44-5.

291
 In the early third century Caesarea’s silver coinage had been very
intermittent. It had produced a coinage of bilingual drachms, denarii and
possibly aurei for Pescennius Niger and then a large issue of drachms dated
Year two of Septimius Severus.3 After another issue of tridrachms and
drachms in 196 and 197 it then minted the same two denominations
continuously from 205 through to 213. After another interval it struck a rare
series of silver coins for Macrinus and Diadumenian (217-18) and then issued
no more silver until Gordian’s reign. It did, however, mint bronze coins for
Elagabalus and Severus Alexander but these ceased in 229-30, so when
Caesarea resumed the striking of tridrachms in Gordian’s third year (239-40),
they were the first coins it had struck for ten years and the first silver coins for
22 years.

2. Gordian’s coinage

A. Year 3 (12 December 239 - 12 December 240)4

The silver coinage started in Year 3 with a fairly large series of
tridrachms and a small issue of bronze coins in the name of Gordian alone.
A description in Sydenham of a bronze coin dated Year 2 may be
discounted.5 The silver coinage, estimated to consist of a total of 82 obverse
dies, was the most varied of the reign: there were four major reverse designs
(a view of Mount Argaeus, two towers with a view of Argaeus between them,
an agonistic crown with a small view of Argaeus and a bust of Tyche), and
seven varieties of obverse bust, together with many variations of obverse and
reverse legend. More than half of the coins were countermarked. Two bronze

3 For the Caesarean coinage of Pescennius see D Nony, ‘Le monnayage de Pescennius
Niger A Cesaree de Cappadoce, Latomus 30, 2 (1971), 345-51; V Zedelius, Untersuchungen
zur Mttnzpragung von Pertinax bis Clodius Albinus, Dissertation, Munster, 1977; and J van
Heesch, ‘Les ateliers monetaires de Pescennius Niger’, R B N 124 (1978), 57-72, who provides
the fullest discussion of Pescennius’s Caesarean coinage. For the possibility that Pescennius
struck aurei at Caesarea see R F Bland, A M Burnett and S Bendall, ’The mints of Pescennius
Niger in the light of some new aurei’, NC 147 (1987), 65-83.
4 For the dates used at Caesarea see Chapter 2.
5 Sydenham 605: see catalogue below.

292
coins are also known from Year 3; since they both come from the same
obverse die, which was also used in Years 4 and 6, this coinage cannot have
been large. These coins have an average weight of 10.4g and I have called
their denomination AE 2, as they are similar to contemporary asses of the
mint of Rome. They both have a view of Mount Argaeus on an altar on the
reverse.6

B. Year 4 (12 December 240 - 12 December 241)

The silver coinage reached a peak the following year when all three
denominations, tridrachms, didrachms and drachms were minted. The
tridrachms, which were again mainly countermarked, were produced in
considerable numbers: the estimated total number of obverse dies is 210.
These, and the much rarer didrachms, of which only three specimens survive,
were issued in the name of Gordian alone, but the drachms were minted in
the names both of Gordian and his wife Sabinia Tranquillina (estimated
obverse dies 32+). Typologically, however, the silver coinage of Year 4 was
more uniform than it had been in the previous year: all coins had a view of
Mount Argaeus on the reverse, and only four obverse busts were used for
Gordian and two for his wife. There were still, however, a great number of
variations in the obverse and reverse legends.
Year 4 also saw a series of bronze coins in the name of both rulers in
three different sizes: the AE 2 denomination, which weighed around 10.4g at
first but was subsequently lowered to 9.5g, and also AE 3s (average 5.7g) and
AE 4s (3.3g). These should probably be regarded as halves and quarters of the
AE 2s.7 The main reverse designs of AE 2 coins were: (1) a bust of Tyche,
(2) a view of Mount Argaeus on an altar, and (3) a type consisting of an
inscription within a laurel wreath also containing either a small bust of Tyche
or a small view of Argaeus. The last two types also occur for Tranquillina. The

6 In Gordian’s reign the bronze coins invariably show Mount Argaeus on a base or altar,
whereas the silver coins always omit the base. See below under Reverse Types.
7 The AE 2 denomination was probably the equivalent of a Roman as, while the AE 3
may be equated with a semis and the AE 4 with a quadrans, although these two latter
denominations were no longer produced at Rome. See below under Denominations.

293
AE 3s have either an inscriptional type or three double ears of corn, while the
AE 4s either have a view of Argaeus or a distyle shrine also containing a view
of Argaeus. Many of the AE 2s but none of the smaller denominations were
countermarked. Only about 56 obverse dies were used for all the bronze issues
of this year and in economic terms it was of relatively little importance in
comparison with the silver, as can be seen from Table 8.
The most important feature of the bronze coinage of Year 4 is its
similarity to the contemporary silver issues of Caesarea: it used the same
obverse legends and busts and the dies were clearly engraved by the same
artists, although no examples were found of the same dies being used for both
metals.

C. Year 5 (12 December 241 - 12 December 242)

The silver coinage of Caesarea ended in Year 5 with a small coinage
of didrachms, in the name of Gordian alone, and drachms in the names of the
Emperor and his wife. The coins all had a view of Argaeus on the reverse and
no more than 20 obverse dies are estimated to have been used. No bronze
coins were struck in Year 5.

D. Year 6 (12 December 242 - 12 December 243)

The bronze coinage resumed in Year 6 when one obverse die that had
been used in Years 3 and 4 continued to be used, but it was soon replaced by
new dies in a much cruder style. The previous engravers at Caesarea appear
to have been transferred to Antioch in Year 5 and the new workmen were
much less skilled than their predecessors: the portraits are cruder and less life­
like than before and the lettering is larger. Two denominations (AE 2 and AE
3) were struck in Year 6 and they continue on the same standard as the
lighter coins of Year 4. However, there is much less variety of legend and type
than before: there are only two varieties of obverse legend and bust for both
*

Gordian and Tranquillina, and only one substantive reverse design for each
denomination: on the AE 2 coins this is Mount Argaeus on a base that is
either uninscribed or inscribed eNT[I], and on the AE 3 coins a bust of Tyche.

294
The great majority of the AE 2 coins continue to be countermarked. The
volume of coinage in this year was very small: for the AE 2 denomination
there is an estimated total of six obverse dies and for the AE 3 only one.

E. Year 7 (12 December 243 - Spring 244)

Finally we come to the coinage of Year 7, the last of the reign and the
last to be minted at Caesarea. A unique specimen of Tranquillina has the
design, module and countermark of the AE 2 coins of the previous year, but
all the other specimens of this year are of a new module and have a different
reverse design. Their average weight is 6.50g. Since this figure lies midway
between the weights of the old AE 2 and AE 3 denominations it seems clear
that these new coins must be AE 2s of a reduced weight standard, a
hypothesis that is further borne out by the fact that they were never
countermarked. These coins all have six ears of corn for their reverse design
and Gordian has three obverse busts, while Tranquillina has two. This issue,
which survives in considerable quantities today, was struck from an estimated
total of only 14 obverse dies and so once more it can only have been of minor
economic significance. Of course, Gordian’s Year 7 was a short year, for he
was killed some time between February and May 244.8

F. Conclusion
The most important aspect of the coinage of Gordian from Caesarea
in the context of the present study stems from the fact that most dies of the
coins of Years 3, 4 and 5, and one of those of Year 6, were made by the same
artists as were responsible for the contemporary tetradrachms and radiates of
the mint of Antioch, an observation that has not been noted before. These
engravers seem, however, to have stopped working for Caesarea in Year 5, for
in Year 6 we find instead coins in a much cruder style which must undoubtedly
have been produced by different workmen. The significance of this is discussed
below under T h e Connection with Antioch’.

8 D Rathbone, ‘The dates of the recognition in Egypt of the emperors from Caracalla to
Diocletianus’, ZPE 62, 1986, pp. 101-31 at p. 111.

295
3. Reverse designs and legends

A. Silver

There is a definite progression in the designs used during the course of

Gordian’s reign. As always at Caesarea, the view of the sacred mountain
Argaeus dominates the reverse designs, but in the tridrachms of Year 3 three
other types were used as well: (1) Mount Argaeus framed by two towers; (2)
an agonistic crown and Mount Argaeus and (3) a head of the Tyche of
Caesarea or Cappadocia, not turreted but crowned with a representation of
Mount Argaeus.9 All these extra types are rare: they are known from four,
three and one specimen respectively, while 19 examples have a view of Mount
Argaeus as their main type. On four of these 19 coins the mountain is
surmounted by a star (parallelled on earlier coins of Caesarea from the reign
of Hadrian onwards), while on the remaining 15 it is shown without any
additions.
(i) Bust of Tyche
Of these three designs, the bust of the Tyche is perhaps the least novel.
Although it had not previously been used on any silver coins at Caesarea it
had occurred on bronze coins from the pre-imperial period onwards and was
to be used on bronze coins of the following year.10
(ii) Agonistic crown
The second design shows an finely decorated agonistic crown containing
two palm branches with a small view of Mount Argaeus above.11 A variation
of this design where the mountain is shown between two crowns occurred

9 BMC and Sydenham identified this bust as Tranquillina, but her headdress surely rules
out this possibility. The type also occurs on bronze coins of Year 4, where it has always been
identified as a Tyche.
10 Earlier occurrences of the Tyche bust at Caesarea: Sydenham 19-20, 24-8 and 39-41
(pre-imperial period), 54 (Germanicus), 236ff. (reign of Trajan) and 317 (Antoninus Pius).
11 This object has traditionally been termed an urn (e.g, by Wroth and Sydenham) but
Robert has shown that it was in fact a crown: A Dupont-Sommer and L Robert, La Deesse
de Hierapolis Castabala (Cilicie), Biblioth&que Archeologique et Historique de lTnstitut
Fran9 ais d’Archeologie d’Istanbul XVI, Paris, 1964, p. 89.

296
sporadically on bronze coins from 205 to 223: on these coins, however, the
mountain is the main type and the crowns are subsidiary. As with the bust of
Tyche, this type had not previously been used on silver.12 As we shall see
below in the discussion of reverse legends this type appears to mark the
institution of games named in honour of the emperor.
(iii) Two Towers
The most problematic and interesting of the three designs is the one
that shows two towers with a small view of Mount Argaeus in between. This
was first discussed by Imhoof-Blumer, who describes the towers as ‘SSulen
oder Thiirme’ (‘pillars or towers’).13 It would be tempting to assume that
these towers were part of the fortifications that Caesarea received in Gordian’s
reign, as recorded on bronze coins of Year 4, except for the fact that a very
similar design appears on bronze coins of Severus Alexander dated to Years
5, 7 and 8 (226 and 228-9).14 Since the epithet eNTIXION (‘walled’) first
appears on Caesarean coins in Gordian’s reign (see below under the discussion
of bronze), it seems unlikely that these two towers, which first occur on coins
some 12 years before Gordian’s accession, can be part of the fortifications.
The towers themselves are low and wide and appear to be round; they
are set on large rectangular bases and both towers and bases are decorated.
At the top of each tower are three or four triangular projections which may
represent flames. On either side of each tower are thin structures that Imhoof-
Blumer interpreted as either military standards or wooden poles decorated
with ribbons. Between the towers, level with their tops, is a small view of
Mount Argaeus. It seems clear that the towers are intended to be shown at
the foot of the mountain. The identification and purpose of this structure

12 Sydenham 464a (Septimius Severus, A.D.205); 501b (Geta, 205); 527c (Elagabalus, 221);
528b (Julia Paula, 220); 536b, 539b, 539c and 539d (Severus Alexander, 222-3).
13 F Imhoof-Blumer, Zur griechische und romische Mttnzkunde, Geneva, 1908, 231 and pi.
8, 18.
14 Sydenham 560b (NY) and 579 (illustrated, fig. 96; BMC 326). The only significant
difference between Alexander’s coins and those of Gordian is that on the former there are
no bases below the towers.

297
remain unresolved: Imhoof-Blumer suggests that it might either represent part
of the unfinished walls of the city, or else some kind of tower monument.
(iv) Mount Argaeus
All the other silver coins of Gordian and Tranquillina have Mount
Argaeus as their principal design. The mountain itself is always shown
unadorned, without any of the temples or figures that occurred in previous
reigns and the only significant variations are the different symbols that appear
on some coins either above or beside the mountain itself. As we have seen,
five of the Year 3 tridrachms show a star above the mountain. On the
tridrachms of the following year the star is replaced by a laurel wreath which
appears on 34 specimens while the remaining nine show it without any symbol.
The three didrachms of Year 4 all have different symbols to the left and right
of the mountain: one has a crescent and star, another a pellet and crescent
and the third, two pellets. The drachms of this year either have a star above
the mountain, or a pellet beside it, or both, or neither. The significance of the
pellets becomes clearer on the coins of Year 5, for all six didrachms of this
year have two pellets, while all seven drachms have a single pellet. Clearly, the
pellets must be intended as marks of value and they thus help to identify the
denomination of these coins, which, as we shall see, is by no means clear from
their weights. On the other hand, the significance of the star, laurel wreath and
crescent is not clear.
(v) Legends
With two exceptions, all the reverse legends contain the three following
elements: the main name of the city in the genitive case MHTPOIIOAeftC
KAICAPIAC (‘of the metropolis of Caesarea’), variously abbreviated; the title
B Ne or B N, standing for B NeflKOPOY (‘temple-keeper for the second
time’) either at the end of the main legend or in the field;15 and, in the
exergue, the date in the form eTOYC or eT followed by T (3), A (4) and e
(5). There seems to be no significance in any of (different forms employed.

15 Caesarea was granted the title NeOKOPOC for the second time by Gordian, which
presumably explains why it invariably occurs on his coins.
 The only other forms of legend both occur on tridrachms of Year 3 with
the design showing an agonistic crown where we find MHTPOn KAICAPI
rOPAIA[N] OIK[OY] along with the usual B Ne and eT T. The inscription
appears to refer to world (OIKOYMENIKA) games instituted in honour of
Gordian (TOPAIANEIA) which were also celebrated at Aphrodisias in
Caria.16 It may be noted that these coins date to December 239 to December
240 and so the games they commemorate cannot be connected with Gordian’s
march through Asia Minor in 242, which in any case does not appear to have
gone through Caesarea.17

B. Bronze

The two coins known from Year 3 both have a view of Mount Argaeus
set on an altar which is either uninscribed on one coin (A) or inscribed eNTI
(for eNTIXION or ‘walled’) on the other (B). The coins of the following year,
being so much more numerous, show a much greater diversity of designs. On
the AE 2 denomination we find a head of Tyche (A), a view of Mount
Argaeus set on an altar which is either uninscribed (B) or has the legend
eNT[IX] (C) or eT A (‘Year 4’) (D); or an inscription in four or five lines in
a wreath including either a small Tyche head (E) or a small representation of
Mount Argaeus (F). The single bronze coin of Year 3 has reverse (B).
Reverses (C), (E) and (F) also occur for Tranquillina. The two smaller
denominations from Year 4, the half (AE 3) and quarter (AE 4), are only

16 For the epithet OIKOYMENIKOC as applied to games see R Ziegler, Stadtisches

Prestige und kaiserliche Politik, Kultur und Erkenntnis 2, Dusseldorf, 1985, pp. 10-11.
Gordianic games are also commemorated on coins of Aphrodisias which have TOPAIANHA
ATTAAHA inscribed on the urn {BMC Caria p. 47,129 and SNG von Aulock 2463-4. S Icard,
Identification des monnaies, Paris, 1929, p. 103 also records the inscription TOPAIANHA
OYAAEPLANA OIKOYMENIKA on a coin of Aphrodisias.
17 Discussed at length by B Hamacher, ‘Der Heerzug Gordians III. durch Kleinasien 242',
Mtxnstersche Numismatische Zeitung 13, 3 (Oktober 1983), pp. 19-32 and 13, 4 (Dezember
1983), pp. 39-50. See also E Kettenhofen, ‘The Persian campaign of Gordian III and the
inscription of Sahpuhr I at the Kac be-ye Zartost’, in S Mitchell (ed.), Armies and Frontiers
in Roman and Byzantine Anatolia, B A R . International Series 156, Oxford, 1983, pp. 151-71
and id., Die romisch-persischen Kriege des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr, Beihefte zum Tubinger Atlas
des vorderen Orients, Reihe B, Nr. 55, Wiesbaden 1982.

299
known for Gordian. On the AE 3s are found either an inscription in five lines
without anything else, or three ears of corn tied together; on the AE 4s either
a distyle shrine containing a view of Argaeus, or a view of Argaeus on its own.
The coinage of Years 6 and 7, on the other hand, is much less varied.
The AE 2s of Year 6 invariably contain a view of Argaeus set on an altar
which is either plain or contains a wreath (A), or the eNT[I] (B). The AE 3s
of that year contain a turreted bust of Tyche. In the following year, the unique
unreduced AE 2 coin of Tranquillina has a view of Argaeus set on a plain
altar, while the reduced AE 2s invariably have a bunch of six ears of corn tied
together.
(i) Mount Argaeus
Many of these types had already been used on the silver coins. The
Argaeus design differs from that found on the silver by the fact that the view
of the mountain is always set on a low base on the bronze. This convention
had not been observed earlier: for example, Alexander’s bronze has the design
of Mount Argaeus with and without a base.18 This base was almost certainly
intended to be an altar as it is normally shown as rectangular in shape with a
projecting top and base (nos. 66-78 on pi. 43-4) and frequently has an
inscription (nos. 79-92 on pi. 44-5) or, on coins of Year 6, a wreath (131/3 etc.
on pi. 47). Parallels may be found in coins of Commodus and Severus and his
dynasty: on these coins too the altar may be shown without ornament, or with
a single garland or an inscription naming the regnal year.19

(ii) Mount Argaeus inside shrine

A unique coin of Year 4 of the smallest AE 4 denomination has on the
reverse a view of Mount Argaeus within a distyle shrine with pediment (118).
This variation on the normal Argaeus design had appeared on Caesarean

18 E.g., SNG von Aulock 6516 (Mount Argaeus on altar) and 6515 (no altar).
19 Without ornament SNG Cop 263 (Severus), SNG von Aulock 6516 (Alexander); with
garland id., 6451 and 6459 (Severus), 6508 (Alexander); with inscription, id., 6446-7
(Commodus), 6500 etc. (Alexander).

300
bronze coins from Commodus’s reign onwards.20 The type does not seem to
have had any denominational significance as the earlier examples of this
design are of various weights, ranging from 5 to nearly 18 grams. The other
two specimens of the AE 4 denomination simply have a plain view of Argaeus
(119).
(iii) Inscriptional type
The inscriptional type, with or without a wreath, had first been used on
silver didrachms of Claudius and it was common on Trajan’s bronzes.21 In
these cases the inscription contained the emperor’s titles such as P P OB
CIVES SERVATOS or AHMAPX eS YIIAT B. But when the inscriptional
type occurred again under Hadrian, Pius, Commodus and Alexander it
contained the city’s titles in various forms, as is the case on Gordian’s coins.22
On the second century coins Caesarea’s name appeared as KAICAPewN
T[o)N] H[POX] APTAIcoN eT [...] (‘Caesarea next to Argaeus’), but under
Alexander the inscription changed to MHTPOnOAecoC KAICAPI[AC] eT [...].
Under Gordian the inscription appears as MHTPOlIOAewC KAICAPIAC
eNTIXION B Ne eT A shortened in various forms. The new element here is
the word eNTIXION which also appears, abbreviated to eNT or eNTIX, on
the altar of some of the coins with the Mount Argaeus type. This word was
first explained by Imhoof-Blumer who correctly saw it as referring to the
building of city walls round Caesarea at this time.23
(iv) Corn ears
The final reverse type to be considered depicts a bunch of corn-ears.
This type, which is bland enough in itself, had been used at Caesarea in
various forms since Trajan’s reign.24 In this case the design does seem to

20 Examples are SNG von Aulock 6448 (Commodus), 6455 and 6466 (Septimius), 6448
(Caracalla), 6497 and 6513-4 (Alexander); SNG Cop 289-90 (Alexander) and 302 (Mamaea);
BMC 285 (Diadumenian) and 314 (Alexander).
21 Sydenham 56 (Claudius), and 228ff (Trajan).
22 Sydenham 285 (Hadrian), 312-14 and 318 (Pius) and 385 (Commodus); SNG von
Aulock 6518 and 6521 and SNG Cop 296 (Alexander).
23 F Imhoof-Blumer, Zur griechische und romische Munzkunde, Geneva, 1908, 231.
24 Sydenham pp. 22-3 lists the different varieties and their occurrences.

301
have been intended to establish the denomination. It occurs twice in Gordian’s
reign: on AE 3s of Year 4, where there are three ears of corn tied together
in a bunch (115-17), and on reduced AE 2s of Year 7, where the bunch
contains six ears (142-59). Severus Alexander’s coins have two varieties of this
type: they either show four ears on an altar or in a pot, or else they show
three ears in a bunch. That the two groups of coins were intended to be
different denominations is shown by the fact that the average weight of 6
specimens with four ears is 8.63g, while 14 examples with three average
6.62g.25 In other words the coins with three corn-ears weigh very nearly three
quarters as much as those with four. This suggests, therefore, that when three
ears of corn appear on the AE 3 coins of Year 4, which average 6.19g, and six
on the coins of Year 7, which average only 6.54g, there was a weight reduction
in Year 7. In fact it seems that the type was chosen with the intention of
announcing that the new issue was meant to circulate at the same value as the
older, heavier, coins. Walker had already noted this reduction, as the earlier
coins were countermarked presumably as they were retariffed in line with the
new standard.26
(v) Legends
The reverse legends found on the bronze coins are set out in the
summary of dies below. As was the case with the great majority of the silver
coins they all consist of the following elements: (1) the name of the city in the
form MHTPOIIOAeflC KAICAPIAC, usually shortened to MHTPO KAIC[A],
(2) the city’s new title of NeHKOPOC for the second time (B Ne), and (3) the
date (eT A, S or Z). Lastly, some coins from Year 4 and 6 add the word
eNTIXION (‘walled’), usually shortened to eNT.

25 This figure is based on the examples in the British Museum, SNG Cop and SNG von
Aulock.
26 D R Walker, review of C J Howgego, Greek Imperial Countermarks in NC 1986, p. 266.

302
4. Internal chronology of the reverse types
A. Silver
(i) Year 3
The tridrachm coinage of Year 3 included four major reverse types:
Mount Argaeus (18 specimens), Two Towers (4), Agonistic Crown (3) and
Bust of Tyche (1). The coins with the Argaeus reverse may further be sub­
divided into those on which the date is spelt eTOYC T (9 coins) and those
with eT T (9). All the coins with the Towers and Crown have eT T, while the
single specimen with a bust of Tyche has eTOYC T. In the catalogue I have
listed the coins by reverse type, and it could easily be assumed that the order
in which they are listed is intended to be a chronological one. This is not the
case, because there is no evidence as to the sequence of these types: none of
them, for example, share any obverse dies. I would, however, conjecture that
it is most likely that they were produced simultaneously rather than one after
the other. If there was any sequence in their issue the Argaeus type was
probably the latest since all the tridrachms of Year 4 have that design, but
there is no good evidence that they were struck after the other reverse types.
Alternatively, the coins could be divided into two groups according to whether
they have the date in the form of eTOYC T (some coins with Argaeus and
Tyche) or eT T (some coins with Argaeus, Towers and Crown). Presumably
the coins with the longer form would be earlier. Once again, though, there is
no good evidence that the two forms of the date do have any chronological
significance since both occur in Year 4, when indeed there is a common
obverse die that links the two varieties.
(ii) Year 4
All the silver coins of this year have Mount Argaeus as their reverse
design and the only difference between them is that the date is either given
as eTOYC A or as eT A. The longer form appears on 16 out of the 44
tridrachms, all three didrachms and two of the 28 drachms. It is again
tempting to postulate that the coins with the longer form precede those with
the shorter, particularly as (1) all the silver of Year 5 has the short form eT
e and (2) all the coins of Tranquillina have the short form. Against this we

303
 Table 1: Die-links between reverse types on bronze coins of Year 4
1. By die
Obv. die Reverse types
II Argaeus, uninscribed and eNTI (Year 3) = Argaeus, eNT (Year 4)
Argaeus, uninscribed and eNT (Year 6 )
IV Tyche = Argaeus, eNT
VIII Tyche = Argaeus, uninscribed
X Tyche = Inscription, Argaeus
XI Tyche = Argaeus, uninscribed
XII Argaeus, uninscribed = Inscription, Argaeus
XIII Argaeus, uninscribed = Argaeus, eNT
XXI Argaeus, uninscribed = Argaeus, eNT = Inscription, Argaeus
XXIII Tyche = Argaeus, uninscribed
XXV Argaeus, eNT = Inscription, Tyche
XXVI Inscription, Tyche = Inscription, Argaeus
XXVII Argaeus, eT A = Inscription, Tyche
XXVIII Argaeus, eNT = Inscription, Argaeus
TI Argaeus, eNT = Inscription, Tyche = Inscription, Argaeus

2. By reverse type

A Tyche links to Argaeus, uninscribed

Argaeus, eNT
Inscription, Argaeus
B. Argaeus, uninscribed links to Tyche
Argaeus, eNT
Inscription, Argaeus
C. Argaeus, eNT links to Argaeus, uninscribed and eNT (Year 3)
Tyche
Argaeus, uninscribed
Inscription, Tyche
Inscription, Argaeus
Argaeus, uninscribed and eNT (Year 6)
D. Argaeus, eT A links to Inscription, Tyche
E. Inscription, Tyche links to Argaeus, eNT
Argaeus, eT A
Inscription, Argaeus
F. Inscription, Argaeus links to Tyche
Argaeus, uninscribed
Argaeus, eNT
Inscription, Tyche

must set the facts that (1) both forms had occurred in Year 3 and (2) a shared
obverse die for a drachm of Gordian links the two forms.27 The balance
o^probability, therefore, would seem to be that there is no chronological
distinction between eTOYC A and eT A.

27 The die-link is between no. 45/1 (eTOYC A) and nos. 58/1-2 (eT A).

304
(iii) Tranquillina
Another problem concerns the drachms in the name of Tranquillina
coinage and their place in the sequence of issues. They all have the date in the
form eT A. In addition, these coins are very closely die-linked: eight specimens
come from just two obverse and six reverse dies, and it seems likely that they
would all have been struck within a short space of time. Similarly the two
drachms of Tranquillina that are known from Year 5 also share the same
obverse die and they too might well have been produced at the same time.
There does, therefore, seem to be some evidence to suggest that Tranquillina’s
drachms were all issued together at the very end of Year 4 and the start of the
following year; coinage at Caesarea seems to have ceased early in Year 5 and
it was not resumed until well into Year 6.

B. Bronze
(i) Year 4
Some light is shed on the relationship between the six different reverse
types that occur on the AE 2 coins of Year 4 by the many die-links that they
have. This is of some importance, because, as we shall see, analysis of their
weights show that there was possibly a reduction between the Tyche and the
Argaeus types, and that there was certainly a reduction between the Argaeus
and the inscriptional types.28 This would imply that these types were
produced sequentially and not simultaneously. However, since the two reverse
types that occur on bronze of Year 3 show Mount Argaeus, this in itself would
seem to suggest that the Tyche reverse was not the first of Year 4. In addition,
the fact that bronze coinage resumed in Year 6 with the Argaeus type would
seem to imply that the inscriptional type was not the last one of Year 4. Table
1 shows the die-links between the different reverse types on the AE 2 coins
of Year 4.
It is clear from this that all the reverse types of Year 4 were very
closely die-linked to all the others, if not directly, then indirectly. The fact that

28 See below under Weights.

305
one die (II) was used in Years 3, 4 and 6 shows that the many shared dies
between the different reverse types of Year 4 do not mean that they were all
necessarily struck simultaneously. For this reason, it seems safe to conclude
from the evidence of the weight standards that the inscriptional types of Year
4 probably did succeed the Tyche and Argaeus types, notwithstanding the fact
that the Argaeus types were also struck in Year 6.

5. Obverse busts
A. Silver
(i) Year 3
Like the reverse designs, the obverses of the coins of Year 3 show the
greatest variety in their use of busts: beside the usual laureate, draped and
cuirassed bust seen from behind (D2*), we also find a laureate, cuirassed bust
seen from in front (Bl*, no. 1) and behind (B2*, no. 5), a radiate cuirassed
bust seen from behind (B2, no. 13), the only example of a radiate crown
occurring on the silver coinage of Caesarea, and also three different busts
showing the Emperor with various attributes: on one he holds a spear over his
shoulder (FI*, no. 3), on another he faces left and wears a shield and holds
a spear (Gil*, nos. 11-12 and 17) and on the last he faces left and raises both
his hands in a gesture of greeting (J31*, no. 4).
(ii) Years 4 and 5
Obverses of Years 4 and 5 show much less variety: in Year 4 we find
three busts on the tridrachms, either a head (A l*) or a draped and cuirassed
bust seen either from in front (D l* ) or behind (D2*): on all the emperor is
shown laureate. Only the D2* bust occurs on the didrachms of that year, while
the drachms have four varieties: a head (A l*), a cuirassed bust seen from in
front (Bl*), or a draped and cuirassed bust seen either from in front (D l*)
or behind (D2*); once again the emperor is always laureate. Tranquillina has
a draped bust seen from in front either wearing a diadem (E2*) or without
(E l*) in Year 4. On the didrachms and drachms of Year 5 we find only the
head (A l*) and the draped and cuirassed bust seen from behind (D2*) for
Gordian and only the diademed bust (E2*) for Tranquillina.

306
B. Bronze
Six varieties o f G o rd ia n ’s obverse bust and two of T ranquillina’s are
used on the bronze coins, as c o m p ared with 12 on the silver and they are a
m uch m ore conventional selection: none o f them , for exam ple, show the
e m p e ro r facing left or carrying an attribute. T h e two specim ens of Y ear 3 b oth
have the sam e bust, a lau reate head right (A l* ). O n the o th e r hand, all six
busts occur on the coins of Y ear 4, while in Y e a r 6 only two different busts

w ere used and in Y e a r 7 three. T h e m ost co m m o n busts of the bronze coins

of Y ear 4, as on the silver, show G o rd ian laureate, d ra p e d and cuirassed, seen
either from in front ( D l* ) or behind (D2*): these account for over two thirds
o f the specim ens of this year. T h e e m p e ro r is also shown with his head w ithout
drapery, normally lau re ate ( A l* ) but also, on two dies, radiate (A l) , while
a n o th e r die shows his h ead laureate with a trace o f d rapery on both shoulders
(A3*). Lastly o n e die a p p e a rs to show G o rd ian radiate, d ra p e d and cuirassed,
seen from behind (D2). T h e one obverse die of Tranquillina from Y e a r 4
shows her d iad em ed bust d ra p e d and seen from the front (E2*).
O n the small issue of Y e a r 6 G ordian has either a la u re ate h ead ( A l* )
or a laureate, d ra p e d and cuirassed bust seen fro m b eh ind (D2*); these two
busts are also used in Y e a r 7 with the addition of the laureate, d ra p e d and
cuirassed bust seen from in front ( D l* ) . T ranq uillina’s coins of Y ears 6 an d
7 show her d ra p e d bust with and w ithout a d iadem (E2* an d E l* ) .

C. Conclusion
It may be noted that at C aesare a as-at Antioch the use of the rad ia te \ -
crown seem s to have had no d enom inational significance. A t both mints
G o rd ia n ’s bust is shown either laureate or radiate on coins that are clearly of
the sam e denom ination, w hereas the standard practice at R o m e was to restrict

these crowns for particular denom inations, a coin with a la u re ate bust such as
a denarius, sestertius or as having a different value from o n e with a radiate

bust, such as a radiate (‘an toninian us’) or dupondius (C h a p te r 7).

307
6. Obverse legends
A. Silver
Table 2 shows the different forms of obverse legend that occur on the
silver and bronze coinage. Although there are very many variant forms, there
seems to be no significant development in the different forms of legend on the
silver coins of Years 3, 4 and 5. The elements AY[TOYCTOC] K[AICAP]
M[APKOC] ANT[ONeINOC] TOPAIANOC are common to all the legends;
after that some have CeB[ACTOC], some nothing at all, and one (no. 2) has
e (see below). Of the ten varieties that occur for Gordian, eight occur for
Year 3, eight for Year 4 and only four for the small coinage of Year 5. It is
true that the longest forms of CeBACTOC, CeBAC and CeBA, only occur in
Year 3 (the title is also shortened to CeB and Ce), but the two principal
forms of KAICAP, KAI and K, occur in all three years and in Year 4 KA is
also found. Gordian’s nomen ANTHNelNOC is normally abbreviated as ANT
but occasionally as ANTO (no. 5). The most surprising form of legend,
however, is one of the most common: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC e (no.
2). This has sometimes been interpreted as TOPAIANO Ce, but it also
possible that the e stands for eYCeBHC (PIVS) an epithet which Gordian
used on his coinage at Rome. The three different forms of Tranquillina’s
legend do not seem to be of any significance, except that no. 16 omits the title
AY[TOYCTA], while no. 15 of Year 4 shortens her name ungrammatically to
TPANKYAAIN.

B. Bronze
Seven different forms of legend occur for Gordian and four for
Tranquillina. Three of Gordian’s legends (nos. 11-13) occur only on the
bronze, but there doesjseem to be any special significance to this. One of the
legends, no. 11, shortens Gordian’s name to TOPALANO, which, like
TPANKYAAIN, is an unidiomatic form that would never be found at Rome;
possibly it indicates that the final C (i.e, S) was silent. In fact the great
majority of bronze coins of all three years have the legend AY K M ANT
TOPAIANOC (no. 10). Tranquillina’s name appears in four different forms

308
on the bronze coins: most interesting is no. 17 which gives her the title
C[eBACTH] instead of AYrOYCTA which was normally used at Caesarea.
Once again, however, there is no obvious significance to this variation.

Table 2: Obverse legends at Caesarea

Gordian
No. Legend Issue
1 AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce AR, Year 3; AR, Year 4
2 AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC g AR, Year 3; AR, Year 4; AR, Year 5; AE
2, Year 7
3 AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC AR, Year 4; AR, Year 5; AE 2, Year 7
4 A Y K A M ANT TOPAIAN[....] AR, Year 4
5 AY K M ANTO TOPAIANOC AR, Year 3; AR, Year 4
6 AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC CgBAC AR, Year 3
7 AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC CgBA AR, Year 3
8 AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC CgB AR, Year 3; AR, Year 4
9 AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce AR, Year 3; AR, Year 4; AE 2, Year 4;
AR, Year 5
10 AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC AR, Year 3; AE 2, Year 3; AR, Year 4;
AE 2, Year 4; AR, Year 5; AE 2 & 3,
Year 6 ; AE 2, Year 7
11 AY K M ANT TOPAIANO AE 3, Year 4
12 AY K M AN TOPAIANOC C AE 2, Year 6
13 AY K M AN TOPAIANOC AE 4, Year 4

Tranquillina

14 CABINIA TPANKYAAINA AY AR, Year 4

15 CABINIA TPANKYAAIN AY AR, Year 4
16 CABINIA TPANKYAAINA AE 2, Year 4; AR, Year 5
17 CABINI TPANKYAINA C AE 2, Year 6 ; AE 2, Year 7
18 CAB TPANKYAAINA AY AE 2, Year 7
19 CA TPANKYAAINA AY AE 2, Year 6

C. Conclusion
Antioch only used one obverse legend for Gordian on its tetradrachms
and two on its radiates, and Rome used three principal and two minor legends
for Gordian and one for Tranquillina, while Caesarea, as we have seen, in the
course of a much smaller coinage employed no fewer than 13 different
variations of legend for Gordian and six for Tranquillina. So in its use of
legends and types, both obverse and reverse, Caesarea has more in common
with a local civic mint than with either Rome or Antioch, although it deserves
to be considered alongside these two establishments because of its role as a
major supplier of silver coinage.

7. Die-studies
A. Methods of calculation
Tables 4 - 7 show the results of the die-studies of both the obverses and
reverses of the silver and bronze coinage of Gordian and Tranquillina from
Caesarea. Table 8 summarizes the results for the obverses. It should be noted
that obverse die-links between the coins of different years were searched for,
but none was found, except for one bronze die.29 A check was also made for
die-sharing between silver and bronze coins, again without success.
A problem that needs to be examined first of all is how these estimates
should be made: should the figures be calculated for all the coins of a
particular denomination of one year together or should separate calculations
be performed on the coins of each particular obverse bust or reverse type
variety which could then be added up (see Chapter 1)? The potential problem
with the first method is that the figures will be distorted if one variety has
survived in a greater numbers than another: thus, for example, it seems clear
that the silver drachms of Tranquillina of Years 4 and 5 have a higher survival
rate than the contemporary drachms of Gordian because they have a higher
value today and so are more likely to be illustrated in dealers’ lists. Separate
calculations for the drachms of the two rulers give a total of over 32 dies,
while a joint calculation gives 26.4: clearly the lower figure is distorted and the
higher one is to be preferred. Similarly it seems possible that tridrachms of
Gordian from Year 3 with the armoured obverse bust Gil* also have a higher
survival rate than those with the ordinary D2* bust, once again because they
would command a higher value today: the four specimens with obverse Gil*
come from three dies while the 17 with D2* come from 14. However, in other
cases there is no obvious reason why the survival rate should vary for different

29 Obverse die II, which is known from 10 specimens, was used in Years 3, 4 and 6 .

310
 lable J: Die-statistics: silver, obverses

Den. Ruler Bust Qty- Dies N.-S. Die breakdown ‘Good’ Coverage Range
Year 3
Tridrachms
3dr G Bl* l 1 0 lxl 1 .+ 7 1+
3dr G B2 l 1 0 lxl 1 .+ 7 1+
3dr G B2* l 1 0 lxl 1 .+ 7 1+
3dr G D2* 17 14 5 12x1; 1x2; 1x3 47.6 29.4% ±13.8% 32.4 - 89.9
3dr G FI* 1 1 0 lxl 1 .+ 7 1+
3dr G Gil* 4 3 2 2 x1 ; 1 x2 6 50% ±43.3% 3.2 - 44.8
3dr G J31* 1 1 0 lxl 1 .+ ? 1+
Total, Year 3 26 22 7 19x1; 2x2; 1x3 58.6+ 40.6 - 139.7+
Calculated together 26 22 7 19x1; 2x2; 1x3 81.7 26.9% ±11.6% 57.1 -143.7
Total (in drachms) 245.1

Year 4
Tridrachms
3dr G Al* 4 3 2 2 x1 ; 1x2 6 50% ±43.3% 3.2 - 44.8
3dr G Dl* 3 3 0 3x1 3.+ 7 3+
3dr G D2* 36 33 6 30x1; 3x2 198 16.7% ±9.2% 127.5 - 442.4
Total, tridrachms 43 39 8 35x1; 4x2 207. + 133.7 - 490.2 H
Calculated together 43 39 8 35x1; 4x2 209.6 18.6% ±8.9% 142 - 400.4

Didrachms
2dr G Al* 1 1 0 lxl 1 .+ 7 1+
2dr G D2* 2 2 0 2 x1 2 .+ 7 2+
Total, didrachms 3 3 0 3x1 3.+ 7 3+

Drachms
Dr G Al* 11 9 4 7x1; 2x2 24.8 36.3% ±23.3% 15.1 - 68.7
Dr G Bl* 1 1 0 lxl 1 .+ 7 1+
Dr G Dl* 1 1 0 lxl 1 .+ 7 1+
Dr G D2* 7 3 6 lxl; 2x3 3.5 85.7% ±13.2% 3 -4 .1
Total, drachms (G) 20 14 1 0 10x1; 2x2; 2x3 30.3+ 20.1 - 74.8
Calculated together 20 14 10 10x1; 2x2; 2x3 28 50% ±15% 21.5 - 40
Dr T El* 1 1 0 lxl 1 .+ 7 1+
Dr T E2* 7 1 7 1x7 1 100% 1
Total, drachms (T) 8 2 7 lxl; 1x7 2 .+ 2+
Calculated together 8 2 7 lxl; 1x7 23 87.5% ±12.4% 2 -2 7

Total, all drachms 28 16 17 llx l; 2x2; 2x3; 1x7 32.3+ 22.1 - 76.8+
Calculated together 28 16 17 llx l; 2x2; 2x3; 1x7 26.4 60.7% ±11.7% 22.1 - 32.6

Total, Year 4 74 58 25 49x1; 6x2; 2x3; 1x7 244.9+ 167 - 480.2+

Total (in drachms) 667.1 +

Year 5
Didrachms
2dr G D2* 6 5 2 4x1; 1x2 15 33.3% ±30.4% 7.8 - 172

Drachms
Dr G Al* 5 3 4 lxl; 2 x2 3.8 80% ±43.8% 3 -8 .3
Dr T E2* 2 1 2 1x2 1 100% 1
Total, all drachms 7 4 6 lxl; 3x2 4.8 4 -8 3
Calculated together 7 4 6 lxl; 3x2 4.7 85.7% ±37.4% 4-8 .3

Total, Year 5 13 9 8 5x1; 4x2 19.8 11.8 - 181.3

Total (in drachms) 34.8
 Table 4: Die-statistics: silver, reverses

Type Qty- Dies N.-S. Die breakdown ‘Good’ Coverage Range

Year 3
Tridrachms
A Argaeus, eTOYC T 9 9 0 9x1 9.+ ? 9+
B Argaeus, eT T 9 9 0 9x1 9.+ ? 9+
C Two towers 4 4 0 4x1 4.+ ? 4+
D Crown 3 3 0 3x1 3.+ ? 3+
E Tyche 1 1 0 lxl 1 .+ ? 1+

Total, Year 3 26 26 0 26x1 26.+ 7 26+

Year 4
Tridrachms
A Argaeus, eTOYC A 15 15 0 15x1 15.+ ? 15+
B Argaeus, eT A 28 26 4 24x1; 2x2 182 14.3% ±8.3% 115 - 435.5
Total, tridrachms 43 41 4 39x1; 2x2 197. + 130 - 450.5+
Calculated together 43 41 4 39x1; 2x2 440.8 9.3% ±6.4% 260.8 -1423.6

Didrachms
A Argaeus, eT A 3 3 0 3x1 3.+ 7 3+

Drachms
A Argaeus, eTOYC A 2 1 2 1x2 1 100% 1
B Argaeus, eT A 26 24 3 23x1; 1x3 208 11.54% ±6.3% 134.8 - 455.4
Total, drachms 28 25 5 23x1; 1x2; 1x3 209 135.8 - 456.4
Calculated together 28 25 5 23x1; 1x2; 1x3 140 17.9% ±8.8% 93.6-274.7

Total, Year 4 74 69 9 65x1; 3x2; 1x3 583.8+ 357.4 - 17013

Year 5
Didrachms
A Argaeus, eT e 6 5 2 4x1; 1x2 15 33.3% ±30.4% 7.8 - 172

Drachms
A Argaeus, eT e 7 6 2 5x1; 1x2 21 28.6% ±26.5% 10.9 - 283

Total, Year 5 13 11 4 9x1; 2x2 36 18.7 - 455

312
 Table 5: Die-statistics: bronze, obverses

Den. Ruler Bust Qty. Dies M.-S. Die breakdown ‘Good ’ Coverage Range
Years 3-4
AE 2 G Al 2 1 2 1x2 1 100% 1
AE 2 G Al* 12 5 10 2x1; 1x2; 1x4; 1x4(10 inc. Year 6 ) 6 83.3% ±15.9% 5 -7 .4
AE 2 G A3* 1 1 0 lxl 1 .+ ? 1+
AE 2 G Dl* 26 12 2 2 4x1; 4x2; 2x3; 2x4 14.2 84.6% ±13% 12.3 - 16.8
AE 2 G D2 1 1 0 lxl 1 .+ ? 1+
AE 2 G D2* 40 18 32 8x1; 6x2; 2x3; 1x5; 1x9 22.5 80% ±10.7% 19.8 - 26
AE 2 T E2* 9 1 9 1x9 1 100% 1
Total, AE 2 91 39 75 16x1; 12x2; 4x3; 4x4; 46.7+ 41.1 - 54.2+
1x5; 2x9
Calculated together 91 39 75 47.3 82.4% ±6.7% 43.8 - 51.5

AE 3 G Al* 2 2 0 2 x1 2 .+ ? 2 +
AE 3 G D2* 2 1 2 1x2 1 100% 1
Total, AE 3 4 3 2 2 x 1 ; 1 x2 3.+ 3+
Calculated together 4 3 2 2x1; 1x2 6 50% ±43.3% 3.2 - 44.8

AE 4 G Al 2 1 2 1x2 1 100% 1
AE 4 G D2* 1 1 0 lxl 1 .+ ? 1+
Total, AE 4 3 2 2 lx l; 1 x2 2 .+ 2+
Calculated together 3 2 2 lxl; 1x2 3 66.7% ±54.4% 2 - 16.4

Total, Years 3-4 98 44 79 19x1; 14x2; 4x3; 4x4; 56.3 49 - 112.7

1x5; 2x9
Total (in AE 4) 156.9+

Year 6
AE 2 G Al* 11 2 11 1x5; 1x6(10 inc. Year 4) 2 100% 2
AE 2 G D2* 4 1 4 1x4 1 100% 1
AE 2 T E2* 14 3 13 lxl; 1x4; 1x9 3.2 92.9% ±6.9% 3 -3 .5
Total, AE 2 29 6 28 lx l; 2x4; 1x5; 1x6; 1x9 6 .2 6 -6 .5
Calculated together 29 6 28 lxl; 2x4; 1x5; 1x6; 1x9 6.2 96.6% ±3.4% 6-6.4

AE 3 G Al* 2 1 2 1 x2 1 100% 1

Total, Year 6 31 7 30 lxl; 1x2; 2x4; 1x5; 7.2 7 - 7.5

Total (in AE 4) 1x6; 1x9 2 0 .6

Year 7
AE 2 T E2* 1 1 0 lx l 1 .+ 7 1+

Red.AE 2 G Al* 7 3 6 lxl; 1x2; 1x4 3.5 85.7% ±24.2% 3 -4 .9

Red.AE 2 G Dl* 9 2 9 1x4; 1x5 2 100% 2
Red.AE 2 G D2* 27 5 26 lxl; 1x2; 1x7; 1x8; 1x9 5.2 96.3% ±6.4% 5 -5 .6
Red.AE 2 T El* 3 1 3 1x3 1 100% 1
Red.AE 2 T E2* 15 2 15 1x5; 1x10 2 100% 2
Total, Red. AE 2 61 13 59 2x1; 2x2; 1x3; 2x4; 13.7 13 - 15.5
2x5; 1x7; 1x8; 1x9; 1x10
Calculated together 61 13 59 13.4 96.7% ±3.3% 13 - 13.9

Total, Year 7 62 14 59 3x1; 2x2; 1x3; 2x4; 14.7+ 14 - 16.5+

2x5; 1x7; 1x8; 1x9; 1x10
Total (in AE 4) 30.4+

313
 Table 6: Die statistics: bronze, reverses

Den. Type Qty. Dies N.-S. Die breakdown ‘Good’ Coverage Range

Year 3

AE 2 A Argaeus; uninscribed 1 1 0 lxl 1 .+ ? 1+

AE 2 B Argaeus; eNTI 1 1 0 lxl 1 .+ ? 1+

Total, Year 3 2 2 0 2 x1 2 .+ 2 +

Year 4

AE 2 A Tyche head 8 2 8 2x4 2 100% 2

AE 2 B Argaeus; uninscribed 20 14 9 llx l; 1x2; 1x3; 1x4 31.1 45% ±13.2% 24.1 - 44
AE 2 C Argaeus; eNT[IX] 30 24 11 19x1; 4x2; 1x3 65 36.7% ±12.9% 48.4 - 101
AE 2 D Argaeus; eT A 1 1 0 lxl 1 .+ ? 1+
AE 2 E Inscription; Tyche 14 5 13 lxl; 1x2; 1x3; 2x4 5.4 92.9% ±10.1% 5 -6
AE 2 F Inscription; Argaeus 16 10 9 7x1; 1x2; 1x3; 1x4 17.8 56.3% ±14.9% 14.1 - 24.2
Total, AE 2 89 56 51 39x1; 7x2; 4x3; 6x4 1 2 2 .8 + 94.6 - 178.2+
Calculated together 89 56 51 39x1; 7x2; 4x3; 6x4 97.7 5(5.2% ± 6 7 % 89 - 113.1

AE 3 A Inscription 1 1 0 lxl 1 .+ ? 1+
AE 3 B Corn ears 3 3 0 3x1 3.+ ? 3+
Total, AE 3 4 4 0 4x1 4.+ 7 4+

AE 4 A Shrine 1 1 0 lxl 1 .+ ? 1+
AE 4 B Argaeus 2 1 2 1x2 1 100% 1
Total, AE 4 3 2 2 lxl; 1 x2 2 .+ 2 +
Calculated together 3 2 2 lxl; 1x2 3 66.7% ±54.4% 2 - 16.4

Total, Year 4 96 62 52 44x1; 8x2; 4x3; 6x4 128.8+ 100.6-184.2 +

Year 6

AE 2 A Argaeus; uninscribed 25 18 13 12x1; 5x2; 1x3 34.6 52% ±16.1% 26.4 - 50.2
AE 2 B Argaeus; eNT[I] 3 2 2 lxl; 1 x2 3 66.7% ±54.4% 2 - 16.4
Total, AE 2 28 20 15 13x1; 6x2; 1x3 37.6 28.4 - 6 6 .6
Calculated together 28 20 15 13x1; 6x2; 1x3 37.3 53.6% ±15.6% 28.9 - 52.6
AE 3 A Tyche head 2 1 2 1x2 1 100% 1

Total, Year 6 30 21 17 13x1; 7x2; 1x3 38.6 29.4 - 67.6

Year 7

AE 2 A Argaeus; uninscribed 1 1 0 lxl 1 .+ 7 1+

Red. AE 2 A Corn ears 60 47 22 37x1; 8x2; 1x3; 1x4 128.2 38.3% ±9.2% 98.9 - 161.5

Total, Year 7 61 48 22 38x1; 8x2; 1x3; 1x4 129.2+ 99.9 - 162.5

314
 Table 7: Obverse die-statistics: best guess

A. Silver

Year 3
Den. How calculated Qty- Dies N.-S. Die breakdown ‘Good' Range
3dr Calculated together 26 22 7 19x1; 2x2; 1x3 81.7 57.1 - 143.7
Total (in drachms) 245.1

Year 4
3dr Calculated together 43 39 8 35x1; 4x2 209.6 142 - 400.4
2dr Total 3 3 0 3x1 3.+ 3+
Dr Total 28 16 17 llx l; 2x2; 2x3; 1x7 32.3+ 22.1 - 76.8+
Total, Year 4 74 58 25 49x1; 6x2; 2x3; 1x7 244.9+ 167.1 - 480.2+
Total (in drachms) 667.1+

Year 5
2dr Total 6 5 2 4x1; 1x2 15 7.8 - 172
Dr Total 7 4 6 lxl; 3x2 4.8 4 -8 .3
Total, Year 5 13 9 8 5x1; 4x2 19.8 11.8 - 181.3
Total (in drachms) 34.8

B. Bronze

Years 3-4
AE 2 Calculated together 91 39 75 16x1; 12x2; 4x3; 4x4; 47.3 43.8 - 51.5
1x5; 2x9
AE 3 Calculated together 4 3 2 2x1; 1x2 6 3.2 - 44.8
AE 4 Calculated together 3 2 2 lxl; 1x2 3 2 - 16.4
Total, Year 4 98 44 79 19x1; 14x2; 4x3; 4x4; 56.3 49 - 112.7
1x5; 2x9
Total (in AE 4) 1596.9+

Year 6
AE 2 Total 29 6 28 lxl; 2x4; 1x5; 1x6; 1x9 6.2 6 -6 .5
AE 3 Total 2 1 2 1x2 1 1
Total, Year 6 31 7 30 lxl; 1x2; 2x4; 1x5; 1x6; 1x9 7.2 7 - 7.5
Total (in AE 4) 20.6

Year 7
AE 2 Total 1 1 0 lxl 1.+ 1+
Red. AE 2 Total 61 13 59 2x1; 2x2; 1x3; 2x4; 2x5; 13.7 13 - 15.5
1x7; 1x8; 1x9; 1x10
Total, Year 7 62 14 59 3x1; 2x2; 1x3; 2x4; 2x5; 14.7+ 14 - 16.5+
1x7; 1x8; 1x9; 1x10
Total (in AE 4) 30.4+

315
but essentially similar varieties, such as the D l* and D2* busts on AE 2 coins
of Year 4.
In practice, however, it often not possible to make separate die-
estimates for each individual variety simply because many of them are only
known from a handful of coins that do not die-link at all. This applies
especially to the numerous obverse and reverse legend varieties where there
is no reason to suspect that there might be different survival rates. So I have
adopted a compromise solution: I have calculated the die-estimates for each
different obverse bust and reverse type, ignoring the differences in legends. I
have not, therefore, attempted to make the calculations for each combination
of type and legend, for that would produce so few die-links that hardly any
estimates could be made. As it is, many of the individual obverse bust or
reverse type varieties do not produce any die-links and so do not permit any
die-estimates to be made and so I have also included die-estimates calculated
from all the coins of a particular denomination for each year as these permit
reasonably close estimates for all the coins of Caesarea. Which figures should
we use as our working estimates?
As far as the silver is concerned there is in fact little choice: we must
use the figures calculated for each ruler for each denomination ( ‘calculated
together’) and not for each variety since there are so few die-links that the
latter course seldom produces any usable estimates. For the bronze, however,
the position is rather different for here there are a great many die-links and
it is often possible to make worthwhile estimates for each variety of bust or
type. On the other hand, because we have such a full record of the dies of the
bronze coins, especially their obverses, both types of calculations give very
similar results. Thus for the AE 2 coins of Year 4 separate estimates for each
bust type produce a total of 46.7+ dies30, while a figure calculated from all
the bust types added together produces 47.3 dies; for the AE 2 coins of Year
6 the two methods of calculation produce exactly the same result, 6.2 dies.

30 In fact this figure should probably be at least 48.7 dies since/gf the bust varieties are
only known from a single specimen and so the only estimate that can be made for them is 1+,
i.e., presumably at least 2.

316
Calculating the figures separately and then adding them together does
generally seem to give slightly higher results than making a single calculation
from all the figures together, but the difference is small enough in these
heavily die-linked series for it not to be of great significance. The reverses of
the bronze coins do not produce so many die-links as the obverses, and here
the two methods of calculation do produce markedly different results in one
instance: for the AE 2 coins of Year 4 separate calculations give a total of
122.8+ dies, while a joint calculation gives 99.7. The higher figure is to be
preferred. For the AE 2 coins of Year 6 the two methods give very similar
results: 37.6 (separately) and 37.3 (jointly), while all the reduced AE 2 coins
of Year 7 have the same reverse type and so the problem does not arise.
In general, therefore, it seems better to calculate the die-estimates
separately for each bust and type variety where there are enough die-links for
that technique to produce usable results, as with the bronze coins, but where
there are many fewer die-links, as with the silver, then this method is not
usually practicable and one is forced to make joint calculations for each
denomination. It should be recognized, however, that these figures are likely
to be too low. In Table 8 1 give my ‘best guess’ of the numbers of obverse dies
of both the silver and the bronze coins, based on the foregoing considerations.

B. Silver
The first point that emerges is that the relative survival rates of the
tridrachms, didrachms, drachms and bronze coins are very different (see Table
3). The denominations that have survived in the smallest proportions are the
two most valuable, the tridrachm and the didrachm; these are then followed
by the drachm and finally come the bronze coins, of which we have a relatively
full record. This is unexpected, since one would normally expect the most
valuable coins to be over-represented in the museum collections and sale
catalogues which provided the material for this die-study, and the least
valuable, that is the bronze, to be relatively under-represented.31

31 Many sale catalogues, for example, illustrate the silver but not the bronze coins.

317
 Thus it is that, of the 26 tridrachms of Year 3, there is a total of 22
obverse dies, including nineteen singletons, and only two die-pairs and one die-
triplet, and of the 43 tridrachms of the following year there are no fewer than
39 dies, including 35 singletons and only four die-pairs. In these cases it is
clear that we have today only a small sample of the total coinages and the esti­
mated totals are, therefore, much higher than the total numbers of dies
actually observed, at 81.7 for Year 3 and 209.6 for Year 4. By comparison, the
remaining silver coinages are relatively small, although it is impossible to make
an estimate of the didrachms of Year 4 because the three specimens that are
known all come from different dies. The 28 drachms of Year 4 come from 16
dies and the issue is estimated to have consisted of a total of 32.3 dies, while
the 7 drachms of Year 5 come from four dies and an estimated total of 4.8.
Finally, the six didrachms of Year 5 come from five dies and the total is
estimated to be 15.
In Table 3 the relative survival rates for the three silver denominations
are shown, distinguishing between the drachms of Gordian and Tranquillina
but without attempting to break the figures down for each year. This is
because the significant factor that determines the relative survival rates of the
silver issues seem to be the denomination and not the year: only for the
tridrachms is the sample large enough to enable the figures to be broken down
by year and here the proportion of dies to coins for Year 3 is 1 : 1.18 and for
Year 4, 1 : 1.10, not a significant difference.
On the other hand, as we have already seen, there is a clear difference
between the survival rate of the drachms of Tranquillina and Gordian; this
must be because the former command a higher value today and so are better
represented in the sample which draws chiefly upon public collections and
specimens in dealers’ lists. So it is that the 10 drachms of Tranquillina that are
known come from only three obverse dies whereas the 25 drachms of Gordian
come from 17 dies.
The die-study of the silver coins was also extended to include the
reverses and this showed that several times more reverse than obverse dies
were used. For example, no die-links at all were found among the 26

318
tridrachms of Year 3, while there were only two die-pairs out of the 43 coins
of the same denomination of Year 4. The three didrachms of Year 4 again
showed no die-links, although the didrachms of Year 5 did have one. The
drachms of Years 4 and 5 also produced very few die-links: one pair and one
triple from Year 4 and another pair from the following year. Overall, then,
there are approximately only a third as many die-links for the reverses as for
the obverses.32 This proportion of obverse to reverse dies is normal on Syrian
tetradrachms and so it is not surprising to find it at Caesarea as well.33

C. Bronze
As has already been noted, the bronze coins present a very different
pattern from the silver, for the record of the obverse dies is nearly complete:
in fact it probably is complete for Years 6 and 7, whereas for Years 3 and 4
44 dies are known already and the estimates suggest that there are perhaps
12 more dies still to be found.
Once again there is evidence for different survival rates, but in this case
the significant difference seems to be between the issues of different years
rather than between the different denominations. This is largely because there
are so few specimens of the two smaller denominations (AE 3 and AE 4) that
it is not possible to obtain meaningful figures for them, whereas there are
reasonably large samples for the each of the three main years of bronze coin­
age (Table 8). Thus it is that a considerably higher proportion of the coins of
Years 6 and 7 appear to survive than those of Years 3 and 4: for Years 3 and
4 the proportion of dies to coins is 1 : 2.2, while, coincidentally, the issues of
Year 6 and 7 have exactly the same proportion, 1 : 4.4, just twice as high as
for the previous series.

32 For the reverses there are a total of 13 non-singletons including five die-pairs and one
triplet, while for the obverses the figure is 38 non-singletons, including 11 die-pairs, 3 triplets
and one x 6.
33 The first series of Antiochene tetradrachms of Gordian came from an estimated 205
obverse and 726+ reverse dies; for the second series the figures were 12 and 17 and for the
third, 98 and 1003. See below under ‘Connection with Antioch’.

319
 One possible reason for this is that there was a devaluation of the
coinage in Year 7 and it may have been that some of the earlier coins, which
would suddenly have become more valuable, were removed from circulation
at this time and so do not survive in such large numbers today. In addition it
may be noted that many of the AE 2 coins of Years 3, 4 and 6 are counter-
marked, whereas the only coin of Year 7 to have a countermark is the unique
specimen struck on the unreduced weight standard. The countermarking does,
therefore, seem to be related to the reduction in weight in Year 7 and it could
be that the countermark was being applied because some of the earlier coins
had already been removed from use and the countermark was intended to
allow them to continue in circulation at a higher value than before. The
problem with this explanation is that although it might apply to the coins of
Years 3 to 4 it clearly does not apply to those of Year 6, which were also
struck at the full weight and yet which survive in almost as high a proportion
as the coins of Year 7.

D. Differential survival rates

The lower rate of survival of the tridrachms and didrachms compared
with the drachms can only be caused by one of the following two reasons:
either the dies used to produce the larger denominations struck fewer coins,
or else fewer of the tridrachms and didrachms have survived because they
were removed from circulation soon after they were struck. There seems to
be no good reason to suppose that the difference in size between the dies
used for the tridrachms and didrachms on the hand and the drachms on the
other can really have had a significant effect on the numbers of coins that
could have been struck from them, since there is in fact little difference in
diameter between the two smaller denominations and so the second
explanation seems more likely. Some indication that some of the tridrachms
at least were being removed from circulation in Gordian’s reign is provided by
the countermarks that appear on them. These are discussed below, but it may
be noted here that the didrachms, like the drachms, were not countermarked.
This would appear to suggest that the countermarks have nothing to do with

320
the survival rates of the different denominations, since in this respect the
didrachms follow the same pattern as the tridrachms. However, so few
didrachms are known (three from Year 4 and six from the following year) that
the fact that their survival rate appears to be closer to that of the tridrachms
than the drachms could well be due simply to a sampling error.

Table 8: Relative survival rate of silver and bronze coins at Caesarea

Issue Coins Obv.dies Proportion o f dies to coins

A. Silver
Tridrachms 69 61 1 : 1.13
Didrachms 9 8 1 : 1.13
Drachms, Gordian 25 17 1 : 1.47
Drachms, Tranquillina 10 3 1 : 3.33
Silver, all denominations 113 89 1 : 1.27

B. Bronze
Years 3 - 4 98 44 1 : 2.23
Year 6 31 7 1 : 4.43
Year 7 62 14 1 : 4.43
Bronze, all years 191 64 1 : 2.98

We have already seen thatjdifferent rates of survival in the silver coins

between the tridrachms and the other two denominations and also between
the drachms of Gordian and those of Tranquillina, while among the bronze
issues those of Years 6 and 7 survive in greater numbers than those of Years
3 and 4. However all these differences are minor compared with the
differences in the survival rate between the silver and the bronze coins taken
as a whole. The statistics are simple: 113 silver coins are known from 89
obverse dies (ratio 1 : 1.27) while 191 bronze pieces are known from 64 dies
(ratio 1 : 2.98). We have already seen that this is surprising considering that
the more valuable silver coins are better represented in public collections and
dealers’ lists and that therefore the sample is likely to be biased towards
having a higher proportion of silver than bronze. In other words, the real
difference is likely to have been even greater.
The most likely reason for the low survival rate of the tridrachms is that
most of these coins were removed from circulation soon after they were

321
struck, presumably because they became overvalued during the rapid
debasements of the Roman and Antiochene silver of Gordian’s reign, and the
countermarks that are found on the majority of the surviving specimens were
applied in a vain attempt to revalue them in line with these debasements. The
smaller silver denominations must also have been taken out of circulation,
although not quite so rapidly, leaving just the bronze coins to survive in large
quantities since their low intrinsic value meant that they were not worth re­
moving, but instead they remained in circulation for many years. It may be
noted that some at least of the bronze coins that survive today do show
considerable wear, whereas the silver coins show very few signs of wear; in
addition we may note that no coins were minted at Caesarea after Gordian’s
reign and whereas the lack of silver would have been made up by the ever
more debased radiates from the mints of Rome and Antioch, there were to
be no more supplies of bronze coins until the next century and so it is very
likely that the last bronze issues of Caesarea would have remained in use for
a long time. Alternatively, it is possible that the extra wear which is detectable
on the bronze coins might be due to the fact the dies were used much to strike
many more pieces than those for the silver because the mint authorities took
less trouble over the appearance of the base metal issues.

E. Mint Output
In Tables 4 and 8, after the totals for each year, I also show the totals
of obverse dies in drachms, multiplying the figures for the tridrachms by three
and those for the didrachms by two. Thus it is that the estimated total output
of silver coinage for Year 3 amounts to 245 drachm dies; for Year 4 it comes
to 667 dies and for Year 5 to a mere 35. If we add the figures of the bronze
coinage to this, on the assumption that the AE 2 denomination was the
equivalent of an as, and therefore one sixteenth of a denarius/drachm,34 and
that the bronze dies struck as many coins on average as the silver dies, then
we will see that it adds very little to the value of the Caesarean coinage in the

34 See below under denominations.

322
reign of Gordian (see Table 6). For Year 4 the total estimated output of
bronze coinage amounts to the equivalent of 2.5 drachm dies, for Year 6 to
0.3 dies and for Year 7 to 0.5 dies.
In Table 9 the estimated production of the silver and bronze coinage
is given in terms of drachms: the figures for the tridrachms and didrachms are
multiplied by three and two respectively, while those for the bronze coins are
divided by 16 in the case of the AE 2 denomination and so on. The table
further assumes an average figure of 30,000 coins per obverse die for both the
silver and the bronze issues.35 Of course the figures obtained in this way must
subject to a very wide margin of error; the estimated totals of dies are subject
to a wide margin of error, while the average number of coins each obverse die
produced is notoriously difficult to calculate. We have seen that another
problem that might distort the figures is that the tridrachm dies might have
struck fewer coins than the drachm dies because of their greater size, while it
is also possible that the silver dies might have had a much shorter life than the
bronze. We cannot of course quantify these possible distortions to the output
figures, which in any case are overwhelmingly based on the tridrachms. Howe­
ver, these figures do at least enable us to trace the main trends of coin
production at Caesarea.
The table shows that there was a substantial coinage in Gordian’s Year
3 (December 239-December 240), building up to a peak in the following year
(240-1), with a small concluding silver coinage in silver in 241-2. They also
show that the bronze issues of the end of the reign are of minimal economic
significance.

Table 9: Estimated production of silver and bronze coins in drachms

Silver Bronze Total

Year 3 (239-40) 7,353,000 2,000 7,355,000
Year 4 (240-1) 20,013,000 71,000 20,084,000
Year 5 (241-2) 1,044,000 1,044,000
Year 6 (242-3) 10,000 10,000
Year 7 (243-4) 14,000 14,000
Total 28,410,000 97,000 28,507,000

35 This figure is discussed in C hapter 1.

323
8. Countermarks

Two countermarks occur at Caesarea during Gordian’s reign:

1. A rectangular punch containing a head of Tyche facing right appears
on most of the tridrachms of Years 3 and 4, always on the reverse.36 It does
not occur on any other denomination,37 nor is it known to occur on any
earlier coins of Caesarea.38
2. A circular punch bearing a radiate head of Helios facing right
appears on bronzes only of the AE 2 denomination of Years 3, 4, 6 and on
one coin of Year 7. Most of the AE 2 coins of Years 3, 4 and 6 had been
countermarked, as was the unique AE 2 of Year 7, while none of the reduced
weight coins of that year were.39 This countermark had also been used on
coins of Gordian’s predecessors going back to Septimius Severus.40
In a pair of histograms Howgego compares the range of bronze coins
that bear the Helios countermark with the hoard of 62 bronze coins from
Gtilek Bogazi which closes in 244.41 The similarity between the two patterns
is striking and Howgego argues from it that the countermark was applied to
a cross-section of coins in circulation at the end of Gordian’s reign. We may
add that while 62.6% of AE 2 coins of Year 4 were countermarked, an even
higher proportion (83.3%) of AE 2 coins of Year 6 were, reinforcing the idea

36 C J Howgego, Greek Imperial Countermarks, R.N.S. Special Publication No. 17,

London, 1985, p.295 no. 849.
37 16 of the 26 (61.5%) tridrachms of Year 3 are countermarked as are 33 of the 43
(76.7%) tridrachms of the Year 4.
38 Howgego, op. cit., p. 295.
39 The figures are as follows: Year 3: 2 AE 2 coins, 1 countermarked (50%), 1 not; Year
4: 97 AE 2 coins, 60 countermarked (61.9%), 37 not; Year 6: 30 AE 2 coins: 26 (86.7%)
countermarked, 4 not; Year 7: 1 AE 2 coin, countermarked. There is no evidence for the
differential distribution of countermarks within the different reverse types of Year 4. 2 of the
8 coins with the Tyche reverse|25%) were countermarked; 38 of the 59 with Argaeus (64.4%),
and 20 of the 30 with inscriptional types (66.7%).
40 Howgego, op. cit., p. 106 no. 12.
41 Howgego, op. cit., pp. 96-8. The hoard was published by B Marthaler, Two Studies in
the Greek Imperial Coinage o f Asia Minor, Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1968,
reprinted University Microfilms, pp. 21-32. See also the discussion of circulation in Chapter
8.

324
that the countermark was applied to all those coins that the authorities were
able to remove from circulation at the end of Gordian’s reign. Walker took
the discussion further when he pointed out that there was a reduction in the
weight of the bronze coinage in Gordian’s Year 7 and that it is likely that
these countermarks were intended to revalue the old coins in line with the new
reduced standard, presumably at 1.5 of the new coins.42 That this suggestion
is almost certainly correct is shown by the fact that the one coin of Year 7 that
was struck on the old standard was countermarked while none of the reduced
weight coins of that year were.
The countermark on the silver coins does not in itself allow us to make
many deductions, but the comparison with the contemporary bronze counter-
mark is suggestive and it is tempting to propose that the countermark IhaTwas
applied to the tridrachms with the intention of revaluing them at a time when
the weight and purity of the silver coinage was declining rapidly. This theory
is discussed above (p. 320).

9. Metrology: weights

A. Silver
Table 10 summarizes the main facts about the weights of each
denomination from each year and the range of individual coin weights within
each group is illustrated by a series of histograms (Figures 1- 13) . In the case
of the silver coins Figure 1 covers the tridrachms of Year 3 and Figure 2 those
of the following year while Figure 3 compares the two issues. Figure 4
compares the weights of the didrachms of Year 4 and 5: since there are so few
of these coins it did not seem useful to create separate histograms for the each
year’s output. Lastly, Figures 5 - 7 deal with the drachms of Years 4 and 5 in
the same way as the tridrachms.
The first feature that emerges from the histograms is that there seems
to have been no reduction in the weight standards of the silver coinage under

42 D R Walker, review of Howgego in NC 1986, pp. 265-7.

Gordian. Thus, the mean weights of the tridrachms of Years 3 and 4 are
almost identical at 8.54g and 8.56g respectively. The sample of didrachms is
too small to allow any conclusions to be drawn: the two specimens of Year 4
have a mean of 5.33g, while for the five coins of Year 5 this figure is 4.94g.

Table 10: Weights of coins of Caesarea

A. Silver

Tridrachms
Year Qty- Range o f weights Median Mean
Year 3 24 7.10 - 11.17 8.57 8.54
Year 4 41 6.72 - 10.18 8.50 8.56
Overall 65 6.72 - 11.17 8.50 8.55

Didrachms
Year 4 2 4.89 - 5.77 5.33 5.33
Year 5 5 4.02 - 6.20 4.79 4.94
Overall 7 4.02 - 6.20 4.89 5.05

Drachms
Year 4 26 2.34 - 4.13 3.02 3.03
Year 5 7 2.08 - 3.75 3.24 3.11
Overall 33 2.08 - 4.13 3.06 3.05

B. Bronze

AE 2
Year Reverse Qty- Range o f weights Median Mean
(a) Year 3 Argaeus 2 9.51 - 11.29 10.40 10.40
(b) Year 4 Tyche 8 8.96 - 14.19 10.54 10.81
(c) Year 4 Argaeus 60 7.65 - 13.73 10.13 10.28
(a) - (c) Overall 70 7.65 - 14.19 10.42 10.36

(d) Year 4 Inscription 31 7.62 - 12.44 9.24 9.48

(e) Year 6 Argaeus 29 7.58 - 12.29 9.78 9.62
(f) Year 7 Argaeus 1 10.55 10.55 10.55
(d) - (f) Overall 61 7.58 - 12.44 9.43 9.57

Reduced AE 2
Year 7 Corn ears 58 4.84 - 7.90 6.48 6.54

AE 3
Year 4 Inscr. & corn ears 4 5.11 - 6.63 5.98 5.92
Year 6 Tyche 2 4.44 - 5.59 5.02 5.02
Overall 6 4.44 - 6.63 5.58 5.62

AE 4
Year 4 Shrine & Argaeus 3 3.15 - 3.52 3.15 3.27

326
In the case of the drachms there is actually a slight rise in weight between
Years 4 and 5, although once again the sample for Year 5 is too small: the 26
coins of Year 4 have a mean weight of 3.03g and the seven of Year 5, 3.11g.
Secondly, the histograms show the wide range of weights that occur for
each denomination, even leading to some overlap between the lightest
didrachm (4.02g) and the heaviest drachm (4.13g). In this case it is only
the marks of value that these coins have that enable us to distinguish between
them (see above under reverse types). Clearly the mint did not attempt to
strike each coin at a consistent weight (al pezzo), but instead was content to
follow the al marco principle whereby a given number of coins was struck from
a given quantity of metal and a wide variation in the weights of individual
coins was permissable. In this respect practice at Caesarea was closer to that
of Antioch than to Rome, which still maintained rather closer control over the
weights of individual coins than either of the two eastern mints.

B. Bronze
Analysis of the weights of the bronze coins is rather more revealing
than that of the silver. There is evidence for two or perhaps three successive
reductions in the weight of the main AE 2 denomination in the course of
Gordian’s reign, the first two occurring in Year 4, and a final, more drastic
reduction, taking place in Year 7. As has been shown above, the AE 2 coinage
of Year 4 consists of the following main reverse types: (A) bust of Tyche; (B-
D) view of Mount Argaeus on an altar which can be plain or inscribed
eNT[IX] or eT A; and (E-F) an inscriptional type which contains either a bust
of Tyche or a view of Mount Argaeus.
The Tyche type is known from only eight specimens which have a mean
weight of 10.81g, while 60 coins of the Argaeus type have a mean of 10.28g,
and 31 specimens of the inscriptional types have a mean of 9.48g. The last two
types are represented by reasonably large samples and the difference in weight
between them is, at 0.8g, great enough to show that the coins with the
inscriptional reverses must have been struck to a lighter weight standard than
those with Argaeus. However, it is much less clear whether the coins with the

327
Tyche type were intended to be heavier than those with Argaeus. The
difference between them is only 0.5g and so few of the Tyche coins are known
that this apparent discrepancy could be no more than a sampling error. This
is further suggested by the fact that the weights of the eight Tyche coins are
very widely scattered, as can be seen from Figure 8, where they are compared
with the Argaeus coins. Furthermore, since both the bronze coins known from
Year 3 have Mount Argaeus on the reverse, it seems unlikely that the Tyche
coins can be the earliest of Year 4, and so I am inclined to believe that the
two reverse types were struck to the same weight standard, whereas the coins
with the inscriptional reverses must have been definitely lighter (see Figure
l l ).43
The 29 coins of Year 6 of the AE 2 denomination, which all have
Mount Argaeus on the reverse, have a mean weight of 9.62g and were
probably struck to the same standard as the inscriptional coins of Year 4,
although they are slightly heavier. Lastly there is one coin known from Year
7 with the Argaeus type and this is still clearly on the unreduced standard, for
it weighs 10.55g. However, the great majority of the coins of year 7 have the
corn-ears reverse type and are more than a third lighter than the AE 2 coins
of Year 6 since their mean weight is only 6.54g. These coins are unlikely to be
some fraction of the old AE 2 coins, as their weight comes half way between
the mean of the AE 2s of Year 6 (9.68g) and the mean of the AE 3s (5.62g).
This, together with the fact that they do not have the countermarks which had
occurred on most of the AE 2s (see above), suggests very strongly that they
must represent a reduction in the weight standard at the beginning of Year 7.
Lastly, there are the two smaller bronze denominations, called here AE
3 and AE 4. These only survive in small quantities: there are six of the former
and three of the latter. AE 3s are known from Years 4 and 6, while all AE 4s
come from Year 4. They seem to be respectively halves and quarters of the
AE 2s, although they are a little heavy: the mean weight of the AE 3s is 5.58g

43 There are too few coins surviving from Year 3 to enable any definite conclusions to be
drawn about their weight standard; they weigh 11.29g and 9.5lg, with a mean of 10.4g, which
lies between the figures for the Tyche and Argaeus coins of Year 4.

328
and that of the AE 4s 3.15g. However, in both cases the sample is so small,
and the weights of the few coins that are known vary so much (in the case of
the AE 3s, between 4.44 and 6.63g), that it is only to be expected that their
average weight is not exactly what it should be.
The distribution of coin weights for each type are shown on a series of
histograms, Figures 8 - 13. Figure 8 comprises the AE 2s of Year 3 and those
of Year 4 with the Tyche and Argaeus reverses; Figure 9, the coins of the
same year with the inscriptional types; Figure 10, the AE 2s of Year 6, while
Figure 11 compares all five issues.44 The reduction in weight between the
Argaeus and inscriptional types of Year 4 emerges very clearly from Figure 11.
Figure 12 includes the few coins of the AE 3 denomination from Years 4 and
6 and finally Figure 13 shows the reduced AE 2 coins of Year 7.45

10. Die-axis

At Antioch, as we have seen, and also at Rome, the die-axis is

randomly either vertical (12 o’clock) or inverted (6 o’clock). However,
Caesarea’s coinage forms an exception to this rule in that it shows a marked
preference for the vertical axis. Among the silver issues, this preference is
most pronounced on the tridrachms and didrachms, slightly less so on the
drachms. However, four of the seven drachms with an inverted die-axis are
coins of Tranquillina that share the same obverse die (59/1-4), so the drachms
too may be seen to follow the same pattern. The bronze coins also show a
strong preference for the 12 o’clock axis: from Years 3 and 4 there are 84
coins with a vertical axis and 13 an inverted one, and from Year 7 the figures
are respectively 41 and 4 but for Year 6 the bias in favour of the vertical axis
is much less pronounced, the figures being 16 with a 12 o’clock axis and 9 with
6 o’clock. Of course there is no discernable reason why the coins of Year 6

44 I have used a line chart for Figure 11, since it gives a much clearer picture than a
stacked bar chart such as I have used for all the other figures.
45 Figures 1 - 12 divides the coin weights into intervals of 0.5g, but for Figure 13 this
interval was reduced to 0.25g as the spread of weights is much narrower for this issue.

329
should differ from the others, just as we cannot tell why the mint should
generally have preferred to align its dies vertically, but the fact that it did
helps to distinguish its working practices from those of Rome and Antioch.

Table 11: Die-axes

Issue 12 o ’c % 6 o ’c % Total
A. Silver

Year 3
Tridrachm 22 91.7 2 8.3 24

Year 4
Tridrachm 32 91.4 3 8.6 35
Didrachm 2 100 - - 2
Drachm, Gordian 11 78.6 3 21.4 14
Drachm, Tranquillina 1 20 4 80 5

Year 5
Didrachm 4 100 - - 4
Drachm, Gordian 4 100 - - 4
Drachm, Tranquillina 1 100 1

B. Bronze

Year 3
AE 2 A Argaeus; uninscribed 1 100 - - 1

Year 4
AE 2 A Tyche head 7 87.5 1 12.5 8
B Argaeus; uninscribed 16 72.7 6 27.3 22
C Argaeus; eNT 28 90.3 3 9.7 31
D Argaeus; eT A - 2 100 2
E Inscription; Tyche 12 100 - - 12
F Inscription; Argaeus 14 93.3 1 6.7 15
AE 2, overall 77 85.6 13 14.4 90
AE 3 4 100 - - 4
AE 4 2 100 - - 2

Year 6
AE 2 A Argaeus; uninscribed 12 57.1 9 42.9 21
B Argaeus, eNT 3 100 - - 3
AE 3 1 100 - - 1

Year 7
Reduced AE 2 41 91.1 4 8.9 45

330
11. Denominations
A. Silver
(i) Denominations
As we have seen above, analysis of the weights of these coins shows
that there were three denominations under Gordian: a coin that averaged
8.55g, another of 5.05g and a third of 3.05g. There can be no doubt that these
coins were respectively tridrachms, didrachms and drachms, although there has
in the past been some confusion as to their identity. This is evident in
Sydenham’s catalogue of Caesarea, where nos. 600, 601 and 602, which are
actually tridrachms, are described as didrachms.46 Malloy makes similar
confusions in his supplement to this work.47 Walker correctly identified
Gordian’s tridrachms and drachms, but does not seem to be aware of the fact
that he also struck didrachms.48 The most likely reason for Sydenham’s
mistake is that he took no account of the decline in the weight of the silver
coinage at Caesarea between its origins in the reign of Augustus and the third
century, nor did he have enough material to enable him to appreciate the fact
that the coins clearly fall into three groups. Walker did not mention the
didrachms simply because they were so rare.
(ii) Fineness
This is discussed in Chapter 7. The only analyses of Caesarean coins
are twelve carried out by Walker and it seems very likely that many of the
silver percentages that he reported are distorted too high because of surface
enrichment.49 Until further analyses can be made, I have suggested that five
of his analyses may be retained and on the basis of these the average fineness
of the tridrachms may, very provisionally, be put at 34.5%, while the drachms
appear to have been rather finer at 39.75%. These figures give an average

46 Sydenham 600 = no. 18 in the catalogue below; Sydenham 601 = 40 and Sydenham 602
= 24.
47 A G Malloy, Supplement in E A Sydenham, The Coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia,
2nd edition, New York, 1978.
48 D R Walker, The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage 3, pp. 77-80.
49 Walker, loc. cit. n. 48.

331
weight of silver of 2.94g for the tridrachms and 1.21g for the drachms. Since
all the analyses are of coins of Year 4 there is no evidence for any decline in
the silver standard between Years 3 and 5.
(iii) Comparison with the silver coinages of Rome and Antioch
In Chapter 7 the silver coinage of Caesarea is compared with that of
Antioch and Rome. It is concluded that the Caesarean drachm was worth the
same as the Antiochene drachm and that therefore a tridrachm from Caesarea
was valued at three quarters of a tetradrachm from Antioch, and so on. On
this basis a didrachm would have been the equivalent of a radiate, while a
tridrachm would have been worth one and a half and Jdrachm half a radiate.
It also needs to be pointed out that on this reckoning the Caesarean drachm
would have been worth rather less than a denarius, if, as I have argued in
Chapter 7, it is accepted that in Gordian’s reign at least the radiate was worth
one and a half denarii and not two denarii, as is often assumed. This gives the
following rather awkward equivalences: a drachm would have been tariffed at
three quarters of a denarius, a didrachm at one and half and a tridrachm at
two and a quarter.

B. Bronze
The bronze coinage of Gordian’s reign presents a rather more complex
pattern. However, study of the denominations is simplified by the fact that, in
the absence of any analyses of the metal content, the only available criterion
is weight. This has already been discussed above; what conclusions can we
draw from it about the denominations of the bronze coins?
The chief denomination, which accounts for all but nine of the bronze
coins that are known today, is the one I have termed AE 2. This was struck
in Years 3, 4, 6 and 7 and underwent successive reductions in weight. The
coins of Year 3 and those of Year 4 with the Tyche and Argaeus types have
an overall average of 10.36g;50 those of Year 4 with the inscriptional reverse

50 It is possible that these two types were struck at different weight standards, since the
eight Tyche coins that are known are, on average, 0.5g heavier than the 60 specimens with
the Argaeus reverse. However, I have argued above, under Weights, that this difference

332
and of Year 6 have an average of 9.57g, while finally the coins of Year 7
decline sharply to 6.54g (see Table 10 and Figures 8 -13). Fractional coins are
known from Year 4 and 6; from Year 4 there are four coins averaging 5.92g
and from Year 6 two averaging 5.02g: these should doubtless be regarded as
halves of the AE 2 denomination and are called AE 3s, while there are also
three even smaller coins from Year 4 which average 3.27g and these were no
doubt quarters of the AE 2s.
How can the aes coinage of Caesarea be related to other bronze of the
period? The obvious comparison is with the coinage of Rome and the AE 2
denomination, at least in Year 3 and at the start of Year 4, when its average
was 10.34g, is very close in weight to the Roman as, which had an average
weight of 10.25g.51 There are, in addition, several other provincial mints
throughout the eastern part of the empire that added the name assarion to
coins that they struck: examples are Sparta, Aegium, Syros and Chios.52
Howgego also gives a list of 15 cities in southern Asia Minor which added the
letter A (for assarion) to their coins; at most mints this letter only appears on
coins in the reign of Valerian, but on one (Soli-Pompeiopolis in Cilicia) it
occurs on coins of Gordian.53 It is possible, therefore, that the AE 2
denomination may be regarded as an as, in which case its fractions would have
been respectively semisses and quadrantes, although no semisses had been
struck at Rome since the reign of Hadrian and no quadrantes since that of
Antoninus Pius. On the other hand, the fact that the silver coinage of
Caesarea fits in better with the standard of Syrian tetradrachms than Roman
coinage, makes it less likely that the bronze was produced on the Roman

probably represents no more than a sampling error, and that the Tyche and Argaeus coins
were actually issued at the same standard.
51 Based on 25 specimens in Glasgow: A S Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the
Hunter Coin Cabinet III, pp. xix and xxv.
52 C J Howgego, Greek Imperial Countermarks, pp. 54-60 at p. 58.
53 Soli-Pompeiopolis: SNG von Aulock 5892-6. For the list of cities, Howgego, op. cit. p.
59n. See also J P Callu, La Politique Monetaire, pp. 94ff. B L Marthaler, Two Studies in the
Greek Imperial Coinage of Asia Minor, p. 122, also assumes that the denominations of the
Caesarean bronze coinage did correspond to the Roman ones.

333
standard. Therefore, although it is possible that the AE 2 coins of Caesarea
were intended as asses, it is impossible to be certain.
It has further been argued by Marthaler that since the Argaeus coins
of Year 4 are, on average, some 0.8g heavier than those with the inscriptional
types, this difference indicated that the two issues are actually different
denominations, and that, following the Roman pattern, the coins with Argaeus
on the reverse should be regarded as dupondii, and those with an inscription
as asses.54 Examination of the weights of the asses and dupondii produced
at Rome at this time suggests that the dupondii were on average slightly
heavier than the asses; the old distinction that the dupondii were made of
brass and the asses of copper no longer holds. This suggestion does, therefore,
have its attractions, but the arguments against it are too powerful. First, no
attempt is made to differentiate between the obverse busts of the two
denominations, as happened at Rome. Secondly, there are as many as six
obverse dies which are common to both reverse types, and it is unprecedented
for different denominations to have been struck , from the same obverse
dies.55 It would certainly have been very confusing to people at the time.
Thirdly, the coins of Year 6, which have the Argaeus reverse, have almost
exactly the same average weight as the inscriptional coins of Year 4. Lastly,
as we have seen, there is no definite evidence to link the bronze
denominations of Caesarea with those of Rome. We are left, therefore, to
conclude that the two types were both intended to be the same denomination
and that there was a reduction in weight between their issue.
We have already seen that there are several reasons for believing that
the coins of Year 7 with the ears of corn reverse were actually AE 2s struck
on a reduced weight standard, rather than a new denomination valued at
about two-thirds of the old AE 2s. First, the relationship between the two
issues is, at two-thirds to one, an odd one. Secondly, the new coins have as
their reverse design is six ears of corn, which seems to be intended to show

54 Op. cit. n. 53, p. 122.

55 See above under Internal Chronology.

334
that they were worth twice as much as the AE 3s of Year 4 which have on
their reverse just three ears of corn. Thirdly, the fact that most of the AE 2s
of Years 4 and 6 and the one heavyweight AE 2 of Year 7 are countermarked,
while none of the lightweight coins of Year 7 are, suggests that the
countermarks were applied to the older coins at the time of the weight
reduction in Year 7 in order to revalue them in line with the devaluation. In
short, the case in favour of a weight reduction of some 33% in Year 7 seems
incontrovertible.

12. The connection with Antioch

It was stated at the start of this chapter that the dies of most of the
silver coins of Years 3, 4 and 5 and of the bronze coins of Years 3 and 4 were
made by the same engravers as those who produced the dies for the radiates
and tetradrachms of Gordian at Antioch. Although this has not been noticed
before, it is not in itself very surprising since, as we have seen, Caesarea had
not produced any silver coins for 22 years and no bronze for 10 years, whereas
Antioch was a large mint which had been active since the beginning of
Gordian’s reign. So when the decision was made to start striking coins at
Caesarea again it would be natural to transfer workmen from the nearest
imperial mint, Antioch.
How can we justify this statement that the dies for Caesarean coins
were made by engravers from Antioch? There are no similarities at all in the
reverse types at the two mints, since both stuck to their own repertoire of
designs. In addition, none of the Caesarean coins have the obverse legend
AYTOK K M ANT TOPALANOC CeB that invariably occurs on Gordian’s
tetradrachms from Antioch, and although some of the same obverse busts
were used at both mints, many were not. Nor did Antioch mint any coins in
the name of Tranquillina. In fact the one feature that links the two coinages
is the unmistakeable similarity in style between many of the obverse portraits.
This is almost impossible to describe and is best shown by illustrations and on

335
plate 50 I illustrate eight groups of coins from Caesarea and Antioch
respectively which seem to me to be the work of the same engravers.
However, some of the tridrachms of Year 3 have obverses in a rather
cruder style that does not seem to be parallelled at Antioch: I would note nos.
2/1 and 2/3 (from the same obverse die), 2/4, 2/6, 15/1 and 18/1 as coins that
seem to be local in style. Other tridrachms of Year 3, on the other hand, have
obverses that are distinctly Antiochene: examples are nos. 6/1, 7/1, 7/2, 8/1,
9/1,10/1 and 14/1-3. All coins, silver and bronze, of Years 4 and 5 seem to me
to be from the hands of Antiochene engravers. As we have seen the mint
stopped striking coins early in Year 5 and did not re-open again until the
following year when it only produced bronze coins. Although one old obverse
die left over from Years 3 and 4 was reused in Year 6, all the other dies for
the coinage were engraved in a much cruder style and were undoubtedly the
handiwork of new, less skilled engravers. These ‘local’ artists were also
responsible for the rather more extensive bronze coinage of Year 7, although
both this and the coinage of the previous year were very small-scale in
comparison with the silver issues of Years 3 and 4.
The consequences of the observation that Antiochene engravers were
working at Caesarea in Gordian’s reign for the production of the two mints at
this time will be examined in Chapter 9.

336
 Figure 1
Ueights of tndrachms of Year 3
Quantity

lYear 3
6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11

Ueight (grams)
Figure 2
Ueights of tridrachms of Year 4
Quantity
10

0 nnnDEYear 4
6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11

Ueight (grams)
Figure 3
Ueights of tndrachms of Years 3 and 4
together
, _ Quantity
16 r---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 j----------------------------------_ n -----------------------
12 =-------------------- i f M miniTriT -----------------------
10 F

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11

Ueight (grams)

337
 Figure 4
Weights of didrachms of Years 4 and 5
compared
Q uantity
10

8
6

2 QnmiDYear 5

0
4.5 5.5

Weight (grams)
Figure 5
Weights of drachms o f Year 4
Q uantity

I lYear 4

Weight (grams)
Figure 6
Weights of drachms of Year 5
Q uantity
10

0
2.5 3.5

Weight (grams)

338
 Figure 7
Ueights erf drachms o-f Years 4 and 5
compared
Q uantity
16 r-------------
14 j-------------

(MID Year 5

2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Ueight (grams)
Figure 8
Ueights of RE 2 coins of Years 3 and 4
u ith the Tyche and Rrgaeus reverses
compared
Q uantity
12
10
LLiill Year 4
8 Rrgaeus
6 DDMYear 4
4 Tyche
2 ■ Year 3
0 m m tan Rrgaeus
7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5

Ueight (grams)
Figure 9
Ueights of RE 2 coins of Year 4 (2)
In s c rip tio n a l reverses
Q uantity

Inscr.
7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5

Ueight (grams)

339
 Figure 10
Ueights of RE 2 coins of Year 6
„ ^ uuan 11 ;y

QfflMlYear 6
7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5

Ueight (grams)
Figure 11
Ueights of RE 2 coins of Years 3, 4 & 6
compared
Q uantity

UUHUUYr 6
Yr 4 Ins
LUOYr 4 Rrg
UilililUYr 4 Tyc
i n h fpTfTtliipiitltrfr E fcy . Yr 3
7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5

Ueight (grams)
Figure 12
Ueights of RE 3 coins of Years 4 and 6
compared
Q uantity

M m Year 6

Ueight (grams)

340
 Figure 13
Ueights of Reduced RE 2 coins of Year 7
( in 0.25 gram in te rv a ls )
Quantity

87446883^983

4.75 5.25 5.75 6.25 6.75 7.25 7.75

Ueights (grams)

341
 SUMMARY OF DIE-LINKS: SILVER

A. OBVERSES 127/1-2;
Summary: lxl; 2x2.
YEAR 3
Drachms, Tranquillina
Tridrachms: Gordian 128/1 = 129/1.
2/1 = 2/3; Summary: 1x2.
11/1 = 12/ 1;
14/1-3.
Summary: 19x1; 2x2; 1x3. B. REVERSES

YEAR 3
YEAR 4
Tridrachms: Gordian
Tridrachms: Gordian No die-links.
21/4 = 21/6; Summary: 26x1.
23/1-2;
26/1-2 (die-identical);
40/3 = 40/8. YEAR 4
Summary: 33x1; 4x2.
Tridrachms: Gordian
Didrachms: Gordian 26/1-2 (die-identical);
No die-links. 40/4 = 40/8.
Summary: 3x1. Summary: 39x1; 2x2.

Drachms: Gordian Didrachms: Gordian

44/1 = 58/1-2; No die-links.
46/3 = 47/1; Summary: 3x1.
52/1 = 54/1;
57/1-3. Drachms: Gordian and Tranquillina
Summary: 10x1; 2x2; 2x3. 44/1 = 45/1;
59/1, 4 & 5 (die-identical).
Drachms: Tranquillina Summary: 22x1; 1x2; 1x3.
59/1-6 = 60/1.
(59/1, 4 & 5 are die-identical).
Summary: lxl; 1x7. YEAR 5

Didrachms: Gordian
YEAR 5 121/2 = 122/ 1.
Summary: 4x1; 1x2.
Didrachms: Gordian
121 / 1- 2 . Drachms: Gordian and Tranquillina
Summary: 4x1; 1x2. 126/1-2 (die-identical).
Summary: 5x1; 1x2.
Drachms: Gordian
126/1-2 (die-identical);

342
 SUMMARY OF DIES: BRONZE

A. O B V E R S E S

YEARS 3 & 4

(Coins are from Year 4 unless otherwise stated)

AE 2, Gordian

Die Bust Qty. Catalogue numbers

I Al 2 66/1; 67/1
Summary, A l: 1x2

II1 A l*4(10)2 19/1 (Year 3); 19A/1 (Year 3); 78/1-2

(Year 4); 132/1-3 (Year 6); 140/1-2 (Year 6);
141/1 (Year 6)
III A l* 4 79/1-4
IV A l* 2 62/1; 79/5
V A l* 1 68/1
VI A l* 1 79/6
Summary, A l* : 2x1; 1x2; 1x4; 1x4 (10)

VII A3* 1 69/1

Summary, A3*: lx l

VIII D l* 4 63/1; 70/1; 71/2; 71/3

IX D l* 4 93/2; 94/1-3
X D l* 3 63/2; 64/3; 104/1
XI D l* 3 64/1-2; 71/1
XII D l* 2 71/4; 102/1
XIII D l* 2 70/2; 80/1
XIV D l* 2 102/3; 105/1
XV D l* 2 100/1; 101/1
XVI D l* 1 70/3
XVII D l* 1 93/1
XVIII D l* 1 103/1
XIX D l* 1 102/2
Summary, D l*: 4x1; 4x2; 2x3; 2x4

XX D2 1 81/1
Summary, D2: lx l

1 T his d ie = Y ear 6, obv. d ie II.

2 10 coins in all are know n from this ob verse die, but 6 o f them are from Y ear 6 and th e d ie is listed
there as w ell.

343 '
 Die Bust Qty- Catalogue numbers
XXI D2* 9 76/1-3; 84/1; 85/1; 107/1; 108/1; 109/1; 110/1
XXII D2* 5 83/2; 86/1-3; 87/1
XXIII D2* 3 65/1-2; 73/1
XXIV D2* 3 72/1-3
XXV D2* 2 83/1; 97/1
XXVI D2* 2 96/1; 108/2
XXVII D2* 2 92/1; 95/1
XXVIII D2* 2 84/2; 106/1
XXIX D2* 2 86/7; 87/3
XXX D2* 2 86/4-5
XXXI D2* 1 87/2
XXXII D2* 1 86/6
XXXIII D2* 1 96/2
XXXIV D2* 1 76/4
XXXV D2* 1 84/3
XXXVI D2* 1 88/1
XXXVII D2* 1 75/1
XXXVIII D2* 1 112/1
Summary, D2*: 8x1; 6x2; 2x3; 1x5; 1x9

AE 2, Tranquillina
TI E2* 9 89/1; 90/1; 91/1-2; 98/1-3; 99/1; 113/1
Summary; E2*: 1x9

AE 3, Gordian
I A3 1 114/1
II A l* 1 115/1
III D2* 2 116/1; 117/1
Summary: 2x1; 1x2

AE 4, Gordian
I D2* 1 118/1
II Al 2 119/1-2
Summary: lxl; 1x2

YEAR 6

AE 2, Gordian
I A l* 5 131/1-5
II3 A l* 6(10)4 19/1 (Year 3); 19A/1 (Year 3); 78/1-2
(Year 4); 132/1-3; 140/1-2; 141/1

3 This die = Years 3-4 obv. die II.

4 10 coins in all are known from this obverse die, but 4 of them are from Years 3 and 4 and the die
is listed there as well.

344
Die Bust Qty. Catalogue numbers
? A l* 1 133/1
Summary, A l *: 1x5; 1x6(10)

III D2* 4 134/1-3; 135/1

Summary, D2*: 1x4

AE 2, Tranquillina
TI E l* 1 136/1
T il E2* 4 137/1-3; 138/1
T ill E2* 9 139/1-9
Summary: lxl; 1x4; 1x9

AE 3, Gordian
AE 3,1 A l* 2 142/1-2
Summary: 1x2

YEAR 7

Unreduced AE 2, Tranquillina
AE 2,TI E2* 1 143/1
Summary: lx l

Reduced AE 2, Gordian
I A l* 2 144/1; 145/1
II A l* 4 146/1-3; 148/1
III A l* 1 147/1
Summary, A l *: lxl; 1x2; 1x4

IV D l* 5 149/1; 150/1; 151/1-2; 152/1

V D l* 4 151/3-6
Summary, D l *: 1x4; 1x5

VI D2* 9 153/1; 154/1-8

VII D2* 7 155/1; 156/11-14; 157/1-2
VIII D2* 8 156/1-8
IX D2* 2 156/9-10
X D2* 1 156/15
Summary, D2 lxl; 1x2; 1x7; 1x8; 1x9

Reduced AE 2, Tranquillina
TI E l* 3 158/1-3
TII E2* 5 159/1-4; 161/1
t iii E2* 10 160/1-10
Summary: 1x3; 1x5; 1x10

345
B. REVERSES

YEAR 3

AE 2

A. Mount Argaeus on uninscribed altar (no. 19)

Die Reverse legend Qty.Catalogue numbers
Al MHTPOn KAIC B N 1 19/1

B. Mount Argaeus on altar inscribed eNTI (no. 19A)

BI MHTPO KAIC[A] B N, eNTI 1 19A/1

YEAR 4

AE 2

A. Bust of Tyche (nos. 62-5)

Al MHTPO-KAIC B N 4 62/1; 64/1-3
A ll MHTPO K-AICA B N 4 63-1-2; 65/1-2
Summary: 2x4

B. Mount Argaeus on uninscribed altar (nos. 66-77)

BI MHTPO KAICA B N e 3 72/1-3
BII MHTPO KAICA B N e 1 75/1
b ii i MHTPO KAICA B N 1 67/1
BIV MHTPO KAICA B N 1 68/1
BV MHTPO KAICA B N 2 69/1; 70/3
BVI MHTPO KAICA B N 1 70/1
BVII MHTPO KAICA B N 1 70/2
BVIII MHTPO KAICA B N 1 73/1
BIX MHTPO KAIC B N 1 71/1
BX MHTPO KAIC B N 4 71/2; 76/1-3
BXI MHTPO KAIC B N 1 71/3
BXII MHTPO KAIC B N 1 71/4
BXIII MHTPO KAIC B N 1 76/4
BXIV MHTP KAIC B N 1 66/1
B? 4 72/4; 74/1; 76/5:
Summary: llx l; 1x2; 1x3; 1x4

C. Mount Argaeus on altar inscribed eNT[IX] (nos. 78-91)

Cl MHTPOHO KAICA B N, eNT 1 80/1
CII MHTPOn KAIC B N, eNT 1 83/1
cm MHTPOn KAIC B N, eNT 1 83/2
Cilia MHTPOH KAICA B N, eNT 1 78/2
CIV MHTPO KAICA B N, eNT 1 78/2
CV MHTPO KAIC B N, eNTIX 2 84/1-2

346
Die Reverse legend Qty. Catalogue numbers
CVI MHTPO KAIC B N, eNTIX 1 84/3
CVII MHTPO KAIC B N, eNTIX 1 84/4
CVIII MHTP KAIC B N, eNTIX 2 88/1; 89/1
CIX MHTPO KAIC B N, eNTX 1 85/1
cx MHTPO KAIC B N, eNTI 3 79/1; 79/4; 90/1
CXI MHTPO KAIC B N, eNTI 2 79/2-3
CXII MHTPO KAIC B N, eNTI 1 79/5
CXIII MHTPO KAIC B N, eNTI 1 79/6
CXIV MHTPO KAIC B N, eNTI 1 86/1
cxv MHTPO KAIC B N, eNTI 1 86/2
CXVI MHTPO KAIC B N, eNTI 1 86/3
CXVII MHTPO KAIC B N, eNTI 1 86/4
CXVIII MHTPO KAIC B N, eNTI 1 86/6
CXIX MHTPO KAIC B N, eNTI 1 86/7
cxx MHTPO KAIC B N, eNT 1 87/1
CXXI MHTPO KAIC B N, eNT 1 87/2; 91/2
CXXII MHTPO KAIC B N, eNT 1 87/3
CXXIII MHTPO KAIC B N, eNT 1 91/1
c? 4 79/7; 81/1; 82/1; 86/5
Summary: 19x1; 4x2; 1x3

D. Mount Argaeus on altar inscribed eT A (no. 92)

Dl MHTPO KAIC B N , e T A 1 92/1
D? 1 92/2
Summary: lx l

E. Inscription with bust of Tyche (nos. 93-99)

El MH-T/PO-KAI/C eNTIX/B N eT A 3 93/1-3
E li MH-TP/KA-IC eN/TIX B N/eT A 4 9 4 /1 - 3 ;
97/1
EIII MH-T/POH-KAI/CA eNTIX/B N eT A 4 9 5/1;
98/1-3
EIV M-H/TP-KAI/C eNTIX/B N eTO/A 2 96/1-2
EV MH-TP/On-KAI/CA eNTIX/B N eT A 1 99/1
E? MH-TP/KA-IC eN/TIX B N/eT A 1 94/4
Summary: lxl; 1x2; 1x3; 2x4

F. Inscription with view of Mount Argaeus (nos. 100-113)

FI M-HT/POHOAeW/C KAICAP/eNTIX B N/eT A 1 100/1
FII MH-TP/OHO KAICA/PIAC eNTI/XION BN e/eT A 3 101/1;
106/1;
113/1
Fill M-HATPOn KAI/CAPIAC/eNTIX BN/eT A 4 102/1-3;
107/1
FIV M-H/TPOD KAI/C API AC/e NTI BN/eT A 1 103/1
FV M-H/TPOH KAI/CAPI eNT/IXI BN e/eT A 2
FVI M-HATPO KAI/CA eNTI/XI BN eT/A 1 105/1
FVII M-H/TPOn KAI/CAPI eNTI/XI BN e/eT A 1 108/1
FVIII M-H/TPOH KAI/CAPI eNT/eT A 1 109/1

347
Die Reverse legend Qty.Catnumbets
FIX M-H/TPO KAIC/APIAC eN/TIXI BN/eT A 1 110/1
FX M-H/TPO KAI/CAPIAC/eNTI BN/eT A 1 112/1
F? M-H/TPO KAI/CAPI eNTI/XI B N e/ eT [A] 1 111/1
Summary: 7x1; 1x2; 1x3; 1x4

AE 3

A. Inscription (no. 114)

Al MHTP/OEOA/eWC KA/ICAP B N/eT A 1 114/1
Summary: lx l

B. Three ears of corn (no. 115-17)

BI MHTPO K A IB N 1 115/1
BII MHTPO KAIC B N 1 116/1
B ill MHTPO KAI B N 1 117/1
Summary: 3x1

AE 4

A. Shrine containing view of Mount Argaeus (no. 118)

Al MHTP KAI B N 1 118/1
Summary: lx l

B. Mount Argaeus (no. 119)

A ll MHTP K A B N 2 119/1-2
Summary: 1x2

YEAR 6

AE 2

A. Mount Argaeus on wreathed or uninscribed altar (nos. 131-9)

Al MHTPO KAIC B N 2 131/1-2
A ll MHTPO KAIC B N 1 131/3
AIII MHTPO KAIC B N 1 131/5
AIV MHTPO KAIC B N 1 132/1
AV MHTPO KAIC B N 1 132/2
AVI MHTPO KAIC B N 1 132/3
AVII MHTPO KAIC B N 1 138/1
AVIII MHTPO KAIC B N 134/1; 134/3
AIX MHTPO KAIC B N 1 134/2
AX MHTPO KAIC B N 1 136/1
AXI MHTPO KAIC B N 2 137/1; 137/3
AXII MHTPO KAIC B N 1 137/2
AXIII MHTPO KAIC B N 3 139/1; 139/6;
AXIV MHTPO KAIC B N 2 139/2-3

348
Die Reverse legend Qty. Catalogue numbers
AXV MHTPO KAIC BN 1 139/4
AXVI MHTPO KAIC BN 1 139/5
AXVII MHTPO KAIC BN 2 139/8-9
AXVIII MHTPO KAIC N 1 135/1
A? 2 131/4; 133/1
Summary: 12x1; 5x2; 1x3

B. Mount Argaeus on altar inscribed eNT[I] (nos. 140-1)

BI MHTPO KAICA B N, eNT 1 142/1-2
BII MHTPO KAIC[..] B N, eNTI 1 143/1
Summary: lxl; 1x2

AE 3

A. Bust of Tyche (no. 142)

Al MHTPO KAIC B N 2 142/1-2
Summary: 1x2

YEAR 7

Unreduced AE 2

A. Mount Argaeus on uninscribed altar (no. 143)

I MHTPO KAIC B N 1 143/1

Reduced AE 2

A. Six ears of corn (nos 144-61)

Al MHTPO KAIC B Ne 2 146/1; 146/3
A ll MHTPO KAIC B Ne 1 146/2
AIII MHTPO KAIC B N e 3 155/1; 159/3-4
AIV MHTPO KAIC B Ne 1 159/1
AV MHTPO KAIC B Ne 1 159/2
AVI MHTPO KAI B Ne 1 147/1
AVII MHTP KAIC B Ne 1 149/1; 153/1
AVIII MHTP KAI[C] B Ne 1 150/1
AIX MHTP KAI B Ne 1 144/1
AX MHTP KAI B Ne 151/1; 160/3
AXI MHTP KAI B Ne 1 151/2
AXII MHTP KAI B Ne 1 151/3
AXIII MHTP KAI B Ne 1 151/4
AXIV MHTP KAI B Ne 1 151/5
AXV MHTP KAI B N e 1 151/6
AXVI MHTP KAI B Ne 1 154/1
AXVII MHTP KAI B Ne 4 154/2; 154/5-6;
AXVIII MHTP KAI B Ne 1 154/3

349
Die Reverse legend Qly. Catalogue numbers
AXIX MHTP KAI B Ne 2 154/4; 154/8
AXX MHTP KAI B N e 1 154/7
AXXI MHTP KAI B N e 1 156/1
AXXII MHTP KAI B N e 1 156/2
AXXIII MHTP KAI B N e 1 156/3
AXXIV MHTP KAI B N e 156/4; 156/8
AXXV MHTP KAI B N e 1 156/5
AXXVII MHTP KAI B N e 1 156/7
AXXVI MHTP KAI B N e 1 156/6
AXXVIII MHTP KAI B N e 1 156/9
AXXIX MHTP KAI B N e 1 156/10
AXXX MHTP KAI B N e 156/11-12
AXXXI MHTP KAI B N e 1 156/13
AXXXII MHTP KAI B N e 1 156/14
AXXXIII MHTP KAI B N e 1 156/15
AXXXIV MHTP KAI B N e 1 158/1
AXXXV MHTP KAI B N e 1 158/2
AXXXVI MHTP KAI B N e 1 158/3
AXXXVII MHTP KAI B N e 160/2; 160/6
AXXXVIII MHTP KAI B N e 1 160/4
AXXXIX MHTP KAI B N e 1 160/5
AXL MHTP KAI B N e 1 160/7
AXLI MHTP KAI B N e 1 160/9
AXLIa MHTP KAI B N e 1 160/10
AXLII MHTP KAI B N 1 145/1
AXLIII MHTP KAI B N 1 148/1
AXLIV MHTP KAI B N 1 152/1
AXLV MHTP KAI B N 2 157/1-2
AXLVI MHTP KAI B N 1 161/1
A? MHTP KAI B N e ? 160/8
Summary: 37x1; 8x2; 1x3; 1x4
 Summary of obverse busts used at Caesarea

Gordian

Bust Occurrence Description

A1 AE, 4 Head, radiate, right.

Al* AR, 4, 5; AE, 3, 4, 6 , 7 Head, laureate, right.

A3* AE, 4 Head, laureate, right, with traces of

drapery to front and rear.

Bl* AR, 3, 4 Bust, laureate, cuirassed, seen from

front, right.

B2 AR, 3 Bust, radiate, cuirassed, seen from

behind, right.

B2* AR, 3 Bust, laureate, cuirassed, seen from

behind, right.

Dl* AR, 4;A E ,4, 7 Bust, laureate, draped and cuirassed,

seen from front, right.

D2 AR, 3; AE, 4 Bust, radiate, draped and cuirassed,

seen from behind, right.

D2* AR, 3, 4, 5; AE, 4, 6 , 7 Bust, laureate, draped and cuirassed,

seen from behind, right.

FI* AR, 3 Bust, laureate, cuirassed, seen from

front, holding spear over left
shoulder, right.

Gil* AR, 3 Bust, laureate, cuirassed, seen from

front, holding spear over right
shoulder and shield on left
shoulder, left.

J31* AR, 3 Bust, laureate, draped and cuirassed,

seen from from front, right; right
hand raised.

Tranquillina

El* AR, 4;A E, 6 , 7 Empress bare-headed; bust, draped,

seen from front, right.

E2* AR, 4, 5; AE, 4, 6 , 7 Empress diademed; bust, draped,

seen front front, right.

351
 CATALOGUE

Year 2 (12 December 238 -1 2 December 239)

BRONZE

AE 2: Gordian

A Obv.: [ ]M ANT TOPAIANOC CeB. Bust D l* or D2*.

Rev.: MH[ ]PIA NeHKO. View of Mount Argaeus set an altar
inscribed eT B.
Sydenham 605
This coin is cited by Sydenham from the de Moustier sale (Catalogue
des monnaies romaines composant le collection de feu M. le Marquis
de Moustier, H Hoffmann, Paris, 17/6/1872, no. 2909); Marthaler (p.
99, no. 212) also includes it. The reverse legend does not correspond
with any that is known for Gordian and it must be treated with great
caution. It is most likely to be a misdescribed coin of Year 4.

The reverse legend of no. 94/1 (obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC,

D l*; rev.: MH - TP/KA - IC eN/TIX BN/eT A, inscription in 4 lines
in wreath with bust of Tyche), now in P, was misread in Waddington
6796 and, following Waddington, in Sydenham 605a, as ending eT B.
This coin clearly reads eT A.

Year 3 (12 December 239 - 12 December 240)

SILVER

Tridrachms: Gordian

A. Mount Argaeus; eTOYC T

1. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC e, bust Bl*.

Rev.: MHTPOn KAICAPIAC. In exergue, eTOYC T. View of
Mount Argaeus; to left, B, to right, Ne.
Sydenham 600c corr. (reads obverse legend as TOPAIANOC C)
1* NY, 8 .6 8 g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.

2. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOn KAICAPIAC. In exergue, eTOYC T. View of
Mount Argaeus; to left, B, to right, Ne.

352
 1* B, Lobbecke, 9.03g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.
2* B, Lobbecke, 9.86g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.
3* O, D R Walker, 8.65g, 12. Countermark (uncertain) on reverse.
Analyzed MRSC III p.77, 5018: AR 56.50%.
4* P, 715, 7.48g, 12.
5* V, 37283, 8.84g, 12. Doublestruck.
6* Numismatic Fine Arts, California, Mail Bid Sale 12/10/1988, 1000, 7.98g.
Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.
Obverse die-link: 1 and 3.

3. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC..., bust FI*.

Rev.: MHTPOn KAICAPI[AC]. In exergue, eTOYC T. View of
Mount Argaeus; to left, B, to right, Ne.
1* B, Lobbecke, 9.44g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.

4. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC e, bust J31*.

Rev.: MHTPOn KAICAPIAC. In exergue, eTOY[C T]. View of
Mount Argaeus; to left, B, to right, Ne.
1* L, 1975-4-11-166 (Heller), 7.91g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on
reverse. Doublestruck.
Note: this coin may be attributed to year 3 on the grounds of its
obverse bust.

B. Mount Argaeus; eT T

5. Obv.: A Y K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust B2*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAPI. In exergue, eT T. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, star; to left, B, to right, N e.
1* B, Imhoof-Blumer, 7.74g, 12.

6. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC CeBAC, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAP[I]. In exergue, [e]T T. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, star.; to left, B, to right, N e.
Sydenham 600a
1* Cop, SNG 303, 7.57g, 12.

7. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC CeBA, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAPI. In exergue, eT T. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, star; to left, B, to right, N e.
Sydenham 600b
1* B, Lobbecke, 8.16g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.
2* NY, 9.12g, 12.

8. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC CeB, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAPI. In exergue, eT T. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left, B, to right, Ne.
1* P, 714, 8.48g, 12. Countermark (uncertain) on reverse.

353
9. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.
Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAP B N. In exergue, eT T. View of Mount
Argaeus.
1* P, 713, 9.49g, 12.

10. Obv.: [AY K] M ANTO TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAPIA B N e. In exergue, eT T. View of
Mount Argaeus.
1* Baranowsky, Rome, Fixed Price List 4 (1935), 6917, no weight.
Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.

11. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust Gil* (shield is decorated

with a scene showing a trophy between a captive seated facing right and
a figure standing left).
Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAPIAC. In exergue, eT T. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left, B, to right, Ne.
1* V, 38313, 7.10g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 12/1.

12. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust Gil* (shield is decorated

as no. 11 above).
Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAPI. In exergue, eT T. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left, B, to right, Ne.
Sydenham 600c bis (incorrectly described as a didrachm).
1* L, 1979-1-1-1153 (von Aulock, SNG 6523), 8.78g, 6 . Countermark (tyche
head) on reverse.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 11/1.

C. Two Towers and View of Mount Argaeus; eT T

13. Obv.: AY K M ANTO TOPAIANOC Ce, bust B2.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAPIAC. In exergue, eT T. Two towers with
small view of Mount Argaeus above. In between the towers,
in three lines, B Ne.
Sydenham 600d
1* NY, 8.50g, 12. Doublestruck.

14. Obv.: AY K M ANTO TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAPIAC. In exergue, eT T. Two towers with
small view of Mount Argaeus above. In between the towers,
in three lines, B N e.
Sydenham 599
1* B, Imhoof-Blumer, 11.17g, 12. (F Imhoof-Blumer, Zur griechische und
romische Manzkunde, Geneva 1908, p.231 and pi. 8 , 18.) Countermark
(tyche head) on reverse.
2* L, 1986-8-45-2 (Hay), 8.84g, 12. Doublestruck.
3* P, 1965/931 (Seyrig), 8.02g, 6 . Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.
Obverse die-link: 1, 2 and 3.

354
D. Agonistic Crown and Mount Argaeus; €T T

15. Obv.: AY K M ANTO TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAPI TOPAIA OIKOY. In exergue, eT T.
Agonistic crown with two palm branches coming out of the
top; to left of crown, B; to right, Ne; above, a small view of
Mount Argaeus.
1* B, Lobbecke, 7.60g, 12.

16. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust Gil* (shield is decorated

as no. 12 above).
Rev.: MHTPOH [KAICAPI TOP]AIAN [OI]K. In exergue, eT T.
Agonistic crown with two palm branches coming out of the
top; to left of crown, B, to right, Ne; above, a small view of
Mount Argaeus.
Sydenham 600d bis (incorrectly described as a didrachm).
1* NY, 7.29g, 12. Countermark (uncertain) on reverse.

17. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust Gil* (shield is decorated

as no. 11 above).
Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAPLA B Ne. In exergue, eT T. Agonistic
crown with two palm branches coming out of the top; above,
a small view of Mount Argaeus.
1* B, Lobbecke, 9.23g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.

E. Bust of Tyche; eTOYC T

18. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAIC - APIAC, bust of Tyche right; on her head
is a small view of Mount Argaeus; to left and right of head
above, B | NE, below, eT | OYC T.
Sydenham 600 (incorrectly described as a didrachm).
1* L, BMC 340, 1853-5-12-214, 6.77g, 12. This coin has been broken and
repaired and the weight should be ignored. Analyzed MRSC III p.77,
5019: AR 53.00%, PB 4.00%.

BRONZE

AE 2: Gordian

A. Mount Argaeus on uninscribed altar

19. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAIC B N. In exergue,eT T. View of Mount
Argaeus set on uninscribed altar.
Sydenham 605b
Dies No.
II/AI 1* NY, 11.29g, 12.

355
 Obverse die-link: 1 = 19A/1; 78/1-2 (Year 4); 132/1-3 (Year 6 ); 140/1-
2 (Year 6 ) and 141/1 (Year 6 ).
Notes: Marthaler (p. 100) and Malloy (in Sydenham, The Coinage of Caesarea, p.
161) believe that the date, r , has been recut from an A, i.e., Year 1.

B. Mount Argaeus on altar inscribed eNTI

19A. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC[A] B N. In exergue, eT T. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNTI.
Dies No.
II/BI 1* P, 736, 9.5lg, 12. Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 19/1; 78/1-2 (Year 4); 132/1-3 (Year 6 ); 140/1-2
(Year 6 ) and 141/1 (Year 6 ).

Year 4 (12 December 240 - 12 December 241)

SILVER

Tridrachms: Gordian

A. Mount Argaeus: eTOYC A

20. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust A l*

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAPIAC. In exergue, eTOYC A. View of
Mount Argaeus, to left, B, to right, Ne.
Sydenham 602c corr. (incorrectly described as a didrachm; reverse
legend given as KAICAPIA)
1* NY, 7.59g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.

21. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAPIAC. In exergue, eTOYC A. View of
Mount Argaeus; above, wreath; to left, B, to right, Ne.
Sydenham 602b, corr. (incorrectly describes an eagle with wreath in
beak on the reverse); 603a
1* G, Macdonald 93, 10.18g, 6 . Countermark (uncertain) on reverse.
2* L, 1979-1-1-1511 (von Aulock, SNG 6525), 9.07g, 12. Countermark
(tyche head) on reverse.
3* Mu, 241, 7.68g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.
4* NY, 9.15g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse. This coin has
been badly scraped and scratched on both sides.
5* NY, 8.20g, 6 . Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.
6* P, 718, 9.88g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse
1* Empire Coins, Florida, Auction 8 (7/12/1987), 247, no weight.
Countermark (uncertain) on reverse.
8* Lanz, Munich, Auction 32 (29/4/1985), 745, 9.22g. Countermark (tyche
head) on reverse.
Obverse die-link: 4 and 6.

356
22. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.
Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAPI[AC]. In exergue, eTOYC A. View of
Mount Argaeus; to left, B, to right, Ne.
1* Seen at Baldwin’s (D R Walker cast), 9.71g. Countermark (uncertain)
on reverse. Analyzed MRSC III p.77, 5023: AR 44.50%.

23. Obv.: [...] M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAPIAC. In exergue, eTOYC A. View of
Mount Argaeus; above, wreath; to left, B, to right, Ne.
1* NY, 7.67g, 12. Countermark (uncertain) on reverse.
2* NY, 10.03g, 12. Countermark (uncertain) on reverse.
Obverse die-link: 1 and 2.

24. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAPIAC. In exergue, eTOYC A. View of
Mount Argaeus; above, wreath; to left, B, to right, Ne.
Sydenham 602 (incorrectly described as a didrachm); Sydenham
602a.
1* B, Lobbecke, 9.16g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.
2* B, Lobbecke, 8.80g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.
3* Shown by M Hay, 1987, 8.44g, 12. Countermark (uncertain) on reverse.
[4 P Burbules collection, no weight. Countermark on obverse. Sydenham
602a.]

B. Mount Argaeus; eT A

25. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, wreath.
1* P, Seymour de Ricci, 8.50g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.

26. Obv.: AY K M ANTft TOPAIANOC Ce, bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus.
1* NY, 8.60g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.
2* Ceresio, Lugano, Auction 26/9/1987, 311, 8.71g.
Die-link: 1 and 2 are die-identical.

27. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D l*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICA B Ne. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus.
Sydenham 603b
1* Cop, SNG 304, 9.37g, 12. Countermark (uncertain) on reverse.

28. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, wreath.
1* O, D R Walker, 8.09g, 12. Countermark (uncertain) on reverse.
Analyzed MRSC III p.77, 5021: AR 38.00%.

357
29. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D l*.
Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, wreath.
1* Schulten, Cologne, Auction 11/4/1988, 963 = idem 19/4/1989, 605,
7.50g.

30. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, wreath.
1* NY, 8.65g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.
2* V, 20182, 9.35g, 6 .

30A. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC e, bust D l* or D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B Ne. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus.
Sydenham 603c, cited from the Burbules collection. This is probably
an inaccurate description of no. 30.

31. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, wreath.
Sydenham 601a corr. (incorrectly described a didrachm and reverse
legend as MHTPO KAICAP).
1* NY, 8.63g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.

32. Obv.: .... M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, wreath.
1* B, C R Fox, 6.72g, 12. Countermark (uncertain) on reverse.
2* NY, 9.17g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.

33. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC CeB, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOn KAICA B N e. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus.
1* B, Lobbecke, 9.37g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.

34. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC CeB, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICA B [N]. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus.
1* O, J G Milne, ex Nicolaides, Smyrna, 1911, 9.45g, 12. Countermark
(tyche head) on reverse. Analyzed MRSC III p.77, 5022: AR 35.50%,
PB (trace).

35. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOn KAICAP B N e. In exergue, eT A. View of
Mount Argaeus.
1* Shown by M Hay, 1987, 10.09g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on
reverse.

358
36. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.
Rev.: MHTPOn KAICA B[Ne]. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus.
1* P, 716, 8.07g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.

37. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, wreath.
1* B, Imhoof-Blumer, 9.48g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.

38. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, wreath.
1* Seaby Coin and Medal Bulletin September 1984, D82, no weight.
Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.

39. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, wreath.
1* B, Lobbecke, 8.49g, 12.
2* NY, 7.95g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse.
3* G Hirsch, Munich, Auction 157 (24/2/1988), 653, 8.17g. Countermark
(tyche head) on reverse.

40. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, wreath.
Sydenham 601 (incorrectly described as a didrachm).
1* B, Lobbecke, 8.47g, 12.
2* B, Lobbecke, 8.39g, 12. Countermark (uncertain)on reverse.
3* L, BMC 341, 7.44g, 12. Countermark (tyche head) on reverse. Analyzed
MRSC III p.77, 5020: AR 30.00%, PB 2.50%.
4* L, 1979-1-1-1152 (ex von Aulock, SNG 6524, ex Bank Leu, Zurich,
Auction 18, 5/5/1977, 372), 7.57g, 12.
5* P, 717, 6.79g, 12.
6* B Peus, Frankfurt, Auction 279, 14/3/1972, 264, 8.44g.Doublestruck.
7* Shown by M Hay, 1987, 6.75g, 12.
8* Shown by M Hay, 1987, 8.09g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 3 and 8 .
Reverse die-link: 4 and 8 .

Didrachms: Gordian

A. Mount Argaeus; eT A

41. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, to left, star; to right, crescent.
1* H Schulman, New York, Auction, 6/6/1969 (T O Mabbott), 2407, no
weight.

359
42. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.
Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N e. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, to left and right, two pellets.
1* B, von Rauch, 4.89g, 12.

43. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, to left, crescent; to right, pellet.
1* B, Lobbecke, 5.77g, 12.

Drachms: Gordian and Tranquillina

A. Mount Argaeus; eTOYC A: Gordian

44. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC, bust Bl*.

Rev.: MHTPOn KAICAPIAC. In exergue, eTOYC A. View of
Mount Argaeus; above, star; to left, B; to right, Ne.
1* O, D R Walker, 3.22g, 12. Analyzed MRSC III p.78, 5024: AR 39.00%.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 45/1.

45. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAPIAC. In exergue, eTOYC A. View of
Mount Argaeus; above, star; to left, B; to right, Ne.
1* O, D R Walker, 2.90g, 6 . Analyzed MRSC III p.78, 5025: AR 2.00%
(sic), PB 1.50%, SN c.50%.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 58/1 and 58/2.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 44/1.
Notes: this coin was analyzed by Walker and found to contain only
2% of silver (and about 50% of tin). It must presumably be an
ancient forgery, but one struck at the mint of Caesarea from official
dies, as its obverse and reverse die-links show.

B. Mount Argaeus; €T A: Gordian and Tranquillina

46. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC e,bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B Ne. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left, pellet.
1* B, Lobbecke, 2.63g, 12.
2* O, D R Walker, 3.61g, 12.
3* Schulten, Cologne, 12/4/1988, 964, 3.48g.
Obverse die-link: 3 = 47/1.

47. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC e, bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left, pellet.
1* NY, 2.54g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 46/3.

360
48. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC, bust A l*.
Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B Ne. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left, pellet.
Sydenham 603
1* L, 1925-1-5-83 (Massy), 2.99g, 12. Analyzed MRSC III p.78, 5027: AR
46.00%, PB 0.75%.

49. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC, bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left, pellet.
1* Br, 4.13g.

50. Obv.: A Y K A M ANT TOPAIAN...., bust A l*.

Rev.: [MHTPO] KAICA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, star; to right, pellet.
1* B, Lobbecke, 2.45g, 12.

51. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC CeB, bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, star.
1* Sternberg, Zurich, Auction 10 (25/11/1980), 515, 2.64g.

52. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC, bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B Ne. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left, pellet.
1* Munz Zentrum, Cologne, Auction 48 (27/4/1983), 156, 2.36g.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 54/1.

53. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC, bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left, pellet.
1* O, J G Milne ex Nicolaides, Smyrna, 1924, 2.82g, 12. Analyzed MRSC
III p.78, 5028: AR 40.50%.

54. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC, bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left, pellet.
1* B, C R Fox, 3.72g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 52/1.

55. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC CeB, bust D l*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICAPIAC. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; above, star; to left, B; to right, NE.
1* G Hirsch, Munich, Auction163, 27/9/1989,1154, 3.06g.

56. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOH KAICA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus.
Sydenham 603e
1* Cop, SNG 305, 3.40g, 6 .

361
57. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC, bust D2*.
Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left, pellet.
Sydenham 603d
1* Mu, 242, 3.09g, 12.
2* NY, 3.06g, 12.
3* O, D R Walker, 2.67g, 12. Analyzed MRSC III p.78, 5026: AR 58.50%.
Obverse die-link: 1, 2 and 3.

58. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus.
1* C, Maclean 9232, 2.85g, 6 .
2* Empire Coins, Florida, Auction 8 (7/12/1987), 248, no weight.
Obverse die-link: 1 and 2 = 45/1.

59. Obv.: CABINIA TPANKYAAINA AY, bust E2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B Ne. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus.
Sydenham 617aa corr.
1* B, Lobbecke, 3.55g, 6 .
2* O, D R Walker, 2.56g, 6 .
3* P, 1974.377, 3.23g, 6 .
4* Bank Leu, Zurich, Auction 18 (5/5/1977), 373 = Sternberg, Zurich,
Auction 18 (20/11/1986), 580, 3.12g, 6 .
5* Bankhaus H Aufhauser, Munich, Auction 7/10/1987, 418, 3.44g.
6 P Burbules collection: E A Sydenham, The Coinage o f Caesarea in
Cappadocia, 2nd edition with supplement by Alex G Malloy, New York
1978, 617aa (plate II), no weight.
Obverse die-link: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 = 60/1; 1, 4 and 5 are die-identical.
Reverse die-link: 1, 4 and 5; these coins are die-identical.

60. Obv.: CABINIA TPANKYAAINA AY, bust E2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left, pellet.
1* Bank Leu, Zurich, Auction 13 (29/4/1975), 477 = Numismatic Fine
Arts, California, Auction 6 (27/2/1979), 839, 2.34g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 59/1 - 6 .

61. Obv.: CABINIA TPANKYAAIN AY, bust El*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B Ne. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left, pellet.
1* Lanz, Munich, Auction 28 (7/5/1984), 677, 2.92g.

362
 BRONZE

AE 2: Gordian and Tranquillina

A. Bust of Tyche: Gordian

62. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO - KAIC B N. Bust of Tyche right; on her head is a
small view of Mount Argaeus. To left, eT, to right, A.
Dies No.
IV/AI 1* P, 719, 10.65g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 79/5.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 64/1-3.

63. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D l*.

Rev.: MHTPO K - AICA B N. Bust of Tyche right; on herhead
is a small view of Mount Argaeus. To left, eT, to right, A.
Sydenham 613k
VIII/AII 1* P, 720, 14.19g,12. Countermark on obverse.
X/AII 2* NY, 1944.100.62629 (Newell), 10.42g, 12.
Obverse die-links: 1 = 70/1, & 71/2-3.
2 = 64/3 & 104/1.
Reverse die-link: 1-2 = 65/1-2.

64. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D l*.

Rev.: MHTPO - KAIC B N. Bust of Tyche right; on her head is a
small view of Mount Argaeus. To left, eT, to right, A.
Sydenham 6131
XI/AI 1* L, 1979-1-1-2721 (SNG von Aulock 6530), 9.66g,
Countermark on obverse.
XI/AI 2 L, 1971-1-1-1 (D Sellwood), 9.26g, 6 .
X/AI 3* B, Lobbecke, 8.96g, 12.
Obverse die-links: 1-2 = 71/1.
3 = 63/2 & 104/1.
Reverse die-link: 1-3 = 62/1.

65. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO K - AICA B N. Bust of Tyche right; on her head
is a small view of Mount Argaeus. To left, eT, to right, A.
•SyClaiham 599a1is pTObably^an--iiicoiiipleie desci,iptioii-oTthisL-cohi.
XXIII/AII 1 NY, 1911.999.48, 11.97g, 12.
XXIII/AII 2* O, Milne (10.6.1933 exBaldwin), 11.37g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1-2 = 73/1.
Reverse die-link: 1-2 = 63/1-2.
Notes: Sydenham 599a is probably an incomplete description of this
coin.

363
B. Mount Argaeus on uninscribed altar: Gordian

66. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce. Bust A l.

Rev.: MHTP KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on uninscribed altar.
Sydenham 606 corr. (obverse bust is incorrectly given as Al*);
Sydenham 613d
Dies No.
I/BXIV 1* NY, 1944.100.62628 (Newell ex Hess, Frankfurt, Auction,
28/4/1936, 216), U.06g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 67/1.

67. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce. Bust A l.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on uninscribed altar.
Sydenham 606a
I/BIII 1* Cop, SNG 308, 13.67g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 66/1.

68. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce. Bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on uninscribed altar.
V/BIV 1* G, Macdonald 97, 12.29g, 12.

69. Obv.: [AY K M] ANT TOPAIANOC Ce. Bust A3*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on uninscribed altar.
VII/BV 1* NY, 1953.171.1420, 9.22g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 70/3.

70. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on uninscribed altar.
VIII/BVI 1* B, Lobbecke, 11.95g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
XIII/BVII 2* Mi, Brera 7324, 10.90g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
XVI/BV 3* P, 721, 11.10g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-links: 1 = 63/1 & 71/2-3.
2 = 80/1.
Reverse die-link: 3 = 69/1.

71. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on uninscribed altar.
XI/BIX 1* NY, 1953.171.1419, 10.48g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
VIII/BX 2* B, Lobbecke, 9.9 lg, 6 . Countermark on obverse. This coin
has deep cuts on both sides.
VIII/BXI 3 Dura, Final Report 2081 (pi. XLII), no weight.
Countermark on obverse.
XII/BXII 4* P, 722, 11.96g, 12. Obverse very doublestruck; possibly also
countermarked.

364
 Obverse die-links: 1 = 64/1-2.
2-3 = 63/1 & 70/1.
4 = 102/1.
Reverse die-link: 2 = 76/1-3.

72. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B Ne. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on uninscribed altar.
Sydenham 608
Dies No.
XXIV/BI 1 B, 5143, 12.21g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
XXIV/BI 2 B, Lobbecke, 13.73g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
XXIV/BI 3* L, BMC 343, 12.02g, 12.
[?/B? 4 Istanbul ex Gulek Bogazi hoard 56, 11.50g, 6 . Countermark
on obverse.]
Die-link: 1-3 (die-identical).

73. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on uninscribed altar.
XXIII/BVIII 1* SNG von Aulock 6529, 13.26g. Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 65/1-2.

74. Obv.: [AY K M ANT] TOPAIANOC Ce. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO [....... ].. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount Argaeus
set on uninscribed altar.
?/B? 1* Cop, SNG 309, 8.82g, 12. Countermark on obverse.

75. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N e. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on uninscribed altar.
Sydenham 613e
XXXVII/BII 1* Gy Macdonald 95, 11.65g, 6 .

76. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on uninscribed altar.
Sydenham 607; 613c
XXI/BX 1* L, BMC 342, 11.22g, 6 . Countermark on obverse.
XXI/BX 2 Mi, Brera 7321, 9.88g, 6 . Countermark on obverse.
XXI/BX 3 NY, 1944.100.62624 (Newell), 7.65g, 6 . Countermark on
obverse.
XXXIV/BXIII 4 * NY, 1953.171.1422, 9.32g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
[?/B? 5 Istanbul ex Gulek Bogazi hoard 58, 10.90g, 12.
Countermark on obverse.]
Obverse die-link: 1-3 (die-identical) = 84/1, 85/1, 107/1, 108/1, 109/1 & 110/1.
Reverse die-link: 1-3 (die-identical) = 71/2.
Note: no. 5 comes from same (uncertain) obverse die as 77/1.

365
77. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.
Rev.: MHTPO KAI B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on uninscribed altar.
Dies No.
[?/B? 1 Istanbul ex Gulek Bogazi hoard 57, 12.50g, 12.
Countermark on obverse.]
Note: no. 1 comes from same (uncertain) obverse die as 76/5.

77A. Obv.: AY K M AN TOPAIANOC. Bust D l* or D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAI N efl. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on uninscribed altar.
Sydenham 613a
Notes: Sydenham cites this coin from the Woodward collection. It is
not possible to confirm its description and since there is no other
record of a coin of Gordian having N efl in its .obverse legend it must
remain doubtful. Sydenham 613b describes a coin from NY with the
same obverse and with reverse: MHTPO KAIC N, Mount Argaeus
on altar, in exergue, eT A. I have been unable to find a coin like this
in NY and it must be a misdescription of 71/1 or 76/3-4.

C. Mount Argaeus on altar inscribed eNT[IX]: Gordian and Tranquillina

78. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNT.
Sydenham 615c corr. (incorrectly gives date as eT c)
II/CIIIa 1 B, Lobbecke, 9.85g, 12.
II/CIV 2* G, Macdonald 96, 10.28g, 6 . (Macdonald did not notice
that the altar is inscribed eNT.)
Obverse die-link: 1-2 = 19/1 (Year 3); 19A/1 (Year 3); 132/1-3 (Year 6 );
140/1-2 (Year 6 ) and 141/1 (Year 6 ).

79. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNTI.
Sydenham 613h; 613i

III/CX 1 B, von Rauch, 9.54g, 12. Countermark on obverse.

III/CXI 2 B, Lobbecke, 9.72g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
III/CXI 3 NY, 1944.100.62625 (Newell), 9.31g, 12. Countermark on
obverse.
III/CX 4* NY, 1953.171.1415, ll.Olg, 12. Countermark on obverse.
IV/CXII 5* NY, 1944.100.62627 (Newell), 8.93g, 12.
VI/CXIII 6* Schulman, New York, Auction 6/6/1969 (Mabbott), 2411 =
Schweizerische Kreditanstalt, Berne, Auction 1, 22/4/1983,
410 (weight is incorrectly given as 24.27g) = Lanz, Munich,
Auction 32, 29/4/1985, 746. 12.07g.
[?/C? Istanbul ex Gulek Bogazi hoard 55, 9.80g, 12. Countermark
on obverse. The inscription on the altar of this coin could
read eNTIX.l

366
 Obverse die-links: 5 = 62/1;
1, 2, 3 & 4 (1 & 4 and 2 & 3 are die-identical).
Reverse die-links: 1 & 4 (die-identical) = 90/1;
2 & 3 (die-identical).

80. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D l*.

Rev.: MHTPOIIO KAICA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNT.
Dies No.
XIII/CI 1* B, alte Bestand, 11.04g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 70/2.

81. Obv.: [AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC]. Bust D2.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. Exergue illegible. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNTI.
XX/C? 1* B, von Knobelsdorff, 9.12g, 12.Countermark on obverse.
Note: this coin is worn and some of the details of its description are
not clear but there do seem to be traces of a radiate crown. The
coin could have been struck in Year 6.

82. Obv.: [,...]M ANT TOPAIANO[..]. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MH[TP]On [K]AI[..]B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNTIX.
Sydenham 607b
[?/C? 1 Istanbul ex Gulek Bogazi hoard 54, 10.55g, 12.
Countermark on obverse.]

83. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPOn KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNT.
XXV/CII 1* Mi, Brera 7323, 8.12g, 12.
XXII/CIII 2* B, Lobbecke, 8.58g, 12. Imhoof-Blumer, SNR 8 , p. 21, 69
(misreads the reverse legend as MHTPO KAIC B N).
Obverse die-link: 1 = 97/1;
2 = 86/1-3 & 87/1.

84. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNTIX.
Sydenham 613g corr. (reverse legend incorrectly given as MHT II
KAIC B N)
XXI/CV 1* B, Lobbecke, 11.34g, 12. Countermark on obverse. Imhoof-
Blumer, SNR 8 , p. 21, 71.
XXVIII/CV 2* P, 725, 9.29g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
XXXV/CVI 3* NY, 1944.100.62626 (Newell), 8.92g, 12.
7/CVII 4 B, 42/1976,9.73g, 12.
Obverse die-links: 1 = 76/1-3, 85/1, 107/1, 108/1, 109/1 & 110/1;
2 = 106/1.
Reverse die-link: 1 & 2.

367
85. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.
Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNTX.
Dies No.
XXI/CX 1* B, Lobbecke, 9.15g, 12. Countermark on obverse. Imhoof-
Blumer, SNR 8 , p. 21, 70 misreads the legend on the altar
as eNTL
Obverse die-link: 1 = 76/1-3, 84/1, 107/1, 108/1, 109/1 & 110/1.

86. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNTI.
Sydenham 613j
XXII/CXIV 1 P, 723, 11.76g, 12.
XXII/CXV 2 P, 724, 11.32g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
XXII/CXVI 3* NY, 1953.171.1418, 9.48g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
XXX/CXVII 4* P, Seymour de Ricci, 7.85g, 12.
xxx/c? 5 Cop, SNG 307, 9.52g, 12.
XXXII/CXVIII 6* O, Milne (purchased Athens, April 1926), 10.77g, 12.
Countermark on obverse.
XXIX/CXIX 1 NY, 1953.171.1416, 10.63g, 6 . Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-links: 1-3 = 83/2 & 87/1;
7 = 87/3;
4 & 5.

87. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNT.
Sydenham 607a
XXII/CXX 1 NY, 1944.100.62631 (Newell), 9.97g, 12. Countermark on
obverse.
XXXI/CXXI 2* SNG von Aulock 6528, 10.90g.
XXIX/CXXII 3 NY, 1953.171.1417, 10.54g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-links: 1 = 83/2 & 86/1-3;
3 = 86/7.
Reverse die-link: 2 = 91/2.

88. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTP KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNTIX.
XXXVI/CVIII 1* NY, 1944.100.62623 (Newell), 7.84g, 12.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 89/1.

89. Obv.: CABINIA TPANKYAAINA. Bust E2*.

Rev.: MHTP KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNTIX.
Sydenham 617b
TI/CVIII 1* SNG von Aulock 6532, 9.17g.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 90/1, 91/1-2, 98/1-3, 99/1 & 113/1.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 88/1.

368
90. Obv.: CABINIA TPANKYAAINA. Bust E2*.
Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNTI.
Dies No.
TI/CX 1* B, Lobbecke, 8.60g, 6 . Countermark on obverse. Imhoof-Blumer,
SNR 8 , p. 22, 79.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 89/1, 91/1-2, 98/1-3, 99/1 & 113/1.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 79/1 & 4.

91. Obv.: CABINIA TPANKYAAINA. Bust E2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT A. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNT.
TI/CXXIII 1 O, Robinson 1960, 8.11g, 12. Perhaps countermarked on
obverse.
TI/CXXI 2* Lanz, Munich, Auction 46, 28/11/1988, 627, 8.52g.
Obverse die-link: 1-2 = 89/1, 90/1, 98/1-3, 99/1 & 113/1.
Reverse die-link: 2 = 87/2.

D. Mount Argaeus on altar inscribed eT A: Gordian

92. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eNTIX. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eT A.
Sydenham 613f
XXVII/DI 1* G, Macdonald 98, 10.95g, 6 .
[?/D? 2 Istanbul ex Gulek Bogazi hoard 53, 9.80g, 6 . Countermark
on obverse.]
Obverse die-link: 1 = 95/1.

E. Inscription with bust of l^che: Gordian and Tranquillina

93. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D l*.

Rev.: MH - T/PO - KAI/C eNTIX/B N eT A. Inscription in 4 lines
in wreath; at top, bust of Tyche right.
Sydenham 612
XVII/EI 1* L, 1920-7-28-68 (Spink ex Weber), 10.77g, 12. Forrer 7820.
IX/EI 2* L, 1975-4-11-165 (Baldwin ex Heller), 9.85g, 12.
Countermark on obverse.
?/EI 3 B, Lobbecke, 8.93g, 12. Countermark on obverse. Imhoof-
Blumer, SNR 8 , p. 22, 77.
Obverse die-link: 2 = 94/1-3.
Reverse die-link: 1-3.

94. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D l*.

Rev.: MH - TP/KA - IC eN/TIX B N/eT A. Inscription in 4 lines
in wreath; at top, bust of Tyche right.
Sydenham 613
IX/EII 1* P, 726, 8.52g, 12. Countermark on obverse.Waddington
6796 (misreads the date in the reverse legend as eT B).
IX/EII 2 Cop, SNG 306, 9.10g, 12.

369
 Dies No.
IX/EII 3 Istanbul ex Gulek Bogazi hoard 59, 8.55g, 12. Countermark
on obverse.
[?/E? 4 Florence. Imhoof-Blumer, SNR 8 , p. 22, 76 cited from
Sestini, Lett. num. contin. Ill, p. 124 and pi. 3, 20.]
Obverse die-link: 1-3 (die-identical) = 93/2.
Reverse die-link: 1-3 (die-identical) = 97/1.

95. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MH - T/POH - KAI/CA eNTIX/B N eT A. Inscription in 4
lines in wreath; at top, bust of Tyche right.
XXVII/EIII 1* B, Imhoof-Blumer, 9.24g, 12. Imhoof-Blumer, SNR 8 , p. 22,
76.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 92/1.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 98/1-3.

96. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: M - H/TP - KAI/C eNTIX/B N eTO/A. Inscription in 5 lines
in wreath; at top, bust of Tyche right.
XXVI/EIV 1* B, von Rauch, 9.15g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
XXXIII/EIV 2* B, 734/1914, 8.95g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 108/2.
Reverse die-link: 1-2.

97. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MH - TP/KA - IC eN/TIX B N/eT A. Inscription in 4 lines
in wreath; at top, bust of Tyche right.
XXV/EII 1* SNG von Aulock 6527, 9.30g.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 83/1.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 94/1-3.

98. Obv.: CABINIA TPANKYAAINA. Bust: E2*.

Rev.: MH - T/POH - KAI/CA eNTIX/B N eT A. Inscription in 4
lines in wreath; at top, bust of Tyche right.
TI/EIII 1* L, 1970-9-9-238 (Baldwin ex Hecht), 8.23g, 12.
Countermark on obverse.
TI/EIII 2 P, 741, 12.24g, 12.
TI/EIII 3 Lanz, Munich, Auction 52, 14/5/1990, 629, 8.81g.
Obverse die-link: 1-3 (die-identical) = 89/1, 90/1, 91/1-2, 99/1 & 113/1.
Reverse die-link: 1-3 (die-identical) = 95/1.

99. Obv.: CABINIA TPANKYAAINA. Bust: E2*.

Rev.: MH - TP/OH - KAI/CA eNTIX/B N eT A. Inscription in 4
lines in wreath; at top, bust of Tyche right.
Sydenham 617d
TI/EV 1* NY, 1944.100.62502 (Newell), 8.91g, 12. Countermark on
obverse. A cast of this coin in L has ‘Noury Bey 1901’
written on the back.
Obverse die-link: 1-3 = 89/1, 90/1, 91/1-2, 98/1-3 & 113/1.

370
F. Inscription with view of Mount Argaeus: Gordian and Tranquillina

100. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D l*.

Rev.: M - HT/POIlOAeW/C KAICAP/eNTIX B N/eT A.
Inscription in 5 lines in wreath; at top, Mount Argaeus.
Dies No.
XV/FI 1* B, 593/1878, 10.64g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 101/1.

101. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D l*.

Rev.: MH - TP/OHO KAICA/PIAC eNTI/XION B N e/eT A.
Inscription in 5 lines in wreath; at top, Mount Argaeus.
XV/FII 1* B, Lobbecke, 9.83g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 100/1.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 106/1 & 113/1.

102. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D l*.

Rev.: M - H/TPOH KAI/CAPIAC/eNTIX B N/eT A. Inscription in
5 lines in wreath; at top, Mount Argaeus.
Sydenham 610 corr. (omits B N from reverse legend)
XII/FIII 1* L, BMC 345, 9.21g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
XIX/FIII 2* B, Lobbecke, 8.76g, 12. Countermark on obverse. Imhoof-
Blumer, SNR 8 , p. 22, 73.
XIV/FIII 3 B, C R Fox, 9.28g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-links: 1 = 71/4;
3 = 105/1.
Reverse die-link: 1-3 = 107/1.

103. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D l*.

Rev.: M - HAPOII KAI/CAPIAC/eNTI B N /eT A.Inscription in 5
lines in wreath; at top, Mount Argaeus.
XVIII/FIV 1* B, Imhoof-Blumer, 9.24g, 12. Imhoof-Blumer, SNR 8 , p. 21,
72.

104. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D l*.

Rev.: M - H/TPOn KAI/CAPI eNT/IXI B N e/[eT A].Inscription
in 5 lines in wreath; at top, Mount Argaeus.
X/FV 1* P, 728, 8.93g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 63/2 & 64/3.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 108/2.

105. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D l*.

Rev.: M - H/TPO KAI/CA eNTI/XI B N eT/A. Inscription in 5
lines in wreath; at top, Mount Argaeus.
XIV/FVI 1* B, Lobbecke, 9.15g, 12. Imhoof-Blumer, SNR 8 , p. 22, 74.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 102/3.

371
106. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.
Rev.: MH - TP/OHO KAICA/PIAC eNTI/XION BN e/eT A.
Inscription in 5 lines in wreath; at top, Mount Argaeus.
Sydenham 611
Dies No.
XXVIII/FII 1* B, Lobbecke, 8 .8 6 g, 12. Imhoof-Blumer, SNR 8 , p. 22, 75.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 84/2.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 101/1 & 113/1.

107. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: M - H/TPOn KAI/CAPIAC/eNTIX B N /eT A. Inscription in
5 lines in wreath; at top, Mount Argaeus.
Sydenham 610b
XXI/FIII 1* SNG von Aulock 6526, 10.19g. Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 76/1-3, 84/1, 85/1, 108/1, 109/1 & 110/1.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 102/1-3.

108. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: M - H A TO n KAI/CAPI eNTI/XI B N e/eT A. Inscription in
5 lines in wreath; at top, Mount Argaeus.
Sydenham 610a corr. (reverse legend misquoted)
XXI/FVII 1 P, 727, lO.Olg, 12. Countermark on obverse.
XXVI/FV 2* NY, 1944.100.62622 (Newell), 10.18g, 12. Countermark on
obverse.
Obverse die-links: 1 = 76/1-3, 84/1, 85/1, 107/1, 109/1 & 110/1;
2 = 96/1.
Reverse die-link: 2 = 104/1.

109. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: M - H/TPOn KAI/CAPI eNT/eT A. Inscription in 4 lines in
wreath; at top, Mount Argaeus.
XXI/FVIII 1* Lindgren 1729, 7.62g. Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 76/1-3, 84/1, 85/1, 107/1, 108/1 & 110/1.

110 . Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: M - H/TPO KAIC/APIAC eN/TIXI B N/eT A. Inscription in
5 lines in wreath; at top, Mount Argaeus.
XXI/FIX 1* O, Milne (ex Nicolaides, Smyrna, April 1911), 9.38g, 12.
Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 76/1-3, 84/1, 85/1, 107/1, 108/1 & 109/1.

111 . Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: M - H/TPO KAI/CAPI eNTI/XI B N e/ eT [A]. Inscription
in 5 lines in wreath; at top, Mount Argaeus.
[?/F? 1 Istanbul ex Gulek Bogazi hoard 62, 10.05g, 12.]
Notes: confirmation required.

372
112. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.
Rev.: M - H/TPO KAI/CAPIAC/eNTI B N/eT A. Inscription in 5
lines in wreath; at top, Mount Argaeus.
Dies No.
XXXVIII/FX 1* NY, 1944.100.62630 (Newell), 12.44g, 12.

113. Obv.: CABINIA TPANKYAAINA. Bust E2*.

Rev.: MH - TP/OHO KAICA/PLAC eNTI/XION B N e/eT A.
Inscription in in 5 lines in wreath; at top, Mount Argaeus.
Sydenham 617c
TI/FII 1* P, 740, 9.62g, 6 . Countermark on obverse. Waddington
6797.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 89/1, 90/1, 91/1-2, 98/1-3 & 99/1.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 101/1 & 106/1.

AE 3: Gordian

A. Inscription in 5 lines

114. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce. Bust A3.

Rev.: MHTP/OHOA/eWC KA/ICAP B N/eT A. Inscription in 5
lines.
AE3,I/AI 1* O,New College, 5.11g, 12.

B. Three ears of corn

115. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce. Bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAI B N. Three ears of com; to left, B, to right,
e.
AE3,II/BI 1* B, Lobbecke, 5.58g, 12.

116. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANO. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. Three ears of corn; to left, B, to right,
e.
AE3,III/BII 1* B, Lobbecke, 6.37g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 117/1.

117. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANO. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAI B N. Three ears of corn; to left, B, to right,
€.
Sydenham 609
AE3,III/BIII 1* L, BMC 344, 6.63g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 116/1.

373
AE 4: Gordian

A. Shrine containing view of Mount Argaeus

118. Obv.: [........ ] TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTP KAI B N. In exergue, eT A. Distyle shrine; within, a
view of Mount Argaeus crowned by a wreath.
Dies No.
AE4,I/AI 1* Lindgren 1727B, 3.15g.

B. Mount Argaeus

119. Obv.: AY K M AN TOPAIANOC. Bust A l.

Rev.: MHTP KA B N. In exergue, eT A. View of MountArgaeus.
AE4,II/AII 1* B, Lobbecke, 3.52g, 12.
AE4,II/AII 2* B, Lobbecke, 3.15g, 12.
Die-link: 1 & 2 (die-identical).

Year 5 (12 December 241 - 12 December 242)

SILVER

Didrachms: Gordian

A. Mount Argaeus; eT e

120. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N e. In exergue, eT e. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left and right, pellet.
1* O, D R Walker, 4.02g, 12.

121. Obv.: A Y KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N e. In exergue, eT e. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left and right, pellet.
Sydenham 604a
1* B, 773/1920, 4.06g, 12.
2* P, 729, 6.20g, 12.
[3 P Burbules collection, no weight. Sydenham 604a.]
Obverse die-link: 1 and 2.
Reverse die-link: 2 = 122/1.

122. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B Ne. In exergue, eT e. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left and right, pellet.
1* Rauch, Vienna, Auction 41 (6/6/1988), 959, 4.79g.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 121/2.

374
123. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC Ce, bust D2*.
Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N e. In exergue, eT e. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left and right, pellet.
1* A G Malloy, New York, Auction 27 (17/3/1989), 303, no weight.

124. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC, bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N e. In exergue, eT e. View of Mount
Argaeus; to left and right, pellet.
1* Mi, Brera 7320, 5.65g, 11.

Drachms: Gordian and Tranquillina

A. Mount Argaeus; eT e

125. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC e, bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N. In exergue, eT e. View of Mount
Argaeus; to right, pellet.
Sydenham 604b corr. (gives reverse legend as MHTPO KAICAPI)
1* G, Macdonald 94, 3.75g, 12.

126. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC, bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAI B N e . In exergue, eT e. View of Mount
Argaeus; to right, pellet.
1* B, Lobbecke, 2.55g, 12.
2* L, 1970-9-9-237 (Hecht), 3.55g,' 12. Analyzed MRSC III p.78, 5029: AR
63.00%, PB 3.00%.
Die-link: 1 and 2 are die-identical.

127. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC, bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N e. In exergue, eT e. View of Mount
Argaeus; to right, pellet.
Sydenham 604
1* NY, 3.24g, ex Hess, Frankfurt, Auction, 28/4/1936, 214 (illustrated in E
A Sydenham, The Coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia, p. 129, fig. 98).
2* P, 730, 2.08g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1 and 2.

128. Obv.: CABINIA TPANKYAAINA, bust E2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N e. In exergue, eT e. View of Mount
Argaeus; to right, pellet.
Sydenham 617e corr. (coin is incorrectly described as a didrachm and
j^verse legend is given as TPANKYAAIN). /
1* C, Maclean 9233, 3.17g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 129/1.

375
129. Obv.: CABINIA TPANKYAAINA, bust E2*.
Rev.: MHTPO KAI B Ne. In exergue, eT e. View of Mount
Argaeus; to right, pellet.
1* Munz Zentrum, Cologne, Auction 51 (28/3/1984), 203, 3.40g.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 128/1.

BRONZE

AE 2: Gordian

129A Obv.: [..]K ANT TOPAIANO[C]. Bust D l* or D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N. In exergue, eT e. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNT.
This coin is cited by Sydenham 614 from the Hall collection. Since it
is not possible to check the reading and since no other bronze coins
of Year 5 are known, it is most likely that the date has been
misread. In the sale catalogue of the H P Hall collection (Part I,
Glendining, 19/7/1950) the only bronze coins of Gordian from
Caesarea that are listed are two examples in lot 316 which are
described as BMC 342 = 76/1 of Year 4. It is most likely, therefore,
that this coin is also of Year 4.
Marthaler, under no. 219 on p. 101, describes two bronze coins with
the following reverse: MHTPO KAICA B N, in exergue, eT e, View
of Mount Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNT: one of these is
described as ‘Weber 7820’, which is 93/1 (now in L), and the other
as ANS (Newell), 9.97g, which is 87/1 (in NY): both coins are clearly
dated eT A.

Year 4 or 5 (uncertain)

SILVER

Drachm: Tranquillina

A. Mount Argaeus, eT ?

130. Obv.: CABINIA TPANKYAAIN AY, bust El*.

Rev.: MHTPO KA[IC B Ne]. In exergue, eT ... View of Mount
Argaeus.
1* Sternberg, Zurich, Auction 13 (17/11/1983), 908 = Seaby Coin and Medal
Bulletin July/August 1989, C428, 2.78g.

376
 Year 6 (12 December 242 - 12 December 243)
BRONZE

AE 2: Gordian and Tranquillina

A. Mount Argaeus on wreathed or uninscribed altar: Gordian and

Tranquillina

131. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC C. Bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT c- View of Mount
Argaeus set on an altar containing a wreath.
Sydenham 615; 615b
Dies No.
I/AI 1* L, 1899-7-3-174 (Lawson), 7.58g, 6 . Countermark on
obverse.
I/AI 2 NY, 1953.171.1423, 10.44g, 6 . Countermark on obverse.
I/AII 3* P, 732, 8.13g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
I/A? 4 P, 735, 9.37g, 6 . Countermark on obverse.
I/AIII 5* Lindgren 1728, 8.62g. Countermark on obverse. (Note: this
coin has been wrongly paired with no. 1723 on plate 6 8 .)
Obverse die-link: 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. (1 & 2 are die-identical.)
Reverse die-link: 1 & 2 (die-identical).

132. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT c- View of Mount
Argaeus set on an altar containing a wreath.
II/AIV 1* B, Lobbecke, 9.78g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
II/AV 2 P, 733, 11.30g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
II/AVI 3 P, 734, 8.82g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-link: 1-3 = 19/1 (Year 3); 19A/1 (Year 3); 78/1-2 (Year 4);
140/1-2 and 141/1.
Note: the date is not very clear on nos. 2 and 3: it could possibly be
T (Year 3) especially as the obverse die was also used in Year 3.
However, the presence of the wreath on the altar on the reverse,
which is only otherwise found on coins of Year 6, suggests that the
reading is most likely <;. No. 1 clearly reads <;•

133. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC [..]. Bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT <;. View of Mount
Argaeus set on an altar perhaps containing a wreath.
?/A? 1* O, lO.Olg, 12. Countermark on obverse.

134. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT c- View of Mount
Argaeus set on a plain altar.
III/AVIII 1 B, Lobbecke, 9.65g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
III/AIX 2 NY, 1953.171.1421, 9.84g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
III/AVIII 3* NY, 1953.171.1424, 9.48g, 12. Countermark on obverse.

377
 Obverse die-link: 1-3 = 135/1.
Reverse die-link: 1 & 3 (die-identical).
Notes: Sydenham 615a describes a similar coin from the Burbules
collection but with obverse legend AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC;
probably a misreading of AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC.

135. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC N. In exergue, eT c- View of Mount
Argaeus set on a plain altar.
Dies No.
III/AXVIII 1* B, alte Bestand, 9.34g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 134/1-3.

136. Obv.: CAB INI TPANKYAINA C. Bust El*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT c- View of Mount
Argaeus set on a plain altar.
TI/AX 1* P, 742, 12.29g, 6 . Countermark on obverse.

137. Obv.: CABINI TPANKYAINA C. Bust E2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT View of Mount
Argaeus set on a plain altar.
Sydenham 617g
TII/AXI 1 C, Maclean 9234, 7.62g, 5.
TII/AXII 2* NY, 1953.171.1425, 9.94g, 6 . Countermark on obverse.
TII/AXI 3* NY, 1953.171.1426, 10.74g, 6 . Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-link: 1-3 = 138/1.
Reverse die-link: 1 & 3 (die-identical).

138. Obv.: CABINI TPANKYAINA C. Bust E2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT c* View of Mount
Argaeus set on an altar containing a wreath.
TII/AVII 1* Sternberg, Zurich, Auction, 29/11/1974, 236, 8.52g.
Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 137/1-3.

139. Obv.: CA TPANKYAAINA AY. Bust E2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT <;. View of Mount
Argaeus set on an altar containing a wreath.
Sydenham 617a (incomplete reading of obverse legend); 617f
TIII/AXIII 1* B, Lobbecke, 10.06g, 12.
TIII/AXIV 2 Cop, SNG 312, 10.53g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
TIII/AXIV 3 NY, 1944.100.62632 (Newell), 10.05g, 12. Countermark on
obverse.
TIII/AXV 4* NY, 1944.100.62633 (Newell), 9.43g, 6 . Countermark on
obverse.
TIII/AXVI 5 P, 743, 9.8lg, 6 . Countermark on obverse.
TIII/AXIII 6 SNG von Aulock 6533, 9.97g.
TIII/AXIII 7 Lindgren 1732, 7.7lg.
TIII/AXVII 8 P Burbules collection, no weight. E A Sydenham, The
Coinage o f Caesarea, 2nd edition, p. 162, 617f.
Countermark on obverse.

378
 Dies No.
TIII/AXVII 9* B Peus, Frankfurt, Auction 313, 13/5/1985, 643 = id.,
Auction 315, 28/4/1986, 464. 11.07g. Countermark on
obverse.
Obverse die-link: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8 , & 9.
Reverse die-links: 1, 6 & 7 (die-identical);
2 & 3 (die-identical);
8 & 9 (die-identical).

B. Mount Argaeus on altar inscribed eNT[I]: Gordian

140. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAICA B N. In exergue, eT c- View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNT.
Sydenham 615c
II/BI 1* Cop, SNG 310, 9.5lg, 12. Countermark on obverse.
II/BI 2 P, 731, 11.21g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-link: 1-2 = 19/1 (Year 3); 19A/1 (Year 3); 78/1-2 (Year 4);
132/1-3 and 141/1.

141. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC[...] B N. In exergue, eT <;. View of Mount
Argaeus set on altar inscribed eNTI.
II/BII 1* O, Christ Church 1756, 8.33g, 12. Countermark on obverse.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 19/1 (Year 3); 19A/1 (Year 3); 78/1-2 (Year 4); 132/1-3 and
140/1-2.

AE 3: Gordian

A. Bust of I^che

142. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. Bust of Tyche, turretted,right. To left,
e, to right, c-
AE3,I/AI 1 B, Lobbecke, 4.44g, 12.
AE3,I/AI 2* B Peus, Frankfurt, Auction 291, 30/3/1977, 698, 5.59g.
Die-link: 1 & 2 (die-identical).

379
 Year 7 (12 December 243 - Spring 244)

BRONZE

Unreduced AE 2 : Tranquillina

A. Mount Argaeus on uninscribed altar

143. Obv.: CABINI TPANKYAINA C. Bust E2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N. In exergue, eT Z. View of Mount
Argaeus set on uninscribed altar.
Dies No.
AE2,TI/I 1* Munz Zentrum, Cologne, Auction 43, 27/4/1981, 165,
10.55g. Countermark on obverse.

Reduced AE 2: Gordian and Tranquillina

A. Six ears of corn: Gordian and Tranquillina

144. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTP KAI B N e. Six ears of corn tied together. To left,
eT, to right, Z.
I/AIX 1* B, Lobbecke, 6.44g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 145/1.

145. Obv.: AY K M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTP KAI B N. Six ears of corn tied together. To left, eT,
to right, Z.
Sydenham 616a; 616c corr. (obverse bust incorrectly given given as
D l* or D2*)
I/AXLII 1* NY, 1911.94.2, 7.43g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 144/1.

146. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N e. Six ears of corn tied together. To
left, eT, to right, Z.
I I/AI 1* B, Lobbecke, 6.34g, 12.
II/AII 2* B, Imhoof-Blumer, 6.36g, 12.
II/AI 3 P, 739, 5.86g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1-3 = 148/1.
Reverse die-link: 1 & 3 (die-identical).

147. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust A l*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAI B Ne. Six ears of corn tied together. To left,
eT, to right, Z.
II I/AVI 1* SNG von Aulock 6531, 7.30g.

380
148. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust A l*.
Rev.: MHTP KAI B N. Six ears of corn tied together. To left, eT,
to right, Z.
Dies No.
II/AXLIII 1* B, Lobbecke, 6.19g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 146/1-3.

149. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D l*.

Rev.: MHTP KAIC B N e. Six ears of corn tied together. To left,
eT, to right, Z.
IV/AVII 1* NY, 1944.100.62498 (Newell), 7.25g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 150/1, 151/1-2 & 152/1.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 153/1.

150. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D l*.

Rev.: MHTP KAI[C] B Ne. Six ears of corn tied together. To left,
eT, to right, Z.
IV/AVIII 1* Mi, Brera 7322, 5.93g, 6.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 149/1, 151/1-2 & 152/1.

151. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D l*.

Rev.: MHTP KAI B N e. Six ears of com tied together. To left,
eT, to right, Z.
IV/AX 1 B, von Rauch, 6.02g, 12.
IV/AXI 2* P, 738, 6.46g, 12.
V/AXII 3 B, Lobbecke, 6.64g, 12.
V/AXIII 4 NY, 1977.274.11. 6.95g, 12.
V/AXIV 5* O, Godwyn, 5.61g, 12.
V/AXV 6 Munz Zentrum, Cologne, Auction 54, 26/3/1985, 362, 6.90g.
Obverse die-link: 1-2 = 149/1, 150/1 & 152/1;
3, 4, 5, & 6.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 160/3.

152. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D l*.

Rev.: MHTP KAI B N. Six ears of corn tied together. To left, eT,
to right, Z.
IV/AXLIV 1* Lindgren 1730, 7.04g.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 149/1; 150/1 & 151/1-2.

153. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC e. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTP KAIC B Ne. Six ears of corn tied together. To left,
eT, to right, Z.
VI/AVII 1* Classical Numismatic Review (V. England, Quarryville),
Vol. 15, 3, 363, no weight.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 154/1-8.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 149/1.

381
154. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC e. Bust D2*.
Rev.: MHTP KAI B N e. Six ears of corn tied together. To left,
eT, to right, Z.
Dies No.
VI/AXVI 1* B, Lobbecke, 7.03g, 12.
VI/AXVII 2 G, Macdonald 99, 7.13g, 12. (Macdonald mistakenly read
the obverse legend as MHT KAI BN).
VI/AXVIII 3* L, BMC 348, 6.5 lg, 12.
VI/AXIX 4* L, BMC 347, 6.85g, 12.
VI/AXVII 5 NY, 1944.100.62499 (Newell), 7.21g, 12.
VI/AXVII 6 NY, 1944.100.62500 (Newell), 7.46g, 12.
VI/AXX 7 Auktiones AG., Basle, Auction 15, 18/9/1985, 360, 7.12g.
VI/AXIX 8 Lanz, Munich, Auction 52, 14/5/1990, 620, 6.25g.
Obverse die-link: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 = 153/1.
Reverse die-links: 2, 5 & 6 (die-identical) = 160/1;
4 & 8 (die-identical).

155. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B N e. Six ears of corn tied together. To
left, eT, to right, Z.
VII/AIII 1* B, Lobbecke, 7.90g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 156/11-14 & 157/1-2.
Reverse die-link: 1 = 159/3 & 4.

156. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.

Rev.: MHTP KAI B N e. Six ears of com tied together. To left,
eT, to right, Z.
Sydenham 616
VIII/AXXI 1* L, BMC 349, 6.33g, 12.
VIII/AXXII 2 L, BMC 346, 7.45g, 12.
VIII/AXXIII 3 NY, 1911.87.17, 6.85g, 12.
VIII/AXXIV 4 O, Christ Church 1758, 5.86g, 12.
VIII/AXXV 5 P, Seymour de Ricci, 7.39g, 12.
VIII/AXXVI 6 P Burbules collection, no weight. E A Sydenham, The
Coinage o f Caesarea, 2nd edition, p. 167, 616.
VIII/AXXVII 7 Lanz, Munich, Auction 46, 28/11/1988, 625, 5.94g.
VIII/AXXIV 8 Schulten, Cologne, 11/4/1988, 965 = idem 20/10/1988, 901
= idem 27/3/1990, 879, 7.50g.
IX/AXXVIII 9 P, 737, 7.76g, 12.
IX/AXXIX 10* Munz Zentrum, Cologne, Auction 67, 7/11/1989. 1631,
7.85g.
VII/AXXX 11 B, Lobbecke, 6.07g, 12.
VII/AXXX 12 Mi, Laffranchi 12008, 6.06g, 12.
VII/AXXXI 13* Sternberg, Zurich, Auction 13, 17/11/1983, 904, 6.50g.
VII/AXXXII 14 Istanbul ex Gulek Bogazi hoard 61, 5.70g, 12.
X/AXXXIII 15* NY, 1984.66.458, 5.48g, 12.
Obverse die-links: 11-14 = 155/1 & 157/1-2;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8;
9 & 10.
Reverse die-links: 4 & 8 (die-identical);
11 & 12 (die-identical).

382
157. Obv.: AY KAI M ANT TOPAIANOC. Bust D2*.
Rev.: MHTP KAI B N. Six ears of corn tied together. To left, eT,
to right, Z.
Sydenham 616b
Dies No.
VII/AXLV 1* Cop, SNG 311, 6.43g, 12.
VII/AXLV 2 Istanbul ex Gulek Bogazi hoard 60, 5.75g, 12. Same dies as
Cop.
Obverse die-link: 1 & 2 (die-identical) = 155/1 & 156/11-14.
Reverse die-link: 1 & 2 (die-identical).

158. Obv.: CABINIA TPANKYAAINA. Bust El*.

Rev.: MHTP KAI B N e. Six ears of corn tied together. To left,
eT, to right, Z.
Sydenham 621 corr. (obverse legend mistakenly given as CABIN A
TPANKYAAINA C); 618b
TI/AXXXIV 1 C, Maclean 9235, 5.56g, 12.
TI/AXXXV 2 Cop, SNG 313, 7.28g, 12.
TI/AXXXVI 3* O, Christ Church 1759, 7.13g, 6.
Obverse die-link: 1, 2 & 3.

159. Obv.: CAB TPANKYAAINA AY. Bust E2*.

Rev.: MHTPO KAIC B Ne. Six ears of corn tied together. To
left, eT, to right, Z.
Sydenham 620 corr. (obverse legend mistakenly given as CAB
TPANKYAAINA)
TII/AIV 1* B, Lobbecke, 7.58g, 12.
TII/AV 2 O, Godwyn, 7.07g, 12.
TII/AIII 3 P, 745, 6.79g, 12.
TII/AIII 4 Hess, Frankfurt, Auction 28/4/1936, 218 = E A Sydenham,
The Coinage of Caesarea, p. 131, fig. 99. 6.99g.
Obverse die-link: 1-4 = 161/1.
Reverse die-link: 3 & 4 (die-identical) = 155/1.

160. Obv.: CAB TPANKYAAINA AY. Bust E2*.

Rev.: MHTP KAI B N e. Six ears of corn tied together. To left,
eT, to right, Z.
Sydenham 618; 619 (mistakenly gives obverse legend as CAB
TPANKYAAINA); 619a (= Waddington 6799); 621a (= Waddington
6798)
TIII/AXVII 1 B, Imhoof-Blumer, 5.24g, 12.
TIII/AXXXVII 2* B, 5142, 6.28g, 12.
TIII/AX 3* L, BMC 350, 4.84g, 12.
TIII/AXXXVIII 4 NY, 1938.131.3, 7.02g, 6.
TIII/AXXXIX 5 P, 744, 5.6lg, 6. Waddington 6798 (misreads reverse legend
as MHT KAIC Ne, eT Z).
TIII/AXXXVII 6 P, 746, 5.66g, 12. Waddington 6799 (misreads the reverse
legend as MHTP KAIC, eT Z).
TIII/AXL 1* SNG von Aulock 6534, 5.79g.
TIII/A? 8 Lindgren 1731, 5.63g.
TIII/AXLI 9 Munz Zentrum, Cologne, Auction 65, 9/11/1988, 281, 5.85g.
TIII/AXLIa 10 R Ratto, Paris, 1/12/1932, 698 (Schwing), no weight.

383
 Obverse die-link: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8 , 9 & 10.
Reverse die-links: 1 = 154/2, 5 & 6;
3 = 151/1;
2 & 6 (die-identical).

161. Obv.: CAB TPANKYAAINA AY. Bust E2*.

Rev.: MHTP KAI B N. Six ears of corn tied together. To left, eT,
to right, Z.
Sydenham 621b
TII/AXLVI 1* G, Macdonald 100, 5.73g, 12.
Obverse die-link: 1 = 159/1-4.

Modern forgery: Tranquillina

162. Obv.: CABI TPANKYAAINA. Bust E2*.

Rev.: MHTP KAI B N e. Six ears of corn tied together. To left,
eT, to right, Z.
1* NY, 1944.100.62501 (Newell), 6.87g, 12.
Note: the obverse of this coin seems to have been tooled from a
specimen reading CAB TPANKYAAINA AY.

384
THE COINAGE OF GORDIAN HI FROM

ANTIOCH AND CAESAREA

VOLUME 2
 CONTENTS
Volume II

Chapter 7 Metrology 385

Chapter 8 Coin Circulation 421

Chapter 9 The historicalevents of Gordian’s reign 483

Chapter 10 Conclusions 513

Appendix 1 Summary of radiates and denarii of Gordian in 79 finds 520

Appendix 2 Hoards of tetradrachms 566

Map 597

Plates End of volume

 Chapter 7
Metrology

Contents

1. The reliability of the d a t a ......................................................................... 387

A. The analyses: (1) Le Gentilhomme (387); B. The analyses:
(2) Walker (387); C. The analyses: (3) Cowell (389); D. The
problem of surface enrichment in Walker’s analyses: the
tetradrachms (389); E. Nabataean coins examined by Walker
and Cowell (390); E The radiates (390)

2. The first series of radiates from A n tio c h ................................................ 392

3. The second series of radiatesfrom A n tio ch ............................................ 394

4. The tetradrachms of Antioch ................................................................. 394

5. The coinage of Caesarea .......................................................................... 396

6. The relationship between the radiate and the denarius at Rome . . 398
A. Introduction (398); B. The denarius at Rome in Gordian’s
reign (398); C. The silver content of the denarius (399); D. The
relationship between the radiate and the denarius (400); E. The
ratio between the two denominations (400); E The literary
evidence (400); G. Military pay (401); H. The pattern of
hoarding (402); I. The significance of the radiate crown (403);
J. The radiate crown on gold coins on Gallus and Volusian
(403); K. The radiate crown on gold coins of Gordian (404); L.
The radiate crown on coins of Tarsus (405); M. Conclusion
(405)

7. The relationship between the Roman and the eastern

denom inations....................................................................................... 407
A. The first half of the reign (AD 238-240/1) (407); B. The
second half of the reign (AD 240/1-244) (408); C. Caesarea
(409)

8. Conclusions ................................................................................................... 410

385
Thbles
Table 1: Analyses of radiates of Antioch: First Series, AD 238-9 . . . . 412
Table 2: Analyses of radiates of Antioch: Second Series, AD 242-4 . . 413
Table 3: BM Analyses of radiates of Antioch: full d e ta ils...................... 414
Table 4: BM Analyses of radiates of Rome: full d e t a ils ......................... 415
Table 5: Le Gentilhomme’s analyses of radiates and denarii of Rome 416
Table 6: Walker’s analyses compared with those of Le Gentilhomme
and the B M ............................................................................................ 417
Table 7: Walker’s and BM analyses of tetradrachms .............................. 418
Table 8: BM Analyses of tetradrachms: full details ................................ 418
Table 9: Walker’s and BM analyses of tetradrachms com pared 419
Table 10: Walker’s analyses of coins of C aesarea..................................... 420
Table 11: Average Fineness of the Silver Coinage of Gordian’s reign
from Rome, Antioch and C aesarea.................................................. 420

386
1. The reliability of the data
A. The analyses: (1) Le Gentilhomme
This chapter is based on analyses from three different sources of
varying quality and reliability.1 In 1946 Le Gentilhomme wrote a discussion
of the coinage of 238-60 based on the Nanterre hoard.2 He also analysed a
number of denarii and radiates, including four specimens from the first series
of radiates from Antioch, seven from the second and 47 coins from Rome
(Thbles 1, 2 and 5).3 Although he did not specifically say so, the coins must
have been subjected to destructive wet chemical analysis, since that was the
only technique available at the time.4 If carried out by a skilled assayer this
should of course be a very reliable technique as it involves sampling a half or
quarter of the coin. Unfortunately Le Gentilhomme’s assays only recorded the
silver fineness of the coins; the coins that he examined were presumably
mostly specimens from the Nanterre hoard, although this too is not stated.

B. The analyses: (2) Walker

In 1978 David Walker published the third and final part of his study,
The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage, which included a large number of
analyses of coins of Gordian: 122 radiates and denarii of Rome, 17 radiates
of Antioch (Tables 1 and 2), 21 tetradrachms of Antioch (Thble 7) and 12

1 Two analyses of radiates of Gordian from the Plevna hoard were published by H
Mattingly and F S Salisbury, ‘A find of Roman coins from Plevna in Bulgaria’, NC 1924, p.
238; however, their results are of no use to the present discussion because the coins were not
identified in sufficient detail. The first was identified as having the reverse PROVIDENTIA
AVG and was found to contain: Ag 25.88%, Cu 72.75%, Sn 0.97%, Au 0.40%. This is
probably RIC 4 from Rome, but it could be a coin of the first series from Antioch. The
second had the reverse FORTVNA REDVX (this could be RIC 144 from Rome or 210 from
Antioch) and consisted of: Ag 45.42%, Cu 53.29%, Sn 0.93%, Au 0.41%.
2 P Le Gentilhomme, ‘La trouvaille de Nanterre’, R N 1946, pp. 15-114.
3 Most of the analyses were first published by Le Gentilhomme in his report on the
Nanterre hoard (n. 2); after his death, however, all his analyses, including four hitherto
unpublished results for coins of Gordian, were republished in a more convenient form in
‘Variations du titre de l’antoninianus au IIIe siecle’, RN 1962, pp. 141-66. Le Gentilhomme
also provided a general discussion in ‘Le jeu des mutations de l’argent au IIIe siecle’ in
Metaux et Civilisations 1 (1946), pp. 113-27.
4 Le Gentilhomme merely thanks M Gilbert for carrying out the assays in the Laboratory
of the Societe des Cendres (op. cit., p. 81).

387
tridrachms and drachms of Caesarea (Table 10).5 For the first time, Walker
presented a comprehensive picture of the fluctuations of the silver content of
the Roman coinage down to 253. The value of his work is greatly enhanced
by the fact that he included not just the Latin-legend coinage of Rome and its
branch mints, but he also analysed a very substantial sample of the Greek-
legend coinage of Antioch and Caesarea and other eastern mints. His work
was made possible by the recent development of the technique of determining
metal contents non-destructively by means of X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy.
While it is not necessary to go into the details of this method here, it does
provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the metal content of the surface
examined.6 It is now becoming clear that the problem with Walker’s analyses
lie-in the fact that he only examined the surface of the object concerned.
Because base silver Roman coins are subject to a process known as surface
enrichment whereby their surfaces contain a much higher proportion of silver
than their cores, any analytical technique that only examines the surface of the
coin is likely to give a fineness figure that is too high.7 It is true that Walker
did polish the edges of the coins that he examined, but a comparison between
his figures and the other data available to us shows that, in most cases, this
was not enough to avoid considerable distortion of the results through surface
enrichment.8

5 B A R Supplementary Series 40, Oxford, 1978.

6 For a discussion of this method of analysis see F Schweitzer, ‘Analysis of ancient coins
using a point source X-ray spectrometer’, in E T Hall and D M Metcalf (eds.), Methods of
Chemical and Metallurgical Investigation o f Ancient Coinage, Royal Numismatic Society Special
Publication 8 , 1972, p. 153. See also P Tyler, The Persian Wars of the 3rd Century A.D. and
Roman Imperial Monetary Policy, A.D. 253-68, Historia Einzelschriften 23, Wiesbaden 1975,
pp. 9ff.
7 Walker was himself aware of the problem, and believed that it could only be avoided
by ‘repeated cleaning and readings of the coins’. See The Metrology of the Roman Silver
Coinage 1, pp. 1-2.
8 It not possible to predict just how debased a coin must be before it displays a significant
degree of surface enrichment because a number of factors are involved, including the
conditions under which the coins analyzed have been kept (for example, whether they are
from a hoard or not) and how they were cleaned. It is evident that the phenomenon increases
as the overall silver content declines, but it is not possible to make a precise estimate.
Presumably all the figures in Walker’s third volume (covering the period from 193 to 253) will
be distorted to a greater or lesser extent by this, as most of the coins of this period have a
silver content of under 60%.
C. The analyses: (3) Cowell
The remaining analyses have been provided by Mike Cowell of the
British Museum Research Laboratory who has examined 83 radiates and 31
tetradrachms of the period 238-53 by means of atomic absorption
spectroscopy.9 More importantly, he obtained his samples by drilling small
holes in the edge of the coins, thus avoiding the problem of surface
enrichment. In addition to silver Cowell has provided information on nine
other elements as well: copper (Cu), tin (Pb), zinc (Zn), nickel (Ni), cobalt
(Co), gold (Au), bismuth (Bi), iron (Fe) and arsenic (As). Cowell’s analyses
included ten radiates of the first series of Antioch (Tables 1 and 3), nine of
the second (Ihbles 2 and 3), three tetradrachms of Antioch (Tables 7 and 8)
and 22 coins of Rome (Table 4). Therefore, although Le Gentilhomme and
Cowell between them have examined a fair-sized sample of the radiate
coinage of both Antioch and Rome, we have very little reliable information
about the tetradrachms of Antioch and none at all about the silver coinage of
Caesarea.

D. The problem of surface enrichment in Walker’s analyses: the tetradrachms

How can we tell that Walker’s results are distorted by surface
enrichment? The clearest evidence is provided in Table 9 which presents the
results of analyses of identical coins by Walker and Cowell. These coins are
all tetradrachms of Antioch, but the same differences between the two sets of
results are also apparent with the radiates.10
An examination of Table 9 will show that Walker’s figures tend at the
same time to be both higher and more variable than those obtained by Cowell.
Twenty-five coins in all are included in the table; in one case the figures
coincide, in five Cowell’s figures are higher than Walker’s and in the remaining

9 See M R Cowell, ‘The Application of Chemical, Spectroscopic and Statistical Methods

of Analysis’, Survey o f Numismatic Research 1978-1984 II, London, 1986, pp. 1022-40.
10 All the radiates that Walker examined were taken either from the Ashmolean or his
own collection (now also in the Ashmolean), whereas he borrowed tetradrachms from the
British Museum to analyse. On the other hand, all the coins that Cowell analysed were taken
from the British Museum.

389
19 Walker’s results are higher than Cowell’s. Cowell’s figures do not reveal any
coins with exceptionally high silver contents, whereas Walker’s do. If we look
in detail at the six coins of Philip I from the MON VRB series, they range in
fineness from 19.5% to 29.35% with a mean of 24.3% and a standard
deviation (o**1) of 3.50, according to Walker’s figures; Cowell’s results, on the
other hand, point to a much smaller variation in the silver content of the
individual coins, with a range of 20.7% to 22.5%, a mean of 21.3% and a
standard deviation (cr"'1) of only 0.68. These two characteristics of Walker’s
measurements of silver content of these coins, namely that they show a great
range of variation and that some of them are much too high, are consistent
with the hypothesis that they have been distorted by the surface enrichment
of the coins.

E. Nabataean coins examined by Walker and Cowell

It is also worth noting here that Cowell re-examined five Nabataean
coins previously analysed by Walker and again obtained significantly different
results, mainly, it seems, because insufficient cleaning had been carried out
before Walker’s analyses with the result that some surface enrichment
remained.11 Cowell also found that when he examined the same coin again
without polishing it any further he got results much closer to Walker’s than
when he prepared the coin properly. In all cases Walker obtained higher silver
percentages than Cowell, and in addition Walker’s results are much more
variable than Cowell’s.12

E The radiates
Although, as we have seen, Walker and Cowell have not analysed the
same radiates of Gordian, the same pattern emerges from their two sets of

11 As with the coins of Gordian, Cowell obtained his samples by drilling into the edge of
the coins which he then examined by atomic absorption spectroscopy: K Schmitt-Korte and
M R Cowell, ‘Nabataean Coinage - Part I’, NC 1989, p. 44.
12 The silver percentages for the five Nabataean coins are as follows: 58.00% (Walker)
and 50% (Cowell); 61.00% (W) and 50% (C); 60.75% (W) and 47% (C); 59.00% (W) and
48% (C); 31.50% (W) and 48% (C). The discrepancies are depressingly large.

390
figures. These are summarized in Table 6, where Walker’s results for the
radiates of Antioch and the radiates and denarii of Rome are compared with
the combined figures of Le Gentilhomme and Cowell. In all cases, the average
percentage of silver suggested by Walker is too high, by between 1.4% and
7.2%. In most cases Le Gentilhomme’s and Cowell’s results also show a much
smaller range of variation within any given issue than Walker’s as the standard
deviation^figures in Thble 6 show.13 It is clear in fact that the more silver
Walker found in any particular coin, the more likely it is that the analysis is
distorted by surface enrichment. Thus Walker recorded one figure of 67% (no.
4534) and one of 68% (no. 4617) from the coins of Rome as well as 35 with
between 50% and 60%, while Le Gentilhomme and Cowell did not find any
coins with a purity of more than 46.8%. On the other hand all analysts have
found the occasional coin with an abnormally low silver content: the lowest
figure in Walker being 23% and in Cowell 23.5%.
As already noted, in addition to Walker and Cowell, Le Gentilhomme
has also analysed radiates of Gordian and his results are presented in Thbles
1 and 2 (Antioch) and 5 (Rome). Le Gentilhomme used the destructive wet
chemical technique and his figures compare very closely with those obtained
by Cowell using atomic absorption spectroscopy. In the case of Antioch, Le
Gentilhomme analysed seven coins of the second series of radiates and
obtained fineness figures of between 40.3% and 45.5% with an average of
43.57%. Cowell examined nine coins of this issue which ranged between 41.5%
and 46.4% with an almost identical average of 43.48%.14 The figures
obtained by Le Gentilhomme and Cowell for the Rome coins are similarly
close, as a comparison of Tables 4 and 5 will show. Twelve coins of the first
three issues examined by Cowell average 42.39% of silver, whereas twenty

13 For two issues, however, Le Gentilhomme’s and Cowell’s results have a higher standard
deviation than Walker’s. The first case is Issue II from Rome, where the greater variability
is probably due to the fact that Le Gentilhomme and Cowell only analysed four coins whereas
Walker examined seven; the second case is the fourth issue from Rome where the standard
deviation has been increased by some very low results of Cowell’s.
14 By contrast, Walker analysed ten coins which ranged from 35% to 54.5% and averaged
45.9%.

391
coins examined by Le Gentilhomme average 43.07%. Only in the case of issues
IV and V at Rome do the two sets of figures show any significant difference:
ten coins examined by Cowell average 34.31% and 22 by Le Gentilhomme,
37.93%. But even this difference is not very great: Walker obtained an average
of 43.22%. It therefore seems reasonable to combine Cowell’s and Le
Gentilhomme’s figures in order to have as large a sample as possible at our
disposal.
The picture presented by Le Gentilhomme’s and Cowell’s results is,
therefore, altogether more plausible than the one that Walker’s study presents:
they show that the mint kept some degree of control over the silver content
of the coins it was producing and that although it may occasionally have struck
the odd piece with a much lower silver content than usual, it never produced
any coins that were abnormally pure. For these reasons it is best to make as
little use as possible of Walker’s results, since many of them seem to be
distorted by surface enrichment. However, the lower figures that he obtained
are more likely to be accurate and these may be used with caution if no other
analyses are available.
One other point that needs to be made is that the coins analysed in the
British Museum have a higher than average weight since it was only possible
to take samples from coins with flans that were thicker and therefore heavier
than normal. Therefore, to obtain the average weight of silver for each issue
in Table 10 I have multiplied the mean fineness, taken from Le
Gentilhomme’s and Cowell’s analyses, by the average weight not of the coins
analysed but of a much larger sample of specimens.

2. The first series of radiates from Antioch

Having established how much of our data is reliable, what can we say
of the silver standards in use at Antioch during Gordian’s reign and how do
they compare to those of Rome? Cowell’s analyses of ten radiates of the first
series are remarkable for the consistency of their silver content: these coins

392
varied from 41.9% to 44.7%, averaging 43.77%.15 Three of Le
Gentilhomme’s four analyses produced figures of 46.0% while the fourth was
found to be 43.8% pure, but these results must be used with caution.16 In any
case it is clear that the silver standard of this issue was quite tightly controlled
at between 42 and 46%.
Cowell also examined twelve coins of the first three issues of Rome and
Le Gentilhomme a further twenty and their results are given in Thbles 4 and
5 respectively. The average silver fineness of these coins was, at 42.82%, very
comparable to that at Antioch, but there were several coins with less than
40% of silver, with one as low as 31.9%, and no coins had more than 46.8%.
This shows, therefore, that the Antiochene coins were no baser than the
Roman ones: if anything they were a little finer and the alloy was certainly
more carefully regulated than at Rome, but essentially the two mints struck
coins to the same standard (the Antiochene coins in Thble 1 may be compared
with the Roman in Tables 4 and 5; Table 11 contains a summary).
Cowell’s analyses include data on ten other metals as well as silver and
one other feature that distinguishes the Antiochene radiates of 238-9 both
from those of 242-4 and from the Roman issues is their relatively high zinc
content. The coins of the first series from Antioch have an average zinc
content of 1.24%, compared with 0.12% for the second coinage and less than
0.015% for the first three issues at Rome and 0.056% for the last two. This is
rather unexpected since it is thought that when silver coins contain appreciable
amounts of lead, tin and zinc it is usually because their alloy includes brass
coins that have been melted down, that is sestertii and dupondii.17 In this

15 By contrast, the five coins of this issue examined by Walker produce figures that range
from 45.0% to 54.0% with an average of 51.3%.
16 Two of the radiates that he analysed (nos. 18/23, LIBERALITAS AVG, and 44/34, PM
TRP II COS PP, Providentia) were from types that were present in the Nanterre hoard, where
they are illustrated. Their attribution to Antioch may, therefore, be confirmed. The other two
coins with reverses PAX AVGVSTI (no. 21) and VICTORIA AVG (no. 60), were types that
were not represented in the Nanterre hoard and their attribution to Antioch must remain
unconfirmed.
17 J-N Barrandon, C Brenot, M Christol and S Melky, ‘De la devaluation de
l’antoninianus a la disparition du sesterce’, Statistics and Numismatics, PACT 5,1981, pp. 381-
90.

393
case the zinc occurs at Antioch and not Rome, and yet it is unlikely that the
mint of Antioch would have been recoining large numbers of Roman aes
coins, since they did not circulate in the East in any substantial quantities. In
addition the Antiochene coins have a rather higher nickel content than those
of Rome (0.26% compared with 0.07%).

3. The second series of radiates from Antioch

The silver content of the second series of radiates is almost identical to

that of the first. We have seven analyses by Le Gentilhomme and nine by
Cowell: they vary from 46.4% down to 40.3% with an average of 43.52%,
some 0.6% lower than the first series (Table 2). The range is slightly wider
than was the case with the first series, but it is still much narrower than at
Rome. In addition the radiates of the second series were quite appreciably
finer than the contemporary coins of Rome, which were on average 36.77%
pure, nearly seven per cent baser than the Antiochene coins (Tables 4 and 5).
Since the two series of coins weighed the same, this means that the eastern
radiates contained some 15.5% more silver than the Roman coins. In addition,
the alloy of the Roman coins was less carefully controlled, as was the case with
the first issues of the reign. The 32 coins analyzed ranged from a low of 23.5%
to a peak of only 43.7%, a much wider variation than at Antioch. We may
note that Walker’s analyses also reveal that the second series of radiates from
Antioch were on average some 4% finer than the contemporary coins of
Rome.

4. The tetradrachms of Antioch

The data on the tetradrachms is considerably more problematical than

that for the two series of radiates because we do not have any figures from Le
Gentilhomme and only three analyses from Cowell, of one coin from each
series. We also have a much larger body of analyses by Walker (twelve coins
from the first two series and ten from the second), but these are not to be

394
relied on for reasons already given. All three coins analysed by Cowell had
already been examined by Walker and the discrepancies between their figures
is alarming (see Table 7, where Cowell’s analyses are shown in bold).

1st series (4/1) Silver content: Walker (37.75%), Cowell (28.90%).

2nd series (12/1) Silver content: Walker (34.00%), Cowell (29.00%).
3rd series (14/1) Silver content: Walker (27.50%), Cowell (17.50%).

The differences between the three sets of figures are so great that it
would probably be best to ignore Walker’s figures completely. The problem
is that we then have to rely solely on three analyses which is far too small a
sample for comfort. Until we have more reliable data can we use any of
Walker’s results? We have seen above that his analyses are distorted by
surface enrichment and it is only the higher results that are affected: the lower
ones are probably reasonably accurate. It is also apparent that Cowell’s two
analyses of coins of the first two series produce very similar figures at 28.9%
and 29.0% respectively. This suggests that any of Walker’s analyses of the first
two series that produce figures of around 30% may be approximately correct.
In fact his results for the silver fineness of these coins extend from 31.5% up
to 41.5%; quite arbitrarily we might decide to use his two lowest figures,
31.5% and 32.0%. If we do this we raise the average percentage for the
tetradrachms of the first two series from 28.95% (based on two results) to
30.35% (based on four).18 It should be stressed that this argument is
tendentious and is only used here as a temporary stop-gap in default of better
evidence.
We have even less evidence for the third series of tetradrachms: Cowell
analysed just one coin which produced a figure of 17.5% of silver, compared
with Walker’s result of 27.5% for this specimen. Although the data is very
limited, both Cowell’s and Walker’s results show that the tetradrachms of the
third series were very considerably debased compared with the first two.
Walker’s ten analyses gave an average silver fineness of 24.18%, suggesting a
reduction in the silver content of 49%, while Cowell’s analyses imply a 65%

18 The average figure derived from Walker’s data for these two series is 36.1% (Table 7).

395
reduction. If we adopt the same technique that we used in the first two series
and retain those of Walker’s results which are in the region of 20% or under
(marked in italics in Table 7), then we obtain an average silver fineness of
18.16% from four coins, representing a two-thirds reduction from the second
series.19 Once again, however, this figure is very provisional.
It might have been expected that Philip’s first series of tetradrachms
would have continued the standard of Gordian’s second series. Cowell has
anlaysed three of these coins (Table 9). They are merely dated AHMAPX
eEOYCIAC and were most probably struck in 244. They produced figures of
25.9%, 23.4% and 13.0% of silver. Two coins, therefore, appear to have
appreciably more silver and one rather less than Gordian’s coins, and so they
offer no useful indication as to the silver standard of Gordian’s second series
of tetradrachms.
Whatever the correct figures of the silver content of the tetradrachms
are, and until further analyses are carried out these must remain imprecise, it
seems likely that the first two series of tetradrachms were struck at the same
standard, and that there was a sharp reduction in fineness between the second
and third series, probably of the order of 50%-60%.

5. The coinage of Caesarea

The interpretation of the fineness of the coinage of Caesarea presents

great difficulties for we only have Walker’s data on which to rely and his
figures have all the signs of being distorted by surface enrichment. He analysed
12 coins of Caesarea in all, two tridrachms of Year 3, four tridrachms and five
drachms of Year 4 and one drachm of Year 5 (Table 10). None of the very
rare didrachms was examined. One drachm (no. 44/1) had only 2% of silver
and is, presumably, a contemporary forgery. The remaining coins produced a
very wide range of silver percentages, from 63% down to 30%, just -as- the

19 I omit no 17/5 (W. 5260) which produced a figure of only 11% of silver: this is so low,
that it must be suspected.

396
same pattern as we find in Walker’s analyses of radiates and tetradrachms.
The four coins for which Walker recorded silver percentages of over 50%
must, I would suggest, have been subject to surface enrichment. This is
because, as we have seen, the highest figure obtained by Le Gentilhomme and
Cowell for a coin of Gordian was 46.8% for a denarius of Rome, and it is
unlikely that Caesarea would have been striking coins at a substantially higher
standard. In fact, I would also suggest that the same applies to Walker’s two
analyses that produced figures of 46% (47/1) and 44.5% (21/1), since these too
are considerably higher than his remaining results.
This leaves us with three analyses of tridrachms with figures of 38%
(27/1), 35.5% (33/1) and 30% (39/3) and two of drachms with 40.5% (52/1)
and 39% (43/1). These results are, I believe, more likely to be correct than the
others, and I have used them to make a very tentative estimate of the silver
standard at Caesarea. It will, of course, be very evident from this description
that in default of more reliable analyses any conclusions on the metrology of
the Caesarean coinage must be even more provisional than those on the
tetradrachms.
It should also be noted that all the coins whose analyses we are using
are of Year 4. Since there is at the moment no evidence to the contrary, it
seems that there was no alteration in the silver standard between Years 3 and
5.
From these figures, therefore, we obtain an average figure of 34.5% of
silver for the tridrachms and of 39.75% for the drachms. Given the weakness
of the data it is impossible to say whether there is any significance in the
higher silver percentage of the drachms. In addition, we have no statistics at
all for the didrachms. Table 11 presents the average weight of silver based on
these analyses: for the tridrachms it is 2.94g and for the drachms 1.2 lg. In
other words, the smaller coins appear to nave been-overvalued in relation to
the larger one, since not only do they appear to have had a higher silver
content, but they also weighed rather more than a third of the larger
denomination. However, there can be little doubt that the larger coin was

397
indeed tariffed at three drachms, and the didrachm at two, since no other
relationship between the three denom inations fits.

6. The relationship between the radiate and the denarius at Rome

A. Introduction

By establishing the average weight of silver of each of the various issues

of silver coins produced by G ordian at Rom e, Antioch and C aesarea, the
relationship betw een the intrinsic value of the various silver denom inations
may be established. T he evidence is sum m arized in Table 10. Once this ratio
has been determ ined, it is necessary to try to decide what exactly the
relationship betw een the various denom inations was.
The relationship betw een the R om an denarius and radiate and the
eastern denom inations based on the drachm is examined in the next section.
First, however, we need to examine the position of the denarius at Rome. This
denom ination does not appear at Antioch at all under G ordian, but, since the
relationship betw een the denarius and the radiate is a problem of fundam ental
im portance for the m onetary history of the first half of the third century it
needs to be exam ined here.

B. The denarius at Rome in Gordian’s reign

Only very few denarii were struck at R om e in 238 and 239 but they
were revived in 240 and were produced in large quantities in two issues during
that year. Towards the end of 240 denarii were again discontinued in favour
of radiates and no m ore were struck by G ordian. Because the larger of these
two series of denarii, the mis-named ‘m arriage issue’, included six types that
do not appear on the radiates, Walker argued convincingly that for a period
in 240 G ordian ceased striking radiates and issued only denarii -in silver .20

20 D R Walker, The Metrology o f the Roman Silver Coinage 3, p. 68. K J J Elks, ‘The
denarii of Gordian IIP, N C 1972, 309-10, has used hoard evidence to show that Gordian’s so
called ‘marriage issue’ o f denarii, which included the five types DIANA LVCIFERA, PIETAS
AVGVSTI, SALVS AVGVSTI, SECVR1TAS PVBLICA and VENVS VICTRIX was also
accompanied by the dated type PM TRP III COS PP (Adventus) and -may therefore be dated j

398
The second issue of denarii, on the other hand, had the same designs as the
radiates of Issue IV and while the denarii only contain coins dated to
Gordian’s third tribunician year, the radiates continued using the same designs
through his fourth, fifth and sixth years as well.21
Gordian’s reign was the last time when denarii were produced in
sufficient quantities to supply a significant proportion of the currency (except
for a possible revival of this denomination by Aurelian). Although denarii
continued to be struck by Gordian’s successors, they were only issued in small
numbers and they seem to have served a chiefly ceremonial purpose 22

C. The silver content of the denarius

The average weight of the denarii, measured from a sample23 of 133
specimens was 3.03g, while five analyses by Le Gentilhomme produced figures
of between 42.0% and 46.8%, with a mean of 44.9% (Table 5). This means
that the average weight of silver of the radiates of 238-40 was only 1.38 times
more than that in the denarii, while the Roman radiates of 240-4 contained
only 1.18 times more silver. I believe, therefore, that it is more likely that
Gordian’s denarii were tariffed at two-thirds of a radiate than half, for reasons
explained below.24

to 240 rather than 241, when Gordian is thought to have married Tranquillina (see Chapter
9 ) -

21 This second issue of denarii, corresponding to the radiate issue IV comprised the
following types: AETERNITATI AVG, IOVIS STATOR, LAETITIA AVG N, PM TRP III
COS II PP (Emperor), PM TRP III COS II PP (Apollo) and VIRTVTI AVGVSTI. The
dating of the two series is rather complicated by the fact that the first series includes the
dated type PM TRP III COS PP and the second PM TRP III COS II PP, although it is known
that Gordian was not COS II until 241, by which time he was in his fourth tribunician year.
This problem is discussed in Chapter 2. It seems most likely that the PM TRP III COS II PP
coins were anticipating Gordian’s second consulship.
22 For the function of the denarius after Gordian see P Bastien, ‘Pseudo-epreuves d'aurei
et essais dans le monnayage imperial romain’, in Melanges offerts au Docteur J-B Colbert de
Beaulieu, Paris, 1987, pp. 77-87.
23 This sample consisted of coins in G, L and O and also in the Haydere, Singidunum,
Smyrna and Stevenage hoards.
24 If denarii contained half the silver of a radiate they should weigh 2.2g rather than
3.03g, or alternatively, they should have been considerably baser than the radiates, whereas
in fact they contain a slightly higher percentage of silver at 44.9% instead of 42.6% for the
radiates of 238-40.

399
D. The relationship between the radiate and the denarius
The question of the relationship between the radiate and the denarius
has given rise to a great deal of discussion over the years, but it is only with
the availability of a substantial body of silver analyses that the intrinsic value
of the two denominations can be firmly established.25 The traditional
position, followed by most of the writers cited, is that the radiate was tariffed
at two denarii. There are several arguments in favour of this view.

E. The ratio between the two denominations

Mattingly states: ‘The ratio of 2 to 1 is obviously simpler and more
natural than IV2 or 1lA to I.’26 On its own, this does not strike me as a very
powerful argument.

E The literary evidence

Two different Byzantine epitomes of Cassius Dio state that Caracalla
issued silver and gold coinage that was KifiSrjkoQ.21 This word literally
means ‘adulterated’, ‘dishonest’ or ‘fraudulent’, and it has been interpreted as
a comment on the fact that the radiate was valued at two denarii, although it
only contained one and a half times as much silver. However, the rest of the
statement in one of the epitomes, the Excerpta Valesiaj^378), does not inspire L
confidence:

6cXtjQ€Xq y ^ P 'TOtic XPu a°ti< a u r o ic tSojpelro. r o le ‘Pa)//«toic

KljSS-rjA-Ov x a t t 6 A py6piO v x a t t 6 x P u a ^ov vctpeixev t6 titv ydtp 4k

25 It would be tedious to cite all the relevant literature here. We may, however, note the
following discussions: L C West, Gold and Silver Coin Standards in the Roman Empire, AN.S.
Notes and Monographs 94, New York, 1941, pp. 121-5; H Mattingly, BMC 5, pp. xvii-xxii; S
Bolin, State and Currency in the Roman Empire to 300 AD., Stockholm, 1958, pp. 248-90;
H Mattingly, Roman Coins2, London, 1960, pp. 122-3; R A G Carson, ‘The Inflation of the
Third Century and its Monetary Influence in the Near East’, Proceedings o f the International
Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem, 27-31 December 1963, Jerusalem, 1967, pp. 231-50; J-P
Callu, La Politique Monetaire, Paris, 1969, pp. 237-48; D R Walker, The Metrology o f the
Roman Silver Coinage 3, pp. 62ff.; R A G Carson, Coins of the Roman Empire, London, 1990,
p. 232.
26 H Mattingly in BMC 5, p. xviii.
27 Cassius Dio lxxviii, 14, 4. The epitomes are that of Xiphilinus (11th Century) and the
manuscript known as the Excerpta ValesiaL

400
 #/oAl/3Soi> KarapYupOti/ievOv, rd Si 4k xa ^K°u Karaxpvaotif/evov
iaxevdCerO.

The gold that he gave them [Germans] was of course genuine, whereas the silver and
gold currency that he furnished to the Romans was debased; for he manufactured the
one kind out of lead plated with silver, and the other out of copper plated with
gold.28

There is no evidence that Caracalla produced coins of a higher purity

for distribution to the German tribes, just as there is no evidence that he
struck gold coins that were debased with copper. The variation given by
Xiphilinus (333, 18) is less precise:

r<p o u v ’Avr<«)vtv<p r& re &XXa Kal r 6 v&iiioiia KifidrjXov r)v, r6 re

A p y tip io v Kttt r d x p w rto v 8 rrapelxev fy/iv.

With Antoninus the coinage as well as everything else was debased, both the silver
and the gold that he furnished us 29

However, as Butcher has pointed out, these passages occur in the

context of a general attack on Caracalla and in any case D io’s other references
to coins are notoriously misleading.30

G. Military pay
Another reason for believing that the radiate was valued at two denarii
is connected with the pay rise that Caracalla gave the army, in which he
increased a legionary’s stipendium by a half (Herodian 4, 4, 7) 31 Clearly, to
suppose that in order to help pay for this he produced a new coin, the radiate,
which was overvalued by about two-thirds compared with the denarius, is an
attractive, if facile, hypothesis.32 It would mean that, if the stipendium

28 Translated by E Cary (Loeb edition, Vol. IX, p. 313).

29 Loc. cit., n. 28.
30 K Butcher, doctoral dissertation.
31 The precise stipendium is not known for certain. Herodian (3, 8 , 5) and the S H A
(Severus 12, 2) both state that Septimius increased the stipendium by an unspecified amount.
J Jahn, ‘Zur Entwicklung romischer Soldzahlungen von Augustus bis auf Diocletian’, Studien
zu den Fundmanzen derAntike 2, 1984, pp. 53-74 (who cites all the previous literature) argues
that Septimius set the stipendium for legionaries at 600 denarii by Soptimim which was then
increased to 900 by Caracalla. This was further doubled by Maximinus (Herodian 6 , 8 , 8 ).
32 See, e.g., Mattingly in BMC 5, p. xviii.

401
increased from 600 denarii to 900 denarii or 450 radiates per annum the
actual amount of silver would only have gone up from 960g to 1170g.33 The
problem with this is that it means that Caracalla should have paid soldiers
exclusively in radiates rather than denarii; but if this were the case it is hard
to see why both Caracalla and his immediate successors Macrinus and
Elagabalus continued producing denarii in large quantities. What would have
been the purpose if the soldiers were paid in the new radiates? This argument
seems to me to be too neat to be true.

H. The pattern of hoarding

If radiates were greatly overvalued in comparison with denarii, it might
have been expected that the former would very quickly force the latter out of
circulation, and it is often said that this was what happened.34 In fact the
actual pattern of coin hoarding is more complex. There are several reasons for
this: for a start, the intermittent production of the radiate between 215 and
240 means that it is often difficult to know whether the relative proportions
of the two denominations in hoards is a reflection of deliberate discrimination
on the part of the hoarder or simply of the fact that for all but three short
periods only one denomination was actually being issued. Secondly, the
debasement that occurred during this period means that earlier coins
disappeared from circulation with increasing rapidity and it is difficult to tell
whether denarii were removed from circulation simply because they contained
a higher silver content than the coins that were struck subsequently or because
they were undervalued in relation to radiates or for some other reason that we
cannot determine.
This problem is discussed in Chapter 8, where Table 17 summarizes the
relative proportions of denarii and radiates in 76 hoards whose latest coins
may be dated to between 241 and 274. It is enough to say here that, although
there are a few hoards of this period which appear deliberately to exclude

33 Using Walker’s figures: Metrology o f the Roman Silver Coinage 3, pp. 19-22.
34 Carson, op. cit. n. 25 , p. 234.

402
radiates and rather more that contain no denarii, there are also many finds
that contain both denominations in substantial quantities, and that several of
these hoards were not buried until the 260s. In short, although there is
evidence that some discrimination did take place, the hoards do not lend
support to the theory that the radiates rapidly drove denarii out of circulation,
as Carson commented in his publication of the Mattishall hoard (which
contained 753 denarii and 335 radiates down to 261):

This is yet another example of a find in which denarii and antoniniani were hoarded
together and presumably reflects their continued circulation together. It is difficult
to see this happening if the antoninianus had an artificial value as a double-denarius
and not its real weight relationship of IVi denarii.35

I. The significance of the radiate crown

Because the radiate shows the emperor wearing a radiate crown and
the denarius shows him laureate it is thought that this distinction implies a
relationship of two to one between the two denominations.36 Certainly this
was the relationship between the radiate dupondius and the laureate as. It is
also true that the new radiate gold coin which Caracalla introduced at the
same time as the silver radiate weighed, on average, 13.2g, twice as much as
the newly reduced standard of the aurei, which was 6.6g.37

J. The radiate crown on gold coins on Gallus and Volusian

However, the significance of the radiate crown is less clear-cut in the
case of other denominations produced at about this period. For example,
Trebonianus Gallus introduced a new radiate gold coin which is only one and
a half times heavier than his laureate aurei. The average weight of 27 radiate
specimens known to me is 5.79g, while 28 laureate coins have a mean of 3.63g,

35 R A G Carson, ‘Mattishall (Norfolk) Treasure Trove of Roman Imperial Silver Coins’,

NC 1969, p. 129.
36 For a general discussion of the use of the radiate crown on coins see P Bastien,
‘Couronne radiee et buste monetaire imperiale. Problemes d’interpretation’, Studia Paulo
Naster Oblata /, Leuven, 1982, pp. 263-72.
37 BMC 5 pp. xix-xx.

403
a ratio of 1 to I.6.38 Since it is generally assumed that at this period gold
circulated at its bullion value, the radiate coins can hardly have been intended
to been have worth two of the smaller coins, for their weight was very nearly
one and a half times more. The parallel with the suggested relationship
between radiates and denarii is clear.
During the reign of Valerian and Gallienus, gold coins with both
laureate and radiate portraits continued to be struck, but all attempts at a
consistent standard appear to have broken down.39 While the radiate coins
tend to be heavier, they are not consistently twice as heavy, and indeed the
heaviest laureate coin weighs more than the lightest radiate.40

K. The radiate crown on gold coins of Gordian

Gordian also struck both radiate and laureate gold coins, and it might
have been thought that these would offer some clue as to interpretation of the
silver denominations. Unfortunately, the evidence they provide is contradictory.
The great majority of his gold coins show him laureate and 77 specimens
known to me have produced an average weight of 4.84g.41 There are,
however, two larger pieces which show the emperor radiate, one dated to 240
(RIC 72, reverse P M TR P III COS P P, emperor sacrificing) and the other
to 243 (RIC 96, P M TR P VI COS II P P, Apollo). They weigh 10.20g and
7.25g respectively. The earlier coin, therefore, is rather more than double the

38 L C West, op. cit. n. 25, pp. 144-6 adopts a very complicated classification of these
coins, dividing the laureate coins into trientes and double trientes and the radiate ones into
aurei and one-and-a-third aurei.
39 The pioneering paper is that of K Menadier, ‘Die Munzen und das Munzwesen bei den
Scriptores Historiae Augustae’, ZfN 31 (1914), pp. 84ff. No attempts to fit the gold coinage
of this reign into a series of declining weight standards are at all convincing an^d it is
generally assumed that by this date gold coins must have circulated at their bullion value. See
most recently, J-M Doyen, ‘Les emissions d’or de Gallien a Rome, Milan et Siscia (260-268)’,
in Rhythmes de la Production Monetaire...Actes du Colloque intemationale organise a Paris du
10 au 12 Janvier 1986, Numismatica Lovaniensia 7, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1987, pp. 291-310.
40 See the table in Bolin, op. cit. n. 25, p. 260.
41 West, op. cit. n. 25, p. 136, obtained an average weight of 4.86g from 92 specimens.
average weight of the laureate coins while the other weighs exactly one and
a half times as much: clearly they offer no help.42

L. The radiate crown on coins of Tarsus

Walker himself drew attention to the fact that Tarsus struck didrachms
of Caracalla with a radiate crown and tridrachm s with a laureate one.43 H e
believed that this provided further evidence that the radiate crown was
intended to denote a double denom ination (in this case a double drachm ), but
it could equally easily be interpreted as implying that the ratio between coins
with radiate and laureate crowns could just as well be 1 to IV2 as 1 to 2.

M. Conclusion
Although this discussion has necessarily taken evidence from the whole
period from the introduction of the d^ nafius by Caracalla in 215 down to its
final appearance as a m ajor elem ent of the coinage in G ordian’s reign, we are
only concerned here with G ordian. H ere, the fact that the silver analyses show
that the radiate only contained on average just over a third more silver than
the denarius seem s to me to be persuasive. If we assume th at the radiate was
really tariffed at two denarii under G ordian, then it would have been
overvalued by some 69% in relation to the o ther coin. If th at was the case, it
is hard to see how the two denom inations can ap p ear side by side in hoards
apparently in proportion to the quantities which were struck, and yet we have
seen that they do44: for exam ple, the H aydere hoard from Turkey contained

42 RIC 96, weighing 7.25g, com es from the Tarsus hoard and is now in P (A de
Longperier, ‘Tresor de Tarse’, R N 1868, p. 329, 23 and pi. XIII, 6) and its authenticity is not
in doubt. The second piece, RIC 72, also in P, which weighs 10.20g does not have such an
impeccable pedigree (it first appeared in the du Chastel sale in 1889) and certain features
about it, such as its unusual dished flan, lead one to hesitate before definitely accepting it as
genuine. We may also note here the two die-identical radiate gold coins allegedly from the
second series at Antioch with reverse MARTI PACIFERO, one o f which weighs 7.19g and
is now in NY, which are definitely false.

43 Walker, The Metrology o f the Roman Silver Coinage 3, pp. 62-3.

44 It is true that hoards can contain coins of different denominations, e.g, bronze and
silver or silver and gold, but in these cases the denom inations were either made of different
metals or else, in the case o f the bronze coins, they were strictly fiduciary anyway.

405
28 denarii and 692 radiates of Gordian.45 Equally, we have also seen that the
radiate crown cannot necessarily be taken as signifying that the radiate was
worth twice as much as the denarius: a proportion of one and a half is equally
possible.
If denarii already circulated at a value much higher than the intrinsic
value of the silver they contained, then it could be argued that the relative
weight of silver in the new radiate offers no clue as to how it was tariffed. As
Bolin stated:

The simplest solution, then, is to take the antoninianus as corresponding to two denarii. There
is no reason to doubt this, since we have ascertained that the Roman coins were overvalued
in relation to bullion.46

The point that he misses is that while the Roman authorities might
have been able to ensure that the silver coins that they struck circulated at a
premium compared with their bullion value or their value relative to gold, it
still seems difficult to understand why they should have continued striking
denarii if the radiates were so overvalued in relation to them and this, I feel,
is also the weakness with the argument put forward by Crawford: ‘There
seems no doubt that it [the antoninianus] was a double-denarius\ the argument
that its issue would otherwise have been pointless is by itself decisive.’47
There is one parallel which is instructive in this context and that is the
victoriate coinage of the Republic. Between about 211 and the 170s BC the
Roman mint contemporaneously produced denarii of silver that was 95% pure
and victoriates that were less than 70% pure.48 Denarii and victoriates are

45 R F Bland and P Aydemir, ‘The Haydere hoard and other hoards of the mid-third
century from Turkey’ in C J Lightfoot (ed.), Recent Turkish Coin Hoards, British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara, forthcoming.
46 Bolin, op. cit. n. 25, p. 248.
47 M Crawford, ‘Finance, coinage and money from the Severans to Constantine’, in
Temporini and Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt II, 2, Berlin, 1975,
p. 565.
48 M H Crawford, Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic, London, 1985, p. 56;
for the fineness of the victoriate see now P Serafin Petrillo, ‘Sulla <valutazione» del
Vittoriato’, Studi Per Laura Breglia II, Bollettino di Numismatica, Supplemento al n. 4,1987,
pp. 39-49 correcting the figures of D R Walker, ‘The silver contents of the Roman
Republican Coinage’, Metallurgy in Numismatics I, R N S Special Publication 13, 1980, pp.
55-72.

406
not generally found together in hoards and the distribution of finds containing
the baser denomination, which is chiefly in Greek areas of southern Italy, have
led to the suggestion that the coin was intended as a Greek, drachma-based
denomination struck for payment to Rome’s allies.49 Clearly, then, this will
not serve as a parallel to the introduction of the radiate.
After all, if the radiate were tariffed at two denarii the inequality would
have been immediately clear to all. The evidence, as we have seen, is at the
same time vague and contradictory and certainty is impossible. My personal
opinion, however, is based onjjcommon sense view that much less of a strain
is placed on the evidence if it is assumed that in Gordian’s reign at least, and
probably earlier as well, the radiate was tariffed at one and a half rather than
two denarii. Even so the radiate would have been overvalued, but not grossly
so.

7. The relationship between the Roman and the eastern

denominations
The first point to be made is that there was a decline in the standard
of the radiates at Rom e and of the tetradrachms at Antioch during Gordian’s
reign, and it is important to be clear about which period we are dealing with.
In fact it is best to divide the reign into two periods, the first stretching from
238 to late 240 at Rome or early 241 at Antioch and the second from 240/1
to 244.
A. The first half of the reign (AD 238-240/1)
In this period the relationship is straightforward. The radiates of both
Rome of 238-40 and of Antioch of 238-9 were of comparable weight and
fineness; they both averaged around 1.9g of silver. The first series of
tetradrachms from Antioch, which I believe was struck in 240 and early 241
(Chapter 4), appears to have contained around 3.67g of silver (this, as we have
seen, is based on very few analyses) and therefore it would seem to be

49 M H Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage II, Cambridge, 1974, pp. 628-30; for the
hoard distribution see map in Crawford, op. cit. n. 48, p. 57.

407
reasonably clear that at this time the tetradrachm was tariffed at two radiates
and three denarii. At least this is the interpretation that best fits the respective
weights of silver of these three denominations:

1 tetradrachm of 240-1 (@ 3.67g of silver each) = 1.95 radiates of 238-40 (@ 1.9g

each) = 2.67 denarii (@ 1.37g each)

This may also be expressed as follows:

1 tetradrachm (240-1) (3.67g of silver)

= 2 radiates (238-40) (3.84g)
= 3 denarii (4.11g)

This shows that the tetradrachm was slightly overvalued against the
radiate and rather more overvalued against the denarius, but the relationship
between the tetradrachm and the denarius is a rather theoretical one for in
practice these two coins did not circulate together very much. In any case, the
three denominations are still reasonably well adjusted in relation to each
other.

B. The second half of the reign (AD 240/1-244)

The straightforward relationship between the three denominations
broke down after 240 when the mint of Rome debased the radiates, beginning
with the large fourth issue which began to be struck at the end of 240 and
continued down until 243. The average fineness fell from 42.6% for the
coinage of 238-40 to 36.8% for that of 240-4, a 19.0% reduction. By contrast,
however, the second series of radiates from Antioch, produced between 243
and 244, maintained a fineness of 43.5%, more or less the same as the
standard of the first half of the reign. So a gap opened up between the silver
standards at Rome and Antioch. This gap widened during the issue of the
second series of tetradrachms from Antioch, which I have suggested might
have been produced in 242-3, for these also were heavily debased. As we have
seen above very few reliable analyses of these coins are available, so our
conclusions must only be provisional, but it would seem that the silver
standard of the tetradrachm, which was already lower than that of the

408
contemporary radiates, fell from around 30.4% to 18.2%, a fall of nearly two-
thirds (61.7%).
The relationship between these coins based on their average weights
of silver was as follows:

1 tetradrachm of ?242-3 (@ 2.27g of silver each) = 1.21 radiates of Antioch of 243-4

(@ 1.87g each) = 1.44 radiates of Rome of 240-4 (@ 1.6g each) = 1.66 denarii (@
1.37g each) = 0.62 tetradrachms of 239-40 (@ 3.67g each)

The only thing that seems clear from this is that three tetradrachms of
the second series were approximately equivalent to two of the first. If this is
the case then we would have the following equivalences:

3 late tetradrachms (6.81 g of silver)

= 2 early tetradrachms (7.34g)
= 4.5 radiates of the lower standard (7-llg)
= 4 radiates of the higher standard (7.48g)
= 6 denarii (8 .2 2 g)

This table is not very satisfactory, but it seems to be the most plausible
that can be obtained from the evidence, bearing in mind the lack of evidence
concerning the fineness of the tetradrachms. The radiates and denarii become
progressively overvalued in relation to the tetradrachms, but as before, the
relationship between the tetradrachm and the denarius is of minor importance.

C. Caesarea
It is convenient to consider the Caesarean coinage separately from that
of Rome and Antioch since it may be regarded as forming an enclosed
currency system as its coins do not seem to have mixed with those of Rome
or Antioch at this time. I have argued elsewhere that the silver falls into three
denominations which I have called tridrachms, didrachms and drachms
(Chapter 6). Was a Caesarean drachm the equivalent of an Antiochene one?
We have already seen how unreliable the silver analyses of these coins are,
and also how the drachm, with, on average, 1.2g of silver, appears to be
overvalued in relation to the tridrachm, with 2.9g. It is clear, then, that we
cannot expect any very precise equivalence between the products of the two
mints, nor do we find one.

409
 If the Caesarean tridrachm was in precisely the right relationship to the
Antiochene tetradrachm of 240-1 it should have 2.8g of silver and the drachm
0.9g, instead of 2.9g and 1.2g. To take this further, if the Caesarean drachm
was the equivalent of half a radiate it should have had l.Og of silver and the
tridrachm 2.9g. The drachms, therefore, do seem to be overvalued in relation
to the tetradrachms and radiates, while the tridrachms match very well. It
seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that in Gordian’s reign the coinage of
Caesarea was intended to correspond to both the Roman and the Syrian
denominations and that the drachm was worth half a radiate and one quarter
of a tetradrachm.

8. Conclusions
The analyses help to dispel the picture that eastern silver coinages were
invariably baser than those of Rome. In Gordian’s reign this may have been
true of the Antiochene tetradrachms, particularly the second series. However,
it needs to be remembered that the silver fineness of the first series of
tetradrachms had been greatly improved from the immediately preceding
tetradrachms which were issued some twenty years earlier under Elagabalus.
Walker analysed 29 of these and they had an average silver percentage of
19.4%.50 Given that his figures are likely to be rather too high, because of
surface enrichment, it is clear that the first series of Gordian’s tetradrachms,
which averaged around 29% of silver, represented a major improvement. It
was only with the second series that there was again a major debasement. As
for the silver coinage of Caesarea, that was more or less on a par with that of
Rome.
But the most important feature that these analyses have revealed is that
while the silver standard of the radiates at Rome declined by 19% in 240, the
standard at Antioch did not decline at all and the second series of radiates
from the eastern mint accordingly have a considerably higher weight of silver
than the contemporary issues of Rome (1.87g instead of 1.60g at Rome). This

50 D R Walker, The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage 3, pp. 90-1.

410
imbalance between the two mints is almost unprecedented and contrasts
sharply with the 60% reduction in the fineness of the tetradrachms.
Le Gentilhomme noted the disparity between Rome and Antioch and
suggested the following explanation for it:

C etait une necessite pour l’empereur, retenu a l’armee d’Orient depuis 242, que de
regler la solde des troupes en bonne monnaie .51

51 Le Gentilhomme, op. cit. n. 2, p. 41.

411
 Thble 1: Analyses of radiates of Antioch: First Series, AD 238-9

Catalogue Analyst Weight (g) Silver (%) Lead (%) Wt.of silver(g)

18/10 W.4625 4.45 45.00 2.25 2 .0 0

21/13 W.4626 3.99 53.50 1.25 2.13
2 1 /2 1 W.4627 3.84 50.50 0.50 1.94
56/5 W.4628 4.15 54.00 2 .0 0 2.24
56/6 W.4629 3.92 53.50 0.50 2 .1 0
Mean (W) 4.07 51.30 1.3 2.08
Standard deviation, 5 coins (crn l): 3.78

18/23 LG 4.20 46.00 ? 1.93

2 1 /? LG 3.52 46.00 ? 1.62
44/34 LG 4.52 46.00 ? 2.08
60/? LG 3.83 43.80 ? 1 .6 8
Mean (LG) 4.02 45.45 7 1.83
Standard deviation, 4 coins (a"'1): 1.10

2 /1 BM 4.13 42.80 0.63 1.77

9/2 BM 4.73 44.10 0.34 2.09
13/6 BM 4.59 44.20 0.37 2.03
13/7 BM 4.96 43.10 0.41 2.14
21/7 BM 4.69 44.20 0.26 2.07
28/2 BM 4.53 43.90 0.44 2.03
29/2 BM 4.57 44.70 0.39 2.04
34/4 BM 5.19 44.30 0.44 2.30
42/1 BM 4.62 41.90 0.31 1.94
52/4 BM 4.46 44.50 0.33 1.98
Mean (BM) 4.65 43.77 0.39 2.04
Standard deviation, 10 coins (tr"'1): 0.89

Mean, LG and BM 4.47 44.25 0.39 1.98

Standard deviation, 14 coins (a"'1): 1.20

Notes: under Analyst W. refers to D R Walker, LG to Le Gentilhomme and BM to hitherto unpublished

analyses by M Cowell.

412
 Thble 2: Analyses of radiates of Antioch: Second Series, AD 242-4

Catalogue Analyst Weight (g) Silver (%) Lead (%) Wt.of silver(g)

67/28 W.4631 4.11 44.00 1.50 1.81

71/26 W.4635 4.61 52.50 0.75 2.42
73/27 W.4639 4.17 46.00 0.50 1.92
78/71 W.4630 4.48 49.50 0.50 2 .2 2
78/72 W.4632 4.84 41.00 0.75 1.98
78/73 W.4633 4.15 54.50 1 .0 0 2.26
78/88 W.4634 4.64 49.50 0.25 2.30
79/80 W.4637 4.00 52.50 0.25 2 .1 0
79/81 W.4636 4.57 39.00 1.50 1.78
79/82 W.4638 3.67 41.00 0.50 1.50
82/75 W.4641 3.78 46.50 0.50 1.76
82/76 W.4640 4.04 35.00 1 .0 0 1.41
Mean (W) 4.26 45.92 0.75 1.96
Standard deviation, 12 coins (a"'1): 6.07

67 LG 4.15 43.40 ? 1.80

71 LG 6.33 45.50 ? 2 .8 8
73 LG 4.45 44.70 ? 1.99
75 LG 5.31 42.50 ? 2.25
78 LG 4.83 45.20 ? 2.18
79 LG 5.59 43.40 ? 2.42
82 LG 4.05 40.30 ? 1.61
Mean (LG) 4.96 43.57 2.16
Standard deviation, 7 coins (ct"'1): 1.81

67/15 BM 5.31 45.30 0.51 2.41

71/10 BM 4.86 43.30 0.51 2.10
73/21 BM 4.81 46.40 0.48 2.23
75/6 BM 4.59 42.80 0.48 1.96
78/55 BM 5.19 43.90 0.70 2.28
79/47 BM 6.13 43.50 0.49 2.67
82/43 BM 5.09 42.90 0.61 2.18
82/53 BM 6.46 41.70 0.41 2.69
83/3 BM 5.50 41.50 0.45 2.28
Mean (BM) 5.33 43.48 0.52 2.31
Standard deviation, 9 coins (tx""1): 1.58

Mean, LG and BM 5.17 43.52 0.52 2.24

Standard deviation, 16 coins (or"'1): 1.62

Notes: under Analyst W. refers to D R Walker, LG to Le Gentilhomme and BM to hitherto unpublished

analyses by M Cowell.

413
 Ihble 3: BM Analyses of radiates of Antioch: full details

Antioch: First series

Ag Cu Pb Sn Zn Ni Co Au Bi Fe As
2 /1 42.8 55.4 0.63 0.17 0.264 0.143 0.014 0.146 0.097 0 .0 1 0.17
9/2 44.1 52.7 0.34 0 .1 0 1.392 0.305 0.034 0.213 0.027 0 .0 2 0 .2 2
13/6 42.2 53.5 0.37 - 1.035 0.307 0.029 0.217
13/7 43.1 53.6 0.41 0.09 1.151 0.369 0.035 0.192 0.024 0.04 0.24
21/7 44.2 53.0 0.26 - 1.476 0.317 0.036 0.230
28/2 43.9 52.6 0.44 0.16 1.354 0.271 0.054 0.182 <.016 0 .0 2 <.08
29/2 44.7 53.9 0.39 0 .1 2 1.695 0.091 0.019 0.179 < .0 1 2 0 .0 2 0 .2 1
34/4 44.3 54.2 0.44 0.25 0.922 0.405 0.034 0.168 0.008 0.06 0 .2 0
42/1 41.9 55.0 0.31 - 1.554 0.339 0.054 0.228
52/4 44.5 53.8 0.33 0.28 1.524 0.019 0.008 0.213 <.009 0 .0 2 0 .1 1

Mean 43.77 53.77 0.39 [0.17] 1.24 0.26 0.032 0.197 [<.028] [0.027][<.174]

Antioch: Second series

67/15 45.3 53.4 0.51 0.37 0.041 0.052 0.008 0.142 0.060 0 .0 1 <.05
71/10 43.3 53.9 0.51 - 0.056 0.044 0.013 0.187
73/21 46.4 52.2 0.48 - 0.032 0.046 0.009 0.198
75/6 42.8 54.8 0.48 0.44 0.034 0.050 0.007 0.128 0.043 0.06 <.04
78/55 43.9 52.4 0.70 - 0.227 0.065 0 .0 1 1 0.132
79/47 43.5 55.9 0.49 0.29 0.147 0 .1 1 2 0.016 0.149 0.042 0 .0 1 <.05
82/43 42.9 56.2 0.61 0.58 0.181 0.061 0.008 0.117 0.042 0.03 <.05
82/53 41.7 55.4 0.41 - 0.025 0 .1 0 1 0 .0 2 2 0.194
83/3 41.5 54.9 0.45 - 0.304 0.042 0.007 0.177

Mean 43.48 54.34 0.52 [0.42] 0.116 0.064 0 .0 1 1 0.158 [0.047] [0.028] <.05

Note: the data for some elements is not yet available.

414
 Thble 4: BM Analyses of radiates of Rome: full details

Issues I, II, Ilia and Illb (AD 238-9)

Cu Pb Sn Zn Ni Co Au Bi Fe As
RIC 1 44.2 52.9 0.33 - 0 .0 1 2 0.029 0 .0 0 1 0.238 - - -

RIC 2 43.5 54.4 0 .2 0 - 0 .0 1 2 0.117 0 .0 0 1 0.242 - - -

RIC 5 44.8 53.7 0 .2 1 - 0 .0 1 1 0.225 0.015 0.267 - - -

RIC 15 43.9 54.0 0.19 0.013 0.133 0 .0 0 1 0.219 _ _ .

RIC 16 45.5 54.1 0.19 - 0.008 0.253 0.023 0.269 - - -

RIC 19 31.9 65.7 1.09 - 0.085 0.033 0 .0 0 1 0.171 - - -

RIC 35 44.5 55.0 0.19 _ <.007 0.026 < .0 0 1 0.263 _ _ _

RIC 37 42.8 58.4 0 .2 2 - <.008 0.008 < .0 0 1 0.224 - - -

RIC 38 42.6 62.7 0 .2 1 - <.008 0.017 < .0 0 1 0.237 - - -

RIC 54 40.9 58.4 0.27 _

0.006 0.016 0 .0 0 1 0.226 _ _ _

RIC 55 40.6 52.8 0.34 - 0.006 0 .0 1 2 < .0 0 1 0.181 - - -

RIC 56 43.5 55.3 0.36 - <.007 0.018 < .0 0 1 0 .2 2 1 - - -

Mean 42.39 56.45 0.32 <.015 0.074 <.004 0.213 _ .

Standard deviation, Issues I-III (a ): 3.61

Issues IV and V (AD 242-4)

RIC 89 41.7 55.4 0.47 0.40 0.035 0.041 <.007 0.132 0.037 0 .0 1 <.04
RIC789 43.4 61.7 0.52 - 0 .0 1 1 0.007 0 .0 0 1 0.089 - - -

RIC 90 27.2 69.8 0.48 0.26 0.188 0.019 <.008 0.036 0.019 < . 0 0 0.34
RIC 93 23.5 71.8 0.49 1.52 0.014 0.048 < .0 1 2 0.017 0.038 0.08 <.07
RIC 94 38.5 58.0 0.45 0.42 0.042 0.046 0.009 0.105 0.059 0 .0 2 <.06
Mean, IV 34.86 63.34 0.48 [0.65] 0.058 0.032 <.007 0.076 0.038 [<.03] [<.13]

RIC 140 39.5 59.6 0.50 0.041 0.031 0 .0 0 1 0.184 _ -

RIC 142 36.5 60.4 0.59 0.63 0.051 0.036 < .0 1 1 0.067 0.027 0.03 <.07
RIC 145 24.3 69.9 0.48 1.34 0.125 0.042 < .0 1 0 0 .0 2 1 <.013 0 .0 1 0.13
RIC 145 27.8 69.8 0.41 - 0.018 n.d. < .0 0 1 0.107 - - -

RIC 152 40.7 58.4 0.45 - 0.034 0.052 0 .0 0 1 0.196 - - -

Mean, V 33.76 63.62 0.49 [.99] 0.054 0.040 <.005 0.115 [< .0 2 0 ] [0 .0 2 ] [< . 1 0 ]

Mean 34.31 63.48 0.48 [0.76] 0.056 0.036 <.006 0.095 [<.032] [<.025][<.012]
Standard deviation, Issues IV-V (a0'1): 7.73

Note: the data for some elements is not yet available.

415
Thble 5: Le Gentilhomme’s analyses of radiates and denarii of Rome

Issue and date RIC Weight (g) Silver (%) Wt.of silver(g) Standard deviation (o'1'1)
Radiates
I (AD 238) 1 3.65 43.6 1.59
I (AD 238) 2 4.77 43.5 2.08
I (AD 238) 3 4.03 44.2 1.78
I (AD 238) 4 3.98 43.7 1.74
I (AD 238) 5 4.74 43.3 2.05
1 (AD 238) 6 4.88 38.2 1 .8 6
II (AD 239) 19 3.72 37.2 1.38
Ilia (AD 239) 34 4.39 44.5 1.95
Ilia (AD 239) 35 4.61 43.7 2 .0 1
Ilia (AD 239) 36 4.40 38.0 1.67
Ilia (AD 239) 37 4.35 46.3 2 .0 1
Ilia (AD 239) 37 3.12 44.5 1.39
Ilia (AD 239) 38 4.84 42.7 2.07
Ilia (AD 239) 39 4.20 43.3 1.82
IHb (AD 239) 51 5.05 44.8 2.26
Illb (AD 239) C 141 3.68 46.8 1.72
IHb (AD 239) 55 4.08 41.9 1.71
Illb (AD 239) 56 3.91 44.3 1.73
IIIc (AD 239-40) 65 4.55 44.7 2.03
IIIc (AD 239-40) 69 4.66 42.2 1.97
Mean, AD 238-40 4.28 43.07 1.84 2.56

IV (AD 241-3) 83 3.67 41.7 1.53

IV (AD 241-3) 84 4.11 33.0 1.36
IV (AD 241-3) 86 4.48 31.7 1.42
IV (AD 241-3) 87 4.46 41.2 1.84
IV (AD 241-3) 87 4.86 37.4 1.82
IV (AD 241-3) 89 4.19 43.7 1.83
IV (AD 241-3) 91 6.95 38.1 2.65
IV (AD 241-3) 92 4.81 39.2 1.89
IV (AD 241-3) 92 4.43 37.6 1.67
IV (AD 241-3) 93 4.81 41.2 1.98
IV (AD 241-3) 95 4.58 36.0 1.65
Mean, AD 241-3 4.67 38.25 1.79 3.70

V (AD 243-4) 140 3.61 39.8 1.44

V (AD 243-4) 142 4.78 37.7 1.80
V (AD 243-4) 143 3.91 42.5 1 .6 6
V (AD 243-4) 144 4.22 40.1 1.69
V (AD 243-4) 145 4.25 33.7 1.43
V (AD 243-4) 147 4.41 28.0 1.23
V (AD 243-4) 148 5.22 41.5 2.17
V (AD 243-4) 151 4.70 33.9 1.59
V (AD 243-4) 153 4.32 34.5 1.49
V (AD 243-4) 154 4.27 39.0 1.67
V (AD 243-4) 156 5.01 43.0 2.15
Mean, AD 243-4 4.43 37.61 1.67 4.61

Denarii
AD 240 81 2.57 46.8 1 .2 0
AD 240 127 3.21 46.0 1.48
AD 240 129 2.98 44.2 1.32
AD 240 131 3.08 45.4 1.40
AD 240-1 112 2.81 42.0 1.18
Mean 2.93 44.88 1.32 1.87

416
 Thble 6: Walker’s analyses compared with those of Le Gentilhomme and the BM

Radiates
Issue and date Qty. Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range (a*
weight % Ag wt. Ag

Issue I (AD 238) 15 4.35 3.47-5.30 47.07 36.5-52.0 2.08 1.69-2.65 4.26
tt ft tt t»
9 4.73 3.65-5.81 43.22 38.2-44.8 2.04 1.59-2.53 1.94

Issue II (AD 239) 7 4.69 3.83-5.14 49.29 46.5-52.0 2.32 1.82-2.55 1.91
ft tt tt tt
4 5.14 3.72-5.64 39.63 31.9-45.5 2.05 1.38-2.54 6.28

Issue Illa-c (AD 240) 30 4.46 3.43-5.88 49.77 40.0-67.0 2.22 1.58-2.88 4.87
tt tt ft tt
19 4.45 3.12-5.43 43.29 38.0-46.8 1.92 1.39-2.36 2.06

Issues I-III 52 4.46 3.43-5.88 48.93 36.5-67.0 2.19 1.58-2.88

tt tt n
32 4.61 3.12-5.81 42.82 31.9-46.8 1.97 1.38-2.53

Issue IV (AD 241-3) 25 4.43 3.45-5.52 44.68 39.0-48.5 1.98 1.41-2.55 2.73
tt ft ft tt
16 4.79 3.67-6.95 37.19 23.5-43.7 1.78 1.22-2.65 5.76

Issue V (AD 243-4) 23 4.06 3.28-4.83 41.63 23.0-59.0 1.65 1.06-1.99 7.04
tt it n tt
16 4.71 3.61-6.04 36.41 24.3-43.0 1.71 1.23-146 5.64

Issues IV-V 48 4.25 3.28-5.52 43.22 23.0-59.0 1.82 1.06-2.55

tt ft tt
32 4.75 3.61-6.95 36.77 23.5-43.7 1.74 1.22-2.65

Denarii
AD 240-3 22 3.01 2.39-3.66 48.11 36.0-68.0 1.45 0.86-1.94 5.78
5 2.93 2.57-3.21 44.88 42.0-46.8 1.32 1.20-1.48 7.87

Antioch

1st Series (AD 238-9) 5 4.07 3.92-4.45 51.30 45.0-53.5 2.08 1.94-2.24 3.78
tt ft tt tt
14 4.47 3.52-5.32 44.25 41.9-46.0 1.98 1.62-2.30 7.20

2nd Series(AD 242-4) 1 2 4.26 3.67-4.84 45.92 35.0-54.5 1.96 1.41-2.42 6.07
tt tt ft tt
16 5.17 4.15-6.33 43.52 40.3-46.4 2.24 1.80-2.88 7.62

Note: Walker’s analyses are shown in normal type, while Le Gentilhomme’s and Cowell’s combined results
are shown in italics.

417
 Tkble 7: Walker’s and BM analyses of tetradrachms

1st Series
Catalogue Analyst Weight(g) Silver (%) Lead (%) Wt. o f silver (g)
4/1 W.5246 12.83 37.75 2.50 4.84
tt
BM tt
28.90 0.82 3.70
4/2 W.5242 12.07 34.00 2 .0 0 4.10
4/4 W.5244 12.08 32.00 2.00 3.87
4/5 W.5245 13.37 31.50 4.00 4.21
4/10 W.5247 12.96 39.50 1.50 5.12
4/12 W.5248 1 1 .2 2 36.00 1 .0 0 4.04
6 /1 W.5249 10.59 39.00 0.50 4.13
8 /1 W.5250 12.07 35.50 2 .0 0 4.28
8/5 W.5251 10.50 34.50 1 .0 0 3.62

2nd Series
1 2 /1 W.5253 11.89 34.00 2.50 4.78
tt
BM tt
29.00 0.37 3.45
1 2 /2 W.5252 11.52 41.50 2.50 4.78

Mean (11 coins) 11.83 36.10 4.27

Mean (4 coins) 12.54 30.35 3.81

3rd Series
First officina
14/1 W.5254 14.42 27.50 1.50 3.96
tt
BM 91
17.50 1 .0 2 2.52
17/1 W.5255 12.40 35.75 2.50 4.43
17/4 W.5259 13.28 29.50 2.50 3.92
17/5 W.5260 11.60 11.00 1 .0 0 1.28
17/8 W.5258 12.61 25.00 1.50 3.15
17/24 W.5261 1148 17.00 1.50 112
17/25 W.5262 13.04 22.50 2 .0 0 2.93
Second officina
24/1 W.5256 13.08 24.50 2.75 3.20
24/3 W.5257 10.69 20.00 2.50 114
24/4 W.5263 13.26 29.00 1.50 3.85

Mean (10 coins) 12.69 24.18 3.10

Mean (3 coins) 12.53 18.16 2.38

Notes: the three coins analysed by Cowell are shown in bold. Those figures of Walker’s which I suggest might
be reliable are shown in italics.

Nos. 5264-7 which Walker includes amongst the tetradrachms of 240 on p. 91 of MRSC 3 are coins of Philip.

Thble 8: BM Analyses of tetradrachms: full details

Ag Cu Pb Sn Zn Ni Co Au Bi Fe As
4/1 28.9 67.0 0.82 - 0.231 0.099 0.007 0.149 - - -
12/1 29.0 6 8 .1 0.37 - 1.215 0.241 0.033 0.140 - - -
14/1 17.5 79.2 1 .0 2 - 0.250 0.319 0.072 0.054 - - -

418
 Ibble 9: Walker’s and BM analyses of tetradrachms compared

Series Reference WL(g) Ag Ag Pb Pb WtJig WtAg

(W) (BM) (W) (BM) (W) (BM)
Gordian
Series 1 1948-6-2-5/W.5246 12.79 37.75 28.90 2.50 0.82 4.84 3.69
Series 2 G 1159/W.5253 1 1 .8 6 34.00 29.00 1.50 0.37 4.10 3.44
Series 3 BMC 500/W.5254 14.39 27.50 17.50 1.50 1.02 3.96 2.52

Philip I and family

AHMAPX eSOYCIAC 1938-3-16-6/W.5272 1 1 .2 2 20.50 14.00 2.50 0.93 2.31 1.57
BMC 540/W.5274 11.81 18.50 23.40 2.50 0.91 2.19 2.76
BMC 546/W.5278 14.12 27.00 25.90 2.50 0.74 3.83 3.66

A.c. y iia t o A 1948-6-2-11/W.5286 10.95 33.00 23.70 3.50 0.78 3.62 2.60

MON VRB BMC 507/W.5287 12.89 21.50 20.70 2 .0 0 1.18 2.78 2.67
BMC 508/W.5288 11.18 24.50 21.60 0.75 0.96 2.75 2.41
BMC 509/W.5291 13.93 19.50 20.90 1 .0 0 1.31 2.72 191
BMC 510/W.5290 10.52 29.35 20.80 1.25 1.10 3.09 2.19
1938-3-6-10/W.5292 12.09 26.50 2150 0.75 1.23 3.22 2.72
1948-6-2-6/W.5294 11.59 24.25 21.20 2 .0 0 1.25 2.82 146

A.e. YIIATO F 1938-3-6-3/W.5304 12.39 18.50 16.80 3.25 0.89 2.30 108
1948-6-2-9/W.5309 13.36 18.00 17.90 5.50 0.60 2.41 2.39
BMC 542/W.5321 12.07 18.00 18.00 4.00 1.45 2.18 2.17
BMC 550AV.5314 11.29 27.50 17.80 4.00 1.34 3.12 2.01
BMC 552/W.5318 12.76 19.50 17.20 5.50 1.10 2.50 119

A.e. YIIATO A BMC 520/W.5347 12.43 19.00 16.90 4.00 0.91 2.37 2.10
BMC 519/W.5340 12.48 2 0 .0 0 18.10 2.50 0.67 2.50 2.26
BMC 562/W.5331 10.63 11.00 17.50 3.00 2.00 1.17 1.86

Trajan Decius
1 st series BMC 589/W.5378 12.03 2 0 .0 0 18.10 3.00 0.99 2.41 2.17
2 nd series 1938-3-6-14/W.5383 1 1 .1 2 15.00 18.80 4.25 2.69 1.75 2.09
3rd series BMC 580/W.5365 13.13 14.50 18.60 3.50 3.02 1.91 2.44

Itebonianus Gallus
2 nd series BMC 649/W.5417 12.15 9.50 7.90 1.50 1.19 1.16 0.96

419
 Thble 10: Walker’s analyses of coins of Caesarea

Catalogue Walker Den. Weight (g) Silver(%) Lead (%) Wt. o f silver (per dr.)

(a) Those that are probably distorted by surface enrichment.

Year 3
2 /2 5018 3 8.65 56.50 - 4.89 (1.63)
18/1 5019 3 6.77 53.00 4.00 3.59+ (1.20+)

Year 4
2 1 /1 5023 3 9.71 44.50 - 4.32 (1.44)
44/1 5025 1 2.90 2 .0 0 1.50 0.058
47/1 5027 1 2.99 46.00 0.75 1.38
56/3 5026 1 2.67 58.50 - 1.57

Year 5
67/1 5029 1 3.55 63.00 3.00 2.24

(b) Those that are more likely to be reliable.

Year 4

27/1 5021 3 8.09 38.00 - 3.08 (1.03)

33/1 5022 3 9.45 35.50 tr. 3.36 (1.12)
39/3 5020 3 7.44 30.00 2.50 2.23 (0.74)
43/1 5024 1 3.22 39.00 - 1.26
52/1 5028 1 2.82 40.50 - 1.14

Note: the figure in brackets in the last column is the equivalent weight in silver per drachm for the
tridrachms.

Table 11: Average Fineness of the Silver Coinage of Gordian’s reign

from Rome, Antioch and Caesarea

1. Rome
Date Den. Mean wt. Quantity Silver (%) Wt. o f silver(g)
AD 238-40 Rad. 4.42 32 42.82 1.89
AD 240-4 Rad. 4.34 32 36.80 1.60
AD 240 Den. 3.05 5 44.88 1.37

2. Antioch
AD 238-9 Rad. (Series 1) 4.34 14 44.25 1.92
AD 240-1 Tfet. (Series 1&2) 12.09 4 28.95 3.67
?AD 242-3 Tfct. (Series 3) 12.48 1 18.16 2.27
AD 243-4 Rad. (Series 2) 4.29 16 43.52 1.87

3. Caesarea
AD 240-1 TH. (Years 3-4) 8.55 34.50 2.94
AD 241-2 Di. (Years 4-5) 5.05
AD 241 Dr. (Years 4-5) 3.05 39.75 1.21

Note: the analyses quoted for the radiates of Rome and Antioch are those of Le Gentilhomme and Cowell.
For the tetradrachms of Antioch and the coins of Caesarea I have also used some of Walker’s analyses which
I believe might not be distorted by surface enrichment. They should, however, be treated with caution.

420
 Chapter 8

Coin Circulation

1. Tetradrachms and r a d ia te s....................................................................... 423

2. The circulation area of Syrian tetradrachms ....................................... 424

3. The currency of D u r a ................................................................................. 426

4. Hoards of tetradrachms ............................................................................ 429

A. Dura (429); B. Hoard I (434); C. The ‘Numismatic Fine Arts’
hoard (435); D. Hoard III (436); E. Hoard VI (437); F. Hoard
IV (438); G. The Antioch hoard (439); H. The Hama or Homs
hoard (440); I. The Bitias hoard (440); J. The Capharnaum
hoard (441); K. The Jafa hoard (442); L. Hoard II (443); M.
Hoard V (444); N. E T Newell’s ‘Syrian’ hoard (445)

5. Hoards containing both radiates and tetradrachms ........................... 445

6. Conclusion: the circulation of Syrian tetradrachms from 238 to 253 446

7. The finds of radiates and denarii: the principles of selection .......... 449

8. The disappearance of the denarius from hoards .............................. 450

9. The circulation of radiates and denarii in Turkey and S y r ia .......... 456

A. The Yatagan hoard (456); B. The ‘Eastern hoard’ (457); C.
The Smyrna hoard (459); D. The Caesarea hoard (460); E. The
Pergamum hoard (461); F. The Iasos hoard (463); G. The
Haydere hoard (465); H. The hoards from Dura (469); I. The
occasion for the burial of these hoards: the incursions of the
Goths (471)

10. Conclusion: the contrast between coin circulation in Turkey and

S y r ia ..................................................................................................... 472

11. The circulation pattern of coins of C a e sa r e a ................................... 476

A. Silver (476); B. Bronze (479); C. Conclusion (481)

421
Tables

Table 1: The Coin Finds from D u r a ........................................................... 427

Table 2: Summary of hoards containing Syrian tetradrachms of 238-53
A. Hoards closing in 253 or ea rlier................................................. 430
Table 2: Summary of hoards containing Syrian tetradrachms of 238-53
B. Hoards closing after 253 .............................................................. 431
Table 3: Coin hoards from D u r a ................................................................... 432
Table 4: Composition of Hoard I ................................................................. 434
Table 5: Composition of ‘Numismatic Fine Arts’ h o a r d ......................... 435
Table 6: Composition of Hoard I I I .............................................................. 436
Table 7: Composition of Hoard V I .............................................................. 438
Table 8: Composition of Hoard I V .............................................................. 438
Table 9: Composition of the Antioch hoard ............................................. 439
Table 10: Composition of Hama or Horns h o a rd ..................................... 440
Table 11: Composition of the Bitias hoard ............................................... 441
Table 12: Composition of the Capharnaum h o a r d ................................... 442
Table 13: Composition of the Jafa hoard .................................................. 443
Table 14: Composition of Hoard I I .............................................................. 444
Table 15: Composition of Hoard V .............................................................. 444
Table 16: Tetradrachms by reign: percentages.......................................... 447
Table 17: Relative proportions of denarii and radiates in 76 hoards
deposited between 241 and 274. A. By D a t e ................................ 451
Table 17: Relative proportions of denarii and radiates in 76 hoards
deposited between 241 and 274 B. By percentage of denarii . . 453
Table 18: Relative proportion of different denominations of Gordian
in 7 site-fin d s.......................................................................................... 454
Table 19: The Yatagan Hoard ...................................................................... 457
Table 20: The ‘Eastern’ H o a r d ...................................................................... 458
Table 21: The Smyrna H o a r d ........................................................................ 460
Table 22: The Caesarea H o a rd ...................................................................... 461
Table 23: The Pergamum Hoard ................................................................. 462
Table 24: The Iasos H o a r d ............................................................................. 464
Table 25: Summary of the Haydere h oard .................................................. 466
Table 26: Hypothetical reconstruction of the two Haydere deposits . 468
Table 27: The Dura Hoards (radiates and denarii) ................................ 470
Table 28: Hoards of radiates and denarii from the East ....................... 475
Table 29: Distribution of Caesarean silver coins from finds in Colchis 478

422
(Note: for the locations of the places mentioned in this chapter see map on
p. 597.)

1. Tetradrachms and radiates

Since these two denominations had distinct circulation patterns it will
be convenient to examine them separately; the limited evidence for the
circulation of the coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia will be dealt with in a
final section. The discussion of the tetradrachms first attempts to define the
area in which they circulated and then concentrates on the hoards that contain
these coins,1 covering the whole final phase of the tetradrachm coinage from
Gordian through to their final cessation under Trebonianus Gallus.2 To have
restricted this analysis to the reign of Gordian would have made it too
circumscribed and the particular problems of the circulation of the three issues
of Gordian’s tetradrachms have already been examined in Chapter 4.
However, the tetradrachms of the fifteen years from 238 to 253 form a
substantial coinage which has survived in sufficient numbers to allow its
circulation pattern to be studied in some detail.
On the other hand, there is so much more evidence for the circulation
of radiates and denarii that is has been necessary to be more selective and,
after examining the problem of the relationship between the denarius and the
radiate in hoards, this chapter will concentrate on finds from Turkey and Syria
and the differences between coin circulation in these two areas.

1 Because of their high value Syrian tetradrachms seldom occur as site finds, except at
Dura, which is a special case (below, pp. 426ff.). For example, the Antioch excavations only
produced three tetradrachms of Elagabalus, none of Gordian and ten of the reigns of Philip,
Decius and Gallus (D B Waage, Antioch on the Orontes IV, Part 2. Greek, Roman, Byzantine
and Crusaders’ Coins, Princeton, 1952). For that reason the discussion of the circulation of
tetradrachms necessarily concentrates on hoards. Radiates and denarii, on the other hand, are
found as site finds in rather greater numbers and these are made use of in the second part
of the chapter.
2 In point of fact the last Syrian tetradrachms to be minted were those of Uranius
Antoninus, but they never appear in hoards with the mainstream issues of Syrian tetradrachms
and so are omitted from cosideration here. See H-R Baldus, Uranius Antoninus. Manzpragung
und Geschichte, Bonn, 1971.

423
2. The circulation area of Syrian tetradrachms
Briefly, radiates and denarii circulated over the whole empire, whereas
Syrian tetradrachms are found only in Syria.3 By Syria I mean the area in its
broadest sense: the whole of the Roman east from the provinces of Cilicia and
Cappadocia in the north to Egypt in the south and including the five provinces
of Syria Coele, Syria Phoenice, Syria Palestina, Arabia and Mesopotamia (see
map).4
The limits of circulation of Syrian coinage may be fixed as follows. It
seems that Syrian tetradrachms did not circulate in Cilicia, which bordered
Syria to the north-west, although the evidence is very limited. Cilicia had
formed a part of the province of Syria in the Julio-Claudian period, but in
Vespasian’s reign the Cilician plain (Cilicia Campestris) was united with the
rest of Cilicia (Cilicia Aspera) and became an independent province.5 Of 345
ancient coins recorded from the excavations at Tarsus, there was only one
bronze coin of Antioch, and that was an issue of the first century B.C., while
a collection of 246 ancient coins from Tarsus similarly yielded just one bronze
coin of the same period from Antioch.6 In any case, several Cilician cities
struck their own silver coinages on a different standard: Aegeae, Mopsus,

3 In what follows denarii may be assumed to have behaved in the same way as radiates;
I do not mention denarii specifically since they were not minted at Antioch at this period, but
the finds from Sardis, Ephesus, Antioch and Dura show that denarii were used over the whole
of the Roman east (see Appendix 1).
4 There is at present no evidence as to whether Syrian tetradrachms circulated in Cyprus,
although it is possible given the island’s proximity to Syria. Bellinger {The Syrian Tetradrachms
o f Caracalla and Macrinus, pp. 104-5) hesitantly attributed an issue of Caracalla’s
tetradrachms to a mint in the island, on no very good grounds. No Syrian tetradrachms have
been noted among the few finds of Roman coins which have been recorded from Cyprus,
although bronze coins of Antioch have: for example, D H Cox, Coins from the excavations at
Curium, 1932-1953, A.N.S. Notes and Monographs 145, New York, 1959, records 26 bronze
coins of Antioch from Augustus down to Severus Alexander. On the other hand, it seems that
denarii did circulate in Cyprus: for example W E Metcalf has published a hoard of 448 denarii
down to 184 and 3 Cypriot didrachms of Vespasian: ‘A Roman hoard from Cyprus’, NC 1979,
pp. 26-35. For a list of hoards from Cyprus see B E Vlamis, ‘Hoards of Cypriot coins found
in Cyprus and elsewhere’, The Numismatic Report (The Cyprus Numismatic Society), 5 (1974),
pp. 74-9 and J Evers in De Geuzenpenning 20, 3 (Juli 1970), pp. 29-34.
5 D Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Princeton, 1950, p. 576 and n. 27.
6 D H Cox, ‘III. The Coins’, from H Goldman (ed.), Excavations at Gozlu Kule at Tarsus,
Princeton, 1950, and id., A Tarsus Coin Collection in the Adana Museum, A.N.S. Numismatic
Notes and Monographs 92, New York, 1941.

424
Seleucia ad Calycadnum and Tarsus, produced didrachms, tridrachms and
tetradrachms on various occasions between the reigns of Augustus and
Macrinus.7 It is unlikely that Syrian tetradrachms would also have circulated
in Cilicia at this time. On the other hand, since there was no natural boundary
between Syria and Cilicia, as they were both situated on the same coastal
plain, it would be surprising if Antiochene coins were completely excluded.
As for the other province which adjoined Syria to the north,
Cappadocia, there is, to my knowledge, no evidence to suggest that Syrian
tetradrachms formed a significant part of the currency there. Indeed, since
Cappadocia’s capital, Caesarea, produced a major coinage both in bronze and
in silver, on a different standard from the Syrian, throughout the early imperial
period, it would have been surprising if Syrian tetradrachms had circulated
there in any quantity (Chapter 6). Finally, the southern limits of Syrian coin
circulation may be fixed quite definitely at the border with Egypt. Egypt, as is
well-known, was essentially a closed circulation area for the whole of the first
three centuries A.D., its coins being supplied exclusively by the mint of
Alexandria.8 The only other coins that are found in Egypt in any significant
quantities are gold aurei, since with two minor exceptions Alexandria never
struck gold in the imperial period;9 a few hoards of denarii have also been
recorded from Egypt, but Syrian tetradrachms are unknown.10 Thus the limits

7 D R Walker, The Metrology o f the Roman Silver Coinage I, p. 130; II, pp. 86-91 and III,
pp. 81-2.
8 J Vogt, Die Alexandrischen Mtinzen, Stuttgart, 1924; E Christiansen, The Roman Coins
o f Alexandria* 2 vols, Aarhus, 1987.
9 The first exception is a small issue of gold in the name of Pescennius Niger and
subsequently of Septimius Severus and Julia Domna which has been attributed to Alexandria:
R F Bland, A M Burnett and S Bendall, ‘The mints of Pescennius Niger’, NC 1987, pp. 65-83.
The second consists of some rare aurei in the names of Carus, Carinus, Diocletian and
Maximian which were first attributed to Alexandria by L Laffranchi, ‘I diversi stili nella
monetazione romana’, RIN 1907, pp. 396-400. The attribution has been generally accepted:
cf. Webb’s comments in RIC V, ii, pp. 131-2 and K Pink, ‘Die Goldpragung des Diocletianus
und seiner Mitregenten’,N Z 1931, pp. 51-2 and id., ‘Der Aufbau der romischen Munzpragung
in der Kaiserzeit’, N Z 1963, p. 57.
10 For non-Alexandrian coins in Egypt see E Christiansen, ‘The Roman coins of
Alexandria: an inventory of hoards’, Coin Hoards 1 (1985), pp. 77-140 and id., ‘On denarii and
other coin-terms in the papyri’, ZPE 54, 1984, pp. 271-99. L C West and A C Johnson.
Currency in Roman and Byzantine Egypt, Princeton, 1944.

425
of Syrian coin circulation can be defined with a fair degree of precision.

3. The currency of Dura

The American and French excavations carried out at Dura-Europos
between 1928 and 1937 produced a total of 14,357 coins, all but 1,219 of them
of the Roman imperial period.11 This site, which is by far the most important
source of Syrian tetradrachms of the third century, also produced no less than
five mixed hoards of radiates and tetradrachms, out of a total of eight such
hoards that have been recorded. The concentration of such finds at this site
underlines the unique nature of its coin finds.
The site was a fortified garrison town on the Roman frontier on the
Euphrates during Gordian’s reign. It had been founded by the Seleucids in
about 300 BC and came under Parthian rule at the end of the first century
BC.12 It remained in Parthian hands until it was incorporated in the Roman
province of Mesopotamia as a result of Lucius Verus’s campaign in AD 164.
The Romans controlled the city for less than a hundred years, for it was
sacked by the Sasanians probably in 255 or 256, after which time the city was
no longer occupied and all coins cease.13
Table 1 gives details of the coins; it will be seen that 11,612 of the
imperial coins, or 88.38%, date to the 73 years between the death of
Commodus in 192 and the fall of the city to the Persians in 255 or 256, which
is not surprising since these years coincide with the major period of Roman
occupation. Thus the number of coins entering Dura rises suddenly from 7 a
year in the first two centuries of the empire to 106 a year in the reigns of
Septimius Severus and Caracalla (193-217) and then increases again to 153 a

11 The complete corpus of finds was catalogued by A R Bellinger, The Excavations at

Dura-Europos. Final Report VI The Coins (M 1 Rostovtzeff, A R Bellinger, F E Brown, N P
Toll and C B Welles, eds.), New Haven, 1949. Bellinger also published detailed accounts of
some of the hoards in Two Roman Hoards from Dura-Europos, Numismatic Notes and
Monographs 49, New York, 1931, and The Sixth, Seventh and Tenth Dura Hoards, Numismatic
Notes and Monographs 69, New York, 1935.
12 C Hopkins, The Discovery o f Dura-Europos, New Haven, 1979, pp. 235-65.
13 A R Bellinger, ‘The numismatic evidence from Dura’, Berytus 8 (1943), 64f.; S James,
‘Dura-Europos and the chronology of Syria in the 250s A.D.\ Chiron 15 (1985), pp. 111-24.

426
year in the period from 217 to 238, reaching a peak of 506 a year under
Gordian; finally it declines to 235 a year for the final twelve years of the city’s
existence. Of course this index of coins per year is very crude since it takes no
account of the variation in value between the different denominations
involved. It is almost impossible to measure the net value of Roman coin
entering Dura both because of the uncertainties of the relationship between
the various denominations and because of the decline in their value during the
course of the first two and a half centuries A.D. However, it is clear that this
value increases greatly during the first half of the third century, since bronze
coins account for a relatively small proportion of the currency in the last
period from 244 to 255/6.

Table 1: The Coin Finds from Dura

A. Summary of denominations

1. Non-Roman 2. Roman
Greek, pre-imperial 1,031 Syrian tetradrachms 2,394
Parthian 103 Radiates 803
Sasanian 15 Denarii 925
Miscellaneous dynasts 70 Roman imperial aes 38
Total, non-Roman 1,219 Local aes 8,978
Total, Roman 13,138
Total, all coins 14,357

B. Summary of the Roman coins

Period Tetradrachms Radiates Denarii Roman aes Local aes Total Coins p
Pre 193 47 - 355 34 1,090 1,526 7
193 - 217 256 7 347 2 1,940 2,552 106
217 - 38 460 1 205 2 2,539 3,207 153
238 - 44 92 328 18 - 2,599 3,037 506
244 - 55/6 1,539 467 - - 810 2,816 235
Total 2,394 803 925 38 8,978 13,138

It is, therefore, clear that the pattern of coins found at Dura is totally
unlike that of other sites such as Corinth, Athens, Sardis, Aphrodisias or
Antioch in two respects. First, because Dura was only under Roman rule for
a relatively short time, its coin finds are almost entirely limited to those issues
produced during those 90-odd years. Secondly, this site has produced twenty
hoards, comprising a total of 6,798 coins, slightly less than half the total

427
number of coins found. However, that still leaves 7,559 coins from Dura which
are allegedly stray finds and these coins follow fairly closely the same
chronological pattern as the hoard coins. The hoards are discussed below (pp.
429ff. and 469ff.) It is the pieces that did not come from hoards that present
the greatest difficulty; it is hard to believe that the excavators can really have
discovered, for example, as stray finds 8 denarii, 99 radiates and 15
tetradrachms of Gordian, or 186 other tetradrachms of the period 244-53.
Many, if not most, of these coins must have come from dispersed hoards which
were not recognized at the time of their discovery. For these reasons, Dura’s
coin list looks more like a single large hoard than a random collection of site
finds. There are number of other unusual features about the coin list: for
example, there are no fewer than 5338 bronze coins from six cities in the
province of Mesopotamia, Anthemusia, Carrhae, Edessa, Nisibis, Rhesaena
and Singara, the great bulk of them struck after 193. 3,081 of these coins do
not have hoard provenances. The most reasonable explanation for the
presence of these coins in such large numbers at Dura is that they were
intended as military pay, although this is speculative.
More unexpected are the 1289 bronzes from seven cities in Pontus,
including 1053 from Amasia. These coins are almost exclusively of the period
193-217 and it has been suggested that their presence in Dura (and other sites
in Syria) must be connected with troop movements.14 Lastly we may note 130
bronzes from Greece, including 124 from cities in the Peloponnese; again most
of these are of the Severan period and a similar explanation is likely for their

14 This question has, however, been the subject of controversy. For example, Bellinger,
op. cit. n. 11, p. 206, dates the bulk of these coins to 205-6 and suggests that they were
produced on the imperial command to supply coins to the eastern limes as far south as
Mesopotamia. M H Crawford, ‘Finance, coinage and money from the Severans to
Constantine’, in ANRW , II, 2, pp. 560-93, agrees with Bellinger’s interpretation of a military
cause for the production of these coins and suggests that they might have been intended to
replace the issues of the mint of Antioch which was inactive at that time. On the other hand,
C J Howgego, Greek Imperial Countermarks, R.N.S. Special Publication 17, London, 1985, pp.
26-7 argues that although their presence in Syria is likely to be due to military reasons, this
cannot be shown to be the reason for their production in the first place, which was at a time
when the eastern limes was apparently quiet. Finally, Butcher has pointed out in his doctoral
thesis that Pontic coins are not particularly common in other Syrian finds and that the bulk
of the finds from Dura (757 out of 1289 coins) come from just four hoards (nos. 8-9, 14, 15
and 16) and that therefore the apparent glut of these coins at Dura is not as great as it seems.

428
appearance in Syria.15
The currency of Dura, then, cannot sensibly be regarded as just another
site with an exceptionally large coin list which was only under Roman rule for
some 90 years. It may more usefully be regarded as a large and complex series
of coin hoards, for example in the way that all its coins suddenly end in the
middle of Valerian’s reign. In any case the overwhelmingly military nature of
the currency and its close connection with the fluctuations of Roman rule in
Mesopotamia between 164 and 255/6 cannot be in doubt.

4. Hoards of tetradrachms

Table 2 presents a summary of all complete hoards containing Syrian

tetradrachms of the period A.D. 238-53 for which details are available,
seventeen in all; in addition there are two incomplete hoards (Hoards II and
V) and one that is not recorded in sufficient detail (Newell’s Syrian hoard,
above, p. 445) which have been omitted from Table 2. Thus we know of a
total of twenty finds, six of which were previously unpublished and are
catalogued in Appendix 2 (Hoards I to VI).16

A. Dura
Dura has produced seven hoards containing Antiochene tetradrachms
of the period from 238 to 253 (Hoards 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 18 and 20) and all but
two of these (hoards 6 and 20) also contained denarii and/or radiates. Hoards
2, 6, 7, 18 and 20 all close with coins of the reign of Trebonianus Gallus, while
1 and 10 also include radiates of Valerian and Gallienus, taking their

15 For these coinages see S Grunauer-von Hoerschelmann, ‘The Severan Emissions of the
Peloponnesus’, Israel Numismatic Journal 6-7 (1982-3), pp. 39-46. See also C J Howgego, op.
cit. n. 14, pp. 26-7, who again argues that there should be a distinction between the reasons
for their production and for their presence in Syria.
16 They are to be published as ‘Six hoards of Syrian tetradrachms of the third century
A.D.’ in NC 1991, forthcoming.

429
 Table 2: Summary of hoards containing Syrian tetradrachms of 238-53
A. Hoards closing in 253 or earlier

I N FA D7 D2 D6 D18 D20 III VI IV Ant Ha Bi

54-96: Nero-Domitian
Tetradrachms 2 91 - -
Denarii - - - - - 2 - - - - 5 - -
96-138: Nerva-Hadrian
Tetradrachms - 1 - - - - - - - - 65 - -
Denarii - - - - - - - - - - 5 - -
138-92: Pius-Commodus
Tetradrachms - 1
Denarii - - 1 - - - - - - - - - -
193-218: Severus-Macrinus
Tetradrachms 2 8 43 1 3 - - 77 - 12 8 - 8
Denarii/radiates - - 11 - - 3 - - - - - - -
218-222: Elagabalus
Tetradrachms 6 1 24 2 3 - - 159 1 8 1 - -
Denarii/radiates - - 16 - - 1 - - - - - - -
222-38: Alexander-Pupienus
Denariifradiates - - 34 - - 2 - - - - - - -
238-44: Gordian
Tetradrachms, Series 1 & 2 - - 14 2 - - - 29 1 1 - - -
" , Series 3 2 - 19 1 - - - 35 2 - - - -

Tetradrachms - 17 - 2 4 4
Radiates, aes - - 78 4 - 1
244-9: Philip
Tetradrachms, A. e. 7 - 15 - 4 1 - 21 4 4 - - -
, A.e. YUATO A 5 - 3 - - 1 - 9 - 1 - - -

, MON VRB - - 7 2 - - - 35 3 1 - - -
, A.e. YUATO T 35 - 36 3 1 - - 95 10 14 - - -
, A.e. YUATO A 20 - 51 8 4 - - 163 28 19 - - -
Tetradrachms - 4 49 101 44
Radiates - - 5 1
249-51: Decius
Tetradrachms - - - 45 213 103 26 36 1 51 10 67 30
Radiates
251-3: Gallus
Tetradrachms, A. e. - - - 8 13 9 1 4 3 10 - - -
, A.e. YUATO B - - - 19 35 1 1 2 1 5 - - -

Tetradrachms - 4 46 16
Radiates - -
[1] - - - - - - - - - -

Illegible
Tetradrachms 22 17

Total 75 32 358 96 276 124 28 665 54 128 240 240 120

Key
I Hoard I D20 Dura hoard 20 Bi Bitias hoard
NFA ‘Numismatic Fine Arts’ III Hoard III D1 Dura hoard 1
D7 Dura hoard 7 VI Hoard VI D10 Dura hoard 10
D2 Dura hoard 2 IV Hoard IV Cap Capharnaum hoard
D6 Dura hoard 6 Ant Antioch hoard Jaf Jafa hoard
D18 Dura hoard 18 Ha Hama or Homs hoard
Note: Roman denominations (denarii and radiates) are shown in italics, tetradrachms in normal type.

430
 Table 2: Summary of hoards containing Syrian tetradrachms of 238-53
B. Hoards closing after 253

D 1 D IO Cap Jaf Total

(all hoards) Key
D1 Dura hoard 1
Tetradrachms - - 14 - 174 DIO Dura hoard 10
Denarii - - - - 13 Cap Capharnaum hoard
193 - 218 : Severus-Macrinus Jaf Jafa hoard
Tetradrachms 20 27 28 9 246
Denarii/radiates 1 - - - 15
218 - 222 : Elagabalus
Tetradrachms 39 42 69 6 361
Denariilradiates - - - - 17
222 - 38 : Alexander-Pupienus
Denariilradiates 1 - - - 37
238 - 44 : Gordian
Tetradrachms, Series 1 & 2 8 6 - - 61
" , Series 3 10 17 4 - 90
Tetradrachms - - - - 27
Radiates, aes 139 19 - - 241
244 - 9 : Philip
Tetradrachms, A. e. 18 14 4 - 92
, A.e. YUATO A 9 7 1 - 36
, MON VRB 22 11 2 1 83
, A.€. y iia t o r 37 36 15 I6 282
, A.e. YIIATO A 79 52 42 / 466
Tetradrachms - - - - 198
Radiates 1 3 - - 10
249 - 51 : Decius
Tetradrachms 148 111 84 27 952
Radiates 4 - 15 - 19
251 - 3 : Gallus
Tetradrachms, A. e. 60 41 1 5 161
, A.e. YIIATO B 57 30 1 1 153
Tetradrachms - - - - 66
Radiates 37 28 13 8 86
253 - 60 : Valerian and Gallienus
Radiates 99 99 401 39 638
261 - 2 : Macrianus and Quietus
Radiates 90 90
263 - 70 : Gallienus - Claudius
Radiates - - 769 8 777
270 - 6 : Aurelian - Tacitus
Radiates - - - 10 10
276 - 84 : Probus - Carinus
Radiates - - - 21 21
284 - 94 : Diocletian-Maximian
Radiates - - - 16 16
Illegible
Tetradrachms - - - - 39
Radiates . - . 2 2

Total 789 543 1743 159 5678

431
 Table 3: Coin hoards from Dura
(see also Table 27)

Reign Hoard 7 Hoard 2 Hoard 6 Hoard 18Hoard 20 Hoard 1 Hoard 10

Domitian, 81-96
denarii 2
Commodus, 180-92
denarii 1
Septimius and family, 193-211
tetradrachms 2
denarii 9 2
radiates
Caracalla, 211-7
tetradrachms 28 1 2 6 14
denarii 1
radiates 1 1
Macrinus, 217-8
tetradrachms 13 1 14 13
denarii 1
Elagabalus, 218-22
tetradrachms 24 2 3 39 42
denarii 15 1
radiates 1
Severus Alexander, 222-35
denarii 30 2 1
Maximinus, 235-8
denarii 4
Gordian III, 238-44
tetradrachms 33 3 18 23
denarii 10
radiates 68 4 139 18
aes 1 1
Philip, 244-9
tetradrachms 112 13 9 2 164 120
radiates 5 1 1 3
Trajan Decius, 249-51
tetradrachms 45 213 103 26 148 111
radiates 4
Trebonianus Gallus, 251-3
tetradrachms 27 48 10 2 117 71
radiates 1 37 28
Valerian, 253-60
radiates 99 99

Total
tetradrachms 212 91 276 115 28 506 394
radiates 76 5 8 281 148
denarii 70 1
aes 1 1

Grand Total 358 96 276 124 28 788 543

Note: Roman denominations (denarii and radiates) and aes coins are shown in italics, tetradrachms
in normal type.

432
terminus post quem two or three years later to 255 or 256. Since Hoards 6
and 20 only contained tetradrachms, which of course were no longer minted
after 253, it must remain an open question whether they too were buried in
253 or shortly before the fall of the city.
Despite these minor differences, all seven Dura hoards close within two
or three years of each other. From the point of view of their composition they
fall into three groups. First comes Hoard 7, a find which contained substantial
numbers of tetradrachms (212), radiates (76) and denarii (70), which really
closes with 112 tetradrachms and 5 radiates of Philip. However, it has a false
tail since it also contains a single radiate of Trebonianus Gallus, but none of
the very common issues of Trajan Decius. Then come Hoards 2, 6, 18 and 20
which also close in the reign of Gallus, but which consist predominantly of
coins of Gallus and his predecessor Decius. The proportions are 75% (Hoard
2), 94.6% (Hoard 6), 91.1% (Hoard 18) and 100% (Hoard 20). Two of these
hoards (2 and 18) also contained a few radiates.17
Finally, there are Hoards 1 and 10, both of which close at the time of
the sack of the city in A D 255 or 256. These two finds differ from the
preceding group not only because they both contain substantial proportions of
radiates18 but also because their coins are more evenly distributed over the
first half of the century: only 51.4% of the coins in Hoard 1 belong to the
three reigns of Decius, Gallus and Valerian, while for Hoard 10 the figure is
56.9%. It is remarkable that the two hoards which extend into Valerian’s reign
should also contain a higher proportion of earlier issues (i.e., before the reign
of Decius) than the four hoards that close two or three years earlier with
Gallus and this must presumably be because they are ‘savings’ hoards. The
radiate and denarius content of these finds is discussed below (pp. 469ff.).

17 Hoard 2 had 5, or 5.2% of the total, and Hoard 18, 8 , or 6.5%, plus one aes coin.
18 Hoard 1 has 281 radiates and 1 denarius out of a total of 788 coins, 35.8%, while
Hoard 10 has 148 out of 543, 27.3%.

433
B. Hoard I
I examined this group of 75 Syrian tetradrachms in July 1988 by
courtesy of Baldwin’s and a full list appears in Appendix 2. It clearly forms a
hoard or part of a hoard, as all but eight of the coins are of Philip I and his
family. The only evidence as to the provenance of the hoard is that it was said
to have come from Syria, and its composition is consistent with this, since all
but one of the tetradrachms are from the mint of Antioch, the remaining one
coming from Zeugma. Like hoard 7 from Dura and the ‘Numismatic Fine
Arts’ hoard below it closes with tetradrachms of Philip.
The internal composition of the coins of Philip is of some interest, as
there are seven of the AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //SC series, five coins with
AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO A //SC, 35 with AHMAPX eSOYCIAC
YIIATO T //ANTIOXIA SC and 20 with AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO A
//ANTIOXIA SC. None of the coins in this last group have pellets under the
bust that mark the officinae; these are the latest coins of the reign. The coins
of the fourth consulship (YIIATO A) are usually more common than those of
the third (YIIATO T), but in this hoard the proportions are reversed: this is,
however, to be expected in a hoard that closes at the end of Philip’s reign.
What is more surprising is that there are no coins of Philip’s MON VRB series
of tetradrachms; their absence from the present hoard may, however, simply
be due to the fact that they had already been removed from the group.

Table 4: Composition of Hoard I

Reign Total
Caracalla 2
Elagabalus 4
Gordian III 2
Philip I 42
Otacilia Severa 6
Philip II 19
Total 75

An important obverse die link was found among the coins of Otacilia
Severa linking the YIIATO A and YIIATO T series (nos. 17 and 46): this is
the first occasion on which a die link between the different issues of

434
tetradrachms of Philip and his family has been observed. It might have
implications for the sequence of issues at Antioch, since it has been a matter
of debate as to whether the MON VRB coins should be placed at the very
beginning of Philip’s reign, before the AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //SC issue, or
between the YIIATO A and the YIIATO T series, since there are no
Antiochene tetradrachms dated by the second consulship (YIIATO B).19 On
the face of it, the existence of a die-link between the YIIATO A and YIIATO
T issues would make the first hypothesis more likely, but this evidence is not
very secure. It is agreed that the MON VRB coins were minted at Rome and
so even if they did fill the gap left vacant by the missing YIIATO B coins there
is no reason why the dies of the YIIATO A coins should not have still been
available at the start of the YIIATO T series.

C. The ‘Numismatic Fine Arts’ hoard

This unprovenanced find of 32 tetradrachms from Hadrian to Otacilia
Severa was sold by Numismatic Fine Arts in 1975.20 Its contents, which are
summarized below, are very odd: for example, it contains seven coins of
Macrinus, but none of Caracalla, and four pieces of Otacilia, but none of
Philip. There must be a strong suspicion that it is an unrepresentative selection
from a much larger find, as is the case with Hoards II and V (below, p. 443f.).
Table 5: Composition of ‘Numismatic Fine Arts’ hoard
Reign Total
Hadrian 1
Commodus 1
Macrinus 7
Diadumenian 1
Elagabalus 1
Gordian III 17
Otacilia Severa 4
Total 32

19 See H-R Baldus, MON VRB-ANTIOXIA, Frankfurt, 1969.

20 Journal o f Numismatic Fine Arts 4,1 (August 1975), p. 33.

435
D. Hoard III
This hoard of 665 Syrian tetradrachms, from Caracalla to
Trebonianus Gallus, was said to have been discovered at Iskenderun
(Alexandria ad Issum) in Turkey, 57 km north of Antioch. A summary was
published in Coin Hoards I, no. 126, but the full list has not been published.
It was recorded in trade by M J Price in 1972 and the catalogue in Appendix
2 is based on his description. 167 of the coins were photographed, including
all the specimens of Caracalla, Domna, Geta, Macrinus and Diadumenian and
a selection of the later issues, and it is possible to check Dr Price’s description
of these. No weights were recorded. I have noted die-identities amongst the
earlier tetradrachms, which included several unpublished varieties (see
catalogue).
I have differed from Dr Price on the attribution of some of the coins
of Philip I and II that were photographed, and no doubt would have changed
the attribution of some of the unphotographed coins as well if I had seen
them. As a result the allocation of coins to the two emperors in the list below
cannot be regarded as certain; this should not, however, affect the attribution
of the coins to their different issues.

Table 6: Composition of Hoard III

Reign Total
Caracalla 50
Julia Domna 2
Macrinus 22
Diadumenian 3
Elagabalus 160
Gordian III 64
Philip I 245
Otacilia 13
Philip II 65
Trajan Decius 32
Etruscilla 2
Etruscus 2
Trebonianus Gallus 5
Volusian 1
Total 665

436
 This large hoard provides useful confirmation of the comparative rarity
of the different issues of tetradrachms of 218 to 253 established by the Dura
and Capharnaum finds. The 160 coins of Elagabalus point to the large scale
of this issue, which analysis has shown seems to have been contaminated by
many contemporary forgeries.21 The hoard then contains 64 coins of
Gordian, 29 of his first series and 35 of the third series. The rare coins of the
second series are totally absent. The issues of the reign of Philip then account
for 323 coins, nearly half of the entire find, and of these the last two issues,
dated YIIATO T and YIIATO A, are the most common with 95 and 134
specimens respectively. The first three issues of the reign with AHMAPX
eSOYCIAC //SC, AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO A //SC, and AHMAPX
eSOYCIAC SC // MON VRB, account respectively for 21, 9 and 35 pieces.
The hoard then tails off sharply with only 26 specimens of the reign of Trajan
Decius and it closes with 6 coins of Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian.

E. Hoard VI
This hoard of 54 coins was shown at the British Museum in 1982 by
Oscar Pregliasco of Twickenham. It had no provenance and has not been
published; it is listed in Appendix 2. The find closes with one coin from the
latest issue of Trebonianus Gallus but it only contains 4 specimens of Gallus
and Volusian and one of Decius and the great bulk of the hoard, 45 coins, are
of the reign of Philip. These have a typical composition within the reign: there
are 4 of the first series with AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //S C , none of the second
(AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO A //SC), three of the third with MON VRB,
10 of the fourth with AHMAPX e SOYCIAC YIIATO T //ANTIOXIA S C , and
28 of the final series with YIIATO A, two of which have pellets under the
obverse bust. There is also a single piece of Elagabalus and three of Gordian.
The coins are all rather worn and pitted, almost as though they had come out
of the sea.

21 D R Walker, The Metrology o f the Roman Silver Coinage 3, pp. 90-1 and 99-100.

437
 Table 7: Composition of Hoard VI
Reign Total
Elagabalus 1
Gordian III 3
Philip I 27
Philip II 18
Trajan Decius 1
Trebonianus Gallus 2
Volusian 2
Total 54

F. Hoard IV
This hoard was seen on the Brussels market in 1984 and recorded by
J-M Doyen, on whose list mine is based (see Appendix 2). A number of
corrections have been made in respect of 60 of the coins which were cast.
The hoard had no provenance, but it was believed to have originated in
Turkey.
A summary of its contents is given in Table 8, from which it will be seen
that it has a high proportion of coins of the reign of Decius than of Philip
(51.6%). This combined with its relatively large number of coins of
Trebonianus Gallus suggests that most of it was put together rather later than,
for example, Hoards III and VI.

Table 8: Composition of Hoard IV

Reign Total
Vespasian 2
Caracalla 9
Geta 1
Macrinus 1
Diadumenian 1
Elagabalus 8
Gordian III 1
Philip I 19
Philip II 20
Trajan Decius 44
Etruscilla 1
Etruscus 6
Trebonianus Gallus 15
Total 128

438
G. The Antioch hoard
This hoard, which is said to have been found in Antioch, was seen by E
T Newell in 1935.22 It consisted of 350 coins found in a pot, 240 of which
Newell was able to describe. There were ten denarii, three coins attributed to
Caesarea and 227 Syrian tetradrachms. Its full breakdown, as given by W E
Metcalf, is shown in Table 9. Some of the coins are now in the collection of
the American Numismatic Society.

Table 9: Composition of the Antioch hoard

Reign Tetradrachms Denarii Caesarea Total

Nero 31 31
Galba 5 5
Otho 2 2
Vespasian 44 4 48
Titus 1 1
Domitian 8 1 9
Nerva 2 2
Trajan 58 2 3 63
Hadrian 2 3 5
Caracalla 7 7
Macrinus 1 1
Elagabalus 1 1
Gordian III 2 ,. 2
Philip I 30 30
Philip II 19 19
Trajan Decius 8 8
Etruscus 2 2
Trebonianus Gallus 4 4
Total 227 10 3 240

This hoard contains an unusually high proportion of coins of the first

and second centuries: it has 58 pieces from Nero to Nerva and 68 of Trajan
and Hadrian; there are then nine tetradrachms from Caracalla to Elagabalus
and finally 65 from Gordian to Trebonianus Gallus. A glance at Table 16 (p.
447) will show that this pattern is quite unlike all the other hoards of this
period and there must be a strong suspicion that it does in fact represent two
separate finds that have been amalgamated, one closing with Hadrian and

22 Noe, op. cit., n. 29, no. 56. A more accurate list is given by W E Metcalf, ‘The Tell
Kalak hoard and Trajan’s Arabian Mint’, ANSMN 20 (1975), pp. 39-108, n. 16 on p. 92.

439
consisting of tetradrachms and denarii, and the other consisting exclusively of
tetradrachms from Caracalla to Trebonianus Gallus. Against this theory,
however, is the fact that it is said to have been found in a single pot, of which
a photograph has survived. It must also be remembered that the hoard is
originally believed to have contained a further 110 coins which are not
described.

H. The Hama or Homs hoard

This find of at least 240 tetradrachms from Gordian to Volusian which
was said to have found at Hama or Homs in Syria was seen by E T Newell
and the following details were published by Noe.23 Many of the coins were
purchased by Newell and are now in the collection of the American
Numismatic Society. The composition is similar to Hoard IV.

Table 10: Composition of Hama or Homs hoard

Reign Total
Gordian III 4
Philip I 72
Otacilia 1
Philip 11 28
Trajan Decius 36
Etruscilla 5
Etruscus 26
Trebonianus Gallus 41
Volusian 5
Not described 22
Total 240

I. The Bitias hoard

In February 1937 the dealer Ebeian of Damascus showed to E S G
Robinson at the British Museum a hoard of over 120 tetradrachms from
Caracalla to Trebonianus Gallus which was said to have been found at the
village of Bitias which is situated on the slopes of Musa Dag, about 15 km
west of Antioch. Ebeian also showed a pot in which the coins were said to
have been found. Nothing further is known of the hoard, except for its

23 Noe, op. cit. n. 21, no. 480. Many coins from the hoard are now in the collection of the
American Numismatic Society.

440
composition by reign, which is shown in Table l l . 24

Table 11: Composition of the Bitias hoard

Reign Total
Caracalla 8
Gordian III 4
Philip I 42
Otacilia 1
Philip II 2
Trajan Decius 15
Etruscilla 2
Etruscus 13
Trebonianus Gallus 16
Uncertain 17
Total 120

J. The Caphamaum hoard

This hoard was discovered during excavations of the synagogue at
Capharnaum on the Sea of Galilee and was published by A Spijkerman. It
consisted of 270 tetradrachms, from Nero to Trebonianus Gallus, and 1274
radiates, from Hostilian to Claudius II.25 The hoard is of considerable
importance both because it has a firm provenance and because it is definitely
complete. I re-examined the hoard in 1983 and in Appendix 2 I present a
catalogue of the tetradrachms from Gordian III down to Trebonianus Gallus.
Its contents (as corrected by me) are shown in Table 12. Its composition is
similar to that of the Jafa hoard, which was found nearby, and is discussed
below (p. 445f.).

24 The only record of this hoard is in Robinson’s MS notebook of hoards in the

Department of Coins and Medals at the British Museum.
25 A Spijkerman, ‘A Hoard of Syrian Tetradrachms and Eastern Antoniniani from
Capharnaum’, Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus IX (1958-9), pp. 283-329; the coins were
republished by Spijkerman in Cafamao III. Catalogo delle Monete della Cittti, Jerusalem, 1975,
nos. 767-2314.

441
 Table 12: Composition of the Capharnaum hoard
Reign Tetradrachms Radiates Total
Nero 7 - 7
Galba 2 - 2
Vespasian 3 - 3
Trajan 1 - 1
j 2 6
Hadrian - -

Caracalla 21 - 21
Macrinus 5 - 5
Diadumenian 2 - 2
Elagabalus 69 - 69
Gordian III 4 - 4
Philip I 36 - 36
Otacilia 1 - 1
Philip II 27 - 27
Trajan Decius 76 - 76
Etruscilla 1 - 1
Etruscus 7 - 7
Hostilian - 1 1
Trebonianus Gallus 8 11 19
Volusian - 2 2
Valerian I - 157 157
Gallienus (joint) - 101 101
Salonina (joint) - 32 32
Valerian II - 14 14
Saloninus - 17 17
Macrianus - 45 45
Quietus - 45 45
Gallienus (sole) - 701 701
Salonina (sole) - 83 83
Claudius II - 65 65
Total 270 1274 1545

K. The Jafa hoard

The Jafa hoard was found in a village about a mile west of Nazareth and
was published by de Saulcy in 1868.27 It was similar in many ways to the
hoard from nearby Capharnaum in that it contained both radiates and
tetradrachms, but its terminal date was over twenty years later: it consisted of
55 tetradrachms from Caracalla to Trebonianus Gallus, and 104 radiates from
Trebonianus Gallus to Diocletian; it too is summarized in Table 2. Its
composition is discussed below (p. 445f.).

26 This is a bronze coin from Antioch.

27 F de Saulcy, Trouvaille de Iafa de Galilee, pres Nazareth’, ASFN 3 (1868), pp. 350-69.

442
 Table 13: Composition of the Jafa hoard
Reign Tetradrachms Radiates Total
Caracalla 5 - 5
Macrinus 4 - 4
Elagabalus 6 - 6
Philip I 4 - 4
Philip II 3 - 3
Trajan Decius 16 - 16
Etruscilla 1 - 1
Etruscus 10 - 10
Trebonianus Gallus 6 8 14
Valerian I - 17 17
Gallienus Goint) - 12 12
Salonina (joint) - 7 7
Valerian II - 1 1
Saloninus - 2 2
Gallienus (sole) - 3 3
Salonina (sole) - 3 3
Claudius II - 2 2
Aurelian - 5' 5
Severina - 2 2
Tacitus - 3 3
Probus - 13 13
Carus - 1 1
Numerian - 3 3
Carinus - 4 4
Diocletian - 9 9
Maximian - 7 7
Illegible 2 2
Total 55 104 159

L. Hoard II
These 10 coins were shown at the British Museum in August 1987 by a
Beirut dealer called Rizk. There were said to be 475 coins in total in the
hoard but the remaining 465 coins were never shown to the Museum and no
doubt they were dispersed in trade. The hoard had no provenance and
because of its incompleteness it is omitted from Table 1; however, a list of the
ten coins that were examined appears in Appendix 2 and is summarized in
Table 14. These coins were probably chosen as a sample of the whole find.
Obviously, though, the fact that there are no specimens of Gallus and Volusian
does not allow us to say that the hoard was buried before their reign: no
doubt it went down to the end of the tetradrachm series.

443
 Table 14: Composition of Hoard II

Reign Total
Gordian III 1
Philip I 1
Philip II 4
Trajan Decius 4
Total 10

M. Hoard V
The twenty coins listed in Appendix 2 were presented to the British
Museum in 1948 by F N Pryce.28 They have not been published. The only
information that we have about them is that they were said to come from a
Syrian hoard which was discovered in 1938 and the uniform appearance of the
coins confirms their hoard origin. Unfortunately, there is no information as to
whether they represented a complete find or not, since no fewer than twelve
different personalities are represented amongst these twenty coins, more than
would normally expect in a hoard this size, and there were no duplicates. For
these reasons it looks most probable that they were only a selection from a
larger hoard and they are therefore omitted from Table 2, though they are
listed in Appendix 2 for the sake of completeness.

Table 15: Composition of Hoard V

Reign Total
Caracalla 2
Macrinus 1
Elagabalus 1
Gordian III 1
Philip I 5
Otacilia 1
Philip II 3
Trajan Decius 1
Etruscilla 1
Etruscus 1
Trebonianus Gallus 2
Volusian 1
Total 20

28 Pryce was Keeper of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities in the British
Museum from 1936 to 1939. The registration number of the coins is 1948-6-2, 1 to 20.

444
 It may also be noted that the coin of Otacilia with reverse AHMAPX
eSOYCIAC YIIATO A //SC comes from the same obverse die as two
specimens in Baldwin’s hoard (nos. 17 and 46), one of which has the reverse
AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO T //ANTIOXIA SC (see above, p. 434f.).

N. E T Newell’s ‘Syrian’ hoard

This consisted of 106+ tetradrachms from Caracalla to Trajan Decius,
seen by E T Newell in 1929 and recorded by Noe.29 Unfortunately no details
were given of its distribution by reign and Noe simply listed the number of
specimens from each mint. Apart from 79 coins of Antioch, there are 27
pieces from 11 other Syrian mints.30 This implies that many of the coins are
of the reigns of Caracalla and Macrinus, when tetradrachms were being
produced at these other centres. However, it has not been possible to add this
hoard to those summarized in Table 2.

5. Hoards containing both radiates and tetradrachms

Of the twenty hoards described above, eight contain both tetradrachms
and Roman denominations; of these, five come from Dura (Dura 1, 2, 7, 10
and 18), whose currency forms a special case and has already been discussed
(pp. 426ff.). The unusual nature of its finds must be due primarily to the fact
that it was a garrison town and therefore its hoards probably represent the
currency circulating among the soldiers guarding Rom e’s Mesopotamian
frontier during the 250s. None of the remaining fifteen hoards has any clear
military connection.
Two more of these eight hoards, Capharnaum and Jafa, both come from
Palestine, an area well to the south of the find-spots of the other hoards and
contain coins that were minted considerably later than the last Syrian

29 S P Noe, A Bibliography o f Greek Coin Hoards, 2nd edition, A N S Numismatic Notes

and Monographs 78, New York, 1937, no. 1034.
30 The precise distribution is as follows: Antioch, 79; Samosata, 1; Beroea, 1; Apamea,
10; Seleucia, 1; Aradus, 1; Orthosia, 1; Tripolis, 2; Tyre, 6 ; Ake-Ptolemais, 2; Carrhae, 1 and
Edessa, 1.

445
tetradrachms which were struck under Trebonianus Gallus; the Capharnaum
hoard closes in 270 and Jafa in 294. Presumably the tetradrachms they
contained had been saved over a long period, as it seems unlikely that they
would have continued to circulate alongside the debased radiates of the later
third century; in addition we may note that the coins in the Capharnaum
hoard cover an exceptionally long time-span, about 200 years from Vespasian
to Claudius, while those in the smaller Jafa find extend over a period of some
80 years, from Caracalla to Diocletian.
The final hoard that contained both radiates and tetradrachms was said
to have been found in Antioch. Like the Capharnaum and Jafa finds, its coins
cover a long time span, for it contains 10 denarii from Vespasian to Hadrian
and 227 tetradrachms from Nero to Trebonianus Gallus. However, unlike two
hoards from Palestine, it does not contain any radiates. Table 16 shows just
t
how anomalous its composition is; there must be considerable doubt as to
whether it really does represent a single deposit, despite the fact that all coins
are said to have been found within one pot (see above, p. 439).
The conclusion must be, therefore, that radiates and tetradrachms were
normally hoarded separately, and it is only in exceptional cases that they are
found together. Of course, this does not mean that the two denominations did
not circulate side by side in Syria; after all, few hoards combine Roman bronze
coins with silver issues, but there is no doubt that these circulated together.31

6. Conclusion: the circulation of Syrian tetradrachms from 238 to

253
Table 16 shows the percentages of tetradrachms of each period in these
17 hoards, ignoring the other denominations and unidentified coins. Although
they appear to vary greatly, certain patterns may be detected and I have
divided them into five groups.

31 For example, only one of the 74 hoards of radiates and denarii in my sample contained
bronze coins as well: the Falerone hoard, from Italy.

446
 Table 16: Tetradrachms by reign: percentages

Pre 192 193-218 218-22 238-44 244-9 249-51 251-3 Total Others Latest
Hoard % % % % % % % coin
Antioch hoard 68.73 3.52 0.44 0.88 21.59 4.41 1.76 227 13 253

‘Numismatic Fine Arts’ - 25.00 3.13 53.13 12.50 - - 32 - 247

Hoard I - 2.67 8.00 2.67 89.33 - - 75 - 249
Dura hoard 7 - 20.28 11.32 15.57 52.83 - - 212 146 253

Hoard III _
11.58 23.91 9.62 48.57 5.41 0.90 665 . 253
Hoard VI - - 1.85 5.56 83.83 1.85 7.41 54 - 253

Hoard IV 1.56 9.38 6.25 0.78 30.47 39.84 11.72 128 _

253
Hama hoard - - - 1.83 46.33 30.73 21.10 218 - 253
Bitias hoard - 7.77 - 3.88 42.72 29.13 15.53 103 - 253
Dura hoard 1 - 3.95 7.71 3.56 32.61 29.25 23.12 506 283 255/6
Dura hoard 10 - 6.85 10.66 5.84 30.46 28.17 18.02 394 149 255/6
Capharnaum hoard 5.19 10.37 25.56 1.48 23.70 31.11 2.96 270 1473 270
Jafa hoard - 16.36 10.91 - 1173 29.09 10.91 55 104 294

Dura hoard 2 _ 1.10 2.20 3.30 14.29 49.45 29.67 91 5 253

Dura hoard 6 - 1.09 1.09 - 3.26 77.17 17.39 276 - 253
Dura hoard 18 - - - - 1.74 89.57 8.70 115 9 253
Dura hoard 20 . . - - . 92.86 7.14 28 - 253

Note: the figures in this table are percentages of the total number of identified tetradrachms
in each hoard. They do not take account of the other denominations (which are noted in the last
column) or of the unidentified pieces.

(i) First comes the anomalous Antioch hoard, already discussed. It is

plain that the high proportion of issues of the first and second centuries AD
that it contains means that it is quite unlike all the other hoards.
(ii) Next come three hoards that contain no tetradrachms later than
Philip. The ‘Numismatic Fine Arts’ hoard and Hoard I close at this date, but
Hoard 7 from Dura terminates with a single radiate of Gallus. These three
finds are very different from each other; once again the integrity of the
‘Numismatic Fine Arts’ hoard is at best doubtful (see above, p. 435).
(iii) The third group comprises Hoards III and VI which go down to
253, but in which the coinage of Philip predominates (48.6% - 83.8%) and the
issues of Decius and Gallus contribute little (6.3% - 9.3%).
(iv) The seven hoards in the next group are characterized by the fact
that, while they still have a high proportion of coins of Philip (the range varies
from 12.7% to 46.3%, but only two have less than 30%), they also contain

447
many coins of Decius and Gallus (34.1% - 52.4%). Three of these hoards
consist exclusively of tetradrachms and therefore close in 253, but the other
four all contain radiates struck after 253. The two finds from Dura (nos. 1 and
10) both end in 255/6 and their pattern is the closest to the three hoards that
contain just tetradrachms; the Capharnaum and Jafa hoards, on the other
hand, extend much later, down to 270 and 294 respectively, and they have
slightly fewer coins of Philip and rather more coins minted before 244.
(v) The fifth and final group contains four hoards, all from Dura, in
which the tetradrachms of Philip quite few in number (0% -14.3%) and the
bulk of the coinage comes from the reigns of Decius and Gallus (79.1% -
100%).
The finds in the fifth group may clearly be regarded as ‘currency*
hoards: that is, the coins they contain were removed from circulation on a
single occasion. It is interesting to note that they all come from Dura and it
is tempting to associate their burial with fears of a Persian attack under
Gallus, or early in Valerian’s reign. The finds of the second group may also be
‘currency’ hoards, although they are not such clear-cut examples.
Some of the hoards in the fourth group, on the other hand, must be
‘savings’ hoards (i.e., put together over a long period of time): this is the case
with Capharnaum and Jafa and probably also with Hoards 1 and 10 from
Dura. The Antioch hoard, if it really is a single deposit, must also belong to
this category. The remaining finds, comprising the two from the third group
and three from the fourth group, are of a more indeterminate nature.
To conclude, it is clear that only a few tetradrachms minted during the
reigns of Caracalla and Macrinus or before remained current by the late 240s
and early 250s, no doubt because of their high silver content, but the large
issues of Elagabalus were still fairly plentiful because so many of them were
base. We can only be confident of the terminus post quern of the three finds
in the second group, which contain no tetradrachms later than the reign of
Philip, and the four finds in the sixth group which close with radiates minted
after 253. The remaining finds all close with the latest issue of tetradrachms
minted under Gallus and their exact date of burial must remain uncertain.

448
7. The finds of radiates and denarii: the principles of selection
Appendix 1 gives details of the content of 74 hoards and 7 site-finds
from 15 different countries. The appendix is divided into five tables, followed
by a bibliography of finds which also explains the abbreviations by which they
are referred to in the tables. Table 1 provides summaries of the entire
contents of the finds with a note of their terminal dates (in the case of
hoards); Table 2 summarizes the coins of Gordian by mint and issue; Table
3 gives details of the coins from the mint of Rome in these finds and Tables
4 and 5 the coins from the first and second series of Antioch. The finds have
been divided into seven groups: (a) Britain; (b) France and Belgium; (c)
Germany and Austria; (d) Spain and Italy; (e) Hungary and Yugoslavia; (f)
Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and Greece and (g) Turkey and Syria and each
table is split into seven parts accordingly. Most areas of the Empire are
represented with the major exception of North Africa, from which I was
unable to find any finds containing coins of Gordian.
Since it was important to obtain as wide a geographical spread of finds
as possible for the study of circulation in Chapter 5, the criteria by which they
were selected varied according to country. In the case of countries, such as
Britain, France, Germany, Hungary and Yugoslavia, from which there are
many published hoards containing coins of this period, I have only chosen the
larger and better-described hoards. I have been less selective in the case of
countries such as Spain and Italy which have produced very few hoards, and
I have tried to include all relevant information from areas of special interest
such as the Balkans, Turkey and Syria.
In addition, I have included a number of smaller hoards from Britain
and Austria (‘Prince Napoleon’ and Cunetio from Britain and Apetlon from
Austria) either because I have examined the coins myself or because they are
all illustrated and so I can vouch for the attribution of the radiates from the
first series at Antioch.
Finally, I have included information from seven site-finds: Carnuntum
in Austria, Athens and Corinth in Greece, Ephesus, Sardis and Antioch in
Turkey and Dura in Syria. Several of the last six sites have produced only a

449
handful of coins of Gordian but are included because they are situated in the
area of special interest; Carnuntum was also added because it contained so
many silver coins of Gordian (99). No other sites contained substantial
quantities of radiates or denarii of Gordian.

8. The disappearance of the denarius from hoards

Table 17 shows the proportion of denarii and radiates in the hoards
listed in Appendix 1. This information is presented in two different ways: in
the first part of the table the hoards are listed in chronological order,
according to the date of the latest coin, while in the second they are shown in
order according to the percentage of denarii that they contain. This
information is confusing, as the finds would not appear to fit readily into neat
categories. However, certain trends may be distinguished.
First, there are hoards that completely excluded radiates. The two
examples ate in the present sample are the finds from Kidderminster in
Britain and Yatagan in Asia Minor (below, p. 456f.).32 The former consisted
of 39 coins, all denarii, the earliest being in the name of Septimius Severus
and the latest two of Gordian. The Yatagan hoard contained 243 denarii
starting with Antoninus Pius and closing with 24 denarii of Gordian. The fact
that the only coins of Gordian in both these hoards were denarii implies that
the hoarders had consciously rejected radiates and raises the possibility that
they might have been deposited some years after the date of the latest coins
in them. Another find that discriminated against radiates without entirely
excluding them was the ‘Eastern’ hoard from south-east Turkey (p. 457f.). It
contained 1911 coins closing with Trajan Decius, all but 83 of which were
denarii. Of the 286 coins of Gordian, in this find 255 were denarii.

32 For references to the hoards quoted in this chapter see the Bibliography of Finds .
 Table 17: Relative proportions of denarii and radiates in 76 hoards deposited
between 241 and 274.
A. By Date

Hoard Country Date Denarii Radiates Others Den.(G) Total

% % % %
A. Reign of Gordian
Ya Tur 241 100 0 - 100 243
Ki Bri 241 100 0 - 100 49
Ba Rom 244 82.02 17.98 - 6.56 356

B. Reign of Philip
Can Rom 246 46.72 53.28 - 6.57 488
El Bri 248 84.29 15.71 - 8.40 1146
Us Bui 248 71.33 28.67 - 1 0 .0 0 1022
Ic Bui 247 3.85 96.15 - 1.69 104
Ni Bui 249 ? ? - 8.50 933

C. Reign of Trajan Decius

Ea Tur 251 95.87 4.13 - 89.16 1911
PI Bui 251 17.96 82.04 - 4.93 3296
R-D Bui 251 ? ? - 16.43 81044
Ru Alb 251 ? ? - 60.00 1600
LS Bri 251 ? ? - 4.62 798

D. Reigns of Trebonianus Gallus and Aemilian

V-F Fra 253 75.95 24.05 - 3.40 2183
Wie Ger 253 64.18 35.82 - 2.15 402
D7 Syr 253 19.55 21.23 59.22 9.01 358
Bu Hun 253 18.52 81.48 - 0.85 2236
Bur Ger 253 2.50 97.50 - 0 40
Jag Yug 253 0 .8 6 99.14 - 3.03 349
Se Yug 253 0.15 99.85 - 0 1324
D2 Syr 253 0 5.21 94.79 0 96

E. Joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus

Sin Yug 254 15.79 84.21 - 2.71 2445
Os Yug 254 1.07 98.93 - 2.63 187
Jab Yug 254 0.45 99.55 - 0.19 2211
Sm Yug 254 c.0.03 c. 99.97 - 0.08 c.8910

Na Fra 255 11.82 88.18 - 2.06 1862

D1 Syr 256 0.13 35.66 64.21 0 78 8

Smy Tur 256 0.16 99.84 - 0.15 1244
DIO Syr 256 0 27.26 72.56 0 543
Ca Tur 256 0 100 - 0 61

Do Bri 257 0.08 99.92 0.03 20810

Neu Ger 257 0 100 - 0 353

Tul Aus 258 20.74 79.26 _ 0.34 1745

Nap Bri 258 9.21 90.79 - 6.25 315
Po Yug 258 8.13 91.87 - 1.72 160
Go Hun 258 1.40 98.60 - 0.57 3134
Ot Yug 258 0 100 - 0 352
Tq Ita 258 0 100 - 0 178

451
Hoard Country Date Denarii Radiates Others Den.(G) Total
% % % %
Ed Bri 259 67.42 32.58 - 4.62 528
Te Rom 259 12.58 87.42 - 5.27 1216
Pe Tur 259 2.39 96.96 0.65 2.58 460
Fe Hun 259 1.29 98.71 - 0 1089

F. Sole reign of Gallienus / reign of Postumus

Kr Yug 260 6.38 93.62 3.25 2290
Ap Aus 260 0.81 99.19 0 361
Cl Fra 260 0.13 99.87 0 1550
Nag Hun 260 ? ? 0.29 2586

Mat Bri 261 68.77 31.23 3.27 1095

Lei Ger 262 2.74 97.26 0 365

Sch Ger 262 0.06 99.94 0 4811

St Bri 263 14.97 85.03 2.94 2579

Alt Spa c.263 0 100 0 230

Ha Tur 264 47.64 52.36 3.89 2330

Bd Rom c.264 1.26 98.74 3.28 318

Ma Ger 265 28.11 71.89 1.90 1871

Rv Fra 265 12.54 87.46 3.28 678
AI Rom c. 265 0.74 99.26 0.52 1219
No Fra 265 0.23 99.77 0 436
Bas Bel 265 0 .2 0 99.80 0 489
Rq Fra 265 0.14 99.86 0.48 4913
Cht Fra 265 0 100 0 702
Cr Fra 265 0 100 0 988

Cal Ita 266 0.38 99.62 1.18 3911

Fa Ita 266 0.08 93.58 6.38 1.56 7591
Gib Spa 266 < 0 .0 1 >99.99 0 29862
Tar Spa c. 266 0 100 0 105

Cai Bri 267 77.91 22.09 6.25 851

M-B Fra 268 3.85 96.15 1.43 572

Alz Ger 268 1.83 98.17 0 382
Et Fra 268 0 .1 1 99.89 0 3791
Al Fra 268 0 .1 0 99.90 0.35 1016

G. After reign of Gallienus

OO Bri 269 1.03 98.97 0 1558
BH Bri 269 0 .8 8 99.12 1 .0 0 3173
Sel Bri 271 0.92 99.08 0 975
Ch Bri 274 5.24 94.76 2.50 916
Cu Bri 274 1 .1 2 98.88 52.17 5495 J
Mo Fra 274 0.06 99.94 0 1545

Note: the fourth, fifth and sixth columns show respectively the percentages of denarii, radiates and
other coins (bronze coins or tetradrachms) in the hoard as a whole; the seventh column shows the
percentage of denarii amonst Gordian’s coins.
 Table 17: Relative proportions of denarii and radiates in 76 hoards deposited
between 241 and 274
B. By percentage of denarii

Hoard Country Date Denarii Radiates Others Den(G) Total

% % % %

Ki Bri 241 100 0 _

100 49
Ya Tur 241 100 0 - 100 243

Ea Tur 251 95.87 4.13 _ 89.16 1911

El Bri 248 84.29 15.71 - 8.40 1146
Ba Rom 244 82.02 17.98 - 6.56 356
Cai Bri 267 77.91 22.09 - 6.25 851
V-F Fra 253 75.95 24.05 - 3.40 2183
Us Bui 248 71.33 28.67 - 1 0 .0 0 1022
Mat Bri 261 68.77 31.23 - 3.27 1095
Ed Bri 259 67.42 32.58 - 4.62 528
Wie Ger 253 64.18 35.82 - 2.15 402
Ha Tur 264 47.64 52.36 - 3.89 2330
Can Rom 246 46.72 53.28 - 6.57 488

Ma Ger 265 28.11 71.89 _

1.90 1871
Tul Aus 258 20.74 79.26 - 0.34 1745
D7 Syr 253 19.55 21.23 59.22 9.01 358
Bu Hun 253 18.52 81.48 - 0.85 2236
PI Bui 251 17.96 82.04 - 4.93 3296
Sin Yug 254 15.79 84.21 - 2.71 2445
St Bri 263 14.97 85.03 - 2.94 2579
Te Rom 259 12.58 87.42 - 5.27 1216
Rv Fra 265 12.54 87.46 - 3.28 678
Na Fra 255 11.82 88.18 - 2.06 1862

Nap Bri 258 9.21 90.79 _ 6.25 315

Po Yug 258 8.13 91.87 - 1.72 160
Kr Yug 260 6.38 93.62 - 3.25 2290
Ch Bri 274 5.24 94.76 - 2.50 916

Ic Bui 247 3.85 96.15 _

1.69 104
M-B Fra 268 3.85 96.15 - 1.43 572
Lei Ger 262 2.74 97.26 - 0 365
Bur Ger 253 2.50 97.50 - 0 40
Pe Tur 259 2.39 96.96 0.65 2.58 460
Alz Ger 268 1.83 98.17 - 0 382
Go Hun 258 1.40 98.60 - 0.57 3134
Fe Hun 259 1.29 98.71 - 0 1089
Bd Rom c.264 1.26 98.74 - 3.28 318
Cu Bri 274 1 .1 2 98.88 - 52.17 54951
Os Yug 254 1.07 98.93 - 2.63 187
OO Bri 269 1.03 98.97 - 0 1558

Sel Bri 271 0.92 99.08 _

0 975
BH Bri 269 0 .8 8 99.12 - 1 .0 0 3173
Jag Yug 253 0 .8 6 99.14 - 3.03 349
Ap Aus 260 0.81 99.19 - 0 361
AI Rom c.265 0.74 99.26 - 0.52 1219
Jab Yug 254 0.45 99.55 - 0.19 2211

453
Hoard Country Date Denarii Radiates Others Den(G) Total
% % % %

Cal Ita 266 0.38 99.62 _ 1.18 3911

No Fra 265 0.23 99.77 - 0 436
Bas Bel 265 0 .2 0 99.80 - 0 489
Smy Tur 256 0.16 99.84 - 0.15 1244
Se Yug 253 0.15 99.85 - 0 1324
Rq Fra 265 0.14 99.86 - 0.48 4913
Cl Fra 260 0.13 99.87 - 0 1550
D1 Syr 256 0.13 35.66 64.21 0 788
Et Fra 268 0 .1 1 99.89 - 0 3791
A1 Fra 268 0 .1 0 99.90 - 0.35 1016
Do Bri 257 0.08 99.92 - 0.03 20810
Fa Ita 266 0.08 93.58 6.38 1.56 7591
Sch Ger 262 0.06 99.94 - 0 4811
Mo Fra 274 0.06 99.94 - 0 1545
Sm Yug 254 c.0.03 c. 99.97 - 0.08 c.8910
Gib Spa 266 < 0 .0 1 >99.99 - 0 29862

D2 Syr 253 0 5.21 94.79 0 96

DIO Syr 256 0 27.26 72.56 0 543
Ca Tur 256 0 100 - 0 61
Neu Ger 257 0 100 - 0 353
Ot Yug 258 0 100 - 0 352
Tq Ita 258 0 100 - 0 178
Alt Spa c.263 0 100 - 0 230
Cht Fra 265 0 100 - 0 702
Cr Fra 265 0 100 - 0 988
Tar Spa c.266 0 100 - 0 105

Ni Bui 249 ? ? _ 8.50 933

R-D Bui 251 ? ? - 16.43 81044
Ru Alb 251 9 ? - 60.00 1600
LS Bri 251 ? ? - 4.62 798
Nag Hun 260 9 ? - 0.29 2586

Note: the fourth, fifth and sixth columns show respectively the percenatges of denarii,
radiates and other coins (bronze coins or tetradrachms) in the hoard as a whole; the
seventh column shows the percentage of denarii amongst Gordian’s coins.

Table 18: Relative proportion of different denominations of Gordian in 7

site-finds
Site Country Denarii Radiates Aes 4dr. Total
Car Aus 6.43 64.29 29.29 0 140
At Gre 5.77 51.92 42.31 0 52
Co Gre - 50.00 50.00 0 6
Sa Tur 33.33 66.67 0 0 3
Ep Tur 37.50 62.50 0 0 8
An Tur 3.85 88.46 7.69 0 26
Du Syr 6.56 81.15 0 12.30 122

454
 On the other hand, many hoards buried during the years 250-70 contain
hardly any denarii at all. Two examples from the opposite ends of the empire
may be cited: the Dorchester hoard from Britain (20,748 coins to c. 257,
including 16 denarii [0.08%]) and the Smyrna hoard from Asia Minor (1244
coins to c. 258, including 2 denarii [0.16%], p. 459f.), but there were many
others. In fact, hoards with few denarii form the biggest single group in the
sample, since 48 of the 76 hoards in Table 1 contain less than 5% of denarii.
Furthermore, although most these finds were buried after 253, there are five
that have no coins later than Aemilian including the find from the Bulgarian
village of Prof. Ichirkovo: this has no coins minted later than 247 and yet its
denarius content is only 3.85%. That these hoards deliberately discriminated
against denarii can be shown by the fact that many of them, such as the
Dorchester find, contained significant quantities of radiates of Caracalla,
Macrinus and Elagabalus.
Although there is also a considerable body of finds from all parts of the
empire which contain examples of both denominations in substantial
quantities, these become progressively scarcer the later their terminal date.
Thus, of the 14 hoards that close between 244 and 253, nine have a fair
number of denarii (17.96% - 84.3%); of 21 hoards of the next period (254-60,
the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus), the equivalent figure is seven
(ranging from 8.1% to 67.4% of denarii), while of the 28 finds that end
between 260 and 268, there are another seven in this category with between
6.38% and 77.9% of denarii.
As examples of this third class of hoard we may cite the Mattishall
hoard from Britain, whose latest coin dates to 261, which contained 68.8% of
denarii, and the Caister-by Yarmouth hoard, with a terminus of about 267,
which had 77.9% of these coins. Other hoards of the 260s with high
proportions of denarii are from Mainz in Germany (28.1%) and Haydere in
Turkey (47.6%).33

33 In his study of coin circulation in the Danubian provinces, Der Geldumlauf der
romischen Provinzen ini Donaugebiet Mitte des 3. Jahrhunderts, Bonn and Budapest, 1978, Teil
1, pp. 229-31, J Fitz gives details of 79 hoards buried between 249 and 260 in the provinces

455
 Taken overall, the hoards show how the denarii progessively
disappeared from circulation during the period between 241 and 274. On the
other hand that denarii had not disappeared completely is shown by the fact
that many hoards from the 260s still contain appreciable quantities of them,
alongside the radiates. As we have seen in Chapter 7, the hoard evidence
certainly does not support the contention that the radiate rapidly drove the
denarius out of circulation because it was over-valued in relation to it.

9. The circulation of radiates and denarii in Turkey and Syria34

A. The Yatagan hoard

This hoard, which was discovered near Yatagan in Caria and published
in 1988, contains 243 coins ranging in date from Antoninus Pius to Gordian
III, all denarii.35 Because the hoarder obviously discriminated against
radiates the find might have been buried considerably later than the latest
coins in hoard, 24 denarii of Gordian III of 240-1. Against this we may observe
that the coins of Gordian appear to be unworn, so the date of burial might not
be much after 250. The find has parallels in the ‘Eastern’ find which
contained 1827 denarii and only 79 radiates, ending in 251, and the first part
of the Haydere hoard, discussed below (p. 467f.).

of Noricum, the two Pannoniae and Moesiae and Dacia, no fewer than fifty of which contain
a substantial proportion of denarii, that is 1 0 % or more.
34 Most of the following section is based on R F Bland and P Aydemir, ‘The Haydere
hoard and other hoards of the mid-third century from Turkey’ in C J Lightfoot (ed.), Recent
Turkish Coin Hoards, Monograph of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1991.
35 Y Kizilkaya, ‘Yatagan Definesi’, Turkish Review o f Archaeology 27, 1988, pp. 137-69,
to be reprinted in C J Lightfoot (ed.), Recent Turkish Coin Hoards, Monograph of the British
Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1991.

456
 Table 19: The Yatagan Hoard

Ruler Date Total %

Antoninus Pius 138-61 2 0.8
Marcus Aurelius 139-80 2 0.8
Com mod us 180-92 1 0.4
Septimius Severus 193-211 33 13.6
Julia Domna 193-217 19 7.8
Caracalla 198-217 60 24.7
11 3
Plautilla 1.2
Geta 198-212 29 11.9
Macrinus 217-18 6 2.5
ft
Diadumenian 2 0.8
Elagabalus 218-22 8 3.3
ft
Julia Paula 1 0.4
ft
Julia Maesa 1 0.4
ft
Julia Soaemias 1 0.4
Severus Alexander 222-35 22 9.1
Maximinus 235-8 28 11.5
Maximus ft
1 0.4
Gordian III 238-44 24 9.9

Total 243

B. The ‘Eastern hoard’

This hoard was seen on the London market in the late 1960s and was
published by S Bendall in 1966.36 Its only provenance was that it was said
to have been found in ‘south-east Turkey’. The coins catalogued by Bendall
did not constitute the complete find because he also noted a further 800
denarii, assumed to come from the same hoard, which appeared on the
market at the same time. The only details that are available concerning this
second batch are shown in Table / . It will be seen that it has the same general
distribution as the main part of the find, although it contains a higher
proportion of the common issues of the early third century and fewer of the
pre-Severan coins (6.1% instead of 24.4% in the main batch).

36 S Bendall, ‘An Eastern Hoard of Roman Imperial Silver’, NC 1966, pp. 165-70.
 Table 20: The ‘Eastern’ Hoard

Ruler Date Radiates Denarii Others Total % Extra %

Republic - 1 - 1 0.05
Augustus 27 BC-AD 14 - 5 - 5 0.26
Tiberius 14-37 - 4 - 4 0.21
Nero 54-68 - 2 - 2 0.10
Galba 68-9 - 1 - 1 0.05
Otho 69 - 3 - 3 0.16
Vitellius 69 - 1 - 1 0.05
Vespasian 69-79 - 33 1 34 1.78
Titus 69-81 - 6 - 6 0.31
Domitian 69-96 - 17 - 17 0.89
Nerva 96-8 - 6 - 6 0.31
Trajan 98-117 - 135 3 138 7.22
Hadrian 117-38 - 71 1 72 3.82
Sabina 117-38 - 1 - 1 0.05
Antoninus Pius 138-61 - 67 - 67 3.51
if
Faustina I - 18 - 18 0.94
Marcus Aurelius 161-80 - 47 - 47 2.46
ft
Faustina II - 17 - 17 0.89
Lucius Verus 161-9 - 7 - 7 0.37
ft
Lucilla - 4 - 4 0.21
Commodus 180-92 - 11 - 11 0.58
If
Crispina - 4 - 4 0.21
Before 192 - - - - 24.39 49 6.13
Clodius Albinus 193-5 - 2 - 2 0.10
Septimius Severus 193-211 - 239 - 239 12.51 139 17.38
Julia Domna 193-217 - 129 - 129 6.75 92 11.50
Caracalla 198-217 2 372 - 374 19.57 178 2125
Plautilla 202-5 - 37 - 37 1.94
Geta 198-212 - 136 - 136 7.12 81 10.13
Macrinus 217-18 - 6 - 6 0.31
Elagabalus 218-22 3 43 - 46 2.41 8 1.00
Julia Maesa It
- 3 - 3 0.16
Severus Alexander 222-35 - 103 - 103 5.39 32 4.00
Maximinus 235-8 - 38 - 38 1.99 93 11.63
If
Maximus - 2 - 2 0.10
Pupienus 238 - 1 - 1 0.05
Gordian III 238-44 31 255 - 286 14.97 128 16.00
Philip I 244-9 23 - - 23 1.20
Otacilia Severa t!
5 - - 5 0.26
ft
Philip II 6 - - 6 0.31
Trajan Decius 249-51 4 - - 4 0.21
Herennia Etruscilla " 5 - - 5 0.26
Total 79 1827 5 1911 800

This hoard shows a clear preference for denarii over radiates, as did the
Yatagan hoard, but, unlike that find, it does not totally exclude them.
However, the fact that the great bulk of the coins were struck in the Severan

458
period and before, but that the latest coins are of Trajan Decius, minted some
ten years after the cessation of denarius issues in 241, shows that the hoarder
collected as few radiates as possible. A remarkable feature of the hoard is its
very high proportion of denarii to radiates among the coins of Gordian: 255
to 31. This completely turns the normal proportion of these two
denominations on its head and shows that the hoarder must have deliberately
sought out Gordian’s denarii, which are comparatively scarce. The other
parallel to this find is the hypothetical reconstruction of the first part of the
Haydere hoard, discussed below (p. 467f.). It is, I would suggest, reasonable
to regard this as a ‘savings’ hoard.

C. The Smyrna hoard

This hoard was published by S K Eddy in 1967.37 It was said to have been
‘found buried in a field near the site of ancient Smyrna, in the vicinity of
modern Izmir’ in 1954.38 Eddy believed that the find had come to him
intact, presumably on the authority of the dealer in Istanbul, through whose
hands it has passed. The find consists of 1244 coins, all radiates except for one
denarius of Gordian, and closes in the reign of Valerian.
The four coins of Valerian are as follows:

Mint of Rome

Issue I: IMP C P LIC VALERIANVS AVG

No. Reverse RIC Cunetio Date
1 IOVICONSERVA 92 442 2534

Issue II: IMP C P LIC VALERIANVS PF AVG

2 ORIENS AVGG (whip) 106 481 2536

Mint of Viminacium

Issue II: IMP VALERIANVS P AVG

3 PROVID AVGG 248 - 2538
4 VIRTVS AVGG 271 - 253S

37 S K Eddy, The Minting o f Antoniniani A.D. 238-249 and the Smyrna Hoard, American
Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs 156, New York, 1967.
38 Eddy, op. cit., p. 1.

459
 It is difficult to date te* the issues of the mint of Viminacium precisely, but
the two Smyrna coins are from the second of four issues. However, since the
first issue dates to the very start of the reign and since the fourth issue did not
continue later than 258 it is unlikely that the second issue can be later than
the ORIENS AVGG coin of Rome which may be dated to 255-6.
The preference of the hoarder for radiates is very marked: the 29 coins
from before Gordian’s reign are all radiates and the only denarius in the hoard
is a coin of Gordian which could easily have been mistaken for a radiate
among the mass of his coins.

Table 21: The Smyrna Hoard

Ruler Date Rad. Den. Total %

Caracalla 211-17 5 - 5 0.4
ft
Julia Domna 8 - 8 0.6
Elagabalus 218-22 12 - 12 1.0
Balbinus 238 2 - 2 0.2
Pupienus tt
2 - 2 0.2
Gordian III 238-44 662 1 663 53.3
Philip I 244-9 423 - 423 34.0
Otacilia Severa It
4 - 4 0.3
Philip II ft
38 - 38 3.1
Trajan Decius 249-51 54 - 45 3.6
Herennia Etruscilia tt
1 - 1 0.1
Herennius Etruscus tt
11 - 11 0.9
Hostilian ft
3 - 3 0.2
Trebonianus Gallus 251-3 7 - 7 0.6
Volusian tt
5 - 5 0.4
Aemilian 253 2 - 2 0.2
Valerian I 253-60 4 - 4 0.3

Total 1243 1 1244

D. The Caesarea hoard

This hoard was seen on the market in New York in 1980 and was recorded
in two articles by M J Hodder.39 Hodder states that ‘the hoard was said to
be complete as found in the fabric of a building near ancient Caesarea in
Turkey’. This is presumably Caesarea in Cappadocia, modern Kayseri, the

39 M J Hodder, ‘A hoard of silver antoniniani’, Spink Numismatic Circular March 1981,

76 and ‘A third-century hoard’, Spink Numismatic Circular November 1981, 361-3.

460
most important of the many ancient cities to bear the name of Caesarea. The
coins are all radiates.

Table 22: The Caesarea Hoard

Ruler Date Total %

Elagabalus 218-22 1 1.6
Gordian III 238-44 21 34.4
Philip I 244-9 15 24.6
tt
Otacilia Severa 6 9.8
Philip II tt
5 8.2
Trajan Decius 249-51 5 8.2
Herennia Etruscilla tt
1 1.6
Trebonianus Gallus 251-3 4 6.6
Volusian tt
1 1.6
Valerian I 253-60 1 1.6
Uncertain 1 1.6
Total 61

The latest coin is a radiate of Valerian from Antioch which may be dated
to 255-6. Its description is as follows:
Mint of Antioch

Issue IV: IMP C P LIC VALERIANVS AVG

No. Reverse RIC Cunetio Date
1 PIETAS AVGG 284 842 2556
Although it is small, the hoard is similar to those from Smyrna, Pergamum
and Iasos in that it consists exclusively of radiates, while its terminal date in
the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus resembles that of the Smyrna and
Pergamum hoards.

E. The Pergamum hoard

This hoard was published by Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou in I960.40
It consists of 460 coins said to have been found near Pergamum in Mysia. No
further details are given of the date or circumstances of the find. 124 coins
were acquired by the National Numismatic Museum, Athens, and are

40 I Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou, ‘Acquisitions du Musee numismatique d’Athenes’,

Bulletin de Correspondence Hellenique 84, I960, 496-7.

461
described in detail in the report; the remaining 336 are not described.41

Table 23: The Pergamum Hoard

Ruler Date Rad. Den. Aes Total %
Septimius Severus 193-211 - - 1 1 0.2
Caracalla 198-217 - 1 1 1 0.2
tt
Plautilla - 1 - 1 0.2
Elagabalus 218-22 2 2 - 4 0.9
Severus Alexander 222-35 - 1 - 1 0.2
Julia Mamaea tt
- 1 - 1 0.2
Maximinus 235-8 - 1 - 1 0.2
Gordian III 238-44 150 4 1 155 33.7
Philip I 244-9 113 - - 113 24.6
Otacilia Severa tt
30 - - 30 6.5
Philip II tt
23 - - 23 5.0
Trajan Decius 249-51 49 - - 49 10.6
tt
Herennia Etruscilla 20 - - 20 4.3
ft
Herennius Etruscus 8 - - 8 1.7
Trebonianus Gallus 251-3 22 - - 22 4.8
Volusian tt
19 - - 19 4.1
Aemilian 253 3 - - 3 0.6
Valerian I 253-60 3 - - 3 0.6
tt
Gallienus (joint reign) 4 - - 4 0.9

Total 447 11 2 460

The latest coins are the seven radiates of the joint reign of Valerian and
Gallienus. Their description is as follows:

Mint of Rome

Issue I:IMP C P LIC VALERIANVS AVG

No. Emp. Reverse RIC Cunetio Date
1 V APOLINIPROPVG 74 437-8 2S34
2 V IOVI CONSERVA[TORI] 92 442-4 2534

Mint of Rome or Antioch

Obv.: IMP C P LIC GALLIENVS AVG

No. Emp. Reverse RIC Cunetio Date
3 G VIRTVS AVGG 181 (R) or 548-9 2534
301 (Ant) 2534

41 Apparently a full record is kept of them at the National Numismatic Museum in

Athens.

462
 M in t o f V i m i n a c i u m

Issue II: IMP G A LLIEN V S P A V G

5 V VIRTVS A V G G 410 778 253-8

Issue III: IMP GALLIENVS P A VG

4 V LAETIT TEMP 24/384 253-8

Issue IV: IMP V A LER IA N V S PF A V G

6 V SALVS A V G G 252 779-81 253-8

Mint o f Gaul
Issue IV: G A LLIEN V S PF A V G
7 G VIRTVS A V G G 57 730 258-9

The latest coin in the hoard is the radiate of G allienus from the m int of
Gaul; it com es from the fourth issue at th at mint which may be dated to 258-9.
T he hoard is similar to those from Smyrna, C aesarea and Iasos in th a t it
consists alm ost exclusively of radiates: th ere were 447 (97.2% of the total),
along with 11 rad iates (2.4% ) and two bronze coins. T hese last were civic |
issues of H adriani in Mysia (Septim ius Severus) and M etropolis in Ionia
(G ordian).

F. The Iasos hoard

This hoard was discovered by the Italian excavators of the C arian city of
Iasos in 1969. It was contained in a pot under the floor of a shop in the south
west corner of the agora,42 and the coins are now in the A rchaeological
M useum , Izmir.43 T here is no prospect of the full publication of the
hoard.44 However, I am able to present for the first tim e a sum m ary of the
find com piled from the registers of Izmir M useum: this may not be com pletely
accurate. U nfortunately it was not possible to distinguish betw een radiates
and denarii, but it is clear that th ere cannot have been m ore than about a

42 There is a brief account o f the circumstances o f the discovery o f the hoard together
with a photograph and description o f 35 o f the coins in D Levi, ‘Iasos: le campagne di scavo
1969-70’, Annuario della Scuola Archelogica di A tene 47-8, 1969-70, 497-502. The sam e
information is repeated in D Levi, ‘V enticinque anni di seavi a Iasos’, in Studi su Iasos di
C aria, Supplem ent to no. 31-2 o f the Bollettino d A r te , Rome, 1986, 9-11.

43 Inventory nos. 9233-9627; 9654; 10026-10226; 10290-494; 10502-619; 10818-11052;

11215-53; 11267-746; 11753-12314; 12336-13090.

44 It is understood that the hoard is to be published by Luigi Tondo.

463
hundred of the latter and probably far fewer. There are 46 coins of the
period before Gordian when both denominations were struck, and it is unlikely
that more than 50 or so of the coins of Gordian himself were denarii, while
none of the later coins can have been, giving a total of no more than a
hundred coins of this denomination.

Table 24: The Iasos Hoard

Date Number %
Macrinus 217-8 2 0.1
Elagabalus 218-22 32 1.1
Julia Maesa 218-22 4 0.1
Maximinus 235-8 3 0.1
Balbinus 238 3 0.1
Pupienus 238 2 0.1
Gordian III 238-44 1051 35.2
Philip I and II 244-9 966 32.3
Otacilia Severa 244-9 213 7.1
Trajan Decius 249-51 344 11.5
Divi 249-51 16 0.5
Herennia Etruscilla 249-51 107 3.6
Herennius Etruscus 249-51 59 2.0
Hostilian 249-51 16 0.5
Trebonianus Gallus 251-3 88 2.9
Volusian 251-3 53 1.8
Aemilian 253 7 0.2
Valerian I 253-60 7 0.2
Gallienus (joint reign) 253-60 12 0.4
Salonina (joint reign) 253-60 2 0.1
Gallienus (sole reign) 260-8 2 0.1

Total 2989
The latest coins in the hoard were two radiates of the sole reign of
Gallienus, both from the same issue of the mint of Antioch. These may be
described as follows:
Mint of Antioch

Issue IX: GALLIENVS PF AVG

No. Reverse RIC Cunetio Date
1 IOVI STATORI 644 -/1889 263-4
2 VIRTVS AVGVSTI 672 1886/91 263-4

It was not noted whether these coins have a star on the reverse or not
and therefore belong to the first or second phase of this issue, but in any case
the series that they come from includes the type P M TRP XII COS V P P

464
(RIC 600), which may be dated to December 263 - December 264.

G. The Haydere hoard

This hoard was discovered in 1982 in the village of Haydere, which is
situated in the valley of the river Harpasos in ancient Caria, about 12 km
south of Bozdogan and 28 km west of Aphrodisias. L Robert, following a
suggestion by W R Paton, has tentatively identified Haydere as being the site
of the city of Bargasa, both because of the find-spots of bronze coins of that
city and because there are the remains of an ancient city with a gymnasium at
Haydere.45
The hoard was said originally to have consisted of 5578 coins, but the
majority were dispersed and only 2330 are now preserved in the
Archaeological Museum in Izmir, where the author was able to catalogue and
photograph them all in 1988.46 The question immediately arises as to how
closely this portion reflects the original find. There are two reasons for
suspecting that it might not be a random sample: not only is the composition
of the hoard very unusual but it also lacks many rare coins that might be
expected to be present.
To take the second point first, it may be noted that the following rulers
are all absent from the hoard: Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Clodius Albinus,
Macrinus, Diadumenian, all of Elagabalus’s female relations, Maximus,
Balbinus, Pupienus, Gordian I and II, Tranquillina, Herennia Etruscilla and
Hostilian. In a hoard of over 2000 coins one would expect to find specimens
of at least some of these rulers, and their absence suggests that the coins

45 It has long been known that there was a city of this name situated on the coast about
32 km west of Halicarnassus (Bodrum), but L and J Robert in La Carie II: Le Plateau de
Tabai et ses Environs, Paris, 1954, pp. 273 and 336 n. 1 and again in ‘Trois ateliers monetaires
d’lonie et de Carie a l’epoque imperiale’, Proceedings of the 9th International Numismatic
Congress, Berne, 1979, 1982, pp. 318-9, proposed that there must be a second city with this
name Bargasa in the interior because of the find-spots of bronze coins of Bargasa. See also
W R Paton and J L Myres, ‘Karian Sites and Inscriptions’, Journal o f Hellenic Studies 16,1896,
197-9; and W R Paton, ‘Sites in E. Karia and S. Lydia’, Journal o f Hellenic Studies 20, 1900,
60-2.
46 The hoard is to be published by R F Bland and P Aydemir, ‘The Haydere hoard and
other hoards of the mid-third century from Turkey’ in C J Lightfoot (ed.), Recent Turkish
Coin Hoards, Monograph of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1991.

465
recovered by the authorities were the least valuable pieces, the more valuable
ones having been dispersed in trade.

Table 25: Summary of the Haydere hoard

Date Rome Vim. East Total %

Rad Den.
Vespasian 69-79 - 9 - - 9 0.4
Titus 69-81 - 2 - - 2 0.1
Domitian 69-96 - 5 - - 5 0.2
Nerva 96-8 - 5 - - 5 0.2
Trajan 98-117 - 90 - - 90 3.9
Hadrian 117-38 - 87 - 1 88 3.8
Antoninus Pius 138-61 - 109 - - 109 4.7
tv
Faustina I - 69 - - 69 3.0
Marcus Aurelius 161-80 - 100 - - 100 4.3
Faustina II ft
- 46 - - 46 10
Lucius Verus 161-9 - 20 - - 20 0.9
Lucilla tt
- 16 - - 16 0.7
Commodus 180-92 - 35 - - 35 1.5
Crispina tt
- 4 - - 4 0.2
Septimius Severus 193-211 - 102 - 6 108 4.6
Julia Domna 193-217 - 60 - 6 66 18
Caracalla 198-217 - 206 - 1 207 8.9
Plautilla tt
- 2 - - 2 0.1
Geta 198-212 - 63 - 2 65 18
Elagabalus 218-22 3 13 - 1 17 0.7
Severus Alexander 222-35 - 13 - - 13 0.6
Julia Mamaea tt
- 2 - - 2 0.1
Maximinus 235-8 - 7 - - 7 0.3
Gordian III 238-44 583 28 - 109 720 30.9
Philip I 244-9 336 - - 4 340 14.6
Otacilia Severa tt
9 - - - 9 0.4
Philip II tt
66 - - 3 69 3.0
Trajan Decius 249-51 61 - - - 61 16
Divi tt
2 - - - 2 0.1
tt
Herennius Etruscus 2 - - - 2 0.1
Trebonianus Gallus 251-3 16 - - - 16 0.7
tt
Volusian 1 - - - 1 0.1
Aemilian 253 1 - - - 1 0.1
Valerian I 253-60 6 - 4 1 11 0.5
Gallienus (joint reign) tt
3 - 1 - 4 0.2
Gallienus (sole reign) 260-8 1 - - 1 2 0.1

Contemporary forgeries - - - - 7 0.3

Total 1090 1093 5 135 2330

466
 Table 25 presents a summary of the surviving portion of the Haydere
hoard by reign, denomination and mint. Table 28, on the other hand,
compares the hoard with other finds of similar date from Turkey, and it shows
very clearly how strange its composition is (p. 475). Of the other finds
summarised in those two tables, two consist almost exclusively of denarii, while
another four contain radiates with only a very few denarii. Haydere, by
contrast, consists of roughly equal quantities of each denomination (one
drachm, 1110 denarii and 1219 radiates).
Table 25 shows that the surviving portion of the Haydere hoard
contains a small number of Flavian coins (16) and then has a gradually
increasing representation of the rulers from Nerva to Commodus (582 coins),
reaching a first peak in the reign of Septimius Severus (388 coins). The
numbers of coins then fall off quite markedly: there are 60 of the reigns of
Caracalla and Geta and Caracalla alone (211-17), and then none at all of
Macrinus (these may have been removed because of their rarity), and only
small numbers from the reigns of Elagabalus (17 coins), Severus Alexander
(15) and Maximinus (7). The short-lived rulers of 238 are completely absent
from the hoard, which rises sharply to its second and highest peak in the reign
of Gordian III. Finally from the reign of Gordian through to its end in about
264 the hoard follows a pattern similar to that of the finds from Smyrna,
Caesarea, Pergamum and Iasos, closing with 15 coins of the joint reign of
Valerian and Gallienus and two of the sole reign of Gallienus.47

47 The terminal date of the find presents some difficulties. There can be little doubt that
the 15 coins of the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus belong to the hoard, but the
attribution of the two coins of the sole reign of Gallienus is less secure. The first piece,
which is from the fourth issue at Rome and has the reverse SECVRIT ORBIS, might be an
intruder because it has a light brown patina, whereas most of the other radiates in the hoard
have a green patina. However, the other coin of the sole reign, which has the reverse
AETERNITATI AVG and which comes from the second issue at Antioch, is unworn and has
the same green patina that is found on most of the other radiates. On balance, therefore, I
believe that both these coins probably do belong to the hoard. As to the date of these two
coins, the first one comes from the small fourth issue of the mint of Rome, which
immediately precedes the much larger fifth issue which is generally believed to have started
in 265, so the fourth issue may be dated to 264. The issue to which the Antiochene radiate
belongs can be dated to Gallienus’s 12th tribunician year, that is, in effect, to 264 also. It is,
therefore, not particularly important whether the SECVRIT ORBIS piece belongs to the
hoard or not since it was minted at much the same time as the AETERNITATI AVG coin.

467
 The conclusion is, therefore, that we probably are dealing with two
hoards, one consisting mainly or exclusively of denarii and closing some time
between 217 and 238, and most probably in the reign of Elagabalus, and the
other consisting mainly or solely of radiates and closing in 264. It is possible
that Haydere II may have contained a few denarii, stretching back perhaps to
the reign of Septimius Severus. Haydere I is thus similar to the Yatagan and
‘Eastern’ hoards and Haydere II to the finds from Smyrna, Caesarea,
Pergamum and Iasos. Table 26 sets out this hypothetical reconstruction. It is,
however, impossible to be certain about the relationship between these two
hypothetical deposits, since the record of their discovery is so incomplete.
They might or might not have been buried close to each other and they might
or might not have been related.48

Table 26: Hypothetical reconstruction of the two Haydere deposits

Reign Date Haydere I % Haydere II %

Vespasian - Domitian 69-96 16 1.5 - -

Nerva - Trajan 96-117 95 8.9 - -

Hadrian 117-38 88 8.2 - -

Antoninus Pius 138-61 178 16.7 - -

Marcus - Commodus 161-92 221 20.7 - -

Septimius Severus 193-211 388 36.4 - -

Caracalla and Geta 211-17 60 5.6 - -

Macrinus - Elagabalus 217-22 17 1.6 - -

Severus Alexander 222-35 - - 15 1.2

Maximinus 235-8 - - 7 0.6
Balbinus and Pupienus 238 - - - -

Gordian III 238-44 - - 720 57.0

Philip 244-9 - - 418 33.1
Decius 249-51 - - 65 5.1
Gallus and Aemilian 251-3 - - 18 1.4
Valerian and Gallienus 253-60 - - 15 1.2
Gallienus (sole reign) 260-8 - - 2 0.2

Contemporary forgeries 4 0.4 3 0.2

Total 1067 1263

48 There are many examples of multiple hoards, that is those buried in more than one
container but in close proximity to each other: J P Callu, ‘Cachettes mond'taires multiples (IIIe
- IV6 siecles)’, Studicn zu Fundmtinzen der Antike I , Berlin, 1979, 5-16 cites 40 examples; to
these we may add the three or perhaps six hoards from Beachy Head (Numismatic Chronicle
1979, 61-107) and the three from Oliver’s Orchard {Coin Hoards from Roman Britain VI, 65-
118).

468
 It needs to be said that although there is uncertainty about the original
composition of the Haydere hoard, there is no evidence that the 720 coins of
Gordian in the hoard have been picked over. Amongst these coins there was
one specimen, from the first series at Antioch, which was a previously
unknown type (PON M TRI P CON P P, no. 32), and would surely not have
been there if these coins had been subject to a process of selection. Therefore
it seems reasonable to include these coins in the study of circulation in
Chapter 5.

H. The hoards from Dura

The other eastern finds of this period that contain radiates and denarii
are five finds from Dura. These are all principally composed of tetradrachms
and that part of their composition as well as the currency of Dura in general
has already been discussed (pp. 426ff. and pp. 429ff.). Here, I propose to look
solely at their radiates and denarii to examine the evidence that they provide
for the penetration of these denominations into Syria in the first half of the
third century and their relationship with the tetradrachms. Three of the
hoards, nos. 7, 2 and 18, close with coins of the reign of Gallus, while the
remaining two, nos. 1 and 10, contain radiates of the first three issues of
Valerian and Gallienus from Antioch and are assumed to have been buried
at the time of the capture of the city by the Persians in 255 or 256. In Table
27 the radiates and denarii from each hoard are summarized by reign and in
the final column the total number of tetradrachms from all five hoards are
listed by reign.
It will be seen that all these hoards differ quite markedly from the
Turkish finds that we have been discussing. This is because Dura lies in the
area of circulation of Syrian tetradrachms, whereas all the Turkish hoards
come from outside this area. It is apparent from Table 10 that the supply of
the Roman denominations to Dura was largely governed by the production of
Syrian tetradrachms. Thus the hoards from Dura contain 11 denarii of the
reign of Septimius Severus, when the Syrian mints were striking only a few
tetradrachms, but this falls to three under Caracalla and one under Macrinus,

469
when tetradrachm production was greatly increased (Chapter 1). In
Elagabalus’s reign, when tetradrachm issues ceased (in about 220), the supply
of Roman denominations to Dura rose again to 17 pieces and denarii
continued to reach the city in the reigns of Alexander and Maximinus when
no tetradrachms were produced.

Table 27: The Dura Hoards (radiates and denarii)

(see also Table 3)

Reign Date Hd.7 Hd.7 Hd.2 Hd.18 Hd.1 Hd.1 Hd.10 Total % 4dr %
Rad, Den. Rad. Den. Rad. Den. Rad.
Domitian 81-96 - - - 2 - - - 2 0.34
Commodus 180-92 - 1 - - - - - 1 0.17
Septimius 193-211 - 9 - 2 - - - 11 1.87 2 0.15
Caracalla 211-17 1 1 - - 1 - - 3 0.51 49 3.71
Macrinus 217-18 - - - 1 - - - 1 0.17 40 3.03
Elagabalus 218-22 1 15 - 1 - - - 17 2.89 107 8.11
Alexander 222-35 - 30 - 2 - 1 - 33 5.60
Maximinus 235-8 - 4 - - - - - 4 0.68
Gordian 238-44 68 10 4 - 139 - 18 239 40.58 79 5.98
Philip 244-9 5 - 1 - 1 - 3 10 1.70 411 31.14
Decius 249-51 - - - - 4 - - 4 0.68 407 30.83
Gallus 251-3 1 - - - 37 - 28 56 9.51 225 17.05
Valerian 253-55/6 - - - - 99 - 99 198 33.62

Total 76 70 5 8 281 1 148 589 1320

Tetradrachms, aes 212 - 91 116 506 - 395 1320

Grand Total 358 96 124 788 543 1909

Under Gordian there was a dramatic increase in the number of radiates

and denarii in Dura, as they account for 40.6% of all the examples of these
denominations in the hoards. This increase was partly because his tetradrachm
issues from Antioch were relatively small (they account for only 6.0% of the
total tetradrachm content of the five hoards) and probably also partly due to
the increased military activity in the area resulting from Gordian’s Persian
campaign of 242-4. In the reigns of Philip and Decius, on the other hand, this
position is reversed, for at that time the mint of Antioch was striking

470
tetradrachms in great quantities, while its radiates were relatively rare, and so
at Dura the percentage of radiates declines to 1.7% under Philip and 0.7%
under Decius, while that of tetradrachms rises to 31.1% and 30.8%. In the
reign of Gallus, on the other hand, the production of radiates at Antioch was
stepped up and at Dura they increased to 9.5% while tetradrachms slipped
back to 17.1%. Finally, in the two or three years of Valerian’s reign during
which Dura remained in Roman hands there was another large influx of
radiates from the mint of Antioch (33.6%) as these had by now replaced
tetradrachms entirely.

I. The occasion for the burial of these hoards: the incursions of the Goths
I have tried to establish as closely as possible the terminal dates of
these hoards which are as follows (those from Dura are excluded):

Haydere I 217-38 (? c. 220)

Yatagan 241-50
‘Eastern’ 251
Smyrna 255-6
Caesarea 255-6
Pergamum 258-9
Iasos 264
Haydere II 264

This is a greatly increased concentration of hoards, compared, for

example, with the previous 250 years, and they might be linked to the Gothic
invasions of Turkey which occurred sporadically from about 250 onwards.
These incursions are mentioned by many of the ancient sources but their
accounts are contradictory and it is difficult to establish an accurate
chronology.49 Recently Salamon has tried to reconcile the sources, revising
the traditional chronology and arguing that there were two minor incursions

49 The main sources are Dexippus (Jacoby, Fragmente dergriechischen Historiker II, Berlin,
1926, pp. 452-80); Zosimus I, 28 ff.; Syncellus (ed. Niebuhr, Bonn, 1829), pp. 715f.; Zonaras
XII, 23-4; Hieronymus, Chron. (ed. Helm, Berlin, 1956) p. 220; Ammianus Marcellinus XXXI,
5, 15; Eutropius IX, 8 ; Aurelius Victor 33, 3; Orosius VII, 22, 7; and S.H.A. Gallieni I I 4, 7;
6 , 2; 7, 3; 11, 1; 12, 6 ; and 13, 8 . These are discussed by A Alfoldi, ‘The invasions of the
peoples from the Rhine to the Black Sea’ and ‘The sources for the Gothic invasions of the
years 260-70’, Cambridge Ancient History XII 146-50 and 721-3; D Magie, Roman Rule in Asia
Minor 705-15 and 1566-8; and M Christol, ‘Les regnes de Valerien et Gallien (253-268)’ in
ANRW II, 2, pp. 803-27.

471
in 254 and winter 258-9 and major invasions in 261-2 and 267-8.50 The
terminal dates of these hoards do not support Salamon’s revised chronology,
but any attempt to determine the chronology of the Gothic invasions or trace
their routes from these eight hoards would be dangerous. The burial of the
numerous hoards in Dura, on the other hand, is likely to have been caused by
the Persian threat on the Roman frontier in Mesopotamia rather than the
incursions of the Goths into Turkey.

10. Conclusion: the contrast between coin circulation in Turkey

and Syria
One feature of Syrian coin circulation that the Dura finds illustrate is
the way in which the mint of Antioch replaced Rome as the supplier of
radiates. Under Gordian, when, as we have seen, a great many radiates and
denarii entered circulation in Dura, the mint of Rome was still the source of
more than half of coins, although this is in itself a very low proportion. It is
impossible to determine the proportion of Philip’s and Decius’s radiates that
were minted at Antioch, since they cannot be distinguished from the Roman
issues in Bellinger’s catalogue. But all the radiates of Gallus and Volusian
found at Dura came from Antioch, as did all but five of the 198 coins of
Valerian and Gallienus. Thus it is possible to trace the origin of a
phenomenon that becomes very marked in the second half of the third
century, when Syria seems to have a more or less closed currency system.
Many hoards of radiates are known from this period that are almost
exclusively composed of coins minted at Antioch (or another Syrian mint,
Tripolis, which was active between 274 and 290/1). Perhaps the most
remarkable example is the hoard published by W E Metcalf, said to have
come from Antioch.51 It consisted of 532 radiates of Trebonianus Gallus and
Volusian, all from the mint of Antioch, and including a uniquely high

50 M Salamon, ‘Chronology of the Gothic invasions into Asia Minor in the IHrd century
A.D.’, Eos 59, 1971, 109-39. He cites all the relevant literature.
51 W E Metcalf, ‘The Antioch hoard of antoniniani and the eastern coinage of
Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian’, ANSM N 22 (1977), pp. 71-94.

472
proportion of die-identical coins.52 With so many die-linked coins this find
bears all the hallmarks of being a batch of coins that had come directly from
the mint, and therefore is hardly typical, but it is indicative of the trend.
From a slightly later period I have catalogued six, as yet unpublished,
hoards consisting of coins of the period 253-70, none of which contains more
than a handful of specimens from non-Syrian mints; four of these do not have
any firm provenances, but one is from Everek in south-east Turkey and the
other from Jenin in the West Bank. Another hoard of this type from Hama
in Syria was published by Carson, two more with Turkish provenances by K
J J Elks and one more without a provenance by de Roquefeuil.53 We may
also note that all but one of the 1274 radiates in the Capharnaum hoard
(above, p. 44If.) come from Syrian mints, as is the case with the Jafa hoard
(p. 442f.).
C E King has studied the circulation of the reformed radiates of the
period 274-94 in the Roman east and here again it is evident that both hoards
and site-finds from Syria consist exclusively of coins from Syrian mints.54 King
has summarized four unprovenanced Syrian hoards and one from Tiberias,
which consist principally of radiates of Aurelian, Tacitus and Probus; in all
cases the products of Syrian mints account for at least 88% of the total.55 To
these one may add the large hoard from Nahr Ibrahim in Syria, which also

52 The 532 coins came from 59 obverse and 69 reverse dies.

53 R A G Carson, ‘The Hama hoard and the eastern mints of Valerian and Gallienus’,
Berytus 17 (1968), pp. 123-42 (593 radiates and 6 tetradrachms to 260, all but 4 from
Antioch); K J J Elks, ‘The eastern mints of Valerian and Gallienus’, NC 1975, pp. 91-109
(Hoard A: 637 radiates to 267, all but 7 from Antioch; Hoard B: 195 radiates to 266, all but
5 from Antioch); S de Rocquefeuil, ‘Uri nouveau tresor d’antoniniani frappes en Orient’, RN
1970, pp. 116-39 (480 radiates of 253-93, all but two from Antioch or Tripolis).
54 C E King, ‘The eastern issues of Probus. An alternative view’, NC 1984, pp. 214-27.
55 C Brenot and H-G Pflaum, ‘Les emissions orientales de la fin du IIICsiecle apres J-C
a la lumiere de deux tresors decouvertes en Syrie’, RN 1965, pp. 134-205 (first hoard: 136
radiates to 284, all but 4 from Syrian mints; second hoard: 701 radiates to 286, all but 20 from
Syrian mints); P Bastien and H Huvelin, ‘Tresor d’antoniniani en Syrie’, RN 1969, pp. 231-70
(370 radiates to 283, all but one from Syrian mints); H-G Pflaum, ‘Tresor d’antoniniani de
la seconde moitie du Ille siecle trouve en Syrie’, Melanges de numismatique, d ’archeologie et
d ’histoire offerts a J Lafaurie, Paris, 1980, pp. 145-52 (61 radiates to 291, all but 6 from Syrian
mints). Tiberias: H Hamburger, ‘A hoard of antoniniani of late Roman emperors from
Tiberias’, Israel Numismatic Journal 2, 3-4 (1964), pp. 19-31 (98 radiates to 294, all but 12
from Syrian mints).

473
contained radiates of 274-82: here the contribution from Antioch and Tripolis
amounted to 5,066 coins, while Cyzicus only contributed 133 specimens.56
King also provides a table of site finds whch show the same pattern. On the
other hand it is clear from the information she presents that the hoards and
finds from places in western Turkey such as Troy, Sardis, Ephesus,
Aphrodisias, Antioch in Pisidia and Ankara all contain coins from a much
wider range of mints. It needs to be stressed that this pattern of mint-
distribution among Syrian finds is unique at this period: from no other part of
the Empire do radiates in hoards of this period come from so restricted a
range of mints. In fact the currency of Syria was at this time almost as closed
as that of neighbouring Egypt.
In the first half of the century, this trend towards a closed currency was
just beginning to take effect. We have already seen that Syrian tetradrachms
are frequently found throughout the whole area between Cilicia and
Cappadocia in the north and Egypt in the south, but denarii and radiates are
found there as well, and these denominations are more likely to havejminted L
at Rome than Antioch. For example, of the 201 denarii of Septimius Severus
found at Dura, only 86 come from eastern mints. Similarly, as we have seen,
less than half of the radiates of Gordian found at Dura come from Antioch
and the finds from Antioch itself show a similar pattern (see Appendix 1). Of
course this is hardly surprising since the production of both tetradrachms and
radiates at Antioch was at best sporadic at this time and it was only in the
reign of Trebonianus Gallus that the mint started to produce radiates on a
more or less regular basis,57 in quantities sufficient to supply the coinage
needs of the whole area and it is precisely at this time, in the reign of Gallus,
that coins from Rome and other western mints cease to enter circulation in
Syria.

56 Not published in full: a brief report by K Pink will be found in Mitteilungen der
osterreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 13 (1963), pp. 1-3. I have a copy of the complete
catalogue of the hoard by Dr F Redo of Budapest.
57 There was, however, a break in minting at Antioch from 261 to 263 and another one
from 272 to 274. See Chapter 1.

474
 Table 28: Hoards of radiates and denarii from the East
A. Quantities

Reign Date Ya Ea Smy Ca Pe la Ha D7 D2 D18 D1 D10

Pre Flavian -69 - 17
Vespasian - Domitian 69-96 - 57 - - - - 16 - - 2 - -
Nerva - Trajan 96-117 - 144 -- - - 95 - - - - -
Hadrian 117-38 - 73 - - - - 88 - - - - -
Antoninus Pius 138-61 3 85 - - - - 178 - - - - -
Marcus - Commodus 161-92 2 90 - - - - 221 1 - - - -
Septimius Severus 193-211 1 2 1 \917 - - 2 - 388 11 - 2 - -
Caracalla and Geta 211-17 23 J 13 - 1 - 60 30 1 - 7 14
Macrinus - Elagabalus 217-22 19 55 1 2 1 4 38 17 53 2 2 53 55
Severus Alexander 222-35 2 2 103 - - 2 - 15 30 - 2 1 -
Maximinus 235-8 29 40 -1 3 - 7 4 - - - -

Balbinus and Pupienus 238 - 1 4 1 5 -

Gordian III 238-44 24 286 663 2 1 155 1051 720 1 11 7 1 157 42

Philip 244-9 - 34 465 26 166 1179 418 117 14 2 165 123
Decius 249-51 - 9 69 6 77 542 65 - 45 103 152 111
Gallus and Aemilian 251-3 - -14 5 44 148 18 1 27 1 0 154 99
Valerian and Gallienus 253-60 - - 4 1 7 21 15 - - 99 99
-

Gallienus (sole reign) 260-8 - - - - - 2 2 - - - - -

Contemporary forgeries - - - - - - 7 - - - -

Uncertain - - - 1 - - - - - - - -

Total 243 1911 1244 61 460 2330 2989 358 96 124 788 543

B. Percentages

Reign Date Ya Ea Smy Ca Pe la Ha D7 D2 D18 D1 D10

Pre Flavian -69 - 0.9
Vespasian - Domitian 69-96 - 3.0 - - 0.7 - - 2 - - - -

Nerva - Trajan 96-117 - 7.5 - - - - 4.1 - - - - -

Hadrian 117-38 - 3.8 - - - - 3.8 - - - - -
Antoninus Pius 138-61 1.2 4.5 - - - - 7.6 - - - - -
Marcus - Commodus 161-92 0.8 4.7 - - - - 9.5 0.3 - - - -
Septimius Severus 193-211 49.8 \48.0 - - 0.4 - 16.7 3.1 - 1.6 - -
Caracalla and Geta 211-17 9.5 J 1.0 - 0.2 - 2.6 8.4 1.0 - 0.9 2.6
Macrinus - Elagabalus 217-22 7.8 2.9 1.0 1.6 0.9 1.3 0.7 14.8 2.1 1.6 6.7 10.1
Severus Alexander 222-35 9.1 5.4 - 0.4 - 0.6 8.4 - 1.6 0.1 - -

Maximinus 235-8 11.9 2.1 - 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.1

- - - - -

Balbinus and Pupienus 238 - 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2

- - - - - - -

Gordian III 238-44 9.9 15.0 53.3 34.4 33.7 35.2 30.9 31.0 7.3 0.8 19.9 7.7
Philip 244-9 - 1.8 37.4 42.6 36.1 39.4 17.9 32.7 14.6 1.6 20.9 22.7
Decius 249-51 - 0.5 5.5 9.8 16.7 18.1 2.8 46.9 83.1 19.3 20.4 -

Gallus and Aemilian 251-3 - - 1.1 8.2 9.6 5.0 0.8 0.3 28.1 8.1 19.5 18.2
Valerian and Gallienus 253-60 - - 0.3 1.6 1.5 0.7 0.6 12.6 18.2 - - -

Gallienus (sole reign) 260-8 - - - -0.1 0.1 - - - - - -

Contemporary forgeries . - - - . . 0.3 . . - _

Uncertain - - - 1.6 .

475
 The pattern of coin circulation in Syria contrasts strongly with that of
western and central Turkey, as King points out.58 Here denarii and radiates
continued to be supplied by the mint of Rome and other western mints such
as Gaul and Milan without interruption, and when, during the 260s and 270s,
other branch mints became established at places such as Cyzicus and Serdica,
these started to supply increasing proportions of the currency of that region.
However, during the first half of the century the coin supply of Turkey was
never affected by the fluctuations in the production of Syrian tetradrachms, as
was the case at Dura, simply because the tetradrachms did not circulate there.

11. The circulation pattern of coins of Caesarea

The evidence for this is limited and largely negative. To my knowledge,
no Caesarean silver coins of Gordian or Tranquillina have provenances, and
only a few of the bronze coins do. For the silver, therefore, we are forced to
look at the earlier coinage of Caesarea and even here the evidence is very
thin, with one exception. However, there does seem to have been some
differences between the circq%ion areas of the silver and the bronze.

A. Silver
Six hoards of silver coins of Caesarea are known:
(a) 61 silver coins of Caesarea (52 drachms and 9 didrachms) from Tiberius
to Claudius and one denarius of Tiberius found in the vicinity of Caesarea.59
(b) 22 Caesarean drachms from Tiberius to Nero were said to have been
found in Syria.60
(c) 210 silver coins of Caesarea from Archelaus to Hadrian were found on the
outskirts of Caesarea itself (modern Kayseri).61
(d) 476 silver coins of Caesarea from Nero to Marcus Aurelius (closing in

58 C E King, op. cit. n. 54.

59 Coin Hoards 1, 1975, p. 32, no. 116: summary details with photographs of 22 of the
coins.
60 E A Sydenham, ‘A small find of Caesarean drachms’, NC 1932, pp. 68-9.
61 A Baldwin, ‘Un tresor monetaire decouverte a Cesaree’,Arethuse 4 (1927), pp. 145-172.
c. 168) were found in Gerzeuli in the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, part
of the Soviet Republic of Georgia (ancient Colchis).62
(e) The briefest details are available of a hoard of some 2000 silver coins of
Caesarea closing with Commodus from the village of Sor, near Caesarea, have
been published.63 It was said to have contained 100+ Roman denarii, two
Lycian drachms of Trajan, 200+ Caesarean coins of Hadrian’s reign and
earlier, 800+ didrachms and 30+ tridrachms of Aurelius and Verus and 800+
didrachms and 40+ tridrachms of Commodus.
(f) There is also a record of a find of 730 silver coins of Caesarea and 177
Roman denarii closing with Severus Alexander from Eki in the Soviet
Republic of Georgia.64
We may also note here the Tell Kalak hoard (from Jordan) which
contained 311 drachms and 18 tridrachms of Trajan of types that have been
traditionally attributed to Caesarea. W E Metcalf has shown that these issues
should be reattributed to a mint in Arabia, so this hoard does not belong in
the catalogue of finds of Caesarean silver.65
Apart from these hoards, I have only been able to find three other
references to discoveries of silver coins of Caesarea, the first two of which are
of little value. A coin collection which was said to have been amassed in
Tarsus contained two drachms of Geta, but this is not a very firm

62 M M Ivashchenko, ‘Gerzeulvskiye Klad Monet Kesarie Kappadokiyckoe’ (in Russian),

Leningrad 1931 describes 469 coins from the hoard; K Golenko, The Monetary Circulation of
Colchis during the Roman Period, Leningrad, 1964, unpublished English translation by C B
Welles (copy in B.M.), pp. 131-2 corrects some particulars of Ivashchenko’s description and
adds details of a futher seven coins.
63 Coin Hoards 7, 1985, pp. 34-5, no. 156. It is hoped that the hoard will be published in
full by Dr W E Metcalf.
64 The hoard has been published by G F Dundna and V Zirghvava in Dzeglis Megobari
1971, pp. 42-5, which I have not seen. The details above are from Coin Hoards 2, 1976, p. 37,
no. 149.
65 The hoard also contained 1985 denarii to Mamaea, 2 drachms of Amisus, 2 of Lycia,
32 tetradrachms of Antioch; W E Metcalf, ‘The Tell Kalak hoard and Trajan’s Arabian mint’,
ANSMN 20 (1975), pp. 39-108.

477
provenance,66 while two silver coins and one bronze coin of Gordian which
were purchased in Smyrna by J G Milne have an even less precise
provenance.67 I have not been able to discover any other references to
Caesarean silver in any of the published lists of site-finds from the Roman
ea st68
The one district where Caesarean silver seems to be commonly found
is Colchis on the eastern coast of the Black Sea in present-day Georgia. We
have already seen that hoards have been discovered at Gerzeuli and Eki in
Georgia, but Golenko records a total of 570 silver coins from 23 separate
finds, five of them hoards and the remainder stray or grave finds, in his
inventory of finds of coins of the Roman period from Colchis.69 Table 29
shows the chronological distribution of these coins.

Table 29: Distribution of Caesarean silver coins from finds in Colchis

Reign Date Gerzeuli hoard Other finds

Others - 2 -

Caligula 37-41 - 1
Nero 54-68 1 1
Vespasian 69-79 30 1
Domitian 81-96 10 1
Nerva 96-8 23 3
Trajan 98-117 167 9
Hadrian 117-38 91 36
Antoninus Pius 138-61 64 6
Marcus Aurelius 161-80 88 2
Septimius and family 193-217 - 23
Gordian 238-44 - 1
Uncertain 10
Total 476 94

66 D H Cox, A Tarsus Coin Collection in the Adana Museum, A.N.S. Numismatic Notes
and Monographs 92, New York, 1941, nos. 227-8. The collection also contained 5 bronze
coins of Caesarea: see below.
67 One tridrachm of Year 4 (34/1) purchased in 1911; one drachm of the same year (53/1)
bought in 1924; and one AE2 of Year 4 purchased in April 1926 (8 6 /6 ). In addition Milne
bought another AE2 of Year 4 in Athens in 1926 (110/1).
68 In his catalogue of finds from Dura Bellinger attributes to Caesarea one tridrachm and
three drachms of Trajan {Dura Final Report nos. 2065-9), but these should be assigned to a
mint in Arabia: see Metcalf, op. cit. n. 65.
69 K V Golenko, op. cit. n. 62, pp. 130-7.

478
 There is in fact a very marked concentration of finds of Caesarean
silver in Colchis, which was part of the province of Cappadocia from the reign
of Domitian and was on the frontier. We shall see below that Caesarean
bronze is much rarer in Colchis. Since there are so few records of silver coins
from the many published site-finds from western Turkey and Syria, the
implication must be that Caesarean silver circulated (a) in the immediate
vicinity of Caesarea itself, since three of the six hoards came from there; (b)
possibly also in Syria, if the find-spot of the first hoard is to [relied upon;70 L
and, (c), chiefly along the eastern limes. Presumably this coinage was struck
chiefly to pay the troops stationed there.71 In any case the evidence hardly
bears out Sydenham’s assertion that the output of silver from Caesarea
effectively satisfied the requirements of the whole of Roman Asia Minor.72

B. Bronze
The one significant hoard of Caesarean bronze of which a record
survives was found at Gtilek Bogazi in the Taurus mountains, at the southern
end of the Cilician gates, 167 km south of Caesarea.73 It contained 62 bronze
coins from Septimius Severus to Gordian and is now in the Istanbul Museum.
Its distribution is: Septimius Severus (3); Caracalla (3); Diadumenian (1);
Elagabalus (12); Severus Alexander (33) and Gordian (10). The ten coins of
Gordian include eight specimens of Year 4 (all AE2) and two of year 7
(reduced AE2). A group of 180 local bronze issues seen in trade in the U.S.A.
has been published by Foss.74 The coins, which are mainly of the third
century A.D. and close with the latest civic issues of the reign of Aurelian, all

70 However, the lack of any Caesarean silver among the 14,017 finds of Dura or any other
Syrian site-finds or hoards, suggests that it cannot have been common there in the third
century AD.
71 Cf. K Golenko, op. cit. n. 62, pp. 46 ff and C J Howgego, Greek Imperial Countermarks,
R N S Special Publication 17, London, 1985, p. 27.
72 E A Sydenham, The Coinage o f Caesarea in Cappadocia, London, 1935, p. 10.
73 B L Marthaler, Two Studies in the Greek Imperial Coinage o f Asia Minor, Dissertation,
University of Minnesota, 1968, reprinted University Microfilms.
74 C Foss, ‘A hoard of the third century A.D. from Pamphylia’, Coin Hoards 5, 1979, pp.
37-40.

479
have the same patina and are thought to be a part of a larger hoard. The find
had no provenance, but from the preponderance of coins from mints in
Pamphylia and Pisidia it is thought that it might have come from near Perge
in Pamphylia. The hoard had just one coin of Caesarea, of Antoninus Pius,
suggesting that Caesarean bronze was not plentiful in this area.
Other finds are as follows:75
Greece: no coins from Athens or Corinth J6
Turkey: no coins from the following sites: Aphrodisias, Ephesus,
Priene, Side or Troy.
Sardis: 1 bronze of Severus Alexander (no. 252) out of 2,164 Greek and
Roman coins (0.05 %).77
Pessinus: 1 bronze of Caracalla and 1 bronze of Severus Alexander
(nos. 83-4) out of 215 Greek and Roman coins (0.47%).
Tarsus'. 1 bronze of Caracalla out of 345 Greek and Roman coins
(0.29%).
Tarsus collection (see under silver, above): 1 bronze of Archelaus, 2
drachms of Geta, 2 bronzes of Severus Alexander and 1 bronze of Gordian
(nos. 226-31) out of 246 Greek and Greek Imperial coins (2.44%).
Antioch: 1 bronze of Marcus Aurelius, 3 bronzes of Caracalla, 1 bronze
of Elagabalus and 1 bronze of Severus Alexander (nos. 839-44) out of 11,169
Greek and Roman coins (0.05%).
Cyprus: no coins from Curium.
Syria: no coins from Apamea or Hama.
Dura: 72 bronzes (Domitian, 1; Hadrian, 8; Antoninus Pius, 24; Marcus
Aurelius, 11; Lucius Verus, 13; Commodus, 1; Pius-Commodus, 5; Caracalla,
1; Macrinus, 1; Diadumenian, 1; Elagabalus, 3; Severus Alexander, 2; Gordian,

75 For references to the publications of the site-finds referred to below, see Bibliography
of Finds. There are also two bronze coins in Oxford donated by J G Milne which he had
purchased in Smyrna and Athens (n. 67).
76 The drachm of Trajan from Corinth assigned by K J Edwards to Caesarea (no. 463) is
in fact a product of Trajan’s Arabian mint (see n. 65).
77 This total of 2,164 coins includes both those recorded by Bell and those recorded by
Buttrey et. al. (see Bibliography of Finds).

480
1, nos. 2065-81) out of 14,017 Greek and Roman coins (0.51%).
Aleppo collection: 46 bronzes out of 1,404 Greek and Greek Imperial
coins (3.28%).78
El Terib (in northern Syria, east of Antioch): 1 bronze of Severus
Alexander (no. 3) out of 6 Greek and Roman coins (16.67%).
Jordan: no coins from Jerash.
Colchis: 6 bronzes (Hadrian, 1; Commodus, 1; Caracalla, 1; Julia
Maesa, 1; Gordian, 1; unidentified, 1) among the finds recorded by
Golenko.79

C. Conclusion
It would seem that Caesarean bronze coins are seldom found in
western and south-western Turkey, the only records being one coin from
Sardis and another from the hoard from Pamphylia. Moving further east, they
are slightly more common in the finds both from Pessinus in the interior of the
country and from Tarsus in Cilicia. They are even better represented in the
collection which was put together in Tarsus, although this evidence is obviously
less reliable. Giilek Bogazi, where a hoard of Caesarean bronzes was
discovered, lies on the route between Caesarea and Tarsus, so it would seem
that one direction in which these coins spread was southwards. Some bronze
coins also found their way north-east to Colchis, on the eastern coast of the
Black Sea, but these are very few compared to the large number of silver
coins that occur there. However, the main direction in which the bronze coins
spread was south-eastwards into Syria and Mesopotamia where they are found
regularly, although in limited quantities, at Antioch, El Terib, Aleppo and
Dura.

78 This is a brief summary of a collection of Greek and Greek Imperial bronze coins,
purchased in the bazaar at Aleppo, which Seyrig recorded: H Seyrig, ‘Monnaies grecques des
fouilles de Doura et d’Antioch’, RN 1958, pp. 171-81. Since the coins are from a collection
rather than from a group of site-finds their evidence has to be used with caution, as in the
case of the Tarsus collection above.
79 K V Golenko, op. cit. n. 62, pp. 137-8.

481
 The contrast between the pattern of the bronze and that of the silver,
which appears to have circulated chiefly in the vicinity of Caesarea itself and
in Colchis, is marked and suggests that they fulfilled a different function.
Golenko believed that Caesarean silver coinage ‘served as the basic medium
of monetary circulation in Colchis’ between the end of the first and the end
of the second centuries AD;80 the frequency of its occurrence there should
not occasion great surprise since the area did form part of Cappadocia, and
it may be that this coinage was equally widely distributed throughout the rest
of the province and that we just lack the necessary information.81 However,
unlike the bronze, the silver coinage does not seem to have entered Syria in
appreciable quantities.

80 Golenko, op. cit. n. 62, p. 43.

81 However, by the 250s the Caesarea hoard of radiates (see above) suggests that this
denomination had replaced the drachma-based Caesarean coinage in the area of Caesarea
itself.

482
 Chapter 9

The Historical Events of Gordian’s Reign

Contents

1. Introduction................................................................................................... 484

2. Gordian’s accession .............. 485

3. Did Gordian visit Antioch in 2 3 9 ? ............................................................ 487

4. Weder’s th eo ry .............................................................................................. 492

5. The evidence of the c o in s ........................................................................... 496

6. The fall of Hatra and the start of the w a r ............................................. 498

7. Did Antioch fall to Persians in 2 4 1 -2 ? .................................................... 499

8. The start of Gordian’s eastern cam paign............................................... 501

9. The coinage of Antioch and Caesarea from 242 to 244 .................... 503

10. The course of the campaign ................................................................... 504

11. The death of G ord ian ............................................................................... 505

483
1. Introduction1
The historical events of the period from 235 to 244 form the subject of
a paper by Loriot published in 1975.2 This covers the subject in exhaustive
detail and is still relatively up to date. Subsequent work has focussed on two
main areas. Firstly, much has been written on problems of chronology: there
are three broader studies by Rathbone, Peachin and Kienast and two papers
specifically on the problems of Gordian’s dies imperii by Loriot himself and

1 The principal ancient sources are: Herodian VII and VIII, who provides a vivid and
contemporary description of the events of 238: his narrative stops with Gordian’s accession.
The best edition, with very full annotation, is by C R Whittaker, Loeb Classical Library, 2
vols., London, 1970. There is also the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, the Unreliability of which
needs no repetition: see, for example, R Syme, Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia
Augusta, Oxford, 1971, pp. 163-78 and F Kolb, Untersuchungen zur Historia Augusta,
Antiquitas, Reihe 4, 20, Bonn, 1987, for the Historia Augusta's treatment of Gordian.
Nevertheless, the Vitae Maximini Duo, Gordiani Tres and Maximi etBalbini cannot be ignored.
The Teubner edition is still the best text; there is a translation in the Loeb Classical Library
(ed. D Magie, vol. 2, London, 1924). Other Latin historians provide brief accounts: Aurelius
Victor, Historiae Abbreviatae 26-7 (ed. P Dufraigne, Bude, Paris, 1975, pp. 33-4); Eutropius
IX, 1-3 (Teubner ed., p. 60); Festus, Breviarium Rerum Gestarum Populi Romani, XXII
(Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanotum, ed. C Wagener, Leipzig, 1886) and the
Epitome de Caesaribus 26-7 (Teubner ed., p. 158). The Chronography o f 354 (Monumenta
Germaniae Historica IX, Chronica Minora, I, ed. T Mommsen, Berlin, 1892, p. 147) provides
information about the length of Gordian’s reign, while the fourth-century historian Ammianus
Marcellinus XXIII, 5, 7 and 17 also contains an important reference to Gordian’s death. The
Greek texts include the fragments of the near-contemporary Dexippus (ed. C Muller,
Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum III, Paris, 1849, pp. 6 6 6 -8 6 ), Zosimus, I, 15-19 (ed. F
Paschoud, Bude, Paris, 1971, pp. 20-3 with extensive notes; translated by R T Ridley,
Byzantina Australiensia 2, pp. 5-7); Zonaras, Chronicon XII, 17-18 (ed. L Dindorf, Teubner);
John of Antioch (ed. C Muller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum IV, Paris, 1851, p. 597);
George Cedrenus, Historiarum Compendium (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae XXIV,
ed. I Bekker, Bonn, 1838, p. 29); the Synopsis Sathas (this may most conveniently be read in
A Schenk, Graf von Stauffenberg, Die romische Kaisergeschichte bei Malalas, Stuttgart, 1931,
p. 62); George Monarchus, Chronicon (edd. C de Boor and P Wirth, Teubner, 1978, p. 461);
George Syncellus, Ecloga Chronographia (ed. A A Mosshammer, Teubner, 1984, p. 443) and
the Chronicon Paschale (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae IX, 1, ed. L Dindorf, Bonn,
1832, p. 501). The enigmatic Oracula Sibyllina XIII also contains references to this period (ed.
J Geffcken, Teubner, 1902,203-10; translation by M S Terry, The Sibylline Oracles, New York,
1890, pp. 235-43). Lastly, Porphyry’s life of Plotinus (3) also contains a reference to the death
of Gordian (Plotini Opera I, edd. P Henry and H-R Schwyzer, Oxford Classical Texts, 1964).
2 X Loriot, ‘Les premieres annees de la grande crise du IIIe siecle: de l’avenement de
Maximin le Thrace (235) a la mort de Gordien III (244)’, A N R W II, 2, pp. 657-787. For the
history of Asia Minor and Antioch see D Magie, A History o f Roman Rule in Asia Minor,
Princeton, 1950 and G Downey, A History o f Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab
Conquest, Princeton, 1961. G Walser and T Pekary, Die Krise des romischen Reiches, Berlin,
1962, also contains a very useful survey of the relevant literature.

484
Sartre.3 These have been discussed in Chapter 2. The other area that has
attracted attention recently (excluding numismatic evidence) has related to
Gordian’s Persian campaign and more specifically to the evidence of the
inscription of Sapor at the Ka’aba of Zoroaster, the so-called Res Gestae Divi
Saporis: Kettenhofen has published a very valuable series of maps illustrating
Sapor’s three campaigns and Hamacher has discussed Gordian’s march
through Asia Minor, while MacDonald has reassessed the evidence of the
Latin and Greek sources on Gordian’s death.4

2. Gordian’s accession
Herodian relates that in 238 a group of young landowners rebelled
against the exactions of an (unnamed) procurator, who was raising taxes on
behalf of the unpopular Maximinus and then killed him, persuading Gordian’s
grandfather to accept their acclamation as emperor.5 M Antonius Gordianus
Sempronianus was then an old man of about 80 who was proconsul of the
province of Africa; his son, of the same name, acted as his legate. The
cognomen Gordianus suggests that family probably originated in Asia Minor,
although the Historia Augusta fabricated a descent from the Gracchi and the
emperor Trajan.6 The future emperor M Antonius Gordianus, the son of the

3 D W Rathbone, ‘The dates of recognition in Egypt of the emperors from Caracalla to

Diocletianus’, ZPE 62 (1986), pp. 101-31; M Peachin, Roman Imperial Titulature and
Chronology, A.D. 235-284, Studia Amstelodamensia ad Epigraphicam etc. Pertinentia,
Amsterdam, 1990; D Kienast, Romische Kaisertabelle, Darmstadt, 1990; X Loriot, ‘Les Fasti
Ostienses et le dies imperii de Gordien IIP, Melanges d ’histoire ancienne offerts it William
Seston, Paris, 1974, pp. 297-312 and M Sartre, ‘Le dies imperii de Gordien III: une inscription
inedite de Syrie’, Syria 71 (1984), pp. 49-61.
4 E Kettenhofen Die romisch-persischen Kriege des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr, Beihefte zum
Tubinger Atlas des vorderen Orients, Reihe B, Nr. 55, Wiesbaden 1982, and id., ‘The Persian
campaign of Gordian III and the inscription of Sahpuhr I at the Ka’be-ye Zartost’ in S
Mitchell (ed.), Armies and Frontiers in Roman and Byzantine Anatolia, BAR International
Series 156,1983, pp. 151-171. B Hamacher, ‘Der Heerzug Gordians III. durch Kleinasien 242’,
Munstersche Numismatische Zeitung 13, 3 (Oktober 1983), pp. 19-32 and 13, 4 (Dezember
1983), pp. 39-50. D J MacDonald, ‘The death of Gordian III - another tradition’, Historia 30,
1981, pp. 502-8.
5 Herodian (ed. C R Whittaker, Loeb) VII, 3.
6 A R Birley, ‘The origins of Gordian I’, Britain and Rome. Essays Presented to Eric Birley,
Kendal, 1965, pp. 56-60; Loriot, op. cit. n. 2, p. 694; Historia Augusta. Gordiani Tres 2, 1-3
and 17, 1-5.

485
elder Gordian’s daughter, was born on 20 January 225 and was therefore a
boy of 13 in 238.7
The remaining events of 238 are well described by Herodian, who was
probably an eye-witness.8 When the news arrived of the revolt of the
Gordiani, Maximinus, who was in Sirmium, immediately set out to march on
Rom e where the senate had declared its support for the rebels. Meanwhile the
two elder Gordians were defeated by Capellianus, the governor of Numidia,
who had stayed loyal to Maximinus, and both were killed, the younger in battle
and the elder at his own hand. Their reign had lasted about three weeks.9
When newsjtfieir defeat reached Rome, the Senate, committed to opposing
Maximinus, elected two of their number, Balbinus and Pupienus, as joint
emperors. This was not popular with the mob, who wanted a member of the
family of the Gordiani as emperor, so the Senate chose as Caesar the elder
Gordian’s grandson, who was then in Rome (Herodian VII, 10).
Pupienus marched north from Rome to oppose Maximinus who was
advancing into Italy. However, Maximinus’s progess was delayed by the siege
of Aquileia, whose resistance is described in detail by Herodian, and it was
during this siege that Maximinus was murdered by some disaffected soldiers
from his own army (Herodian VIII, 5.). Pupienus dismissed Maximinus’s army
and returned in triumph to Rome. Balbinus and Pupienus were, however,
unpopular with the Praetorian Guards since they had been been chosen by the
senate and after a reign of some three months the Praetorians murdered them
and proclaimed the young Gordian sole Augustus.10
The timing of these events is, as we saw in Chapter 2, still far from
settled and it is necessary to work back from the date of Gordian Ill’s
proclamation as Augustus. The Egyptian evidence and the Chronography of

7 Loriot, op. cit. n. 2, p. 725, n. 525.

8 Herodian VII and VIII: for Herodian’s sources see C R Whittaker (ed.) Herodian (Loeb
edition), London, 1970, vol. 1, pp. xxxi-xxxv.
9 The Chronography o f 354 gives it as 20 days, Zonaras 12, 17 as 22 days.
10 Zonaras 12, 17 says that their reign lasted three months, the Chronography o f 354, 99
days and the Chronicon Paschale, 100 days.

486
354 both imply a date in August; Loriot, starting from the statement in
Herodian (VIII, 8, 3) that Balbinus and Pupienus were murdered during the
Capitoline Games and using the Fasti Ostienses to provide a date for these,
preferred a date of 6 or 7 June, while Sartre has recently published an
inscription from Syria in which Gordian is already recognized as Augustus on
27 May, implying a dies imperii of early May.11 While any date between early
May and August is possible, I have tentatively followed Peachin in preferring
August.12 On this basis the revolt of the two elder Gordiani occurred in
April; Balbinus and Pupienus were elected in early May and Maximinus was
killed at the end of May.

3. Did Gordian visit Antioch in 239?

The Historia Augusta states that Balbinus and Pupienus planned two
expeditions during their brief reign: Balbinus to march against the Germans
and Pupienus against the Persians, but these plans were cut short by their
deaths (Max. et Balb. 13, 5). There was an obvious need for an expedition
against the Carpi and Goths on the Danube frontier, often loosely called
Germans by ancient writers, since Maximinus had been campaigning on the
Danube when he had to march back to Italy. The nature of the Persian threat
is less clear.
Herodian reports Maximinus speaking as follows to his troops at
Sirmium before marching on Rome in the spring of 238: Ilepcrcu re oi
7rdA,o:i MeooTTOTapiiav K ararpexovrec v6v ijoux#Couo’iv, diyairrjrdiQ
ex o v rec rdc kavT&v (‘The Persians, after their invasion of Mesopotamia
some time ago, are now quiet and content on their own possessions’).13
Although in the circumstances this could have been rhetoric, rather than a
sober statement of fact, Herodian does elsewhere state quite specifically that
after the conclusion of Alexander’s expedition in 233 that the Persians erwv

11 Rathbone, Loriot and Sartre, opp. citt. n. 3.

12 Peachin, op. cit. n. 3; this is also the view of C R Whittaker, Herodian, Loeb ed., Vol.
2, London, 1970, p. 174n. For the reasons, see Chapter 2.
13 Herodian VII, 8 , 4.

487
youv rpi(i>v fi rerrdpw v fja^xa(Tlv °u5’ ev 07rA.oic ey ev o v ro (‘for
three or four years remained quiet without resorting to arms’).14 On the
other hand, Zonaras and Syncellus state that Gordian recovered from the
Persians the cities of Nisibis and Carrhae which had been lost under
Maximinus.15 In fact it seems most probable that these cities were actually
lost during Ardashir’s original invasion in Alexander’s reign and that neither
Alexander nor Maximinus recovered them;16 as Whittaker notes, the fact that
Nisibis and Carrhae did not strike any coins under Maximinus is consistent
with this theory.17 It would seem, therefore, that there was relative quiet on
the eastern frontier for some three or four years from 233, that this came to
an end late in Maximinus’s reign and that Balbinus and Pupienus planned an
expedition, but did not survive long enough to carry it out. It therefore would
have been a pressing problem for Gordian at the start of his reign, as evidence
from Dura suggests (p. 492).
Four separate pieces of evidence point to Gordian’s presence in the
east in 239. Two of these we have already examined in Chapter 3: the use of
the Adventus type on the radiates and aurei that were minted in Antioch in
238-9 and the striking of gold coins at Antioch during the course of this
coinage, though I believe that neither of these in itself is sufficient to prove
that Gordian was in Antioch at the time.
The third piece of evidence is also numismatic. It is an Alexandrian
tetradrachm dated to Year 2 of Gordian’s reign (29 August 238 - 29 August
239), formerly in the Dattari collection and now in the British Museum.18
Weder has recently drawn attention to this piece, the reverse of which shows
the emperor on horseback right, brandishing a spear and riding down a

14 Herodian VI, 6 , 6 .
15 Zonaras XII, 18; Syncellus p. 681 (ed. Bonn).
16 Herodian VI, 2, 1-2: MeoOirOTafilav re Kararp^xex x at Ztipoic onrexXel
(‘Mesopotamia was being overrun and Syria threatened [by Ardashir]*). See G Downey, A
History o f Antioch in Syria, Princeton, 1961, p. 252.
17 C R Whittaker (ed.) Herodian (Loeb edition), London, 1970, vol. 2, pp. 298n and 208n.
18 G Dattari, Numi Augg. Alexandrini. Catalogo della Collezione G Dattari, Cairo, 1901,
no. 4699.

488
barbarian who wears a Phrygian cap (PI. 28, E).19 Weder dated this coin to
the period between April and August 239 because of its obverse bust, which
is laureate, draped and cuirassed, seen from the front, right (D l*). The variant
of this bust in which the emperor is viewed from behind (D2*) was used in
Year 1 and at the start of Year 2 when it was replaced by the D l* bust which
now became the standard bust until Year 5. As we have seen in Chapter 2,
Dattari had misread the date on this coin as L A (Year 1), but when it was
cleaned the reading L B became clear; Weder has further pointed out that it
has an obverse die-link with other specimens of Year 2.20 Weder has
demonstrated that this type was only used exceptionally at Alexandria, more
particularly when the emperor was on campaign. He has drawn up a table of
the ten other occasions when the mint used this type and has shown how in
every case it can be associated with an imperial expedition. The Phrygian cap
that the barbarian wears suggests that Gordian’s campaign must have been in
the east rather than the west.21
The final piece of evidence is an imperial rescript of Gordian which
both Loriot and Volterra have discussed.22 Its text is:
Imp. GORDIANVS A. rationalibus
Manifestum est nuptiis contra mandata contractis, dotem, quae data illo tempore,
cum traducta est, fuerat, iuxta sententiam Divi Severi fieri caducam, nec si consensu
postea coepisse videatur matrimonium, in praeteritum commisso vitio potuit mederi.
Dat. Kal. april, Antiochiae, Gordiano A et Aviola coss.

Its importance lies in the fact that it is signed from Antioch on 1 April
239: here at last we seem to have definite proof that Gordian visited the east
early in his reign. Unfortunately this document is surrounded by problems.
Firstly, it is not to be found in the editions of the Codex Jiistinianus, the source
of the great majority of Gordian’s known rescripts, but is only known from a
volume entitled Observationes et Emendationes published by the French lawyer

19 M Weder, ‘Seltene Munzen der Sammlung Dattari - Neuerwerbungen des Britischen

Museums’, N Z 1982, pp.53-71.
20 Weder, op. cit. n. 19, p. 59, n. 22.
21 It was a convention on Roman coins that western barbarians were shown bare-headed
while eastern ones wore Phrygian caps: see J M Jones, Dictionary o f Ancient Roman Coins,
London, 1990, s.v.
22 X Loriot, ‘Itinera Gordiani, Augusti, I: Un voyage de Gordien III a Antioche en 239
apres J.-C.’, BSFN 1971, pp. 18-21. Also E Volterra, ‘Una misteriosa costituzione
dell’impcratore Gordiano’, in P J Verdam (ed.), (Jit het Recht, Deventer, 1971, pp. 207-18.

489
Jacques Cujas in 1556.23 Cujas had in turn found it in a manuscript that he
had received from the scholar Pierre Pithou. Although Cujas did not
specifically describe this manuscript it seems that it was a marginal addition
to a codex of the Lex Romana Wisigothica. The uncertain origin of this
rescript clearly provides an extra element of uncertainty in its interpretation.
However, Volterra has examined the legal aspects of the rescript carefully and
concluded that it was a genuine document of the time.
Given that we may accept it as an ancient document, the next problem
concerns the reliability of the dates and locations in imperial rescripts.24 This
cannot be taken for granted. For example, the Codex Justinianus preserves two
rescripts of Gordian III which are dated respectively 1 January (Cod. Just. V,
70, 2) and 21 March 238 (Cod. Just. VII, 26, 5). The next is dated 22 June
(Cod. Just. II, 9, 2). We have seen that he cannot possibly have been emperor
on 1 January or 21 March and might not have been on 22 June.25 In
addition, Cujas’s is the only one of Gordian’s 283 rescripts to indicate his place
of residence and Halfmann takes up a suggestion of Ndrr’s that the text might
have become confused in the transmission and that in fact it was addressed to

23 It may be found in G Haenel (ed.), Corpus legum ab imperatoribus Romanis ante

Iustinianum latarum quae extra constitutionum codices supersunt. I, Leges, Leipzig, 1857, p. 166
and in P Krueger, T Mommsen and G Studemund (edd.), Collectio librorum iuris anteiustiniani,
III, Berlin, 1890, p. 239. The standard edition of the Codex Justinianus is P Krueger (ed.),
Corpus Iuris Civilis, 2. Codex Iustinianus, Berlin, 1929.
24 For rescripts in general see T Honore, Emperors and Lawyers, London, 1981; F Millar,
The Emperor in the Roman World, London, 1977, Chapter V and D Norr, ‘Zur
Reskriptenpraxis in der hohen Prinzipatszeit’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung ftlr
Rechtsgeschichte, Romanistische Abt., 98, 1981, pp. 1-46. For Gordian’s rescripts in particular
see A Nicoletti, Sulla Politica Legislativa di Gordiano III, Pubblicazione della Faculta
Giuridica dell’Universita di Napoli 121, Napoli, 1981. The problem is also discussed by A
Jurging, ‘Die erste Emission Gordians IIP, to be published in SNR. I have not seen T
Sternberg, Die Kaiserreskripte der Jahre 222 bis 244. Eine historisch-soziologische Studie, Diss.
Rostock, 1986.
25 Loriot, op. cit. n. 2, p. 722; cf. also T Honore, op. cit. n. 24, p. 8 8 , n. 498. Honore
notes: ‘There exists in certain years a systematic antedating of certain reigns, of which
instances are the attribution to Severus and Antoninus of rescripts from January 197 and to
Gordianus (i.e. Gordian III) of rescripts from the beginning of 238. This seems to imply that
in certain cases the source used by Gregorius [the compiler of the Cod. Just.] was an annual
collection of rescripts in which the names of the Augusti were revised in the light of political
conditions at the end of the year’ (Honore, op. cit., p. 39).

490
a recipient in Antioch, rather than having been sent from there.26
The remaining piece of evidence for the movements of Gordian in 239
is an inscription from Rome, CIL VI, 37165, which testifies to his presence
there on 7 January 239. In addition, Loriot has noted that Gordian was not
present at the meeting of the Fratres Arvales on 11 May 240, which he
normally attended, being content to send them a letter.27 Thirdly, there is an
issue of coins (aurei, denarii, sestertii and asses) dated to Gordian’s third
tribunician year (10 December 239 - 240) with the Adventus type showing
Gordian on horseback raising his arm and holding a spear.28 These could
well be associated with a triumphal entry into Rome at the end of an
expedition.
Halfmann, in his study of imperial journeys, rejects the theory that
Gordian visited the east in 239, partly because he does not believe that he
would have had time to reach Antioch by 1 April when he was still in Rome
on 7 January.29 This seems irrelevant since it would certainly have been
possible to have reached Antioch within that time by sea. Loriot, on the other
hand, tentatively accepts that Gordian was present in Antioch in April 239,
returning to Rome the following year, where a series of Adventus coins dated
to 240 marked his arrival in the capital.30 My own view is that, although the
evidence is clearly not as clear as one would wish, on balance it seems that
Gordian did visit Antioch in the spring of 239. The Persian raid on Dura in
April 239 (see below) certainly suggests unrest on the eastern frontier at this
time. This visit would give a context and a reason for the production of the

26 H Halfmann, Itinera Principum, Heidelberger Althistorische Beitrage und Epigraphische

Studien 2, Stuttgart, 1986, pp. 233-4 citing Norr, op. cit. n. 24, pp. 18f. and 33f. Honore, op.
cit. n. 24, p. 29 lists those rescripts that do indicate the emperor s place of residence. There
are 33 in all, not counting the present one, one of which (of Valerian, dated 15 May 258) is
from Antioch.
27 L ’A nnee Epigraphique 1915, 102, 44, lines 3-4, cited by Loriot, op. cit. n. 2, p. 760.
28 R1C 80, 81 and 295. On the other hand, bronze coins of the previous year (239-46)
show Gordian in a quadriga holding an eagle-tipped sceptre, which could equally well be a
reference to an imperial triumph (RIC 276): perhaps in Antioch rather than Rome?
29 Halfmann, op. cit. n. 26, p. 234.
30 Loriot, op. cit. n. 2, p. 760.

491
first issue of radiates and aurei at Antioch, and particularly the gold aurei, and
it explains the reasons for striking not only the Adventus types but also several
other unusual designs that feature the emperor.31
One event that certainly did take place in 239 was a Persian raid on
Dura in April; a graffito discovered in the House of Nebuchelus records that
in April 239 kare^T] etf)' f/pwv HeparjQ (‘the Persian descended upon us’).32
The excavators of Dura noted that this must refer to a raid on the city rather
than its occupation by the Persians, since coins of Gordian are very common
in the city (Chapter 8), whereas none of the Sasanian coins from Dura predate
the fall of the city in 255/6. Further light was shed on this raid by the discovery
of the tombstone of Julius Terentius, the tribune of an auxiliary cohort. His
epitaph strongly suggests-that he died in battle, for it refers to him as t6v

Gpcwjuv gv oTpttTia'ic, crrevapov ,7roA.epto*est (‘the brave in campaigns,

the mighty in wars’).33 Terentius is known from other inscriptional evidence
at Dura to have lived in the first half of the third century AD, and it also is
known that the Cohors XX Palmyrenorum at Dura was commanded in 239 not
by a tribune, as usual, but by the legionary centurion Avitus who was
praepositus cohortis. For these reasons, Welles plausibly suggested that
Terentius was very probably killed during the Persian raid of April 239. If the
commander of the auxiliary cohort was killed, then it was clearly more than
just a minor skirmish and this trouble on his eastern frontier certainly provides
a possible reason for Gordian’s presence in Antioch in April 139.34

31 Especially nos. 36 (Gordian in quadriga) and 37 (Gordian, Pax and Victory).

32 P V C Baur, M I Rostovtzeff and A R Bellinger (edd.), The Excavations at Dura-
Europos. Preliminary Report o f the Fourth Season o f Work, October 1930 - March 1931, New
Haven, 1933, no. 233 on pp. 110-14.
33 M I Rostovtzeff, A R Bell, F E Brown and C B Welles (edd.), The Excavations at Dura-
Europos. Preliminary Report o f the Ninth Season o f Work, 1935-1936, Part /. The Agora and the
Bazaar, New Haven, 1943, no. 939 on pp. 176-85. See also C B Welles, ‘The epitaph of Julius
Terentius’, Harvard Theological Review 34, 1941, pp. 79-102 and J-P Rey-Coquais, ‘Syrie
romaine, de Pompee a Diocletien’, JRS 1978, p. 57.
34 Herodian VI, 2, 5 records similar Persian raids on the Roman forts on the Euphrates
frontier in Alexander’s reign.

492
4. Weder’s theory
The one fixed point of Gordian’s reign seems to be that he led an
expedition against the Persians from 242 until his death in 244, starting out
from Rome during 242, marching through Asia Minor and arriving in Antioch
at the end of 242; that he then remained in the east until his death in January
or February 244 which occurred near the frontier between the Roman and
Persian empires. So far the sources are agreed, although many of the details,
particularly concerning the circumstances of Gordian’s death, are unclear (pp.
508ff.).
Weder has recently attempted to rewrite this version of events.35 His
starting point was the Alexandrian tetradrachm already discussed, which he
took to prove that Gordian was leading an expedition in the East in 239. As
we have seen, he has shown that this type was normally issued when the
emperor was on campaign and that it is always followed by a ‘Victory type’r
(normally a trophy of arms). The first victory in Gordian’s eastern campaign
is recorded on an Alexandrian coin of Year 3 (August 239 - 240) with a trophy
accompanied by two seated captives wearing Phrygian caps; the type is
repeated in Year 4 so the campaign could have lasted until 29 August 241.36
However, the trophy that occurs on coins of Year 5 (August 241 - 242) is
accompanied by bare-headed captives and so, Weder has argued, refers to a
western campaign.
The rest of Weder’s thesis rests on his interpretation of the bronze
medallions of Rome, which he used to write the history of Gordian’s eastern
campaign from 239 until its successful conclusion in 242. They also show that
the emperor returned to Rome in 240, before the end of the war. He believed
that the medallions show that Gordian had to set out on a second expedition
in 242, this time to deal with a threat from the Carpi on the Danube, noting
that a heavy concentration of coin hoards from Bulgaria and Romania that
close with coins of 242 support the theory that there was trouble on the
Danube frontier at this time. He also believed that the large issue of radiates

35 Weder, op. cit. n. 19.

36 J Vogt, Die Alexandrischen Munzen, Stuttgart, 1924, pp. 138-9.

493
of 242-4, which I would attribute to Antioch, were in fact struck at a Balkan
mint to meet the needs of the campaign. This is a radical revision of the
account derived from the literary sources, to which Weder gave little weight,
believing them all derived from a single lost original.37
However, I do not think Weder’s arguments can be accepted. In the
first place, only a few of the medallions are dated and so, although Weder’s
is one possible interpretation, other reconstructions that are more in keeping
with the conventional version of events are equally possible. In addition, many
of the medallions have stock types and it would be dangerous to press this
evidence too far. It is true that there are many hoards from Romania (10)38
and Bulgaria (12)39 that close in Gordian’s reign and may be attributed to
incursions of the Carpi and the Goths, but it is also known that Gordian’s
praetorian prefect Timesitheus led a campaign into Illyricum in the summer
of 242 to deal with these incursions, thus delaying the eastern expedition (see
p. 502). There are in fact even more hoards from this area that close in the
reign of Philip than Gordian: in 1955 Mitrea was able to list 35 such finds
from Romania alone, and these tie in well with Philip’s VICTORIA CARPICA
coin type, which appeared on the coinage of 247-9.40
Most importantly, Weder is far too cavalier in dismissing so lightly the
universal testimony of all the ancient authorities, which was that Gordian died
while on campaign in the east. Furthermore, these sources do not all follow
the same tradition but represent at least two and maybe three, as Loriot and
MacDonald have pointed out.41 Finally, this story receives confirmation from
a completely independent witness, Gordian’s adversary, Sapor. In the

37 Weder, op. cit. n. 19, pp. 61-3.

38 D Protase, ‘Les tresors monetaires de la Dacie romaine’, Congresso Intemazionale di
Numismatica 1961, Vol. II, Atti, Rome, 1965, pp. 423-32 at p. 429; cf. also Loriot, op. cit. n.
1, p. 757.
39 J P Callu, La Politique Monetaire, Paris, 1969, p. 250n.
40 B Mitrea, ‘L’incursion des Carpes en Dacie sous le regne de Philippe l’Arabe a la
lumiere des decouvertes de tresors de monnaies’, Presente au Xe Congres des Sciences
Historiques, Rome, 1955, Bucharest, 1955. VICTORIA CARPICA: RIC 6 6 .
41 Loriot, op. cit. n. 2, pp. 770-74; D J MacDonald, ‘The death of Gordian III - another
tradition’, Historia 30, 1981, pp. 502-8. The death of Gordian is discussed further below.

494
inscription that he had engraved at the Ka’aba of Zoroaster Sapor (the so-
called Res Gestae Divi Saporis) leaves no room for doubt:

K[a]i o[t]€ 7rptoTax; e-rrl rf)v (3acnXlav tmv €0vd>v earrpiev,

TopSiavoc Kaiaap dtiro tt6kt7]q tt)c ‘PcDjiailcov dtp%f}C TotiSScov re
Kai TeppatvCyv €0vwv [dtivatpiv cruveA-e^Jev icai e ic [Tf)]v
’Ajcrcrjupiav e[7ri rd] rtbv ’Apiavcov e0voc ical rjpac kTrfjXQev m i
e ic roue opouc tt) c ’AcwDpiac ev rf) Miqcrixv e£ e v a v ria c
irSXepOQ pLyaQ y e y o v e v m l [TopSiavdc Kaicrap dt]vJjprj ic[ai
ify/jeic] rf)v crrfpjaretav tmv ‘Pwpatcov dtvrjX&crctjjev m i oi
‘Pw paioi 4>iA.i7r7rov Kaicrapa: AvrjyopeucjQiv m i <J>iA.i7r7roc 6
K aurap e ic 'Trapd'KA.rjcriv ifXBev m i r[d>]v i|t[u]xwv a[ur]G)v
d v rlre ip fa ] ^[eJvraKOcrtav xeiA idda S r/vaptov fpieiv eSoro
m i e ic 0 6pouc i)peiv earq- m i ijpeic M itrix^v 5id ro uro
IlT7pa)cr-cra/3oup eircovop&crapev.

And as soon as we ascended the throne, the Caesar Gordian raised an army of Goths
and Germans from throughout the whole of the Roman Empire and marched into
Assyria, against the Arians and against us. And a great battle was fought at Misiche
on the borders of Assyria. And the Caesar Gordian died and we destroyed the
Roman army. And the Romans proclaimed Philip Caesar. And Philip came to terms
and paid us 500,000 denarii as a ransom for his life and he became our vassal. And
for this reason we renamed Misiche Peroz-Sapor.42

42 Translated from the Greek text of A Maricq, ‘Classica et Orientalia, 5. Res Gestae Divi
Saporis’, Syria 35 (1958), pp. 295-360, lines 6-10. The inscription is trilingual (Greek, Pahlavi
and Middle Persian), so the lacunae in the Greek text can be restored from the other
versions. There is a large literature on this inscription. Some of the more important
references are: M Sprengling, ‘A new Pahlavi inscription’, American Journal o f Semitic
Languages and Literature 53, 2, 1937, pp. 126-44; id., ‘Zur Parsik-Inschrift an der ‘Kaaba des
Zoroaster’, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 91, 1937, pp. 652-72; id.,
‘Shahpuhr I, the Great, on the Kaabah of Zoroaster (KZ)\ American Journal o f Semitic
Languages and Literature 57, 1940, p. 363; id., Third Century Iran. Sapor and Kartir, Chicago,
1953, pp. 1-35; W B Henning, ‘The great inscription of Sapur I’, Bulletin o f the School o f
Oriental and African Studies 9, 1939, pp. 823-49; W Ensslin, Zu den Kriegen des Sassaniden
Schapur /, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1947,5), Munich,
1949; E Honigmann and A Maricq, Recherches sur les Res Gestae Divi Saporis, Brussels, 1953;
J Guey, ‘Les Res Gestae Divi Saporis’, Revue d ’Etudes Anciennes 57, 1955, pp. 113-22; S
Mazzarino, ‘La tradizione sulle guerra tra Shabuhr I e l’lmpero Romano: ‘prospettiva’ e
‘deformazione storica”, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 19, 1971, pp. 59-82;
D J MacDonald, ‘The genesis of the ‘Res Gestae Divi Saporis”, Berytus 27, 1979, pp. 77-83.
A T Olmstead, ‘The mid-third century of the Christian era’, Classical Philology 37, 1942, pp.
241-62 and 398-420 looks at the historical significance of the inscription; M I Rostovtzeff, 'Res
Gestae Divi Saporis and Dura’, Berytus 8 , 1943, pp. 17-60, deals with wider issues than just
Dura. Lastly, the two works by Kettenhofen cited in n. 4 have greatly added to our knowledge
of the routes taken by the Persian and Roman armies. For the Persian rock reliefs that show
the Sapor receiving the submission of a Roman emperor see E Herzfeld, Iran in the Ancient
East; B C Macdermot, ‘Roman emperors in the Sassanian reliefs’, JRS 1954, pp. 76-80, argues
that the relief that was normally thought to represent Valerian kneeling before Sapor
probably actually shows Philip; see also R Gobi, Der Triumph des Sasaniden Sahpuhr uber die
Kaiser Gordianus, Philippus, und Valerianus, Vienna, 1974.

495
5. The evidence of the coins
So what reconstruction of Gordian’s movements in the first half of his
reign best fits the available evidence? There can be no doubt that Gordian
was in Rome during the events of 238 and that he was still there on 7 January
239. By 1 April, however, at the time of the raid on Dura, he was in Antioch.
Meanwhile, the mint of Antioch had been reopened, probably very
soon after his proclamation as sole Augustus in August 238 and certainly by
the beginning of 239. The mint produced a substantial coinage of some 20
million radiates, which would have been sufficient to finance a campaign, and
Gordian’s presence in Antioch was marked both by a small issue of gold and
also by a number of commemorative reverses, showing the emperor arriving
in the city.
There is no evidence as to how long he stayed there, but the issue of
Adventus coins dated to 240 from the mint of Rome suggest that he returned
to the capital in 240, perhaps after the 11 May when he missed the meeting
of the Fratres Arvales. Zosimus (I, 17, 1) and the Historia Augusta (Gordiani
Tres, 23, 4) record that one Sabinianus, possibly the same Sabinianus as had
been proconsul of Asia in 238-9, raised a rebellion in Africa which was put
down by the governor of Mauretania; the Historia Augusta adds that this
occurred in 240. This could have been the reason for his return from the east
in 240, although this is of course speculative.
Probably in 240, the mint of Antioch resumed the production of
tetradrachms, striking some 6 million of them. It continued to strike
tetradrachms into early 241, when a few dies record Gordian’s second
consulship, which he assumed on 1 January 241. Then this issue was suddenly
cut short and all production was transferred to Caesarea in Cappadocia.
The mint of Caesarea had reopened before the end of 239, at first
using dies apparently made by local craftsmen, at the time when Antioch was
busy producing its first issue of tetradrachms (Chapter 6). During the course
of 240 a number of die-engravers were transferred from Antioch to Caesarea.
Within a few months of this transfer, in early 241, Antioch seems to have
stopped minting tetradrachms and no doubt the remainder of the engravers

496
of Antioch were now moved to Caesarea. It is during 241 (Caesarea’s Year 4)
that the silver coinage of Caesarea reached a peak. Caesarea’s silver coinage
then concluded with a very small issue in the year beginning 12 December 241;
it seems most likely that the mint had closed by early 242 and that the
workmen were sent back to Antioch, when tetradrachms and radiates started
to be produced there once more. The bulk of Caesarea’s silver coinage,
therefore, was produced in 241, just at the time when Antioch had ceased
minting. Why were engravers moved between the two cities? It may, perhaps,
be mistaken to try to look for an explanation, for the Roman authorities seem
to have been quite capable of switching the production of silver coinage from
one mint to another for no obvious reason: for example, certain of the
Egyptian style tetradrachms of Severus Alexander were actually minted at
Rome in his fourth, fifth and seventh years and also the ‘Syrian’ type
tetradrachms of Philip inscribed MON VRB must also have been struck at
Rome, as the legend implies.43 In both these cases there is no clear reason
why coin production should have been moved from Alexandria or Antioch to
Rome.
There is, however, an obvious explanation for the reopening of the mint
at Caesarea: the imminent threat of a Persian attack on Syria in 241 caused
the authorities to close down production at the mint of Antioch and transfer
it to Caesarea, some 275 kilometres to the north-west and farther from the
frontier (see map on p. 591).u The problem with this interpretation is that
Caesarea started producing silver coins again in 240 while the mint of Antioch
was still active. However, the events may still be connected: although the
Persian threat may not have been the reason for the reopening of the mint of
Caesarea in 240, it is possible that it was the reason for the complete transfer

43 For Severus Alexander see A M Burnett and P Craddock, ‘Rome and Alexandria: the
minting of Egyptian tetradrachms under Severus Alexander’, ANSMN 28, 1983, pp. 109-18,
and for Philip, H-R Baldus, MON VRB-ANTIOXIA, Frankfurt, 1969.
44 It used to be thought, following the account in the Historia Augusta, Gordiani Tres 26,
5 and 27, 5, that Antioch was actually captured by the Persians in 241. However, this is now
thought not to be the case and that only Carrhae and Nisibis fell. This would still of course
be enough to make the mint at Antioch seem dangerously vulnerable. On this problem see
below, p. 592f.

497
of coin production from Antioch in 241. We may also note that by the time
Gordian arrived in Asia Minor with his expedition against the Persians during
242, the mint at Caesarea was once again idle and all coin production had
once again been switched to Antioch.

6. The fall of Hatra and the start of the war

Another event that occurred at this time (241-2) was the capture by the
Persians of the city of Hatra in Mesopotamia. Hatra was an independent city,
not always allied to Rome: it had withstood sieges by Trajan and twice by
Septimius Severus, recounted by Cassius Dio.45 However, faced with the
threat of the revived Persian monarchy under Ardashir it had become an ally
of Rome: an inscription from Hatra shows that a Roman cohort was stationed
there by 5 June 235.46 The last book of Dio records:

' A p r a ^ p ^ c ... €7ri t& *'Arpa e v e g t pdrever ev, eTTipaaiav dfir’

auTGJv €7ri to 6 c 'Pco/jaiouc 7roioti/J€vo<;.

Ardashir ... besieged the desert fortress Hatra to use it as an operational base for his
advances into Roman Mesopotamia, but he was unsuccessful, like Septimius Severus
three decades earlier.47

Presumably this relates to an earlier attack on the city, for it is certain that
Hatra did later fall to the Persians. The publication of the Greek Mani codex
in Cologne has given a firm date for the unsuccessful Persian raid on the city
t* tWc_
e f Hatr^ which took place between 12 April 240 and 1 April 241. The
capture of this city would, therefore, be a clear provocation to the Romans

45 Cassius Dio, LXVIII, 31 (Trajan); LXXVI, 10-12 (Septimius).

46 D Oates, ‘A note on three Latin inscriptions from Hatra’, Sumer 11, 1955, pp. 39-43
and A Maricq, ‘Les dernieres annees de Hatra: 1’alliance romaine’, Syria 34,1957, pp. 288-96.
47 Cassius Dio LXXX, 3, 2 (ed. Boissevan, Vol. Ill, p. 475, lines 1-4).
48 A Henrichs and L Koenen, ‘Ein griechischer Mani-Codex’, ZPE 5, 2, 1970, pp. 97-216,
especially pp. 125-32 and idem, ‘Der Kolner Mani-Kodex’, ZPE 19, 1975, pp. 20ff. The date
is provided by a statement in the Codex that Mani was 28 in the year when ‘Artaxerxes
captured Hatra and Sapor was crowned with the great diadem [i.e., became sole ruler]’ (ZPE
5, 2, p. 120). M L Chaumont, ‘L’Armenie entre Rome et l’lran, I. De l’avenement d’Auguste
a l’avenement de Diocletien’,yf/V/?IfTI, 9,2, pp. 71-193 at p. 166 suggests that Ardashir might
have been accompanied by his son and co-ruler Sapor when he took Hatra.

498
and Loriot and Kettenhofen have both suggested that it was the casus belli.49
Kettenhofen believed that since the Persians usually started their campaigns
in the spring it is most likely that Hatra was captured in spring 241, before 1
April.50 This would agree with a statement in the Historia Augusta that the
Persian war started during 241.51

7. Did Antioch fall to [Persians in 241-2?

Two passages in the Historia Augusta (Gordiani Tres, 26, 5 and 27, 5)
go further and state that the Persian attack resulted in the capture of Antioch:

26,5: Inde per Syriam Antiochiam venit, quae a Persis iam tenebatur. Illic
frequentibus proeliis pugnavit et vicit Sapore Persarum rege summoto. Et post
Artaxansen et Antiochiam recepit et Carrhas et Nisibin, quae omnia sub Persarum
imperio erant.

From there he marched through Syria to Antioch, which was held by the Persians at
that time. There he fought many battles and was victorious, expelling Sapor, the king
of the Persians. After this he recovered Artaxanses, Antioch, Carrhae and Nisibis,
which had all been under Persian rule.

27,5: Persas, ut brevi multa connectam, ab Antiochensium cervicibus, quas iam nexas
Persico ferro gerebant, et reges et leges amovimus.

To put it in brief, we removed both the kings and the laws of the Persians from the
necks of the people of Antioch, which were bent under the Persian yoke.

This second passage comes from a speech that Gordian is said to have
made to the Senate: like all the others in the Historia Augusta, it is no doubt
spurious; nevertheless, that does not mean that the state of affairs that
Gordian alludes to, that is the freeing of Antioch from Persian rule, might not
be historical fact. In the first passage the Historia Augusta is also quite specific
that Antioch had fallen under Persian rule.

49 Loriot, op. cit. n. 2, p. 760; E Kettenhofen, ‘The Persian campaign of Gordian III and
the inscription of Sahpuhr I at the Ka be-ye Zartost’ in S Mitchell (ed.), Armies and Frontiers
in Roman and Byzantine Anatolia, BAR International Series 156, 1983, p. 152.
50 Kettenhofen, op. cit. n. 49, p. 157; contra M L Chaumont, ‘A propos de la chute de
Hatra et du couronement de Shapur Ier\ Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 27,
1979, pp. 207-37 argues Hatra fell in spring 240. However, given that there is no very strong
reason for preferring 240 to 241, I think the later date fits in better with the other evidence.
51 Gordiani Tres 23, 5: during the first consulship of Pompeianus and the second of
Gordian.

499
 Pink, Mattingly and Girschman all accepted the testimony of the
Historia Augusta at face value and assumed that the Persians had actually
occupied Antioch in 241-2.52 However, most other modern authorities believe
that Antioch was threatened by the Sassanians but not actually occupied by
them and this is a much more plausible interpretation.53 Loriot, too, doubts
that Antioch fell to the Persians in 241.54 He points out that most of what is
reliable in the Historia Augusta's life of Gordian is derived from the lost
historian Dexippus of Athens who wrote a history of the world in c.270, but
that most of the other historians who also use Dexippus such as Zosimus,
George Syncellus and Zonaras state that the Persians captured Carrhae and
Nisibis, but not Antioch, nor does the contemporary Sybilline Oracle, thought
to have been written by a Syrian.55
Loriot’s other argument against the Persian capture of Antioch in 241
is based on his interpretation of the numismatic evidence presented in RIC,
which is that the striking of radiates at Antioch ceased in 240, well before the
Persian war (we know that Gordian did not leave Rome for the East until
spring 242). For this reason he questions the connection between the two
events. However, neither RIC nor Loriot took the tetradrachms into
consideration and if the chronology presented above is accepted the closure
of the mint occurred early in 241, not 240. This, together with the fact that
when the mint was reopened it was organized differently with new engravers,
makes the fall of Antioch superficially more attractive. However, I think a
more plausible interpretation of events would be that Antioch was simply
threatened by Persian military activity in the spring of 241, the mint was closed
down and the die-engravers were transferred to the relative safety of Caesarea

52 K Pink, ‘Antioch or Viminacium’, NC 1935, pp. 97-8; Mattingly in RIC p. 1 and note;
R Girshman, Bichapour /, pp. 109-19.
53 For example, W Ensslin, ‘Sasanid Persia’, CAH XII, p. 130; H M D Parker, A History
o f the Roman World AD 138 to 337> London 1935, p. 149; Kettenhofen, op. cit. n. 49, p. 152.
54 Loriot, op. cit. n. 2, pp. 763-5.
55 Zosimus I, 18, 3; Syncellus p. 683 (ed. Bonn); Zonaras XII, 18; Orac. Sib. XIII, 13-20.
We have already seen (p. 487) that it is most likely that these two cities were captured by the
Persians in Alexander’s reign.

500
in Cappadocia. If Antioch had actually fallen to the Persians, it seems less
likely that the same mint-workers would then be found operating at Caesarea;
this rather implies a planned and orderly redeployment of resources (although
this is speculation).

8. The start of Gordian’s eastern campaign

A chronological clue to the date when Gordian set out from Rome
against the Persians is provided by the statement in the Historia Augusta that
Gordian married Tranquillina between the start of hostilities, which is dated
to 241, and his departure from Rome (Gordiani Tres 23, 6). We are told
further that Gordian appointed Tranquillina’s father Timesitheus praetorian
prefect at the same time. Although the uncorroborated testimony of the
Historia Augusta must always be treated with care, Zosimus (I, 17, 2) provides
some support by associating Gordian’s marriage with the revolt of Sabinianus
in 240.
Coins of Tranquillina from Rome are very rare and not dated; from
Antioch they are non-existent, doubtless because the mint was closed at the
time. Dated issues in her name are, however, known from Amisus, Alexandria
and Caesarea, all of whose coinages are dated. At Caesarea, as we have seen
in Chapter 6, coins in the name of Tranquillina were first issued in Year 4,
that is between 12 December 240 and 12 December 241, and at Amisus in
Pontus coins of Tranquillina were struck in the year running from 23
November 240 to 23 November 241,56 while at Alexandria they first appear
between 29 August 241 and 29 August 242.57 From this it would seem that
Gordian must have married Tranquillina between September and November
241: this seems a more secure date than May 241 which Loriot proposed on
the basis of a very uncertain reading of a fragment of the Acta Fratrum

56 C Bosch, Die kleinasiatischen Munzen der romischen Kaiserzeit II, Stuttgart, 1935, p. 56.
57 J Vogt, Die Alexandrinischen Munzen II, Stuttgart, 1924, p. 139.

501
Arvalium.58
A second, and better, chronological indication is provided by an
inscription from the catacombs of Rome which Trout has recently discussed.
This stone is part of a series (a second is known from 244) in which the
soldiers of the Legio II Parthica, based at Rome, who are about to be
discharged, register a dedication to the Genius of the legion and Fortuna
Redux.59 The inscription is dated 24 July 242 and names Valerius Valens as
vice-praetorian prefect. This must mean that Gordian’s praetorian prefect
Timesitheus had already left the city on the Persian expedition and therefore
that the emperor too had left. A final indication is provided by Sapor’s
statement in his Res Gestae (quoted above, p. 495) that Gordian attacked him
at the very outset of his reign. Sapor’s third coronation, as sole ruler, on the
death of his father Ardashir, took place in 242.60
The incursions of the Carpi and the Goths into the Danube provinces
in 241-2, which followed the recall of the governor Menophilus in 241, made
it necessary for Timesitheus to march to Thrace in the summer of 242 to deal
with the problem, thus delaying the offensive against the Persians.61
Timesitheus’s operations seem to have been successful and to have brought
a temporary respite to the Danube provinces. Meanwhile, before setting out
from the capital, Gordian solemnly opened the doors of the temple of Janus
at Rome to signify that the Empire was again at war.62 The expedition
gathered in the Balkans, according to Loriot in the area of Sirmium or

58 CIL VI, 2114, lines 2-6: Loriot, op. cit. n. 2, p. 738. Loriot notes that the first
inscription to mention Tranquillina is dated 21 October 241 {CIL VI, 130). CAH p. 85 states
that the wedding was perhaps as early as May and certainly before 23 September, citing
Bellinger in Yale Classical Studies 5, 1935, p. 147, n. 29.
59 The inscription was first published in L Annee Epigraphique 1981, 134. D E Trout,
‘Victoria Redux and the first year of the reign of Philip the Arab’, Chiron 19, 1989, pp. 221-
33.
60 Henrichs and Koenen surmise that Ardashir died in Spring 242: op. cit. n. 48, p. 129.
See also Loriot, op. cit. n. 2, p. 762. Sapor’s first coronation was as heir apparent, his second
as co-ruler with his father. See M L Chaumont, ‘Coregence et avenement de Shapuhr Ier\ in
P Gignoux and A Taffazzoli (edd.), Memorial Jean de Menasce, Fondation Culturelle
Iranienne 185, Louvain, 1974, pp. 145ff.
61 Historia Augusta, Gordiani Tres, 26, 4; Loriot, op. cit. n. 2, p. 757.
62 Historia Augusta, Gordiani Tres, 26, 3; Aurelius Victor 27, 7; Eutropius IX, 2.

502
Viminacium. In addition to detachments from the Rhine and Danube armies,
there were also large contingents of barbarians, according to the Res Gestae
Divi Saporis.
The expedition then proceeded through Asia Minor where its course
has been traced by Hommel, Kryzanowska, Loriot, Hamacher and
Kettenhofen using the evidence of coin issues with the Adventus type struck
by cities along its route.63 It seems to have passed through Nicea, Nacoleia,
Docimeium, Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, the Cilician Gates and Tarsus, before
arriving in Antioch late in 242.M The route does not seem to have included
Caesarea, which by this time had ceased minting coins (Chapter 6).

9. The coinage of Antioch and Caesarea from 242 to 244

The arrival of the emperor and his large force in Antioch provided the
occasion for the second series of radiates. We have seen in Chapter 5 that the
first issue of this coinage included the type P M TR P V COS II P P, thus
showing that it commenced before 10 December 242; however, the fact that
this dated type was only struck in small numbers suggested that it might not
have started very long before 10 December. It looks very much as though the
beginning of this coinage coincided with Gordian’s arrival in Antioch and,
although there is no definite proof of this, it seems to have continued to have
been issued until his death in January or February 244. We have seen above
that some of the craftsmen who made the dies for this coinage had previously
been employed at Antioch before being transferred temporarily to Caesarea,
while others were apparently sent out from Rome.
It is not obvious how the third series of tetradrachms from Antioch fits

63 H Hommel, ‘Adventus sive Profectio Gordiani IIP, Congresso Intemazionale di

Numismatica 1961, Vol. II, Atti, Rome, 1965, pp. 327-38; A Krzyzanowska, Monnaies
Coloniales d ’A ntioche de Pisidie, Warsaw, 1970; Loriot, op. cit. n. 2, pp. 766-7; B Hamacher,
‘Der Heerzug Gordians III. durch Kleinasien 242’, Mnnstersche Numismatische Zeitung 13, 3
(Oktober 1983), pp. 19-32 and 13, 4 (Dezember 1983), pp. 39-50; E Kettenhofen, op. cit. n.
52, pp. 152-3.
64 An interesting fact concerning Gordian’s stay in Antioch is provided by A T Olmstead,
‘The mid-third century of the Christian era’, Classical Philology 37, 1942, p. 253 where he
notes that Porphyry, Vita Plotini 3, records that Gordian and Timesitheus met Plotinus at
Antioch in 242 (see below, p. 512).

503
into this pattern. It can only be dated to between 1 January 241 and Gordian’s
death in 244, and any attempt at closer dating must be provisional. However,
the production of the two denominations, radiates and tetradrachms, at
Antioch, and the drachma-based coinages at Caesarea under Gordian, seems
to be essentially sequential, rather than simultaneous. On this basis, the third
series of tetradrachms from Antioch would best fit into the middle of 242,
after the temporary closure of Caesarea early in that year and before the
commencement of the second series of radiates at Antioch towards the end
of 242. There are other reasons for attributing the tetradrachms to this period,
as we have seen in Chapter 4.

10. The course of the campaign

Loriot and Kettenhofen have summed up the available evidence
concerning the course of the campaign. In the spring of 243 the Romans first
liberated Carrhae, which had been in Persian hands probably since
Alexander’s reign, and then entered Edessa, although it is not clear whether
this city had ever fallen to the Persians.65 It does, however, seem that a
member of the pro-Roman royal house of the Abgarides, Abgar X, was
reinstated as prince of Edessa at this time.66 Shortly after this the Persians
were defeated at a battle near Rhesaena and as a result had to abandon
Nisibis and Singara, along with the whole of Mesopotamia.67 The four cities
of Carrhae, Edessa, Nisibis and Singara proceeded to produce very substantial
issues of bronze coins in the final year of Gordian’s reign: great quantities of

65 For Carrhae see Historia Augusta, Gordiani Tres, 26, 6 ; George Syncellus p. 681 (ed.
Bonn); Zonaras XII, 18; P. Dura 28 (A R Bellinger and C B Welles, ‘A third-century contract
of sale from Edessa in Osrhoene’, Yale Classical Studies 5,1935, pp. 142-3) attests that Edessa
was in Roman hands by 9 May 243.
66 E Babelon, ‘Numismatique d’Edesse’, Melanges de Numismatique2, 1893, pp. 286-92;
E Kettenhofen, op. cit. n. 49, p. 154.
67 The location of the battle is only known from Ammianus Marcellinus XXIII, 5,17; for
the Persian abandonment of Mesopotamia see Historia Augusta, Gordiani Tres, 26,6; George
Syncellus p. 681 (ed. Bonn) and Zonaras XII, 18.

504
these were found at Dura.68 At the same time as the main Roman force was
enjoying these successes in Mesopotamia, another army, comprising the legions
of Cappadocia and Armenian allies under the Arsacid king Chosroes, was
equally successful further north.69 At this point Gordian’s father-in-law and
praetorian prefect, Timesitheus, died (apparently from natural causes) and he
was succeeded by Philip. Gordian meanwhile continued to carry out
Timesitheus’s plan, which was to march on the Persian capital, Ctesiphon in
the autumn or winter of 243 and it was on this stage of the campaign that he
himself met his death.70

11. The death of Gordian

The Greek and Latin sources have preserved different accounts of this
event; there are two main traditions, which vary in detail.71 The first
tradition, to which most of the ancient sources subscribe, stated that Gordian
was killed by his own soldiers as a result of the intrigues of Philip. Two
sources, the Historia Augusta (Gordiani Tres, XXIX - XXX) and Zosimus (I,
18-19), which probably derive their accounts from Dexippus, go into more
detail about Philip’s treachery, saying that he plotted Gordian’s murder by
holding up food supplies to the troops and pretending that it was Gordian’s
doing. Zosimus further states (incorrectly) that Gordian died in the vicinity of

68 Dura, Final Report, pp. 67-73. The quantities were: Edessa, 1775 coins from the reign
of Gordian; Carrhae, 299; Nisibis, 142; and Singara, 381. Curiously, Rhesaena seems not to
have minted for Gordian. For the currency of Dura see Chapter 8 .
69 This information comes an independent Armenian historical tradition represented by
Agathangus, History o f Armenia II, 12 translated by M-L Chaumont, Recherches sur I’Histoire
de VArmenie, p. 29; see also pp. 42-3.
70 George Syncellus p. 681 (ed. Bonn); Zonaras XII, 18.
71 A T Olmstead, ‘The mid-third ventury of the Christian Era’, Classical Philology 28,
1942, p. 255; Loriot, op. cit. n. 2, pp. 770-4; S I Oost, ‘The death of the emperor Gordian III’
Classical Philiology 53, 1958, pp. 106-7; B H Stolte, ‘The death of the emperor Gordian III
and the reliability of the Res Gestae Divi Saporis’, Acta of the Fifth International Congress of
Greek and Latin Epigraphy, Cambridge, 1967, p. 385 and ‘De Dood van keizer Gordianus III
en de onbetrouwbaarheid von de Res Gestae Divi Saporis’, Lampas 2, 1970, pp. 377-81; S
Mazzarino, ‘La tradizione sulle guerra tra Shabuhr I e l’lmpero Romano: ‘prospettiva’ e
‘deformazione storica”, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 19, 1971, pp. 59-82;
D J MacDonald, ‘The death of Gordian III - another tradition’, Historia 30, 1981, pp. 502-8.
It should be said that the coins throw no light on this problem.

505
Carrhae and Nisibis before he had entered Persian territory. Other historians
such as Aurelius Victor (XXVII, 7-8), the Epitome de Caesaribiis (XXVII, 1-3),
Eutropius (IX, 2), Festus (XXII), the Chronography o f 354,72 Jerome,73
Orosius (VII, 19, 5), George Syncellus74 and Zonaras (XII, 18) agree that
Philip arranged for Gordian to be murdered but state that this took place in
Persian territory; some, such as Zonaras, say that his death occurred at or near
the Persian capital of Ctesiphon. The fullest accounts are those of Eutropius
and Zonaras. First, Eutropius (IX, 2):

Gordianus...atl orientem profectus Parthis bellum intulit, qui iam moliebantur

erumpere. Quod quidem feliciter gessit proeliisque ingentibus Persas adflbrit. Rediens
haud longe a Romanis finibus interfectus est fraude Philippi, qui post eum imperavit.
Miles ei tumulum vicesimo miliario a Circesso, quod castrum nunc Romanorum est,
Eufrati inminens aedificavit, exsequias Romam revexit, ipsum Divum appellavit.

Gordian set out for the East to wage war against the Parthians, who were now
attempting to invade [the Empire]. The war was successful and Gordian defeated the
Persians in great battles. He was on his way back and was not far from the Roman
border when he was treacherously killed by Philip, who succeeded him. The soldiers
built a burial mound for him on the banks of the Euphrates twenty miles from
Circesium, which is now a Roman fort. They brought his remains back to Rome and
deified him.

Zonaras’s account is as follows (XII, 17):

6 c c K O T p a r e f i c r a c e i c n ^ p c r a c kckI iroXepfjcraK; a u r o i c , ScM rtbpot>

ro w w i o u ’ A p r a ^ k p ^ o v r o u e 0 v o i > c ^ y e p o v e b o v r o c , r)o€ r e
r o d e € v a v T lo t> c » NCerijSiv m i K d p a c ' P c n p a t o i c a i > 0 i c
eiraveo&craTO, v T ro llep o & v e i r i M a £ i p i v o u ixfxxpiracrQeioaQ, e i r a
irp dc Kr7joi(f>(DVTa y e v o p e v o c eTripovXfjQ 4>iXl7T7rou t o o
€ tt& p x o u r o u 5 o p u 0 o p i K O t ) dcvripkOrj. o u r o c y d p o T o p S i a v d c
Ap£«C e7rapxov t6 v o Ik g io v T r p o e x ^ ip io a r o T r e v O e p d v
Tipr}<rOKXea m A . o b p e v o v . jj^ x P1 ° ^ v #n,€ p i f ) v € i c € i v o c , m A.d>c
el% € r d t t ) c e ^ o u c r l a c Tip a u T O K p A r o p i m l m r d * p o i i v e(f>^per6
ol rd ir p A y p a ra , TipcroicA .€O uc TeXevrfjoavTOQ O lX iT rT ro c
7r pOK€ £ i p I c tt o e7rapxoc. m i araa i& o ai r o b e c r r p c m t o T a c
/3 o i) A .o p e v o c r d c a u r w v oirijoeiQ r^Xdtrr^crev, (be t o u t o T&ypt
k € K € A .€ i> k 6 to c t o u a u T O K p d r o p o c . o i 8e (fxxcriv o n r 6 v c r i r o v
€Tre0x€ t o v e i c t 6 ( 7 r p « r 6 7 r € 6 o v K O p i £ 6 p e v o v , (bcrre r o u e
o T p a r i & r a c e v d e i a m e ^ e o B a i , K d v r e u 0 € v a u r o b c n - p 6 c crrd criv

72 Ed. T Mommsen, Chronica Minora I, Monumenta Germaniae Historica IX, Berlin,

1892, p. 147.
73 Ed. Fotheringham, Oxford, 1923, p. 299.
74 George Syncellus, p. 443 (Teubner).

506
 e p 601(7077 v a i . (jT C to ri& cravT eQ 8e yxxrdt t o o auTOKpdropo<;
e v c tv eoTTjoav d><; a i T i o u ai>roi<; yeyovoT O f; A-ipou, Kai
e i r e X B o v r e c i d 7r e K r e i v a v a i t r o v , e i r l eviai>roi><; 1 7 7 e p o v e t ic r a v r a
e £ . Kai o 4>iA.i77’7ro<; a u r iK a e T r e i r ^ S r i a e ttj 6 t P X V -

|G ordian| led an expedition against the Persians and fought with them. The Persians
were led by Sapor, the son o f Artaxerxes. Gordian defeated the enem y and won back
for the Romans the cities o f Nisibis and Carrhae which had been seized by the
Persians in the time o f Maximinus. Then he arrived at Ctesiphon where he died as
a result o f a plot by Philip, the praetorian prefect. When Gordian became em peror
he made Tim esocles his father-in-law praetorian prefect and while Tim esocles was
alive things went well for the Empire and it prospered. However, when T im esocles
died Philip became prefect and, wishing to make the soldiers rebel, he reduced their
rations, saying that it was on the Emperor’s orders. And it is said that Philip kept
back the corn that was being brought to the camp so that the soldiers should becom e
hungry and as a result would be roused to rebellion. When they had rebelled against
Gordian, who they believed to be responsible for their starvation, they attacked and
killed him. He had ruled for six years and Philip immediately becam e emperor.

We shall see below that Z onaras also preserves a different, contradictory,

account of this event.
The near contem porary Sibylline O racles probably belong to this
tradition as well, although it is not always easy to interpret their allusive
statem ents. However, there can be no doubt that the following passage (XIII,
13-20) relates to G o rd ian ’s death:

Kai t o t s 8 i ) Ilepcrrov e T r o L v & a T a a i<; d c X ^ y j O T i ]p w v

Tv<5d)v t ’A p p e v i c u v r ’ApAjSmv 0 ’ d p a - Kai 7r e p i t o u t o k ;
‘P w p a i o c T r e k & o e x / 3a<7 iA,euc 7roA.epou dKoprjroc
aixpi?TA<; € 7tAyo)V Kai e i r ’ ’Acrcrupiouc, v e o c ' A p 17c ’
&XPK E u^pA rr/v t € /3a0<3ppoov A p y u p o ^ iv ^ v
e K r a v u a e i 7re p t|ta c A-oyx^v v o X e } j i ] i o ^ ' A p 17c
i§€T€G)(7 ev€K a- Kai y d p 7 r p o 5 o 0 e i c e r a ip o u
KCtTnrecreT e v r d £ e i Ti>00ei<; aiO oavi <7i<5f)pcp.

Then an uprising o f the industrious Persians there shall be, Persia ns , Armenians and
Arabs together. And to them again a Roman king, insatiate for war, leading
spearmen against Assyrians, shall approach, a young Ares; unto Euphrates, deep
flowing silvery, shall warlike Ares sketch forth his deadly spear. Betrayed by his
colleague he shall fall down in the ranks, smitten by the gleaming iron.75

75 Translated by D J Macdonald, op. cit. n. 71, p. 504.

507
 The second tradition is represented by George Monarchus,76 George
Cedrenus, the Chronicon Paschale,77 the Synopsis Sathas (36, 16) and a
second passage in Zonaras; according to these sources Gordian died as a
result of a wound incurred in battle. Cedrenus says simply that Gordian ev
7roA.€/i<p <7UjU7T€(7cbv T<J> ItTTTCj) KO!l 0A.a<70el<; TOV pT)pOV T€0«V€ (‘was
knocked off his horse in battle and died of a broken leg’).78 Zonaras’s
account (XII, 17) is as follows:

O i S£ rep u ic p eic e iv O D rep v e e p T o p S ia v c p rf )v t w v 'P o j p a i r o v

r / y e p o v i a v \ierdt r d v € k v 6 c ro u 0 A v a r o v r o u T r p e o /J u r ^ p o i )
T o p S i a v o u 'TrpooKA.TjpoO vre*;, x a r d : n e p a o a v a v r d v y e y p d ^ a a i v
e K o r p a r e t i c r a v T a K a i crviipakdvT a ai> ro i< ; k £ v ri) V&XQ t 6 v
17T7TOV e k a t i v o v r a K a i r o t i c o i K e i o u c T r a p a B a p p t i v o v r a K a i T rp d c
dikKfjv €TraXei(f)OVTa, o A .ic rB fy ja v ro c ro u iT n ro i) K ai
<7up7recr6vTO c a u r t p , rd v p i) p 6 v K a re a y ^ v a i, K ai o fc ra x ;
A v aK O p i< 7 0 r)v a i eiQ ’Pel>pi?v, K ai ck ro u K a rd y p a ro c
re X e u r^ c ra i, e ir i e£ e v ia u r o u c a u r a p x f y z a v r a .

Others have written that after the death from disease of the elder Gordian the
Empire passed to his son, the younger Gordian, who took the field against the
Persians and met them in battle. He rode a horse into the conflict to inspire his
entourage with confidence and stir them up for conflict, when, the horse slipping and
falling together with him, his thigh was broken and he retured to Rome and died of
the fracture, having ruled six years.

It is of course extremely improbable that Gordian returned to Rome

to die, as Zonaras and the Synopsis Sathas state, since that would be in total
contradiction to all the other versions of the episode. Zonaras must have
obtained this idea from the accounts that said that his bones were brought
back to Rome for burial. Zosimus, in a different passage from the one quoted
above, also seems to preserve a trace of this version of events when he states
cm, 32, 4): TopSiavou rou jSacriAeax; H epaaic e m a r p a r eticravto q Kai
ev pecrr; rf) iroA.epta 7recr6vTOc (‘The Emperor Gordian attacked the

76 George Monarchus, Chronicon (Teubner, edd. C de Boor and P Wirth, Leipzig, 1978),
p. 461: Merck 5 e ’Io6vOpOv kf3<xcr\.Xe\)oe TopSiavdc uloc aurou Erg 5’ ical Ev r<p
7roA€/i<p crvfiTreouiV r<p K ai //g p O k X a a rjeI<; a 7 r £ 0 a v e v .

77 Chronicon Paschale (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae IX, 1 ed. L Dindorf,

Bonn, 1832), p. 501.
78 G Cedrenus, Hisloriarum Compendium (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae
XXIV, ed. I Bekker, Bonn, 1838), p. 29.

508
Persians and fell in the middle of enem y territory’).
Porphyry’s life of the philosopher Plotinus also contains a reference to
this event, as O ost pointed out.79 Plotinus, we are told, had joined G o rd ian ’s
expedition against Sapor, ro u 8 e TopSiavoO ire p i rf)v M e(707rorapiav
6i\ax p eB ev ro c poA,ic (freiiyuv ei<; tt)\ ’A v r io x ^ ia v 8ieo&Qri (‘but when
G ordian was killed in M esopotam ia, he escaped with difficulty and arrived safe
in A ntioch’).80 Since Plotinus had joined the cam paign as a m em ber of
G ordian’s entourage rath er than as a soldier, his statem ent that he only
escaped back to A ntioch with difficulty after G o rd ian ’s death must imply that
G ordian was m urdered by his own troops, O ost argued. H e therefore assum ed
that Plotinus’s danger lay in his association with the E m peror, and would not
have arisen had G ordian died in battle. This, however, is reading too much
into what am ounts to no m ore than an aside on Porphyry’s part; if G ordian
had been been killed in battle the whole expedition would have been in an
equally difficult situation.81
A final reference is found in two asides in A m m ianus M arcellinus’s
account of Julian’s Persian expedition of 363. In one passage he noted that the
R om an army m arched past the tom b of G ordian at Z aitha, which was on the
E uphrates a little north of D ura (XXIII, 5, 7). Since A m m ianus was writing
from personal experience his testimony may be believed. H e then gave the
following account of a speech delivered by Julian to the army near Zaitha:

redissctque pari splendore iunior Gordianus, cuius monumentum nunc vidimus

honorate, apud R hesainan|fugatoque rege Persarum. ni factione Philippi, praefecti
p ^ t o r io , sceleste iuvantibus paucis, in hoc ubi sepultus est loco, vulnere impio
cecidisset.

and the younger Gordian, whose m onument we just now looked upon with equal
reverence, would have com e back with equal glory, after vanquishing the Persian king
and putting him to flight at Rhesaina, had he not been struck down by an impious
wound inflicted by the faction o f Philippus, the praetorian prefect, and a few wicked
accomplices, in the very place where he now lies buried.82

79 Oost, op. cit. n. 71.

80 Porphyry, Vita Plotini, 3 (Plotini Opera I, cdd. P Henry and H-R Schwyzer, Oxford
Classical Texts, Oxford, 1964).
81 In this 1 agree with M acDonald, op. cit. n. 71, p. 504.

82 Ammianus M arcellinus X X lk 5, 17, translated by J C Rolfe (Loeb).

 Ammianus later describes (XXIV, 2, 8) how, after a march of three
weeks and some 140 miles from Zaitha, Julian’s army passed the town of
Pirisabora, which is clearly the same place as the Perozsapor/Misiche named
in the Res Gestae Divi Saporis as the site of the battle between the Romans
and the Persians preceding Gordian’s death. Although Ammianus believed that
Gordian was killed by Philip, this part of his statement was not based on
personal experience and so has no more weight than any other version,
whereas he did see Gordian’s tomb at Zaitha and in this respect his account
deserves to be believed; it also accords with Sapor’s version of events.
It is clear, therefore, that the tradition that- states that Gordian’s death \ ioLccW
was accidental agrees well with Sapor’s own account in his Res Gestae, which [
is quoted above (p. 495). When the inscription was first published historians
were reluctant to accept Sapor’s version of events for several reasons; first,
because the idea that Gordian died of wounds from a battle with the Persians
is at variance with the majority of the Greek and Roman accounts. However,
we have seen that there are a few Greek accounts which also reflect Sapor’s
story.
Another problem was that the correct identification of the site of
Misiche/Perozsapor and of the location of Assyria was only made by A Maricq
in 1953.83 Maricq showed that by Assyria Sapor was referring to the Sasanian
province of Asorestan, which was located on the lower Euphrates and
corresponded to Babylonia, not the area further north around Nineveh which
is what is normally understood as Assyria. As a result of this misunderstanding
Sprengling, the first to publish the insciption, identified Perozsapor with
Feshabur, which is to the east of Nisibis, on the west bank of the Tigris, nearly
300 miles north of the correct site (see map on p. 59T).84 As Maricq
showed, Misiche/Perozsapor is situated on the Euphrates between the Persian

83 E Honigmann and A Maricq, Recherches sur les Res Gestae Divi Saporis, Brussels, 1953,
pp. 112-18. See also J Guey, ‘Les Res Gestae Divi Saporis\ Revue d ’Etudes Anciennes 57, 1955,
pp. 113-22 and D J MacDonald, op. cit. n. 71, p. 503.
84 M Sprengling, ‘Shahpuhr I, the Great, on the Kaabah of Zoroaster (KZ)’, American
Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 57, 1940, p. 363; he was followed by Ensslin, op.
cit. n. 42, pp. 95-6.

510
capital of Ctesiphon, some 50 miles to the south-east, and the Roman frontier
at Dura, about 200 miles to the north-west.85 This revised location of the
place where Gordian died fits much better with the testimony of the Latin and
Greek sources.
The final obstacle to accepting Sapor’s version of events was that
historians were inclined to dismiss his account of Gordian’s death, and many
of his other statements, as propaganda rather than truth. Certainly, it is clear
that there is a strong element of boastfulness in his account of his defeat of
Gordian: for example, the size of the Roman force is clearly exaggerated when
he states that ‘Gordian raised an army of Goths and Germans from
throughout the whole of the Roman Empire’, just as there is also an
exaggeration in his claim to have ‘destroyed’ the Roman army at the battle of
Misiche. However, it is notable that he does not claim to have killed Gordian
in battle personally, since he merely says ‘and the Caesar Gordian died’,
leaving open the precise cause of his death.
To conclude, I am inclined to agree with MacDonald that the version
preserved in the Byzantine chronicles of Monarchus, Cedrenus, Zonaras, the
Chronicon Paschale and the Synopsis Sathas that Gordian’s death was more
or less accidental is banal enough to have the ring of truth about it and
corresponds well with the one account that is undoubtedly contemporary,
Sapor’s inscription.86 In this view, the alternative tradition, that Philip
treacherously arranged for Gordian to be murdered, may be seen as another
example of the habit of inventing malicious stories discrediting unpopular
emperorj\vhich is so commonly found in the ancient sources.87 v,
Thus we may conclude that a momentous battle occurred at Misiche
where the Roman army was defeated and Gordian was wounded; that Gordian

85 For the location of these places the map in Kettenhofen, op. cit. n. 49, p. 171, is
invaluable. See also the map on p. 597.
86 MacDonald, op. cit. n. 71, p. 506. So also E Kettenhofen, op. cit. n. 71.
87 For the historiographical tradition on Philip see J M York, T he Image of Philip the
Arab’, Historia 21, 1972, pp. 320-32; L de Blois, ‘The reign of the emperor Philip the
Arabian’, Talanta 10-11, 1978-9, pp. 11-43. Other victims of stories invented by ancient
historians were Maximinus and Gallienus: see R Syme, Emperors and Biography: Studies in the
Historia Augusta, Oxford, 1971.

511
subsequently died of his wounds, either at Misiche, or further north, nearer
Roman territory (cf. Eutropius); that a monument was built to him at Zaitha,
a little north of Dura and that his remains were carried back to Rome, where
he was deified; that Philip, who succeeded him, was forced to come to terms
with Sapor and pay him a ransom; and that this is clearly documented both in
Sapor’s own bombastic account and also in Philip’s own coin issue from
Antioch which records PAX FVNDATA CVM PERSIS (RIC 69 and 72), and
not ‘Victoria Persica’.

512
 Chapter 10

Conclusions
Contents
1. The results of the present study ... V ................................................... 513

2. The rhythm of coin production at Antioch and Caesarea in

Gordian’s reign .................................................................................... 514

3. The context of this stu d y............................................................................. 518

Table

Table 1: Comparative estimated coin production of Caesarea and

A n tio c h ................................................................................................... 515

1. The results of the present study

In Chapter 1 it was stated that this study had four main aims. The first
was to examine for the first time the relationship between the two silver
denominations, radiates and tetradrachms, which were produced at Antioch
under Gordian; these respective issues have been examined in Chapters 2, 3
and 4, while their denominational relationship is discussed in Chapter 7 and
their circulation patterns in Chapter 8. The second aim was to distinguish
clearly between the radiates of Gordian that were minted at Antioch and those
that were struck at Rome and this has been done in Chapters 3 and 5. The
importance of this part of the exercise needs to be stressed, since it is only
when Gordian’s Antiochene radiates can properly be differentiated from those
of Rome that publications of these coins can be relied upon. The third aim
was to try to establish clearly the place of minting of the radiates and
tetradrachms of Gordian which are normally attributed to Antioch, but which
have sometimes been assigned elsewhere. In Chapters 3 to 5 it has been

513
shown that it is most likely that they were produced at Antioch rather than in
the Balkans or at another mint in the East. The fourth purpose of the study
was to look at the relationship between the coinage of Caesarea and that of
Antioch. This has revealed a previously unsuspected connection between the
two mints, in that for a period in 241-2 Caesarea appears to have replaced
Antioch as the main supplier of silver coinage to the Roman east; indeed it
seems that Antiochene engravers were temporarily transferred from Antioch
to Caesarea in 241 before being moved back during the following year. On the
basis of the discussion of specific aspects of the coinage the next section draws
it together into a general interpretation of the pattern of minting at Antioch
and Caesarea in Gordian’s reign.

2. The rhythm of coin production at Antioch and Caesarea in

Gordian’s reign

Table 1 presents a summary of the results of the die-studies of the

coinages of Antioch and Caesarea under Gordian. The pattern of minting at
Antioch may be summed up as follows: a first issue of radiates was produced
in 238 and 239 from an estimated 674 obverse dies, amounting to perhaps
some 20 million coins; this was then followed by an issue of tetradrachms from
an estimated 205 dies1 (6 million coins), dated to his first consulship (239 -
40), which was in turn succeeded by a very small series of tetradrachms from
only 12 dies (360,000 coins) dated to his second consulship which he entered
into on 1 January 241. This second series is die-linked to the first and the
conclusion is, therefore, that the first issue was struck in 240 and followed by
the second at the very beginning of 241, at which point the mint was closed,
apparently quite suddenly (Chapter 4). Meanwhile, during 240, some
Antiochene engravers had already been moved to Caesarea in Cappadocia,
whose mint had been reopened some time in 239 (Chapter 6). Early in 241

1 In the rest of this section for dies read obverse dies: the full die-statistics are given in
Chapters 3 to 6 .

514
the production of silver coins in the East was switched completely from
Antioch to Caesarea.

Table 1: Comparative estimated coin production of

Caesarea and Antioch
(assuming 30,000 coins per obverse die)

Antioch
Denomination Series Date Obv. dies Total
Radiates 1 st series 238-9 674 2 0 ,2 2 0 ,0 0 0
Tetradrachms 1 st series 240 205 6,159,000
Tetradrachms 2 nd series 241 12 360,000
Tetradrachms 3rd series ?242-3 98 2,949,000
Radiates 2 nd series 242-4 2279 68,370,000
Total 3268 98,058,000

Caesarea
AR Year 3 Dec. 239-40 82 2,451,000
AR Year 4 Dec. 239-40 245 7,347,000
AE Year 4 Dec. 240-1 56 1,689,000
AR Year 5 Dec. 241-2 20 594,000
AE Year 6 Dec. 242-3 7 216,000
AE Year 7 Dec. 243-4 15 441,000
Total 425 12,738,000

The only coinage produced at Caesarea in Year 2 (12 December 238 -

12 December 239) was a very limited issue of bronze, while during the
following year this mint started striking silver tridrachms as well. The dies for
some of the Caesarean tridrachms of Year 3 appear to have been made by
Caesarean engravers, but most of them were produced by workmen who had
been transferred from Antioch. The silver coinage of Year 3 (December 239 -
December 240) was quite small by comparison with that of Antioch, consisting
of 82 dies or two and a half million coins. Caesarea’s largest coinage was
produced in the following year (December 240 - December 241), when
Antioch was inactive. For that year Caesarea’s silver production amounted to
245 dies (7.3 million coins) and its bronze to 56 (1.7 million coins). The size
of these issues had not previously been suspected. Caesarea finally struck a
very small issue of silver coins of some 20 dies, or 600,000 coins, in the year
starting 12 December 241 and it then appears to have closed, probably some
time early in 242, when coin production was again switched back to Antioch

515
in a n tic ip a tio n o f th e fo rth co m in g im p e ria l ex p ed itio n . However, a final
issue o f b ro n z e coins w as stru c k a t C a e s a re a in Y e a rs 6 (D e c e m b e r 242 -
D e c e m b e r 243) a n d 7 (D e c e m b e r 243 -J a n u a ry /F e b ru a ry 244). A few o f th e
dies fo r th e coins o f Y e a r 6 m ay h av e b e e n en g ra v e d by th e sa m e w o rk m e n
w ho h a d p ro d u c e d th e e a rlie r issues o f th e reign, b u t m o st o f th e m w e re th e
i 1 ‘ -
w o rk o f new , less skilled craftsm en , im plying th a t th e m in t h a d clo sed early in
242 a n d th a t its sta ff h a d re tu r n e d to A n tio ch , w h e re th e y w e re jo in e d by n ew
w o rk m e n s e n t o u t fro m R o m e (se e b elo w ). T h e b ro n z e o u tp u t o f Y e a rs 6 a n d
7 w as very sm all, am o u n tin g to 7 a n d 15 dies resp ectiv ely , a to ta l o f only
660,000 coins.
G o r d ia n ’s th ird series o f te tra d ra c h m s fro m A n tio ch , w hich c a m e fro m
98 dies (3 m illion coins), w as m o st p ro b a b ly stru ck d u rin g 242, a f te r th e
cessatio n o f co in ag e a t C a e s a re a an d b e fo re th e re s u m p tio n o f r a d ia te
p ro d u c tio n a t A n tio c h p ro b a b ly la te in 242. T h e m in t o f A n tio c h w as n ow
o rg a n iz e d differen tly . W h e re a s b e fo re it h a d b e e n w h a t m ay b e te rm e d a
single officina in stitu tio n , in th a t all th e d ies a p p e a r to h a v e b e e n k e p t in a
co m m o n p o o l, th e n ew te tra d ra c h m s w e re p ro d u c e d in tw o w o rk sh o p s a n d th e
ra d ia te s o f 242-4 in th re e . F inally w e co m e to th e m assiv e seco n d series o f
ra d ia te s, w hich b e g a n in 242 a n d in all p ro b ab ility c o n tin u e d to th e e n d o f th e
reig n early in 244.
T h e site o f th e m in t th a t p ro d u c e d this ra d ia te issue, w hich co n siste d
o f so m e 2279 o b v e rse dies o r 68 m illion coins, h as lo n g b e e n a m a tte r o f
c o n tro v e rsy (se e C h a p te r 5), a lth o u g h its g e n e ra l lo c atio n c a n n o t b e in d o u b t.
G iv en th a t th e E m p e ro r w as in th e E a s t w ith a n arm y possibly 50,000 s tro n g 2
th ro u g h o u t th e p e rio d d u rin g w hich th e se coins w e re stru ck , it m ak es n o sen se
fo r it to h av e b e e n in th e B alk an s, as h as o fte n b e e n su g g ested . W e h av e also
se e n th a t this co in ag e o ccu rs m o st fre q u e n tly in Syria a n d M e so p o ta m ia ,
especially in th e m ilitary fro n tie r to w n o f D u ra . A fte r th a t, it is fo u n d in larg e
q u a n titie s in th e B alk an s, esp ecially B u lg a ria a n d R o m a n ia , b u t is r a th e r less
c o m m o n in th e p ro v in ce o f A sia, w h e re th e R o m a n m ilitary p re s e n c e w as

2 X L oriot, ‘L es p rem ieres a n n e es d e la grande crise du IIIe siecle: de l’a v en em en t de

M axim in le T h race (2 3 5 ) a la m ort d e G ord ien III (2 4 4 )’, A N R W II, 2, p. 766.

516
minimal. In fact these coins seem to have circulated in greatest quantities in
those areas which saw most military activity. There is, therefore, some
attraction in attributing it to a mint that was attached to the main
expeditionary force (in the following century it would be termed a
‘comitatensian’ mint); against this, however, is the sheer scale of production.
An issue of 68 million coins over the course of, say, 18 months, implies an
output of 124,000 coins per day (assuming that the mint worked every day).
It is difficult to imagine that production on this scale could have been carried
out anywhere but at a permanent establishment, and that establishment must
have been Antioch. As for the staffing of this mint, some of the engravers
were the same as those who had worked at Antioch between 238 and 241, who
had subsequently been transferred to Caesarea, and had then returned to
Antioch again in 242. However, it seems that there was also a large infusion
of new craftsmen from Rome working alongside the personnel from the
eastern mints.
The total estimated number of coins minted at Antioch under Gordian,
therefore, was just under 100 million. The total number of coins struck at
Caesarea was rather less than thirteen million, about 13% of Antioch’s
production.
In Chapter 7 the silver content of these coins was examined and it was
observed that the figures published by Walker, which have formed the basis
for most discussions of this problem, are distorted by surface enrichment.3
Cowell’s analyses show that the silver content was both lower and less variable
than Walker’s figures suggest. Finally, Chapter 8 examined the evidence for
the differing circulation patterns of the radiates and tetradrachms of Antioch
and of the silver and bronze coins of Caesarea and Chapter 9 re-examined
some of the historical cruces of Gordian’s reign and saw how the proper
interpretation of the numismatic evidence can shed new light on them.
In short, we may conclude that the evolution of the mint of Antioch
during the first part of the third century played a pivotal role in the process

3 D R Walker, The Metrology o f the Roman Silver Coinage, 1-3, Oxford, 1976-8.

517
of change from the coin system of the early empire, where the main provider
of coins in gold, silver and bronze was the mint of Rome, supplemented by
provincial mints striking drachma-based coinages and city mints striking
bronze, to that of the late empire, in which a network of mints throughout the
empire struck a mainly uniform coinage in gold and base silver. The reign of
Gordian was a key period in this transition.

3. The context of this study

This study has attempted to demonstrate how much information can be

gained from the study of a series of coin issues by applying all the techniques
that are now available. For example, as we have seen, use has been made of
the evidence provided by the analyses of the metal content of these coins set
out in Chapter 7 to show that the hitherto accepted picture requires
considerable revision, while the find evidence has also been utilized to clarify
questions of mint attribution and the size of issues, particularly in Chapter 5.
However, the principal technique that I have employed is the die-study. This
is the first time that it has been applied to a major coinage of the third
century A.D. The sample amounted to 1622 specimens. The few published die-
studies of this period all deal with much smaller issues, either the coinages of
short-lived usurpers such as Jotapian, Pacatian, Uranius Antoninus, Regalian
and Dryantilla, Saloninus as Augustus or Laelian, or gold coinage, such as that
of the Gallic Empire.4 None of these coinages can safely be assumed to form
a reliable parallel to the mainstream issues of the major mints in their usage

4 Jotapian: R F Bland, "The coinage of Jotapian", Israel Numismatic Journal forthcoming;

Pacatian: E Pegan, Tiberius Claudius Marinus Pacatianus, unpublished dissertation; Uranius
Antoninus: H-R Baldus, Uranius Antoninus. Mtinzpragung und Geschichte, Bonn, 1971;
Regalian and Dryantilla: R Gobi, Regalianus und Dryantilla, Vienna, 1970; Saloninus
Augustus: N Shiel, "The coinage of Saloninus as Augustus", ANSMN 24,1979, pp. 117-22 and
H H Gilljam, "Antoniniane des Saloninus Augustus", Mitteilungen des Osterreichischen
Numismatischen Gesellschaft 27, 6 , 1987, pp. 77-83; Laelian: H H Gilljam, Antoniniane und
Aurei des Ulpius Cornelius Laelianus, Cologne, 1982, and 269 Laelianus: Erganzungen zur
Materialsammlung. Verwendung seiner Reversstempel unter Marius, Cologne, 1986; the gold
coinage of the Gallic Empire: B Schulte, Die Goldpragung der gallischen Kaiser von Postumus
bis Tetricus, Typos 4, Aarau, 1983.

518
of dies or in their frequency in finds.
The present study has, therefore, sought to give an impression of the
size of several large-scale coin issues of the third century and constitutes a first
step in what will, no doubt, become a series of such die-studies.5 Only through
the continuing accumulation of evidence in this way will it become possible to
build up a picture of the precise scale of coin issues of this period and of their
fluctuations. Of course, statistics gathered from coin finds also provide
evidence on the relative rise and fall of coin output, but they can never
provide information on the absolute scale of coin issues, nor can they be used
to compare issues of different denominations not normally hoarded together,
such as radiates and tetradrachms, and they can only be used to compare coins
produced at roughly the same period.
The study of a large sample of finds of both radiates and tetradrachms
has at the same time provided a useful control over the accuracy of the die-
estimates, particularly in the case of the second series of radiates (Chapter 5).
It has also revealed some unexpected results that did not emerge from the die-
studies, such as the very different survival rate of the third series of
tetradrachms when compared with that of the first two (Chapter 4).
The present work, therefore, is intended as a pilot study which has
attempted to break new ground by applying to a neglected part of the later
Roman coinage numismatic techniques that have already been developed in
the study of Greek and early Roman coinages. The results afford enough new
information to suggest that this offers a promising model for future studies.

5 J-M Doyen has completed a die-study on the coinage of Gallienus and Salonina from
the mint of Milan, A.D. 259-68, which it is hoped will be published.
 APPENDIX 1

Summary of radiates and denarii of Gordian in 79 finds

Note: the finds are divided geographically into seven groups: A. Britain;
B. France and Belgium; C. Germany and Austria; D. Spain and Italy; E.
Hungary and Yugoslavia; F. Albania, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece; G.
Turkey and Syria. Table 1 (pp. 521-7) gives a general summary of each find;
Table 2 (pp. 528-34) summarizes the coins of Gordian; Table 3 (pp. 535-58)
gives details of the coins of Rome; Table 5 (pp. 559-61) the coins of the first
series of Antioch and Table 6 (pp. 562-5) the coins of the second series. For
publication details of the finds see pp. 10-17.

Finds listed: key to abbreviations

AI Alba Iulia (Romania). Lei Leimersheim (Germany).

A1 Allonnes I (France). LS Lime Street, London (Britain).
Alt Altafulla (Spain). MB Mons-Boubert (France).
Alz Alzey (Germany). Ma Mainz, Schatzfund II (Germany).
An Antioch (Turkey, site finds). Mat Mattishall (Britain).
Ap Apetlon (Austria). Mo Morgat-en-Crozon (France).
At Athens (Greece, site finds). Na Nanterre (France).
Ba Baie§ti (Romania). Nag Nagyberek (Hungary).
Bas Basecles (Belgium). Nap ‘Prince Napoleon’ hoard (Britain,
Bd Baldwin’s hoard (Romania). France or Germany).
BH Beachy Head, 1964 (Britain). Neu Neuhofen (Germany).
Bu Budaors (Hungary). Ni Nicolaevo (Bulgaria).
Bur Burgau (Germany).
No Noyers-sur-Serein (France).
Ca Caesarea in Cappadocia (Turkey).
OO Oliver’s Orchard (Britain).
Cai Caister-by-Yarmouth (Britain).
OS OStra Luka I (Yugoslavia).
Cal Calabria (Italy). Ot Otrovanec (Yugoslavia).
Can Canlia (Romania). Pe Pergamum (Turkey).
Car Carnuntum (site finds, Austria). PI Plevna (Bulgaria).
Ch Chalfont St Peter (Britain). Po Podastinje (Yugoslavia) .
Cht Chatenay-sur-Seine (France). RD Reka-Devnia (Bulgaria).
Cl Clamerey (France).
Rq Rocquencourt (France).
Co Corinth (site finds, Greece).
Ru Rustschuk (Bulgaria).
Cr Creil I (France).
Rv Rouvroy-les-Merles (France).
Cu Cunetio (Britain).
Sa Sardis (site finds, Turkey).
D Dura (Syria).
Sch Schwarzenacker (Germany).
Do Dorchester (Britain).
Se Serbia (Yugoslavia).
Ea ‘Eastern hoard’ (Turkey).
Sel Selsey (Britain).
Ed Edlington Wood (Britain).
Si Singidunum (Yugoslavia).
El Elveden (Britain).
Sm Smederevo (Yugoslavia).
Ep Ephesus (site finds, Turkey).
Smy Smyrna (Turkey).
Et Ftaples (France).
Fa Falerone (Italy). St Stevenage (Britain).
Fe Felsotengelic (Hungary). Tar Tarragona (Spain).
Gib Gibraltar (Spain). Te Teteven (Bulgaria).
Go Gorsium (Hungary). Tq Tarquinia (Italy).
Ha Haydere (Turkey). Tul Tulin (Austria).
Ia lasos (Turkey). Us Uskub (Albania).
1c Prof. Ichirkovo (Bulgaria). VF Viuz-Faverges (France).
Jab Jablanica (Yugoslavia). Wie Wiesbach (Germany).
Jag Jagodina-KruSevac (Yugoslavia). Ya Yatagan (Turkey).
Ki Kidderminster (Britain).
Kr Krog (Yugoslavia).

520
 Finds containing radiates and denarii of Gordian
Table 1: General Summary

A. Britain

El LS Do Nap Ed Mat St Cai BH OO Sel Ch Cu

Pre 192 12 3 4 103 2 5 3

193-217
den. 199 1192 11 31 151 34 499 1 1 - 4 72
rad. 6 26 - - 3 1 3 1 1 - 1 2

217-38
den. 745 1234 13 15 322 593 346 55 24 13 9 36 529
rad. 4 195 1 3 11 7 8 4 - 1 13

Gordian
den. 10 9 3 3 3 5 6 6 3 3 12
rad. 106 186 8951 45 62 148 198 90 296 56 22 117 11
total 116 h95 28954 48 65 153 204 ^96 299 56 22 120 23

244-53
rad. 64 174 10764 72 80 138 372 73 481 123 97 270 394

253-68/94
rad. 858 168 27 33 1615 14 2356 1362 725 414 37989

268/9-
rad. 122 65 15926

Uncertain

Total 1146 798 20810 315 528 1095 2579 851 3173 1558 975 916 54951

Term, date 248 251 257 258 259 261 263 267 269 269 271 274 274

Key
BH: Beachy Head (1964) LS: Lime Street, London
Cai: Caister-by-Yarmouth Mat: Mattishall
Ch: Chalfont St Peter Nap: ‘Prince Napoleon’ hoard
Cu: Cunetio OO: Olivers Orchard
Do: Dorchester, Dorset Sel: Selsey
Ed: Edlington Wood St: Stevenage
El: Elveden

1 Merrifield gives the total number of coins of Gordian as 197 but only 195 coins are
described.
2 Mattingly gives the total number of coins of Gordian and Tranquillina as 8892 but
actually describes 8954 coins.
3 Jenkins gives the total number of coins of Gordian as 92 but he actually describes 96
coins.
4 This period closes with the reign of Gallienus in the Central Empire and that of
Postumus in the Gallic Empire.

521
 B. France and Belgium

V-F Na Cl No Bas Rq Cr Rv Cht Et A l M-B Mo

Pre 192 795 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ i 1

193-217
den. 584 72 45
rad. 36 4 14 7 3

217-38
den. 266 134 2 4 - 36 2 - 13
rad. 24 11 21 23 6 4 4 4 4 1

Gordian
den. 13 14 3 - 4 1 1
rad. 369 664 314 132 32 623 315 5118 88 389 282 69 47
total 382 678 314 132 32 626 315 122 88 389 283 70 47

244-53
rad. 96 940 525 170 64 1085 459 171 182 391 328 88 50

253-68/9
rad. 23 674 127 392 3168 205 304 428 3003 401 389 1446

268/9-
rad.

Uncertain

Total 2183 1862 1550 436 489 4913 988 678 702 3791 1016 572 1545

Term, date 253 255 260 265 265 265 265 265 265 268 268 268 274

Key

Al: Allonnes I, France. Mo: Morgat-en-Crozon, France.

Bas: Basecles, Belgium. Na: Nanterre, France.
Cht: Chatenay-sur-Seine, France. No: Noyers-sur-Serein, France.
Cl: Clamerey, France. Rq: Rocquencourt, France.
Cr: Creil I, France. Rv: Rouvroy-les-Merles, France.
Et: Etaples, France. VF: Viuz-Faverges, France.
MB: Mons-Boubert, France.

5 Fabre and Mainjonet give the total number of coins of Gordian as 117, but they actually
describe 118 coins.

522
 C. Germany and Austria

Bur Wie Neu Sch Lei Ma Alz Tul Ap Car

Pre 192 8 6 - [..]

193-217
den. 73 98 1 27 - 1625
rad. 1 19 12 1 3 i t

217-38
den. 175 3 10 412 6 334 3 1732
rad. 3 36 1 18 2 3 - J

Gordian
den. 2 10 9
rad. 12 91 152 1697 25 515 28 294 28 90
aes 41
total 12 93 152 1697 25 525 28 295 28 140

244-53
rad. 27 49 188 2424 52 715 34 809 102 236

253-68/9
rad. 632 270 42 310 274 227 668

Uncertain 5 43 - M
Total 40 402 353 4811 365 1871 382 1745 361 [..]

Term, date 253 253 257 262 262 265 268 258 260

Key

Alz: Alzey, Germany. Sch: Schwarzenacker, Germany.

Bur: Burgau, Germany. Wie: Wiesbach, Germany.
Lei: Leimersheim, Germany. Ap: Apetlon, Austria.
Ma: Mainz, Schatzfund II, Germany. Car: Carnuntum, Austria (site finds).
Neu: Neuhofen, Germany. Tul: Tulin, Austria.

523
 D. Spain and Italy

Gib Alt Tar Tq Cal Fa

Pre 192 (aes) - - 19

193-217
den. - - 5
rad. - - 2 1

217-38
den. 1 - 9 5
rad. 1 - 2
aes - - 86

Gordian
den. - - 1 1
rad. 32 24 18 17 84 63
aes - - 109
total 32 24 18 17 85 173

244-53
rad. 893 62 33 28 533 350
aes - - 223

253-68/9
rad. 28935 144 54 111 3275 6603
aes - - 47

Uncertain - - 22 - 84

Total 29862 230 105 178 3911 7591

Term, date 266 c.263 c.266 258 266 266

Key

Alt: Altafulla, Spain. Cal: Calabria, Italy.

Gib: Gibraltar, Spain. Fa: Falerone, Italy.
Tar: Tarragona, Spain. Tq: Tarquinia, Italy.

524
 E. Hungary and Yugoslavia

Bu Go Fe Nag Se Jag Sin Jab Sm Os Ot Po Ki

Pre 192 2 1 24 5 - - - I

193-217
den. 82 115 3 30
rad. 11 6 18 37

217-38
den. 322 37 11 37 2 246 1 1 9'y
rad. 25 22 7 12 16 20 65 16

Gordian
den. 8 3 25 1 c2 1 1 18
rad. 934 524 135 346 351 64 896 539 c2561 37 45 57 545
total 942 527 135 347 351 66 921 540 0^563 38 45 58 553

244-53
rad. 852 1607 428 934 952 278 1137 1619 5691 97 140 57 935

253-68/9
rad. 936 503 1231 4 5 553 48 165 30 658

Uncertain 2 9

Total 2236 3134 1089 2586 1324 349 2445 2211 c8910 187 352 160 2290

Term, date 253 258 259 260 253 253 254 254 254 254 258 258 260

Key

Bu: Budoars, Hungary. OS: OStra Luka I, Yugoslavia

Fe: Felsotengelic, Hungary. Ot: Otrovanec, Yugoslavia
Go: Gorsium, Hungary. Po: Podastinje, Yugoslavia
Nag: Nagyberek, Hungary Se: Serbia, Yugoslavia
Jab: Jablanica, Yugoslavia Si: Singidunum, Yugoslavia
Jag: Jagodina-KruSevac, Yugoslavia Sm: Smederevo, Yugoslavia
Kr: Krog (Korong), Yugoslavia.

6 This is an estimated figure because Petrovic omitted to give totals for two reverse types:
see p. 532, n. 12.

525
 F. Albania, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece

Ba Can Ic Us Ni Ru R-D PI Te Bd AI At Co
Pre 192 8 2 - 85 21 261 44859 16 2 - - [••] U
193-217
den. 59 41 339 1198 1778 1 19740 222 32 12 5
rad. 2 - 1 2 J / / 5 3 - 2 4 -
aes - - - - - - - - - - - 24 6

217-38
den. 221 172 3 280 1170 1422 116111 325 87 8 12 4
rad. 5 3 - 4 J I / 17 4 - 11 - -
aes - - - - - - - - - - - 57 27

Gordian
den. 4 13 1 25 25 60 46 29 32 4 1 3
rad. 57 185 58 225 269 40 234 559 587 118 193 27 3
aes - - - - - - - - - - - 22 3
total 61 198 59 250 294 100 280 588 619 122 194 52 6

244-53
rad. 72 41 62 250 39 4 2123 458 168 434 62 10
aes - - - - - - - - - - - 24 8

253-68/9
rad. - - - - - - - - 11 25 559 480 49
aes 1

Uncertain - - - - - - 50 - - 3 - [••] [••]

Total 356 488 104 1022 933 1600 81044 3296 1216 318 1219 [•] U

Term, date 244 246 247 248 249 251 251 251 259 2647 c.265 [••] M
Key

At: Athens, Greece (site finds). Ni: Nicolaevo, Bulgaria.

AI: Alba Iulia, Romania. PI: Plevna, Bulgaria.
Ba: Baiesti, Romania. RD: Reka-Devnia, Bulgaria.
Bd: Baldwin’s hoard, Romania. Ru: Rustschuk, Albania.
Can: Canlia, Romania. Te: Teteven, Romania.
Co: Corinth, Greece (site finds). Us: Uskub, Bulgaria.
Ic: Prof. Ichirkovo, Bulgaria.

7 Terminal date uncertain: could be 258. See p. 10.

526
 G. Turkey and Syria

Ya Ea Smy Ca Pe la Ha Ep A n8 A n9 D7 D1 D10 D
Pre 192 5 466 598 1
193-217
den. 144 915 2 448 [••] 13 11 10 346
rad. 2 13 [••] - - 1 1 - 7
aes 2 [••] [••] 1 - - - 2
4dr. [••] [■■] - 30 6 14 256
217-38
den. 70 196 36 [■•] 12 8 49 1 . 206
rad. 3 16 (46 3 [••] - - 1 - - 1
aes U [-] 5 - - - 2
4dr. [••] [••] 3 37 53 55 460
Gordian
den. 24 255 1 28 3 1 10 _
18
rad. 31 662 21 150 J1051 692 5 13 11 68 139 18 328
aes 1 - - 2 - - 1 -

4dr. - - - 33 18 23 92
total 24 286 663 21 10155 1051 720 8 14 13 111 157 42 438
244-53
rad. 43 548 37 287 1869 501 [••] 18 34 6 42 31 156
aes W [••] 2 - - - -

4dr. [••] [••] 10 112 429 302 1539

253-68/9
rad. 23 17 [••] [••] 179 99 99 311
aes W [•■] 1
' ' ' "

Uncertain 1 7

Total 243 1911 1244 61 460112989 2330 [.] [..] [..] 358 788 543 [«]

Term, date 241 251 256 256 259 264 264 [••] [••] [••] 253 256 256 [256]

Key

An: Antioch, Turkey (site finds). Ia: Iasos, Turkey.

Ca: Caesarea in Cappadocia, Turkey Pe: Pergamum, Turkey.
D: Dura, Syria (site finds and hoards). Sa: Sardis, Turkey.
Ea: ‘Eastern hoard’, Turkey. Smy: Smyrna, Turkey.
Ep: Ephesus, Turkey. Ya: Yatagan, Turkey.
Ha: Haydere, Turkey.

8 Butcher’s notes of the coins in the Antakya Museum: these only included silver coins
(see p. 16).
9 Waage’s catalogue of the coins found during the American excavations at Antioch (see
p. 16).
10 Full details of only 21 coins of Gordian have been published (see pp. 461-3).
11 This hoard has not been published in detail; there is only a summary of its contents
which does not distinguish between denarii and radiates (see pp. 461-3). For this reason it is
only included in the present table.

527
 Finds containing radiates and denarii of Gordian
Table 2: Summary of coins of Gordian
(For key to hoards see Table 1)

A. Britain
A. Rome
1. Radiates
Issue El LS Do Nap Ed Mat St Cai BH OO Sel Ch Cu
I 1 11 727 1 4 12 10 8 33 3 1 7
II 3 8 216 1 2 3 5 2 15 5 2 4
Ilia 13 13 654 2 4 17 19 9 31 6 1 4
Illb 2 6 225 1 2 2 5 4 7 1 - 7
IIIc 7 28 813 7 3 16 20 9 19 5 - 10 1
IV 44 64 3700 19 24 59 78 25 11 1 23 13 44 5
IV, extra - - 3 1 - - - - - - - -
V 28 50 2040 10 20 30 36 24 53 8 2 32 3
Tranquillina - - 2 - - - - - - - - -
Hybrids - 2 5 1 - - - 3 1 - - - 1
Total, rad. 104 182 8385 43 59 139 173 84 270 50 19 108 10

2. Denarii
II - - - - - - - 2 - - - -
‘Marr.’ 9 3 2 2 1 3 4 4 2 - - 2 11
IV - 6 1 1 2 2 2 - 1 - - 1 1
V - - - - - - - 1 - - - -
Total, den. 9 9 3 3 3 5 6 7 3 - - 3 12

Total, Rome 113 191 8388 46 62 144 179 91 273 51 19 111 22

B. Antioch
1 - - 34 1 1 - 3 2 2 - 1 -
II 2 1 530 1 2 9 22 3 24 5 2 9 1
Total, Ant. 2 1 564 2 3 9 25 5 26 5 3 9 1

C. Others
Illegible 3
Imitations 1 2

Grand Total 116 195 8954 48 65 153 204 96 299 56 22 120 23

Proportion of coins of Antioch

A. First series/Rome, Issues I-IIIa

Antioch - 1 3 0 0
Rome - - - 5 - - 34 - - 14 - - 0
% - - - 20.0 - - 8.82 - - 0.00 - - 0.00

B. Second series/Rome, Issues IV-V. (a) all types

Antioch 2 - 530 1 9 22 24 5 2 9 1
Rome 72 - 5740 29 - 89 114 - 164 31 15 76 8
% 2.78 - 9.23 3.45 - 10.11 19.30 - 14.63 16.13 13.33 11.84 12.50
B. Second series/Rome, Issues IV-V. (b) excluding FORTVNA REDVX
Antioch 2 1 367 1 2 7 15 3 18 3 2 1 1
Rome 66 112 5602 27 40 86 111 48 162 31 15 15 8
% 3.03 0.89 6.55 3.70 5.00 8.14 13.51 6.25 11.11 9.68 13.33 9.33 12.50

528
 B. France and Belgium

A. Rome
1. Radiates
Issue V-F Na Cl No Bas Rq Cr Rv Cht Et AI M-B Mo
I 73 57 27 11 5 55 29 12 9 45 35 11 5
II 6 24 5 1 1 20 11 1 4 14 8 3 3
Ilia 38 56 28 16 3 56 28 9 3 46 22 6 1
Ulb 16 27 10 2 1 12 5 3 1 14 7 2 1
IIIc 40 69 29 15 - 63 32 7 8 37 28 11 5
IV 160 259 112 52 14 228 115 50 37 138 114 22 16
IV, extra - 2 - - - - 1 - - - - -

V 32 135 72 26 6 125 67 33 24 76 50 13 13
Hybrids - - - - - 1 - - - - - -

Total, rad. 365 629 283 123 30 560 288 115 86 370 264 68 44

2. Denarii
‘Marr.’ 11 9 - - - 2 - 3 - - 1 -
IV 2 5 - - - 1 - 1 - - - 1
Total, den. 13 14 - - - 3 - 4 - - 1 1

Total, Rome 378 643 283 123 30 563 288 119 86 370 265 69 44

B. Antioch
I 1 8 3 1 - 8 3 - - - 1 -
II 2 26 27 8 2 54 24 3 1 18 17 1 3
Total, Ant. 3 34 30 9 2 62 27 3 1 18 18 1 3

C. Others
Imitations 1 1 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 - -

Grand Total 382 678 314 132 32 626 315 122 88 389 283 70 47

Proportion of coins of Antioch

B. Second series/Rome, Issues IV-V. (a) all types

Antioch 2 26 27 8 2 54 24 1 18 17 1 3
Rome 192 394 184 78 20 353 182 61 214 164 35 29
% 1.04 6.60 14.67 10.26 10.00 15.30 13.19 1.64 8.41 10.37 2.86 10.34

B. Second series/Rome, Issues IV-V. (b) excluding FORTVNA REDVX

Antioch 2 20 17 8 2 36 12 3 1 12 11 0 3
Rome 189 384 178 75 20 344 177 77 59 207 159 34 29
% 1.06 5.21 9.55 10.67 10.00 10.47 6.78 3.90 1.69 5.80 6.92 0.00 10.34

529
 C. Germany and Austria

A. Rome
1. Radiates
Issue Bur Wie Neu Sch Lei Ma Alz Tul Ap Car
I 1 10 10 147 1 58 3 12 2 5
II - 6 3 42 - 23 1 4 - 1
Ilia 1 11 12 160 1 56 2 8 - 6
Illb - 4 1 44 1 19 - 1 - 1
IIIc 4 8 15 156 5 59 3 20 3 7
IV 3 31 65 688 10 183 8 117 11 31
IV, extra - - - - - - - - - -
IV - 13 28 348 6 85 4 62 6 8
Hybrids - 1 - 2 - - - 2 - 2
Total, rad. 9 84 134 1587 24 483 21 226 22 61

2. Denarii
‘Marr.’ - 2 - - - 8 - 2 - 3
IV - - - - - 1 - 2 - 2
Illegible - - - - - - - - - 1
Total, den. - 2 - - - 9 - 4 - 6

3. Quinarii
IV - - - - - 1 - - - -

Total, Rome 9 86 134 1587 24 493 21 230 22 67

B. Antioch
I - 1 1 5 - 1 - 4 - 1
II 3 6 17 104 1 31 4 53 4 8
Total, Ant. 3 7 18 109 1 32 4 57 4 9

C. Others
Illegible - - - - - - 3 - 2 1
Imitations - - - 1 - - - 8 - 22

Grand Total 12 93 152 1697 25 525 28 295 28 99

Proportion of coins of Antioch

A- First series/Rome, Issues I-IIIa

Antioch - - - 4 0 -

Rome - - - 24 2 -

% . . . . . - - 16.67 0.00 -

B. Second series/Rome, Issues IV-V. (a) all types

Antioch 3 6 17 104 1 31 4 53 4 8
Rome 3 44 93 1036 16 268 12 179 17 39
% 100.00 13.64 18.28 10.04 6.25 11.57 33.33 29.61 23.53 20.51

B. Second series/Rome, Issues IV-V. (b) excluding FORTVNA REDVX

Antioch 1 1 12 65 1 23 2 31 3 1
Rome 3 42 91 1010 15 260 11 173 17 39
% 33.33 2.38 13.19 6.44 6.67 8.85 18.18 17.92 17.65 17.95

530
 D. Spain and Italy

A. Rome
1. Radiates
Issue Gib Alt Tar Tq Cal Fa
I 2 1 1 4 5 6
II 1 1 1 - 1 -
Ilia 1 3 - - 1 7
IHb 1 1 - - 2 -
IIIc 4 3 - 1 9 3
IV 12 10 8 2 35 16
IV, extra - - - - - -
V 6 2 4 6 18 23
Hybrids - 1 - - 1 1
Tranquillina - - - - - -
Total, rad. 27 22 14 13 72 56

2. Denarii
‘Marr.’ - - - - 1 1
IV - - - - - -
Total, den. - - - - 1 1

Total, Rome 27 22 14 13 73 57

B. Antioch
I - - 1 - - 1
II 5 2 3 - 12 6
Total, Ant. 5 2 4 - 12 7

C. Others
Illegible - - - 4 - -

Grand Total 32 22 18 17 95 64

Proportion of coins of Antioch

B. Second series/Rome, Issues IV-V. (a) all types

Antioch 5 2 3 0 12
Rome 18 12 12 8 53
% 27.78 16.67 25.00 0.00 22.64

B. Second series/Rome, Issues IV-V. (b) excluding FORTVNA REDVX

Antioch 3 2 3 0 8 6
Rome 17 12 11 8 50 32
% 17.65 16.67 27.27 0.00 16.00 18.75

531
 E. Hungary and Yugoslavia

A. Rome
1. Radiates
Issue Bu Go Fe Nag Se Jag Sin Jab Sm Os Ot Po Kr
I 66 41 10 24 34 4 11 50 262 5 4 4 39
- - - - - 11
I, extra
II 25 14 5 1 11 1 24 16 60 3 1 10
Ilia 79 26 5 26 38 4 64 50 215 5 2 7 62
Illb 26 5 5 6 15 1 21 18 61 1 - 3 11
IIIc 104 47 9 34 35 2 99 59 197 2 1 3 58
IV 367 197 51 140 135 27 336 188c121025 12 20 25 191
IV, extra - - - - - - 1 1 - - - -

V 193 112 31 92 69 14 186 102 459 8 11 12 130

Tranquillina - - - - -
Hybrids - 3 1 2 - 3 2
Total, rad. 860 445 117 325 337 53 808 485 c2282 36 39 54 503

2. Denarii
II - - - - - 1 - - - - - -

‘Marr.’ 4 - - 1 - 1 10 1 1 1 - 1 8
IV 3 3 - - - - 15 - c13l - - -
V 1 - - - -
Total, den. 8 3 - 1 - 2 25 1 c2 1 - 1 8

3. Quinarii
IV - - - - - 1

Total, Rome 868 448 117 326 337 55 833 486 c2285 37 39 55 481

B. Antioch
I 1 1 - - - 5 6 14 1 1
II 73 76 18 20 14 6 82 54 262 - 6 2 38
Total, Ant 74 77 18 20 14 11 88 54 276 - 6 3 39

C. Others
Illegible - - - - - - - 2 1 - - 1
Imitations - 2 - 1 -

Grand Total 942 527 135 347 351 66 921 540 c2563 38 45 58 533

Proportion of coins of Antioch

B. Second series/Rome, Issues IV-V. (a) all types

Antioch 73 76 18 - 82 54 - 0 6 2
Rome 560 309 82 522 290 - 20 31 37
% 13.04 24.60 21.95 - 15.71 18.62 - 0.00 19.35 5.41

B. Second series/Rome, Issues IV-V. (b) excluding FORTVNA REDVX

Antioch 46 54 16 20 14 6 62 42 176 0 5 2 38
Rome 546 297 80 212 194 38 507 281 1483 20 31 37 294
% 8.42 18.18 20.00 9.43 7.22 15.79 12.23 14.95 11.87 0.00 16.13 5.41 12.93

12 Petrovic omits to note the number of specimens of RIC 83 and 111: I have estimated
170 of the former and 1 of the latter on the basis of the frequency of the other types of Issue
IV in the hoard. This is, however, only a guess.
13 See n. 12.

532
 F. Albania, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece

A. Rome
1. Radiates
Issue Ba Can Ic Us Ni Ru R-D PI Te Bd AI At Co
I 11 17 5 17 30 3 114 55 71 11 20 1 -
I, extra - - - 1 - - - 1 2 - - - -
II 3 2 1 4 8 1 12 16 13 3 - 1 -

Ilia 3 16 3 22 18 4 36 41 52 10 14 1 -

Illb _ 4 - 1 8 1 7 7 9 2 6 - -
IIIc 5 13 7 18 22 2 35 42 57 10 21 1 -
IV 15 58 30 99 105 13 17 210 220 42 68 10 1
IV, extra - - - - - - - 5 - - - - -
V 17 31 5 42 57 7 - 132 105 20 41 10 1
Tranquillina - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
Hybrids - - - 2 - - - - - - - 2 -

Total, rad. 54 141 51 206 248 31 221 509 529 98 170 26 3

2. Denarii
Ilia - - - - - - 1 - - - - -
‘Marr.’ 3 7 1 12 21 32 25 19 25 2 1 3
Tranquillina - - - - 1 - - - - - - -
IV 1 6 - 13 3 28 20 10 7 2 - -
Total, den. 4 13 1 25 25 60 46 29 32 4 1 3

Total, Rome 58 154 52 231 273 91 267 538 560 102 171 29

B. Antioch
I 1 3 - - - 1 5 6 - 3 - 1
II 2 41 7 19 21 6 - 44 58 17 23 -

Total, Ant. 3 44 7 19 21 7 5 50 58 20 23 1

C. Others
Illegible - - - - - 2 8 - - - - -

Imitations - - - - - - - - - - - _

Grand Total 61 198 58 250 294 100 280 588 619 122 194 29

Proportion of coins of Antioch

A First series/Rome, Issues I-IIIa

Antioch _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 _ _ _
Rome _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 24 - - -
% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 12.50

B. Second series/Rome, Issues IV-V. (a) all types

Antioch 2 41 7 0 - - 17 23 - 0
Rome 32 99 35 - - 17 - - 62 109 - 2
% 6.25 41.41 20.00 - - - 0.00 - - 27.42 21.10 - 0.00

B. Second series/Rome, Issues IV-V. (b) excluding FORTVNA REDVX

Antioch 1 28 5 19 21 6 0 44 58 12 23 0 0
Rome 32 96 35 132 145 19 17 211 198 62 105 19 2
% 3.13 29.17 14.29 14.39 14.48 31.58 0.00 20.85 29.29 19.35 21.90 0.00 0.00

533
 G. Turkey and Syria

A. Rome
1. Radiates
Issue Ya Ea Smy Ca Pe Ha Sa Ep An D7 D1 D10 D2 Rest D
I - 5 62 3 5 50 - 2 5 6 - - 5 16
II - - 22 - 1 14 - - - 4 1 - - 2 7
Ilia - 3 70 4 2 72 - 2 - 7 1 - - 3 11
Illb - - 22 - 1 18 - - 1 - - - - - -
IIIc - 4 62 - 1 65 - - - 1 3 - -
... 2 6
IV - 14 245 8 1 232 2 1 11 18 31 9 2 35 95
IV, extra - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - -
V - 1 116 2 - 132 - - 3 7 40 5 1 23 76
Tranquillina
Hybrids - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - -
Total, rad. - 27 599 17 14 583 2 3 17 42 82 14 5 70 211

2. Denarii
‘Marr.’ 16 171 1 - 4 20 1 2 - 8 - - - 5 13
IV 8 84 - - - 8 - 1 - 2 - - - 1 3
Illegible - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - -
Total, den. 24 255 1 - 4 28 1 3 - 10 - - - 6 16

Total, Rome 24 282 600 17 18 611 3 6 18 52 82 14 5 76 227

B. Antioch
I - - 3 - 1 16 - - - 1 - - - 3 4
II - 4 60 4 2 93 - 1 6 21 38 4 1 21 85
Total, Ant. - 4 63 4 3 109 - 1 6 22 38 4 1 24 89

C. Others
Illegible - - - - - - - 1 1 5 19 - - 2 26
Imitations 6 6

Grand Total 24 286 663 21 21 720 3 8 25 79 139 18 6 108 348

Proportion of coins of Antioch

A. First series/Rome, Issues I-IIIa

Antioch - 16 - - - - - - - -

Rome . . . . - 136 - - - - - - - -
% . . . . - 11.76 - - - - - - - -

B. Second series/Rome, Issues IV-V. (a) all types

Antioch - 4 60 4 2 93 0 1 6 21 38 4 1 21 85
Rome - 25 361 10 1 364 2 1 14 25 71 4 3 58 171
% - 16.00 16.62 40.00200.00 25.55 0.00100.00 42.86 84.00 54.93 28.5733.33 36.21 49.71

B. Second series/Rome, Issues IV-V. (b) excluding FORTVNA REDVX

Antioch 3 44 1 2 69 0 0 5 18 26 3 1 15 63
Rome - 25 353 10 1 361 2 1 14 25 71 14 3 58 171
% - 12.00 12.46 10.00200.00 19.11 0.00 0.00 35.71 72.00 36.62 21.43 33.33 25.86 36.84

534
 Table 3: Rome

A. Britain
Issue I
RIC El LS Do Nap Ed Mat St Cai BH Sel OO Ch
1 3 1 128 3 3 2 7 2
2 1 2 104 1 1 1 7
3 2 3 129 1 1 8 2 1
4 3 114 1 3 3 1 4
4var3 1
5 120 1 1 1 5 1 2
6 1 2 132 1 4 4 1 2 1 2
Total 7 11 727 1 4 12 10 8 33 1 3 7

Issue II
15 1 33 1 1 2 1 1
16 2 37 2 2 3 1 2
17 1 1 33 1 3 1
18 3 48 1 4 1 2 1
19 3 28 1 1 1
20 37 2 3 1
Total 3 8 216 1 2 3 .. 5 2 15 2 5 4

Denarii, Issue II
_2
1
_3 1
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

Issue Ilia
34 1 5 100 3 3 2 1 6 1 1
35 6 1 97 1 3 6 1 7 1 1
36 1 2 122 2 4 2 4 1
37 1 3 128 3 1 3 5 1
38 1 1 101 1 1 3 3 6 1 1 1
39 3 1 106 3 3 2 3 1 1
Total 13 13 654 2 4 17 19 9 31 1 6 4

Issue Illb
51 2 37 3 1 2 1 2
52 2 31 2 1
52n4 1
53 1 40 1 2 1 51
54 2 38 2 2 2
55 1 43 1 1 1
56 35 1 2
Total 2 6 225 1 2 2 5 4 7 0 1 7

1 As RIC 4 but PROVIDENT AVG.

2 Obv.: IMP C M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, D2*. PM TRP II COS PP, Victoria, as RIC 19.
3 Obv.: IMP C M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, D2*. PM TRP II COS PP, Virtus, as RIC 20.
4 CONCORDIA MILIT.
5 Liberalitas holds single cornucopiae.

535
Table 3. A. Britain (contd.)

Issue IIIc
RIC El LS Do Nap Ed Mat 5f Cai BH 5c/ OO Ch Cm
63 2 6 140 1 2 3 1 2 1
64 2
65 5 139 1 2 4 1 4 2
65n6 1 3
65n7 1
66 2 13
67 1 2 125 2 1 4 3 1 6 28 1 1
68 6 90 1 1 1 2
69 39 2 1
70 2 3 136 1 3 5 1 5 3
71 6 128 2 3 3 1 2 4
Total 7 28 813 7 3 16 20 9 19 0 5 10 1

Denarii, 'Marriage issue1

81 3 1 1 3
127 2 1
128 1
129 1 1 1 1 1
129A 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
130 2 2 2
131 2 1 1 1 1 1 3
Total 9 3 2 2 1 3 4 4 2 0 0 2 11

Denarii, Issue IV
111 3 1 1 1
112 1
113 3 1 1 1
114 1
115 1 1
116 1
Total 0 6 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 1

Issue IV
83 4 5 580 2 6 9 15 7 20 92 4 6 1
84 10 11 583 5 4 7 12 6 13 5 9 2
85 67 5 1 2
86 7 9 611 3 3 13 12 2 16 5 4 5
87 1 1 48 1 1 1 2
88 3 6 350 1 2 5 5 3 8 1 3 2
89 2 7 218 1 2 2 7 1 6 3 1 2
90 32 4
91 1 41 1 2 2
92 6 7 333 2 2 4 4 1 8 3 4 1

6 Concordia holds single cornucopiae.

7 CONCORDIA MILITVM.
8 Double cornucopiae.
9 Mattingly identified these as Cohen 39 = RIC 111 (denarii); this is presumably a mistake, for he also
says that all the coins of Gordian are radiates.

536
Table 3. A Britain (contd.)

RIC El LS Do Nap Ed Mat St Cai BH Se/ OO Ch Cu

93 1 2 229 1 9 8 1 6 1
94 2 1 56 1 1 1 1
95 8 14 552 2 4 10 12 3 24 2 2 8
Total 44 64 3700 19 24 59 78 25 111 13 23 44 5

Supernumerary issue
137 3 1
Total 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Issue V
140 4 198 1 3 4 2 6 2 1
140var.10 1
141 1 4 41 1 1 1
142 2 87 1 3 1
143 3 6 212 3 3 3 8 4 3 4 1
144 6 138 2 3 3 2 1
144/210 2 4 1
145 3 7 164 1 2 6 6 4 1 3
146 1 27
147 1 88 1 2 1 1 1 1 3
148 4 4 219 2 2 2 2 10 3 4
149 22 1 1
150 3 128 1 2 2 5 3
151 1 6 226 2 9 3 5 5 1 3
152 1 27 1 1 2 1
153 6 165 2 1 1 1 4
153var.11 1
154 4 5 169 3 1 1 4 2 5
155 1 1 15 2
156 2 108 2 3 2 2 1
167A/207 5 1 1
Total 28 50 2040 10 20 30 36 24 53 2 8 32 3

Denarii, Issue V
12
1
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Tranquillina
249 1
250 1
Total 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 Rev.: FELICIT TEMP, Securitas stg. 1. holding sceptre and leaning on column, as RIC 151-3.
11 Type of Felicitas.
12 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2*. Rev.: FELICIT TEMP, as RIC 140.

537
Table 3. A. Britain (contd.)

Hybrids
RIC El LS Do Nap Ed Mat St Cai BH Sel OO Ch Cu
221 2
223 1
227 2
229 1
233 1
235 1
-13 1
-14 1
-15 1
-16 1
-17 1
Total 0 2 5 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1

Others

Illegible
Radiates 3
Total 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Imitations
Radiates 182
Denarii 191
Total 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2. Rev.: FIDES MILITVM, as RIC 1.
14 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2. Rev.: FIDES MILIT, Fides stg. 1. holding vertical
sceptre and transverse standard. Hybrid with Philip.
15 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2. Rev.: PM TRP IIII COS II PP, Felicitas stg. 1., as
RIC (Philip) 5. Hybrid with Philip.
16 Obv.: IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, D2. Rev.: PM TRP V COS III PP, Apollo std. 1.
as RIC 89. Hybrid.
17 Obv.: IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, D2. Rev.: SECVRIT PERP, as RIC 151. Hybrid.
18 1. Obv.: IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, D2. Rev.: FIDES MILITVM, as RIC 1.
2. Obv.: IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, D2. Rev.: AEQVITAS AVG, as RIC 34.
19 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2*. Rev.: ? Inscription. Felicitas stg.l. sacrificing out
of patera over altar and long caduceus. Presumably an imitation.

538
B. France

Issue I
RIC V-F Na C/ No Bas Rq Cr Rv Cht Et AI M-B
1 10 10 4 3 2 9 5 2 1 4 5 1
2 13 9 4 2 7 5 2 9 6 1
3 10 12 7 2 2 2 0 10 4 1 11 9 2
4 10 9 3 1 10 6 2 6 7 2
5 16 8 4 1 1 9 7 3 6 10 5 1
6 14 9 215 2 10 2 3 1 5 3 4
Total 73 57 27 11 5 55 29 12 9 45 35 11

Issue 11
15 1 3 2 1 1
16 5 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1
17 3 3 1 1 4 2 4 2
18 4 2 223 6 2 2 1 2
19 2 4 1 2 5 2 1
20 1 7 4 1 1 1
Total 6 24 5 1 1 20 11 1 4 14 8 3

Issue Ilia
34 8 2311 5 1 1 *11 4 2 3 8 4 1
35 5 10 4 3 2 5 10 1 2 7 4
35var.26 1
36 5 5 7 5 2 7 10 2 5 6 1
37 3 10 4 4 1 9 10 4 9 4 1
38 7 13 5 1 9 5 1 6 1 2
39 10 7 3 2 1 7 6 10 3 1
Total 38 56 28 16 3 56 28 9 3 46 22 6

Issue Illb
51 3 5 2 4 1 2 1
52 2 4 1 1 1 2 1
53 2 3 1 1 5 3
223 1 1
54 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 1
55 5 4 4 1 5 2 1 1
56 3 7 2 1 1 1 1
Total 16 27 10 2 1 12 5 3 1 14 7 2

20 One has been reattributed to Antioch (RIC 189a).

21 One has been reattributed to Antioch (RIC 205).
22 One has been reattributed to Antioch (RIC 172a).
23 One of the coins attributed by Le Gentilhomme to Rome is actually from Antioch (RIC 177a) and
is listed there.
24 One has been reattributed to Antioch (RIC 177a).
25 One has been reattributed to Antioch (RIC 181).
26 CONCORDIA MILIT, Concordia std. 1. with patera and double cornucopiae (type as RIC 35).
27 These have a double cornucopiae (RIC 36 var.).
Table 3. B. France (contd.)

Issue IIIc
RIC V-F Na C7 No Bas Rq Cr Rv Cht Er AI M-B A/o
63 6 16 5 3 10 9 4 9 1
64 1 2 1
65 5 6 4 2 8 12 2 2 5 3 3 2
66 1 1
67 10 15 5 2 13 3 2 4 5 6 1
68 4 8 2 5 9 1 6 4 1
69 2 2 1 1 1
70 8 11 8 2 15 1 2 1 9 4 2 2
71 7 11 4 1 6 5 1 5 1 2
Total 40 69 29 15 0 63 32 7 8 37 28 11 4

Denarii, ‘Marriage issue’

81 2 2
127 2
128
129 1 3 2
129A 2 1
130 3 1 1 1
131 1 3 1
Total 11 9 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 0

Denarii, Issue IV
111
112 1
113 1
114 1 1
115 1 1 1
116 2 1
Total 2 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Issue IV
83 20 39 16 9 2 28 22 4 11 21 18 6 1
84 27 29 25 13 3 33 17 12 5 24 18 1 3
85 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 3
86 21 29 13 3 1 38 19 5 5 24 20 5 7
87 6 1 1 2 1 6 4 1 1
88 19 25 11 3 2 29 6 3 7 16 14 3
89 10 19 10 4 1 16 9 3 4 4 2
90 1 2 5 1 2 1
91 7 1 2 1 3 1 1 3
92 18 25 7 4 21 12 6 9 9 3 1
93 8 20 4 2 1 19 7 3 3 11 3 1
94 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
95 27 58 18 8 4 39 12 9 4 19 20 2
Total 160 259 112 52 14 228 115 50 37 138 114 22 16

Supernumerary issue
137 2 1
Total 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

540
Table 3. B. France (contd.)

Issue V
RIC V-F Na Cl No Bas Rq Cr Rv Cht Et AI M-B Mo
140 2 18 5 2 12 4 3 2 6 4 1 1
MOvar.28 1
141 2 1 2 1 1
142 6 1 2 5 1 3 8 4 2
143 3 5 8 2 15 7 1 1 6 3 2 3
144 3 10 6 3 9 5 296 2 7 5 1
145 6 17 5 3 1 16 5 2 4 7 7
146 2 1 1 1 2 1
147 4 3 2 2 6 2 2 3 2 2 1
148 1 12 6 1 14 5 3 3 9 5 1
149 1 2 1 1
150 7 4 2 1 7 2 2 7 3 3 2
151 5 18 10 3 8 9 5 1 4 5 2
152 1 3 4 3
153 2 10 2 1 3 11 1 1 4 1 1
153var.30 1
154 1 20 11 3 11 7 4 8 5 1 1
155 ‘I 1 1 1 2
156 1 6 4 2 11 6 4 2 6 3 2
167A/207
Total 32 135 72 26 6 125 67 33 24 76 50 13 13

Hybrids
31
1
Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Others

Imitations
33 ^ 35 j 36j
Radiates 321 M1 371
Denarii
Total

28 FELICITAS TEMP, type as RIC 140.

29 Some of these are probably Antioch (RIC 210).
30 Type of Felicitas.
31 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2. Rev.: FIDES MILITVM, as RIC 1.
32 Obv.: IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, D2. Rev.: AETERNITATI AVG, as RIC 83.
33 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FELIX AVG, D2. Rev.: LIBERALITAS AVG III, stg. 1., abacus
and single cornu. Probably imitation.
34 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2. Rev.: IOVI STATOR I, as RIC 84.
35 Obv.: IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, D2. Rev.: PROVDTIA A[VG], as RIC 198.
36 Obv.: IMP CAES M AN GORDIANVS AVG (sic), D2. Rev.: PROVIDENTIA AVG, std. 1.,
holding globe in r. hand and resting with 1. elbow on throne.
37 Obv.: IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, D2. Rev.: FIDES EXERCITVS, 4 standards, as
R IC (Philip) 62.

541
C. Germany and Austria

Issue I
RIC Bur Wie Neu Sch Lei Ma Alz Tul Ap Ca
1 2 27 14 1 2 1 1
2 3 3 25 13 3
3 1 1 21 10 1 2 1 1
4 1 3 22 6 1 1 1
5 2 2 24 1 6 2 1
6 3 28 9 2 1
Total 1 10 10 147 1 '5 8 3 12 2 5

Issue II
15 8 6
16 2 1 8 1 1
17 1 6 4 1
18 1 6 7 2
19 1 9 2
20 2 1 5 3 1
Total 0 6 3 42 0 23 1 4

Issue Ilia
34 2 2 27 7 1 1
35 3 2 28 9 3
36 2 2 22 10
37 1 34 7
38 1 3 4 19 1 8 3
39 1 1 30 15 1 1
Total 1 11 12 160 1 56 2 8

Issue IHb
51 16 3 1
52 1 1 8 3
53 1 5
54 7 2
55 2 8 1 3 1
56 1 4 3
57
Total 0 4 1 44 1 19 0 1 0 1

Issue IIIc
63 2 2 24 12 1 1
64 1
65 1 2 27 7 1 3
66 1 2
67 1 1 3 21 2 9 6
68 3 24 6 2
69 2 10 1 3 1
70 3 1 28 1 8 1 2 3
71 1 5 22 1 13 2
Total 4 8 15 156 5 59 3 20 3

542
Table 3. C. Germany and Austria (contd.)

Denarii, ‘Marriage issue’

RIC Bur Wie Neu Sch Lei Ma Alz Tul Ap Ca
81 1 1 1 1
127 3 1
128
129
129A
130
131
Total 0
Denarii, Issue IV
111
112
113
114
115
116
Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2

Quinarius, Issue IV
38
1
Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Issue IV
83 2 7 108 2 23 15 1 3
84 1 9 8 104 1 33 2 13 2 5
85 1 2 10 3
86 2 5 11 113 2 37 19 2 3
87 1 2 8 3 2 1
88 3 3 64 1 15 1 13 3
89 10 55 2 13 2 5 1 3
90 7 4
91 1 1 5 2 2
92 3 2 42 1 20 1 13 1
93 2 5 43 19 7 3 3
94 1 4 1 1 2
95 4 13 125 1 14 1 22 2 9
Total 3 31 65 688 10 183 8 117 11 31

Issue V
140 1 3 34 1 8 8 2 1
141 1 7 1 1
142 1 12 1
143 3 36 13 12 3
144 2 2 3926 1 8 1 6
145 2 30 5 3 2

38 Obv. not described, presumably IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2*. Rev.: PM TRP III COS
II PP. Apollo std. 1. holding branch and resting elbow on seat.
39 At least 24 coins are definitely identified in FMRD as RIC 144; a further 6 could be RIC 144 or 210.
I have divided them 2 : 4 between RIC 144 and 210 on the basis of the relative quantities of coins that
have been identified.

543
Table 3. C. Germany and Austria (contd.)

RIC Bur Wie Neu Sch Lei Ma Alz Tul Ap Ca

146 1 4
147 1 17 2 3
148 1 3 43 1 11 2 7 1
149 2 1 1
150 1 26 10 5 1
151 1 1 32 9 1 7 2
152 1 3 1
153 2 4 15 6 4
154 1 4 44 2 2 1 1
155 2
156 2 2 15 7 4 1
167A/207 1 1
Total 0 13 28 348 6 85 4 62 6 8
Hybrids
222 1
223 1
40
1
-41 1
-42 1
-43 1
44 ^

Total 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2
Others
Illegible
Radiates 3 2 1
Denarii 1
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 2
Imitations
Radiates 45 1 468 4719
Denarii 483
Total 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 22

40 Obv.: IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, D2. Rev.: LIBERALITAS AVG III, stg. 1. with
abacus and single cornu. Hybrid.
41 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2. Rev.: IOVI CONSERVATORI, Jupiter and
Emperor, as RIC 2.
42 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2. Rev.: SALVS AVG, stg. r. holding snake in arms.
Hybrid with Philip.
43 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2. Rev.: ANNONA AVGG, as RIC (Philip) 28c
(3879).
44 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2. Rev.: PAX AETERNA, as RIC (Philip) 42 (3880).
45 Obv.: IMP CAVS M ANT GORDIANVS AVG (sic), D2. Rev.: PIETATI AVG, stg. I. with sceptre
and leaning on column.
46 As R IC 4(2), 83, 84, 144, 148, 151 and 230 (plated).
47 As R IC 3, 63, 64, 65, 68, 83, 84, 86, 141, 143, 144, 150, 151 (2), 189b, 207n, 212, 213, 216 (plated).
48 As RIC 111, 128, 131 (plated).

544
D. Spain and Italy

Issue I
RIC Gib Alt Tar Tq Cal Fa
1 1 1 1 3
2 1
3 1
4 1 1
5 1 1 1 2
6 1 2 1
Total 2 1 1 4 5 6

Issue II
15
16 1
17
18 1 1 1
19
20
Total 1 1 1 0 1 0

Issue Ilia
34 2
35 2
36 1
37 2 1
38 2
39 1
40
49 1
Total 1 3 0 0 1 7

Issue Illb
51 1
52
53 1
54 1
55 1
56
57
Total 1 1 0 0 2 0

Issue IIIc
63 1 1 3
64
65 1
65var.49 1
66 1
67 1
68 1 1

49 Reverse legend CONCORDIA MILI.

545
Table 3. D. Spain and Italy (contd.)

RIC Gib Alt Tar Tq Cal Fa

69
70 2 2
71 2 2 1
Total 4 3 0 1 9 3

Denarii, ‘Marriage issue’

81
127
128
129
129A
130
131 1 1
Total 0 0 0 0 1 1

Denarii, Issue IV
111
112
113
114
115
116
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0

Issue IV
83 2 1 1 5 1
84 3 1 1 7 1
85
86 4 1 1 5
87 1
88 1 4 4
89 1 1 1 1
90 1
91
92 1 1 2 1 1
93 1 4 1
94
95 1 2 1 1 8
507
Total 12 10 8 2 35 16

Issue V
140 2 2 4
141 1 1
142 1
143 1 2 1
144 1 1 3
144/210 7
145 2 2 1

50 Identified by Moretti as Cohen 165 = RIC 116, denarius.

546
Table 3. D. Spain and Italy (contd.)

RIC Gib Alt Tar Tq Cal Fa

146 1 1
147 1
148 2
149 1
150 1
151 2 1 2 1
152 1
153 1
154 1 3 1
155 2
156 1 1 1 2
167A/207
Total 6 2 4 6 18 23

Hybrids
231 1
241 1
51 1
Total 0 1 0 0 1 1

Others
Illegible
Radiates

51 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2. Rev.: APOL CONSERVAT, Apollo stg. 1., holding
branch and resting on lyre. Hybrid with Aemilian, RIC 245 var.

547
E. Hungary and Yugoslavia

Issue I
RIC Bu Go Fe Nag Se Jag Sin Jab Sm Os Ot Po Kr
1 10 9 1 5 5 16 1 34 1 1 1 6
2 6 1 3 2 2 9 6 37 1 1 2
3 11 8 2 4 7 1 13 12 42 1 1 9
4 10 3 2 4 7 1 10 9 44 1 2 5
5 13 6 1 4 5 2 13 12 49 1 1 7
6 16 8 1 5 8 16 4 56 1 10
Total 66 41 10 24 34 4 77 50 262 5 4 4 39

18652 1
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Issue II
15 2 3 1 2 3 4 12 1 3
16 5 2 4 3 2 6 1 1
17 2 3 3 5 3 4 1 1
18 10 4 3 1 1 8 1 18 2
19 3 1 1 2 2 9 1 2
20 3 2 1 3 4 11 1
Total 25 14 5 1 11 1 24 16 60 3 1 0 10

Denarii, Issue II
53 1
Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Issue Ilia
34 15 7 1 6 5 1 16 12 46 1 1 20
35 15 6 54 1 3 3 12 7 35 2 1 16
36 13 4 2 2 5 9 6 37 2 1 6
37 13 3 5 15 1 6 8 35 3 7
38 14 2 1 4 4 10 5 30 5
39 9 4 6 6 2 10 12 32 1 2 8
49 1
Total 79 26 5 26 38 4 64 50 215 5 2 7 62

Issue Illb
51 6 1 3 5 5 14 1
52 1 2 2 3 5 3 6 3
53 3 2 3 1 4 6 1 1
54 6 1 1 4 4 13 2
55 4 1 3 3 3 12 1 5
56 6 3 3 1 3 2 10 1
Total 26 5 5 6 15 1 21 18 61 1 0 3 11

52 Rev.: LIBERALITAS AVG, Liberalitas stg. 1. holding abacus and cornucopiae. This is attributed
to Antioch by Mattingly, but I know of no specimens from that mint. Confirmation required.
53 Obv.: IMP C M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, D2*. Rev.: PM TRP II COS PP, Providentia stg. 1. with
globe and transverse sceptre, as RIC 18. Confirmation required (Kubitschek describes this coin as like
Cohen 195 but silver).
54 One has single cornucopiae.

548
Table 3. E. Hungary and Yugoslavia (contd.)

Issue IIIc
RIC Bu Go Fe Nag Se Jag Sin Jab Sm Os Ot Po Kr
63 18 9 4 5 5 1 16 1 34 1 1 9
64 2 2 2 2
65 7 5 7 4 18 11 22 1 8
66 1 1 1 1
67 24 5 1 6 10 21 9 27 1 10
68 11 5 2 8 4 23 8
69 8 5 3 3 7 1 15 4
70 19 9 1 9 3 14 20 41 1 10
71 15 6 5 7 1 14 7 33 9
Total 104 47 9 34 35 2 99 59 197 2 1 3 58

Denarii, ‘Marriage issue’

81 1 2
127 1 1
128 1
129 2 1 1
129A 3
130 2 1 2 1 3
131 1 3 1 1
Total 4 0 0 1 0 1 10 1 1 1 0 1 8

Denarii, Issue IV
111 1
55^
112 2 1 1
113 8
114 1
115 1 3
116 3
Total 3 3 0 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 0

Quinarius, Issue IV
56
1

Issue IV
<1

83 47 26 16 583 48 30 59c170 4 5 27
00

10
84 66 32 5 28 23 5 56 31 166 1 5 5 32
85 5 3 1 3 2 5 6°18 3 3
86 65 26 8 15 21 1 57 23 145 3 1 2 41

55 Petrovic omits to note the number of specimens of RIC 83 and 111: I have estimated 170 of the
former and 1 of the latter on the basis of the frequency of other types of Issue IV in this hoard. This is,
however, only a guess.
56 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2*. Rev.: PM TRP III COS IIPP, Gordian stg. r. with
transverse spear and globe (no. 92).
57 3 coins have Sol stg. r., head 1.
58 Incorrectly identified as Cohen 39 = RIC 111 (denarius).
59 See n. 55 above.
60 Petrovic identifies these coins as Cohen 113 = RIC 112 (denarius): however, he illustrates a radiate.

549
Table 3. E. Hungary and Yugoslavia (contd.)

RIC Bu Go Fe Nag Se Jag Sin Jab Sm Os Or Po Kr

87 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 12 1
88 34 20 3 14 3 1 28 19 82 4 3 14
89 23 6 4 10 11 3 30 17 54 1 1 10
90 4 3 4 2 15 2
91 3 2 1 9 7 10 1
92 40 17 4 8 15 6 24 10 80 2 4 2 20
93 23 19 5 9 10 4 13 17 67 3 1 1 10
94 6 1 2 3 4 2 6 1 10
95 50 27 10 612 2 19 3 58 35 200 2 1 2 20
Total 367 197 51 140 135 27 336 188 cl025 12 20 25 191

Supernumerary issue
137
137A
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

Issue V
140 23 6 6 4 5 1 18 19 51 2 1 5
141 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 5 2
142 8 6 1 3 1 8 6 29 1 1 4
629 19 42
143 29 18 3 4 10 2 2 11
144 14 12 2 15 9 631
144/210 20 12 3 27
145 10 6 3 13 5 2 16 6 49 1 1 2 11
146 2 1 2 3 2 1
147 9 7 1 2 1 14 4 22 1 1 9
148 27 9 3 6 9 1 31 10 48 1 1 15
149 3 2 1 1 1 3
150 11 8 7 3 1 4 39 1 1 6
151 18 16 1 6 8 1 25 11 53 1 8
152 3 3 1 2 1 3 1 1
153 10 3 3 7 2 9 1 28 3 1 1 11
153var.64 1
154 14 7 5 8 8 1 15 10 38 1 1 14
155 1 3
156 10 8 1 5 6 1 9 6 41 1 5
167A/207 2
Total 193 112 31 92 69 14 186 10 2 459 8 11 12 130

61 Identified by Gohl as Cohen1 165 = the denarius with these types, RIC 116: almost certainly a
mistake for RIC 95.
62 One reads FORTV REDVX.
63 Petrovic only records 1 example of RIC 144 and 8 6 of RIC 210: clearly these figues should be treated
with caution.
64 Type of Felicitas.

550
Table 3. E. Hungary and Yugoslavia (contd.)

Denarii, Issue V
RIC Bu Go Fe Nag Se Jag Sin Jab Sm Os Ot Po Kr
-65 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hybrids
223 1 1
229 1
231 1
241 1 1
247A 1
66 i
> 1
68 j
69 i
Total 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2

Others

Illegible
Radiates 2 1 3
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3

Imitations
Radiates 702 711
Total 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

65 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2*. Rev.: FORTV REDVX, as RIC 143.
66 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2. Rev.: VIRTVS AVGG, stg. 1., leaning on shield
and holding spear (as RIC 6 ). Hybrid with ?
67 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2. Rev.: PM TRP COS II PP, Apollo std. 1., as RIC
87-90.
Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2. Rev.: VICTORIA AVGG. Type ? (description in
68
Hungarian). Hybrid with Philip (RIC 51)?
69 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2. Rev.: PM TRP II COS PP, Pax stg. 1. with branch
and transverse sceptre (no. 85). Hybrid (Petrovic gives obv. legend as GORDINVS: presumably a mistake
for GORDIANVS).
70 1. Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2. Rev.: VBERITAS AVG, Uberitas stg. 1.
2. Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2. Rev.: VICTORIA AVG, adv. 1. with wreath and palm,
as RIC 5.
71 Obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2. Rev.: VIRTVS AVG A. Type ? (description in
Hungarian). Imitation?

551
F. Albania, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece

Issue I
RIC Ba Can Ic Us Ni Ru RD PI Te Bd Alb At Co
1 3 7 1 5 1 18 8 11 3 3
2 1 1 2 3 6 1 22 5 11 2 7
3 1 4 1 1 1 7 2 12 731 2 14 1 3
4 2 3 2 5 22 8 11 1 2 1
5 2 2 7 4 1 24 8 12 3 1
6 2 2 3 9 16 14 12 1 4
Total 11 17 5 . 17 30 3 116 55 71 11 20 1 0

Supernumerary
74 1
75 1
76 2
Total 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0

Issue II
15 1 1 1 2 3
16 1 3 1
17 1 1 2 2
18 3 1 2 2
111 4 3 2
19 2 2 1 2 1 1
20 1 2 2 3 3 1
Total 3 2 1 4 8 1 12 16 13 3 0 1 0

Issue Ilia
34 2 4 5 1 786 7912 11 1 2
35 1 1 3 3 5 3 7 1 4 1
36 2 1 2 1 2 1 7 7 6 2 3
37 3 7 2 1 7 7 2
38 3 2 3 1 7 eo6 15 1
39 1 5 5 3 1 10 6 6 4 4
49 1
Total 3 16 3 22 18 4 36 41 52 10 14 1 0

72 At least 1 specimen (now in NY) is from Antioch, RIC 189a.

73 Mattingly listed 13 examples of RIC 3, but at least 1 (in BM) is from Antioch, RIC 189a.
74 Obv.: IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, D2. Rev.: PAX AVGVSTI, Pax running 1. holding
branch and sceptre.
75 Obv.: IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, D2. Rev.: PM TRP II COS PP, Emp. std. 1. holding
globe. Possibly from Antioch: see Chapter 3, no. 64.
76 Obv.: IMP CAE M ANT GORDIANVS AVG (sic), D2. Rev.: PROVIDENTIA, type not described.
2 die-identical specimens. Possibly from the first series at Antioch.
77 As n. 73.
78 As n. 73.
79 Mattingly listed 15 examples of RIC 34, but at least 2 in BM and 1 in NY are from Antioch, RIC
177a.
80 Mattingly listed 7 examples of RIC 38, but at least 1 (in BM) is from Antioch, RIC 200.

552
Table 3. F. Albania, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece (contd.)

Issue IIIb
RIC Ba Can Ic Us Ni Ru RD PI Te Bd Alb ^4r
51 1 1 4 2 2
52 1 2 2 2
53 2
8I-7 2 2
54 1 2 1
55 3 1 1
56 3 1 2
Total 0 4 0 1 8 1 7 7 9 2 6 0

Issue IIIc
63 3 2 1 4 4 5 6 17 5
64 1
65 3 2 4 4 10 5 4 3 1
65n82 6 1
66 1 1 1
67 1 1 3 5 1 4 6 14 2 5
68 1 1 1 3 835 9 5 2 2
69 1 5 2
70 1 4 2 3 2 4 8 4 4
71 2 2 1 1 6 12 2 2
Total 5 13 7 18 22 2 35 42 57 10 21 1

Denarii, Issue Ilia

45 1
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Denarii, ‘Marriage issue*

81 2 1 2 5 7 1 4 6
127 4 5 5 7 5 4
128
129 1 2 3 5 3 1
129A 4 1 1 5 4 3 2 5 1 1 3
130 1 1 1 6 5 4 3 1
131 1 2 5 7 4 1 6
Total 3 7 1 12 21 32 25 19 25 2 1 3

Denarii, Tranquillina
252 1
Total 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

81 The report lists 2 examples of Cohen 212 = RIC 54 and 5 of Cohen 213, which is a sestertius with
these types. I have included them here, but of course, their exact identity is not certain.
82 Concordia holds single cornucopiae.
83 Identified by Seure as Cohen 213, a sestertius with the same reverse as RIC 6 8 and obverse IMP
CAES GORDIANVS PIVS AVG. The reference is clearly incorrect, since the hoard did not contain any
bronze coins, and it is most likely to be a mistake for RIC 6 8 {Cohen 216) as there would not otherwise
be any specimens of this type in the hoard.

553
Table 3. F. Albania, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece (contd.)

Denarii, Issue IV
RIC Ba Can Ic Us Ni Ru RD PI Te ,4f
111 2 2 1 6 7 2 1 1
112 1 1 2 4 2 1
1 1 2 var .84 2
113 1 3 6 1
114 1 2 6 2 2
114var.85 3
115 1 6 4 1
116 2 3 4 4 2 1
Total 1 6 0 13 3 28 20 10 7 2 0 0

Issue IV
83 4 7 5 18 19 3 40 29 10 14 2
84 1 12 5 9 17 4 14 28 45 6 5 3
85 1 3 2 2 4 1 1
86 3 5 8 **15 15 1 34 31 5 9 2
87 1 1 2 1
88 2 8 1 9 4 2 20 16 6 8
89 1 6 4 4 4 1 8 19 2 3
90 2 1 5 3
91 1 3 1 3
92 1 1 7 6 11 15 3 6
93 4 1 11 9 1 21 17 4
94 1 2 2 1 1
95 2 12 5 20 25 2 39 35 9 17 2
Total 15 58 30 99 105 13 17 210 220 42 68 10

Supernumerary issue
137A 5
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0

Issue V
140 1 4 3 4 8 10 2 6
141 1 1 1 1 1
142 1 2 6 5 9 1 2
143 2 5 3 5 1 7 8 3 4 2
144 3 4
144/210 9 17 2 8731 27 1
145 4 2 1 1 10 5 2 3 3
146 2
147 1 1 5 8 4 2
148 1 4 8 4 1 11 6 2 4
149 1 1

84 As RIC 112, but reverse IOVI STATORI.

85 A RIC 115, but PM TRP IIII COS II PP.
86 1 specimen reads LAETITA AVG.
87 At least 6 of these coins (in BM) are from Antioch, RIC 210.

554
Table 3. F. Albania, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece (contd.)

RIC Ba Can Ic Us Ni Ru RD PI 7e Bd At
150 6 1 1 9 7 2
151 1 1 8 3 1 14 2 9 1
152 1 2 2 1
153 1 2 1 3 3 6 9 2
154 7 1 1 1 2 12 9 3 3 1
155 1 1 1 1
156 1 1 3 9 7 1
167A/207 1 1
Total 17 31 5 42 57 7 0 132 105 20 41 10
Total

Tranquillina
250
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hybrids
223 2
229 1
231 1
Total 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Others
Illegible
Radiates 2 8
Total 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0

555
G. Turkey and Syria

Issue I
RIC Ya Ea Smy Ca Pe Ha Sa Ep An D7 D1 DIO D2 Rest D
1 1 9 1 11 1 1
2 1 9 1 6 1 1
3 1 7 13 1 1 4 5
4 1 14 4 4
5 1 13 1 6 2 2
6 10 1 10 1 1 5 1 7
Total 5 62 3 5 50 0 0 2 5 6 0 0 5 16

Issue II
15
16
17
18
19
20
Total 0 0 22 0 1 14 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 2

Issue Ilia
34 10 2 12 1 1
35 1 13 1 12 3 1
36 13 10 1 2
37 1 14 2 15 2 2
38 10 12
39 1 10 1 11
Total 0 3 70 4 2 72 2 0 7 1 0 0 3 11

Issue Illb
51 6 3
52 2 3
52n88 1
53 6 1
54 2 5 1
55 3 1
56 2 1 5
Total 0 0 22 0 1 18 0 .0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Issue IIIc
63 1 10 16
64
65 7 11
66
67 2 6 4 1
68 9 2
69 1 1
70 1 14 19 1 3 1
71 15 13
Total 0 4 62 0 1 65 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 2

88 CONCORDIA MILIT.

556
Table 3. G. Turkey and Syria (contd.)

Denarii, ‘Marriage issue’

RIC Ya EaSmy Ca PeHa Sa Ep An D7 D1 DIO D2 Rest D
81 4 28 2 1 1
127 6 28 8 1 1 2
128 1
129 3 25 1 1 3 4 1 5
129A 1 36 1 1 1 2 1 3
130 2 27 2 2 1 1 2
131 27 1 4
Total 16 171 1 0 4 20 1 2 0 8 0 0 0 5 13

Denarii, Issue IV
111 2 13 1 1 1
112 1 14 1 1
113 2 19 4
114 10
115 1 12 2 1 1
116 2 16 1 1
Total 8 84 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 3

Issue IV
83 1 41 32 1 5 4 1 8 18
84 4 45 2 41 1 4 7 1 1 6 19
85 1 5 3
86 2 45 1 40 1 5 2 3 1 6 17
87 1 1 4 1
88 17 11 1 1
89 18 2 15 2 1 8 1 10
90 2 1 2 1 1
91 3 1 1 1
92 1 15 22 1 2 1 1
93 1 19 1 18 1 1 3 1 4 9
94 2 4
95 3 32 2 39 1 3 2 7 2 7 18
Total 0 14 245 8 1 232 2 1 11 18 31 9 2 35 95

Supernumerary issue
137 1
Total 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Issue V
140 11 8
141 1 3
142 7 16 2 7 2 6 17
143 11 7
144 8 3
144/210
145 10 1 10
146 1
147 3 7 8 6 14
148 14 11
149 1
150 5 7 1 1 5 2 1 3 12

557
Table 3. G. Turkey and Syria (contd.)

RIC Ya Ea Smy Ca Pe Ha Sa Ep An D7 D1 DIO D2 Rest D

151 15 12 1
152 1 1 1
153 10 15 2 12 5 19
154 1 11 17 1
155 2 1
156 7 11 2 8 1 3 14
167A/207 1
Total 0 1 116 2 0 132 0 0 3 7 40 5 1 23 76

Hybrids
227 2
Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Others

Illegible
Radiates 1 1 5 19 2 26
Denarii 1
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 19 0 0 2 26

Imitations
Radiates 894 4
Denarii ^2 2
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6

89 As RIC 4 ( 1 ), 5 (1), 209 (1) and obv.: IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, D2; rev.: PM TRP II
COS PP, Providentia stg. 1., as RIC 18 (1).
90
As RIC 81.

558
 Table 4: Antioch, Series I

A. Britain

Cat. RIC El LS Do Nap Ed Mat St Cai BH Sel OO Ch Cu

3 177b 6 1
7 180 1
9 178a 2 1
12 - 2 1
13 183a 5
15 184 1
16 185
18 187a 3
21 189a 3
29 169 1
31 - 1
44 172 2 1
50 193 2
51 194 1
52 196 1
53 197 2
56 200 1
60 202 1

Total 0 0 34 1 1 0 3

B. France

Cat RIC V-F Na Cl No Bas Rq Cr Rv Cht Et A l M-B Mo

3 177b 2 1 1
7 180 1
8 181 1
9 178a 1
13 183a 1
18 187a 1
21 189a 1
23 - 1
24 - 1
40 27 1
44 172 h 1 1
50 193 'h
52 196 1
53 197 1
56 200 1
58 - 1
63 205 1 1
Total i 8 3 1 0 8 3

1 Confirmation of attribution to Antioch required.

2 One specimen, illustrated, definitely belongs to Antioch. The attribution of the other requires
confirmation.

559
C. Germany and Austria

Cat. RIC Bur Wie Neu Sch Lei Ma Alz Tul Ap Ca

9 178a 1
12 - 1
18 187a 1 3 1
35 - 1
50 193 31
52 196 1 1
54 199a 1
63 205 1

Total 0 I 1 5 0 1 0 4 0 1

D. Spain and Italy

Cat. RIC Gib Alt Tar Tq Cal Fa

40 27 1
48 -4 1

Total 0 0 1 0 0 1

E. Hungary and Yugoslavia

Cat. RIC Bu Go Fe Nag Se Jag Sin Jab Sm Os Ot Po Kr

7 180 1 1 4
9 178a 1
13 183a 2
17 50 1
18 187a 2 2
22 186
44 172 1
48 31 1
50 193 51
52 196 2
53 197 2 3
54 199a 2
60 202 61

Total 1 1 0 0 0 5 6 0 14

3 Confirmation of attribution to Antioch required.

4 Hiernard gives the reverse legend as PM TRP I COS PP: presumably a mistake for PM TRP II COS
PP. Confirmation required.
5 Confirmation of attribution to Antioch required.
6 Confirmation of attribution to Antioch required.
F. Albania, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece

Cat. RIC Ba Can Ic Us Ni Ru RD PI Te Bd Alb At

3 177b 1 3
7 180 1 1
12A - 1
18 187a 1
19 187b 1
20 - 1
21 189a 1 1 1
44 172a * ■ 1
47 30 1
53 197 1
56 200 71 1
60 202 82

Total 1 3 0 0 0 1 5 6 0 3 0 1

G. Turkey and Syria

Cat. RIC Ea Smy Ca Pe Ha Sa Ep An D7 D1 D10 D2 Rest

3 177b 4
7 180 1
12 - 1 1
18 187a 3 1 1
21 189a 1 1
24 - 1
32 - 1
41 33 1
44 172 2
48 31 1
54 199a 1
63 205 3

Total 0 3 0 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3

7 Confirmation of attribution to Antioch required.

8 Confirmation of attribution to Antioch required.

561
 Table 5: Antioch, Series II

A. Britain

Cat. RIC El LS Do Nap Ed Mat St Cai £ // Sel OO C7i Cu

66-7 209 21 1 4 1 1 1
68-9 211
70-1 212 23 1 1 1
72-3 214 25 1 1
74-5 206 5
76-7 217 3

?78 144/210 2 4 1
78 210 163 2 7 6 2 2
79 213 1 131 1 1 4 6 10 1 3 3
81-2 216 1 1 153 2 5 2 5 3
83 218 3
84 219 3

Total 2 1+ 530 1 2 + 9 22 3+ 24 2 5 9 1

B. France

Cat. K/C V-F Na C7 Ifcw toy Cr Rv Cht Et A l M-B Mo

66-7 209 1 2 5
68-9 211 1
70-1 212 2 1 1 1
72-3 214 3 2 1 1 1 1
74-5 206 1 1
76-7 217

?78 144/210 6
78 210 6 10 18 12 6 6 1
79 213 9 8 1 2 16 7 2 6 2
81 216 1
81-2 216 1 6 4 6 10 3 92 9 3 1
83 218 2
84 219 l°l

Total 2 26 27 8 2 54 24 3+ 1 18 17 1 3

9 The identification of one of these coins is not certain: Fabre and Mainjonet describe ‘Atelier
d’Orient, RIC 162’: a mistake for RIC 216? The other (in the second lot) is correctly identified.
10 This identification is not certain: Fabre and Mainjonet describe ‘Atelier d’Orient, RIC 319’: a
mistake for RIC 219?

562
C. Germany and Austria

Cat RIC Bur Wie Neu Sch Lei Ma Alz Tul Ap Ca

66-7 209 2 2 2 1 1
74-5 206
68-9 211
70-1 212 1 2 2
72-3 214 3 3 2
76-7 217 1 1

78 210 2 5 5 n 41 8 2 22 1 1
79 213 4 28 9 1 13 1 3
81-2 216 1 5 27 1 9 1 11 1 3
83 218 1 1
84 219 1

Total 3 6 17 104 1 31 4 53 4 8

D. Spain and Italy

Cat F/C Gib 7Yzr Tq Cal Fa

66-7 209 1
68-9 211
70-1 212 1 2
72-3 214 1
74-5 206 1
76-7 217

?78 144/210 m
78 210 2 4
79 213 1 1 2 3
81-2 216 1 2 5
83 218 1
84 219
Total 5 2 3 0 12 6 +

11 At least 37 coins are definitely identified in FMRD as RIC 210; a further 6 could be RIC 144 or 210.
I have assigned 4 of these coins to RIC 210 on the basis of the relative quantities of the coins of the two
types that have been identified.

563
E. Hungary and Yugoslavia

Cat RIC Bu Go Fe Nag Se Jag Sin Jab Sm Oy Ot Kr

66-7 209 1 1 1 4 1 3 2 3
68-9 211 1
70-1 212 2 5 1 2 1 2 10 1 2
72-3 214 3 1 123 131 2 4 12 1
74-5 206 1 4
76 217 1
76-7 217 2

?78 144/210 20 12 3 27
78 210 27 22 2 20 12 148 6 1
79 213 21 22 9 9 5 1 22 20 71 2 14
80 213var. 1
81-2 216 19 24 6 7 5 2 29 13 73 1 17
83 218 1 2 1 1
84 219 1 2 1 1

Total 73 76 18 20+ 14+ 6 + 82 54 262 0 6 2 38+

F. Albania, Romania, Bulgaria ;and Greece

Cat RIC Ba Can 7c Us Ni Ru RD PI Te Bd Alb At Co

66-7 209 1 1 1 4 2
68-9 211
70-1 212 3 1 1 1 2 2 1
72-3 214 3 1 3 6 1 2
74-5 206 1 1
76-7 217 1 1

?78 144/210 9 17 2 1531 27 1

78 210 1 13 2 5
79 213 12 5 9 1 16 24 6 8
81-2 216 9 4 1611 10 2 17 24 5 10
83 218 1 1
84 219 1 1

Total 2 41 7 19+ 21 + 6 + 0 50+ 58 + 17 23 0 + 0

12 Incorrectly identified as Cohen 178 = RIC 215.

13 Incorrectly identified as Cohen 178 = RIC 215.
14 Petrovic apparently records only 1 specimen of RIC 144 and 86 of 210: clearly, these figures should
be treated with caution.
15 At least 6 are RIC 210.
16 1 specimen reads IMP GORDIANVS RIVS FEL AVG.

564
G. Turkey and Syria

Cat. RIC Ea Smy Ca Pe //« Sa Ep An D7 D1 DIO D2 Rest D

66-7 209 3 3 2 1 3
68-9 211 1 1 1
70-1 212 3 1 3 2 1 3
72-3 214 3 1 10 1 1 2
74-5 206
76-7 217 1 1 1 1 1 2

78 210 1 16 3 24 1 1 3 12 1 6 22
79 213 1 16 25 3 8 10 1 8 27
81-2 216 2 17 27 2 7 12 2 4 25
83 218
84 219

Total 4 60 4 2 93 0 1 6 21 38 4 1 21 85

565
 APPENDIX 2

Includes full details of the six unpublished hoards of Syrian tetradrachms

referred to in Chapter 8 and also of the relevant part of the Capharnaum
hoard. References to A R Bellinger, The Syrian Tetradrachms o f Caracalla and
Macrinus, Numismatic Studies 5, New York, 1940, are given for tetradrachms
of the reigns of Caracalla, Macrinus and Elagabalus.

HOARD I

CARACALLA (2)

Antioch (1)

Obv.: AYT K-M •A'-'ANTflNelNOC-CtB

Rev.: AHMAPX-eE- Y IIA T O -A -A -e-
No. Rev. type Bust Reference Weight Axis
1 Eagle stg. 1., head r. on leg and thigh Al* B 19 12.20 12

Zeugma (1)

Obv.: AYT K-M A-ANTHNelNOC CeB, (legend starts at 2 o’clock)

Rev.: AHMAPX eS-YILATO A, Z-e//Y
2* Eagle stg. 1., head r. A ll B 133 11.08 12

ELAGABALUS (4)

Obv.: AYT K M A - ANTWNelNO-C CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eE YIIATOC TO B, A-e//*
3 Eagle stg. r., head 1. A3* B 42 13.00 12
4 Eagle stg. r., head 1. A3* B 42 13.18 6
5 Eagle stg. r., head 1. A3* B 42 13.38 6
6 Eagle stg. r., head 1. A3* B 42 14.13 5

GORDIAN III (2)

Obv.: AYTOK K M ANT TOPAIANOC CeB

Third series, rev.: AHMAPX eE YIIATO B, ram

No. Rev. type Bust Weight Axis

1* Eagle stg. 1.; beneath, ram r., head 1. D2* 13.17 12
8 Eagle stg. 1.; beneath, ram 1., head r. D2* 11.50 12

566
 PHILIP I AND FAMILY (67)
First series, rev.: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC //SC (7)

Obv..: AYTOK K M IOYA OIAIHIIOC CeB (Philip I)

No. Rev. type Bust Weight Axis
9 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2 14.51 12
10 Eagle stg. r., head 1. D2 1 2 .2 1 12
ll1 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 11.93 12
12* Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 13.17 6
13 Eagle stg. r., head 1. B21 11.45 12
Obv.. MAP OTAKIA CeOYHPAN CeB
14 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. E2 11.28 1
Obv.. MAP IOYAI OIAIimOC KeCAP (Philip II)
15 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. C21+ 12.67 6

Second series, rev.: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC YIIATO A, SC (5)

Obv.. MAP OTAKIA CeOYHPAN CeB
16 Eagle stg. r., head 1. E2 11.53 12
172 Eagle stg. r., head 1. E2 14.73 12
18* Eagle stg. 1., head 1. E21 13.00 7
Obv.. MAP IOYAI OIAIimOC KeCAP (Philip II)
19 Eagle stg. r., head 1. C2+ 12.92 1
20* Eagle stg. r., head 1. C2+ 12.50 6

Fourth series, rev.: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC YIIATO I \ ANTIOXIA//SC (35)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI OIAIimOC CeB (Philip I)
21* Eagle stg. 1., head r. Dl* 12.55 7.30
22 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2 11.50 12
23 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2 11.78 6
24 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2 13.00 7
25 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 11.50 6
26 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 13.79 1
27 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 12.31 6
28 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 13.01 12
29 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 10.76 12
30 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 12.34 1
31 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 11.19 12
32 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2* 12.77 12
33 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2* 12.82 12
34 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2* 10.93 12
35 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2* 1 2 .1 0 6
36 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2* 13.23 6
37 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 13.08 6
38 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Bll 12.35 12
39 Eagle stg. 1., head r. Bll 11.76 12
40 Eagle stg. 1., head r. Bll 11.56 12
41 Eagle stg. r., head r. Bll 11.80 6
42* Eagle stg. 1., head r. B21 11.25 12
43 Eagle stg. 1., head r. B21 12.40 12

1 Nos. 11 and 12 are die-identical.

2 Obverse die = no. 46 (reverse: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC YIIATO T, ANTIOXIA//SC).

567
No. Rev. type Bust Weight Axis
443* Eagle stg. r., head r. D ll 11.85 1
45 Eagle stg. r., head r. D ll 12.36 6
Obv.: MAP flTAKIA CeOYHPAN CeB
464* Eagle stg. r., head r. E2 11.07 12
Obv.: MAP OTAKIAI CeOYHPAN CeB
47 Eagle stg. r., head r. E2 12.45 7
Obv.: MAP IOYAI OIAIimOC KeCAP (Philip II)
48 Eagle stg. 1., head r. C2+ 12.13 1
49 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2 12.23 12
Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI 4>IADinOC CeB (Philip II)
50* Eagle stg. r., head r. D1 10.65 6
51 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2 13.79 6
52 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 11.51 12
53* Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 12.68 6
54 Eagle stg. I., head 1. Bll 11.92 12
55* Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Bll* 11.73 6

Fifth series, rev.: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC YIIATO A, ANTIOXIA//SC (20)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI OIAHDIOC CeB (Philip I)
56s Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Dl* 11.06 6
57 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Dl* 11.16 6
58 Eagle stg. r., head r. Dl* 1 2 .2 0 1
59* Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 11.41 12
60 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 13.62 1
617 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 10.99 1
62 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 12.07 12
63 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 11.46 12
648 Eagle stg. r., head r. Bll* 10.81 6
65 Eagle stg. r., head r. Bll* 11.03 12
66 Eagle stg. r., head r. Bll* 13.16 12
67* Eagle stg. 1., head 1. S21* 10.15 12
Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI OIAIimOC CeB (Philip II)
68* Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Dl* 1 2 .6 8 6
69 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2 13.14 6
70 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 10.04 6
719 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 12.16 12
72 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 12.47 12
73 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 14.42 6
74 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 12.91 12
75 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 12.95 1

3 Nos. 44 and 45 are die-identical.

4 Obverse die = no. 17 (reverse: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC YIIATO A, SC).
5 Nos. 56 and 57 share the same obverse die.
6 Nos. 59 and 60 share the same obverse die.
7 Nos. 61 and 62 share the same obverse die.
8 Nos. 64 and 65 share the same obverse die.
9 Nos. 71 and 72 share the same obverse die.

568
 HOARD II

GORDIAN III (I)

Obverse legend: AYTOK K M ANT TOP A IAN OC CeB
First series, rev.: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC //SC
No. Rev. type Bust Weight Axis
1 Eagle facing, head 1. D2* 11.50 12

PHILIP I AND FAMILY (5)

Fourth series, rev.: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC YIIATO T //ANTIOXIA SC (2)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI <hIAIHIIOC CeB (Philip I)

2 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2 10.25 6

Obv.: MAP IOYAI 4>IAimiOC KeCAP (Philip II)

3 Eagle stg. r., head r. C2+ 11.02 1

Fifth series, rev.: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC YIIATO A //ANTIOXIA SC (3)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI ^IAEHnOC CeB (Philip II)

4 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 10.18 6
5 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 11.61 6
6 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 11.54 6

TRAJAN DECIUS (4)

Reverse always: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC //SC

(b) Obv.: AYT K T M e K Y AeKIOC TPAIANOC CeB (3)

No. Rev. type Off. Bust Weight Axis
7 Eagle stg. r., head r. .... D2 13.39 6
8 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. ... D2* 12.30 12
9 Eagle stg. r., head r. .... D2* 12.46 6

(c) Obv.: AYT K T M e K Y TPAIANOC AeKIOC CeB (1)

10 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Z D2* 13.79 6

569
 HOARD III

CARACALLA (50)
Antioch (7)

Obv.: AYT K M A ANTONelNOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATO A
No. Rev. type Reference Bust Total
1-2 Eagle, head r. on thigh B 18 Al* 3
4 Eagle, head r. on thigh; to 1. and r., A e B 19 Al* 1
5 Eagle, head r. on thigh 10 B 20 D21* 1
6 Eagle, head r. on thigh; to 1. and r., A e11 B 22 D21* 1

Rev.: AHMAPX eS Y1IATOC TO A

7 Eagle, head r.; beneath, * over v B 33 var. Dl* 1

Laodicea (7)

Obv.: AYT K M A ANTONelNOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YUATOC TO A
8 Eagle, head 1.; beneath, * B 72 A l* 7

Seleucia (1)

Obv.: AYT K M A ANTONelNOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATO A
15 Eagle, head r. on thunderbolt B 76 A l* 1

Hierapolis (4)

Obv.: AYT K M A ANTONelNOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eH YIIATOC TO A
16 Eagle, head r.; beneath, * over lion r. B 94 var. Al* 1
17-18 Eagle, head r.; beneath, lion r . 12 B 95 D2* 2
19 Eagle, head r., stg. on lion r. D2* 1

Zeugma (2)

Obv.; AYT K M A ANTONelNOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATO A
20 Eagle, head r.; to 1. and r. and beneath, Z e Y B 128 Al* 1
21 Eagle, head r.; to 1. and r. and beneath, Z e Y 13 B 133 A ll 1

10 Obverse die = Bellinger pi. II, 10.

11 Obverse die = Bellinger pi. II, 12.
12 17: obverse die = Bellinger pi. VIII, 4.
13 Obverse die = Bellinger, pi.X, 14

570
 Edessa (3)

Obv.: AYT K M AY ANTONelNOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC TO A
No. Rev. type Reference Bust Total
22-3 Eagle, head r.; beneath, shrine 14 B 139 B2 2

Obv.: AYT K M AY ANTONelNOC C

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC T A
24 Eagle, head r.; beneath, shrine 15 B 140 S?l* 1

Carrhae (2)

Obv.: AYT K M A ANTONelNOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATO A
25 Eagle, head r. on bull’s head B 158 Al* 1
26 Eagle, head r.; to 1., *; beneath, v B 159/60 Al 1

Rhesaena (1)

Obv.: AYT KAI ANTONelNOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC TO A
27 Eagle, head r.; beneath, rectangle B 172 D2* 1

Emisa (2)

Obv.: AYT K M A ANTWNelNOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC TO A
28 Eagle, head 1., Helios bust; below head, A B 184 var. Al* 1

Obv.: AYT K M A ANTONelNOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC TO A
29 Eagle, head 1., Helios bust; to r. of head, v B 194 Al* 1

Damascus (2)

Obv.: AYT KAI ANTWNINOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC TO A
30 Eagle, head 1.; beneath, ram’s head 1. B 219 Al* 1

Obv.: AYT KAI ANTWNINOC Ce

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC TO A
31 Eagle, head 1.; beneath, ram’s head 1. B 219 var. Al* 1

Aradus (1)

Obv.: AYT K M AY ANTONelNOC

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC TO A
32 Eagle, head r.; beneath, bull’s head r. B 227 D2 1

14 22 and 23 share the same obverse die = Bellinger pi. XI, 3.

15 Obverse die = Bellinger pi. XI, 4.

571
 Ptolemais (4)16

Obv.: AYT K M A ANTONINOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC TO A
No. Rev. type Reference Bust
33 Eagle, head r.; beneath, cult statue B 254 Al*

Obv.: AYT K M A ANTONINOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC A
34 Eagle, head r.; beneath, cult statue B 256 var. Al*

Obv.: AYT K M A ANTONelNOC CeB17

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC T A
35-6 Eagle, head r.; beneath, 2 caps and 2 stars 18 B 259 Al*

Berytus (1)

Obv.: AYT KAI ANTWNINOC Ce

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC TO A
37 Eagle, head 1.; beneath, prow 1. B 282 Al*

Tyre (3)

Obv.: AYT KAI ANTWNINOC Ce

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC TO A
38-9 Eagle, head 1. on club; beneath, shell19 B 305 D2*
40 Eagle, head 1. on club; beneath, shell20 B 306 Dl*

Gadara (2 )

Obv.: ANTWNINOC KAIC

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YUAT T A
41-2 Eagle, head 1.; beneath, 3 Graces21 B 325 var. Gil*

Aelia Capitolina (1)

Obv.: AYT KAI ANTWNINOC Ce

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC A
43 Eagle, head 1. on thyrsus; beneath, wine cup22 B 355 var. Dl*

16 Bellinger attributed these coins to Orthosia; for the attribution to Ptolemais see Seyrig
in RN 1963, pp. 46-7.
17 Bellinger attributed these coins to Tripolis; for the attribution to Ptolemais see Seyrig
in RN 1963, pp. 46-7.
18 Die-identical pair.
19 38 comes from the same dies as Bellinger pi. XXI, 11.
20 Obv. die = Bellinger pi. XXI, 12; rev. die = Bellinger pi. XXI, 11.
21 41 and 42 have the same obv. die = Bellinger pi. XXII, 11.
22 Obv. die = Bellinger pi. XXIV, 10.

572
 Gaza (1)

Obv.: AYT KAI ANTON INOC Ce

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YUATOC A
No. Rev. type Reference Bust Total
44 Eagle, head 1.; beneath, swastika; to r. * B 380 corr. Al* 1

Cyprus (5)

Obv.: AYT KAI ANTWNINOC Ce

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC TO A
45-9 Eagle, head 1. on ear of wheat23 B 382 Al* 5

Uncertain mint (1)

Obv.: AYT K M A ANTONelNOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC TO A
50 Eagle, head r.; beneath, Y B- Al* 1

JULIA DOMNA (2)

Emisa (2)

Obv.: IOYAIA AYTOYCTA

Rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC
51 Eagle, head 1., Helios bust; below r., O B 183 D2 1

Obv.: IOYAIA AYTOYCTA

Rev.: AHMAPX eZ YIIATOC TO A
52 Eagle, head 1., Helios bust; above r., A24 B- E2 1

MACRINUS (22)

Antioch (2)

Obv.: AYT K M OH Ce MAKPINOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eZ YHATO
53-4 Eagle, head r. on thigh; to 1. and r., A e25 B 39 Dl* 2

Laodicea (1)

Obv.: AYT K M OH CeOY MAKPelNOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eZ YIIATOC H TL
55 Eagle, head 1.; beneath, * B 73 Al* 1

24 Obv. die = Bellinger pi. XIV, 3.

25 53: obv. die = Bellinger pi. IV, 6 ; rev. die = Bellinger pi. IV, 7. 54: obv. die = Bellinger
pi. IV, 7.

573
 Beroea (1)

Obv.: AYT K M OH Ce MAKPINOC Ce

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC EE II
No. Rev. type Reference Bust Total
56 Eagle, head 1.; beneath, animal between B e B 87 D2* 1

Cyrrhus (1)

Obv.: AYT K M OH Ce MAKPeINO CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC
57 Eagle, head 1. on thyrsus B 123 var. D2* 1

Edessa (1)

Obv.: AYT K M OH Ce [MAKPeI]NOC

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIA[TOC]
58 Eagle, head r.; beneath, shrine B- A2* 1

Carrhae (6)

Obv.: AYT K M O D C e MAKPINOC Ce

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC
59-62 Eagle, head r.; to 1., *; beneath, over •*26 B 166 Al 4
63-4 Eagle, head r.; to 1., *; beneath, v over •*27 B 168 D2 2

Emisa (5)

Obv.: AYT K M OH Ce MAKPINOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC II H
65 Eagle, head 1.; A to r. of Helios bust B 200 Al* 1
6 6 -8 Eagle, head 1.; Helios bust; above 1., H 28 B 201 Al* 3
69 Eagle, head 1.; Helios bust; above 1., H B 202 Dl* 1

Heliopolis (1)

Obv.: AYT K M OH [Ce MAKPINOC Ce]

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC H H
70 Eagle, head 1.; beneath, * overlion r. B 216 var. Dl* 1

Byblus (1)

Obv.: AYT K M OH Ce MAKPINOC Ce

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YHATO
71 Eagle, head 1.; beneath, altar B 269 var. Dl* 1

26 59-60: same obv. die.

27 Obv. die of 62 = 63; 62 is die-identical with Bellinger pi. XIII, 3.
28 66-7: same obv. die.

574
 Neapolis (1)

Obv.: AY K M OH Ce MAK[ ]
Rev.: AHMAPX eE YILATO[..]
No. Rev. type Reference Bust Total
72 Eagle supporting Mount Gerizim in wreath29 B- Al* 1

Caesarea (1)
Obv.: AYT KAI M OH Ce MAKPINOC
Rev.: AHMAPX eE YIIATO H H
73 Eagle, head 1. on torch and serpent B 371 D2* 1

Gaza (1)

Obv.: AYT K M OH Ce MAKPINOC Ce

Rev.: AHMAPX eE YIIATOC T A
74 Eagle, head 1. on club; beneath, *; to 1., swastika B- D2* 1

DIADUMENIAN (3)

Beroea (1)

Obv.: M OHeL A LAA ANTWNINOC K

Rev.: AHMAPX eE YIIATOC A
75 Eagle, head r.; to 1., palm; beneath, animal B 90 D2 1
between B e30
Emisa (1)

Obv.: MA[P OH] ANTWNelNOC [K]

Rev.: AHMAPX eE YIIATOC B D
76 Eagle, head 1.; Helios bust; above 1., A 31 B- Dl* 1

Aelia Capitolina (1)

Obv.: M 0[H ANTWN KAI]

Rev.: [AHM]APX eE YIIATO H H
77 Eagle, head 1.; beneath, wine cup B 360 var. D1+ 1

ELAGABALUS (160)

Obv.: AYT K M A-ANTWNelNO-C CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eE YIIATOC TO B, A e//*
77-192 Eagle, head 1. B 42 A3* 116
193-217 Eagle, head r. B 43 A3* 26
218-22 Eagle, head 1. B 44 Dl* 4

29 Reverse type similar to Bellinger 337.

30 Same dies as Bellinger pi. VII, 14.
31 Die-identical with Aleppo hoard I, 101.

575
No. Rev. type Reference Bust Total
223-32 Eagle, head 1. B 44 var. D2* 10
233-4 Eagle, head 1. B 47 A31* 2
235-6 Eagle, head r. B 48 A31* 2

GORDIAN III (64)

Obverse legend always: AYTOK K M ANT TOPALANOC CeB

First series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //SC (29)

No. Rev. type Bust Total
231 Eagle facing, head 1. Dl* 1
238-62 Eagle facing, head 1. D2* 25
263 Eagle facing, head 1. A31 1
264-5 Eagle facing, head 1. D ll 2

Third series, rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATO B, ram (35)

(a) ram left
266-7 Eagle facing, head 1., ram 1. A3* 2
268 Eagle facing, head 1., ram l.32 Bl* 1
269 Eagle facing, head 1., ram 1. D2 1
270-85 Eagle facing, head 1., ram 1. D2* 16
286 Eagle facing, head r., ram 1. D2* 1
287-90 Eagle facing, head 1., ram 1. D ll 4
291 Eagle facing, head L, ram 1. Gil* 1

(b) ram right

292-3 Eagle facing, head L, ram r. D2 2
294-9 Eagle facing, head 1., ram r. D2* 6
300 Eagle facing, head 1., ram r. D ll 1

PHILIP I AND FAMILY (323)

First series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //SC (21)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYA 4>IAHmOC CeB (Philip I) (10)

301-9 Eagle stg. facing, head 1. D2 9
310 Eagle stg. facing, head 1. D2* 1

Obv.: MAP OTAKIA CeOYHPAN CeB (7)

311-7 Eagle stg. facing, head 1. E2 7

Obv.: MAP IOYAI <I>IAIimOC KeCAP (Philip II) (4)

318 Eagle stg. facing, head 1. C1+ 1
319-21 Eagle stg. facing, head 1. C 2+ 3

32 Price describes ram r.

576
Second series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO A //SC (9)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYA O IAim iO C CeB (Philip I) (4)

No. Rev. type Bust Total
322 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2 1
323-5 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. B21 3

Obv.: MAP flTAKIA CeOYHPAN CeB (4)

326-8 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. E2 3
329 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. E21 1

Obv.: MAP IOYAI OIAmHOC KeCAP (Philip II) (1)

330 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. C21+ 1

Third series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC S C //MON VRB (35)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYA OIAim iOC CeB (Philip I)

331-48 Eagle facing, head 1., no off. D2* 18
349 Eagle facing, head 1., off. A D2* 1
350-3 Eagle facing, head 1., off. B D2* 4
354-6 Eagle facing, head 1., off. T D2* 3
357-60 Eagle facing, head 1., off. A D2* 4
361-2 Eagle facing, head 1., off. e D2* 2
363-4 Eagle facing, head 1., off. S D2* 2
365 Eagle facing, head 1., off. ? D2* 1

Fourth series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO T //ANTIOXIA SC (95)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI OLAHIIIOC CeB (Philip I) (81)

366 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2 1
367-73 Eagle stg. 1., head ? D2 7
374-404 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 31
405-21 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2* 17
422 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. B ll 1
423 Eagle stg. 1., head r. B ll 1
424-35 Eagle stg. r., head r. B ll33 12
436-9 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. B ll* 4
440 Eagle stg. 1., head r. B21 1
441 Eagle stg. 1., head ? D ll 1
442 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Dll* 1
443-5 Eagle stg. r., head r. D21* 3
446 Eagle stg. 1., head ? S21 1

Obv.: MAP HTAKIAI CeOYHPAN CeB (2)

447-8 Eagle stg. r., head r. E2 2

Obv.: MAP IOYAI 4>IAIHnOC KeCAP (Philip II) (1)

449 Eagle stg. r., head r. C 2+ 1

33 3 coins have a plain cuirass and 9 have one with a gorgoneion.

577
Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI <I>IAIimOC CeB (Philip II) (11)
No. Rev. type Bust Total
450-1 Eagle stg. r., head r.34 Dl* 2
452 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2 1
453-5 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 3
456-7 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. B ll 2
458-9 Eagle stg. 1., head l.35 Dll* 2
460 Eagle stg. r., head r. Dll* 1

Fifth series, rev.: AHMAPX eSO YCIAC YIIATO A //ANTIOXIA SC (154)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI d>IAIimOC CeB (Philip I) (108)

461 Eagle stg. L, head 1. B1 1
462-3 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Dl 2
464-6 Eagle stg. r., head r. Dl 3
467-71 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Dl* 5
472-5 Eagle stg. r., head r. Dl* 4
476-83 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2 8
484-93 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 10
494-519 Eagle stg. L, head 1. D2* 26
520-43 Eagle stg. t., head r. D2* 24
544 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. A21 1
545 Eagle stg. r., head r. A21 1
546-9 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Bll 4
550-1 Eagle stg. r., head r. Bll 2
552-8 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. B ll *36 7
559-63 Eagle stg. r., head r. B ll *37 5
564 Eagle stg. r., head r. Gil* 1
565 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. S21 1
566 Eagle stg. r., head r. S21 1
567 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. S21* 1
568 Eagle stg. r., head r. S21* 1

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI OIAIHnOC C«B (Philip II) (46)

569 Eagle stg. 1., head l.38 Al 1
570-4 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Bl* 5
575 Eagle stg. r., head r .39 Bl* 1
576 Eagle stg. 1., head l.40 Dl* 1
577-93 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 1
594-609 Eagle stg. I., head 1. D2* 17
610 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 16
611 Eagle stg. 1., head l.41 Bll* 1

34
Attributed by Price to YIIATO A.
35
Attributed by Price to Philip I.
36
4 coins have a plain cuirass and 3 have a cuirass with a gorgoneion.
37
2 coins have a plain cuirass and 3 have a cuirass with a cross-strap.
38
Attributed by Price to Philip I.
39 Attributed by Price to Philip I.
40
Price describes the eagle as stg. r.
41
Attributed by Price to Philip I.

578
No. Rev. type Bust Total
612 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D ll 1
613 Eagle stg. r., head r .42 D ll 1
614 Eagle stg. r., head r. Dll* 1

Sixth series, rev.: AHMAPX eSO YCIAC YIIATO A //ANTIOXIA SC, 4 officinae (9)
No. Rev. type Officina Bust Total
Officina 1 (Philip I)

615 Eagle stg. r., head r. • D2* 1

Officina 2 (Philip I)
616 Eagle stg. 1., head I.43 •• Bll* 1
(Philip II)
617 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. •• D2* 1
618 Eagle stg. r., head r .44 •• Bll* 1

Officina 3 (Philip I)
619-20 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. ... D2* 2
621 Eagle stg. r., head r. ... D2* 1

Officina 4 (Philip I)
622-3 Eagle stg. r., head r. .... D2* 2

TRAJAN DECIUS (32)

Reverse always AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //SC

(a) Obv. • AYT K TAI Me KYIN AeKKIOC CeB (5)

624 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. unm. D2* 1

625 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. — D2* 1
626 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. ? D2* 1
627-8 Eagle stg. r., head r. ? D2* 2

(b) Obv. • AYT K T Me KY AeKIOC TPAIANOC CeB (22)

629 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2 1
630 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. •• D2 1
631 Eagle stg. r., head r. •• D2 2
633 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2 1
634 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 1
635-6 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. •• D2* 2
637 Eagle stg. r., head r. •• D2* 1
638-9 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 2

42 Attributed by Price to Philip I.

43 Described by Price as unmarked.
44 Attributed by Price to Philip I and described as unmarked.
45 This coin is said to have eagle stg. 1., head r. with pellet between legs on rev. However,
since this type is only known with obv. (c), with bust B2* it seems most likely that it has been
incorrectly described and that it probably has the normal type of eagle stg. 1. or r.

579
No. Rev. type Officina Bust Total
640-1 Eagle stg. r., head r. •••• D2* 2
642-5 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. .... D2* 4
646 Eagle stg. r., head r. S D2* 1
647 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. ?Z D2* 1
648-9 Eagle stg. r., head r. ? D2* 2

650 Eagle stg. r., head r. ♦ B ll 1

(c) Obv.: AYT K T Me KY TPAIANOC AeKIOC CeB (5)

651 Eagle stg. r., head r. Bl 1

652 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2 1

653 Eagle stg. r., head r. .... D2 1

654 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. •••• D2* 1

655 Eagle stg. r., head r. •••• D2* 1

HERENNIA ETRUSCILLA (2)

Reverse always AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //S C

(a) Obv.: ePeNNLA TPOYCKIAAA CeB (1)

656 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. ? E2 1

(b) Obv.: ePeNNIA eTPOYCKIAAA CeB (1)

657 Eagle stg. I., head 1. — E2 1

HERENNIUS ETRUSCUS (2)

Obv.: ePeNN eTPOY Me KY AeKIOC KeCAP

Rev.: (a) AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //S C
658 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. • C2+ 1
659 Eagle stg. r., head r. .... C2+ 1

TREBONIANUS GALLUS AND VOLUSIAN (6)

First series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC A-7J/S C (4)

Obv.: AYTOK K T OYIB TPeB TAAAOC CeB
No. Rev. type Obv. Rev. Bust Total
660 Eagle stg. r., head 1. A A D2* 1
661 Eagle stg. 1., head r. T T D2* 1
662 Eagle stg. r., head 1. A A D2* 1

Obv.: AYTOK K T A3>IN TAA OYeNA OYOAOYCCIANOC CeB

663 Eagle stg. r., head 1. B B Dl 1

Second series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO B A-Z//S C (2)

Obv.: AYTOK K T OYIB TPeB TAAAOC CeB
664 Eagle stg. 1., head r. B B D2* 1
665 Eagle stg. 1., head r. Z Z D2* 1

580
 HOARD IV

VESPASIAN (2)

Syria, AD 70-1 (2)

Obv.: AYTOKPA KAI[...] OYeOIACIAN[ ]

Rev.: eTOYC NeOY IePOY B
No. Rev. type Bust Reference Weight Axis
j4 6 W 77 14.02 1
Eagle stg. 1. on club; to r., palm Al*

Obv.: [ ]IIACIANOC-KAICAP[ ]
Rev.: [.... ] NeOY IePOY B
2 Eagle stg. 1. on club; between legs, crescent A l' W- 14.17

CARACALLA (9)

Antioch (2)

Obv.: AYT K-M-A-ANTONelNOC [CeB]

Rev.: AHMAPX-eE-YIIATO A
3 Eagle, head r. on thigh Al* B 18 13.71 5

Obv.: AYT K M A-ANTON[eI]NOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC TO A
4 Eagle, head r.; between legs, * over crescent A l' B 33 11.18 1

Laodicea (1)

Obv.: AYT K-M-A-ANTONelNOC-CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC -TO -A
5 Eagle, head 1.; between legs, * Al" B 72 12.92 12

Hierapolis (2)

Obv.: [ ]A-ANTO-NelNOC-CeB •
Rev.: AHMAPX eS YHA[....]A
6 Eagle, head r.; beneath, lion r. A21 B 98 13.23 1

Obv.: [....]M A-ANTONelNOC Ce-[.]

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC TO A
7 Eagle, head 1.; beneath, lion 1. D2 B 97 var. 14.38 1

Emisa (1)

Obv.: [...]K M AN[ ]

Rev.: [..]MAPX eS YIIA[....]
8 Eagle, head 1.; beneath, bust of Helios AV B 184-97 11.73 12

46 Readings and description of reverse type require confirmation.

581
 Tyre (2)

Obv.: •AYT K-A-I-AN-TWNINOC Ce-

Rev.: AHMAPX-eE -YIIATOC TO -A•
No. Rev. type Bust Reference Weight
9 Eagle, head L; between legs, shell Al* B 303 12.87

Obv.: AYT KAI AN-TWNINOC Ce-B

Rev.: AHMAPX eE YIIATOC TO A
10 Eagle, head 1.; between legs, shell Al* cf.B 303 11.38

Gadara (1)

Obv.: AYT KAI AN-TWNelNOC Ce[.]

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC47
11 Eagle, head 1.; between legs, 3 Graces Dl* cf.B 321 13.45

GETA (1)

Tyre (1)

Obv.: AYT KAI-IYTA CeB

Rev.: •AHMAPX eE YIIATOC TO B-
12 Eagle, head 1.; between legs, shell D2* B 301a 13.05

MACRINUS (1)

Emisa (1)

Obv.: [AYT K M OH Ce MA]KPINOC C-e-B

Rev.: [AHMAPX eE] YIIATOC H D
13 Eagle, head 1.; O over bust of Helios Al* B 208 14.73

DIADUMENIAN (1)

Laodicea (1)

Obv.: KAIC-MOneA-ANTONelNOC
Rev.: AHMAPX eE YIIATOC-
1448 Eagle, head r.; beneath ?* D2+ cf.B 75 13.42 6

47 The reading of the reverse is uncertain.

48 Although the details of the obv. and rev. legends and the style of the portrait are the
same as Bellinger 75 (Laodicea), the symbol between the eagle’s legs, which at Laodicea
should be a star, looks more like an altar such as is found at Byblos. However, the types are
not consistent with an attribution to Byblos.

582
 ELAGABALUS (8)

Obv.: AYT K M A-ANTWNelNO-C CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC TO B, A «//*
No. Rev. type Bust Reference Weight Axis
15 Eagle, head 1. A3* B 42 corr. 11.62 12
16 Eagle, head 1. A3* B 42 corr. 12.51 12
17 Eagle, head 1. A3* B 42 corr. 13.99 6
18 Eagle, head 1. A3* B 42 corr. 14.54 10
19 Eagle, head r. A3* B 43 corr. 11.79 12
20 Eagle, head r. A3* B 43 corr. 1 1 .8 8 6
21 Eagle, head 1. D2* B 44 var. 15.42 12
22 Eagle, head 1. D2* B 44 var. 17.66 12

GORDIAN III (1)

Obv.: AYTOK K M ANT TOPAIANOC CeB

First series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //SC
No. Rev. type Bust Weight Axis
23 Eagle facing, head 1. D2* 11.01 12

PHILIP I AND FAMILY (39)

First series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //SC (4)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYA OIAIHnOC CeB (Philip I)

24 Eagle stg. facing, head 1. D2 10.45 12
25 Eagle stg. facing, head 1. D2 11.13 12
26 Eagle stg. r., head r. D21 10.46 12

Obv.: MAP IOYAI <hIAIH3IOC KeCAP (Philip II)

27 Eagle stg. facing, head 1. C2+ 14.08 2

Second series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO A //SC (1)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYA 4>IAmnOC CeB (Philip I)

28 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2 11.62 7

Third series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC S C //MON VRB (1)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYA <J>IAHIIIOC CeB (Philip I)

29 Eagle stg. facing, head 1., off. A D2* 15.28 7

Fourth series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO T //ANTIOXIA SC (14)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI 4>IAHinOC CeB (Philip I)

30 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2 10.80 1
31 Eagle stg. L, head r. D2 11.72 2
32 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 8.61 6
33 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2* 10.49 6
34 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2* 10.85 7
35 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2* 11.81 7
36 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 11.13 7

583
No. Rev. type Bust Weight Axi
37 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. B ll 12.44 12
38 Eagle stg. 1., head r. B ll 9.67 6
39 Eagle stg. r., head r. B ll 9.00 2

Obv.: MAP IOYAI 4>IAimiOC KeCAP (Philip II)

40 Eagle stg. 1., head r. C2+ 12.40 1

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI 4»IAIHnOC CeB (Philip II)

41 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2 11.36 1
42 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 10.02 7
43 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 10.39 6

Fifth series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO A //ANTIOXIA SC (17)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI 4>IAmnOC CeB (Philip I)

44 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D l* 11.15 6
45 Eagle stg. r., head r. B ll 11.32 7
46 Eagle stg. r., head r. Bll* 12.62 1

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI d>IAHmOC CeB (Philip II)

47 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D l* 11.82 1
48 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 10.22 12
49 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 9.86 6
50 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 10.24 1
51 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 10.39 1
52 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 10.67 1
53 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 10.71 1
54 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 11.20 7
55 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 11.33 6
56 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 11.43 7
57 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 11.64 1
58 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 12.13 6
59 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 12.82 6
60 Eagle stg. r., head r. D ll* 12.52 11

Sixth series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO A //ANTIOXIA SC, 4 officinae (2)

Officina 1 (Philip I)
No. Rev. type Officina Bust Weight Axi
61 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 11.25 1
(Philip II)
62 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 12.70 6

TRAJAN DECIUS (44)

Reverse always AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //SC

(c) Obv.: AYT K T Me KY AeKIOC TPAIANOC CeB (13)

63 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 10.83 5

64 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 11.59 12
65 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 9.35 12
66 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 10.53 6

584
No. Rev. type Officina Bust Weight Axi
67 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. •• D2* 12.04 12
68 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. •• D2* 12.24 1
69 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 12.54 7
70 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 12.59 5
71 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. ... D2* 10.42 1
72 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 12.16 11
73 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 11.55 6
74 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 11.97 12
75 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. .... D2* 11.89 6

(d) Obv.. AYT K T Me KY TPAIANOC AeKIOC CeB (30)

76 Eagle stg. r., head r. B2* 12.82 6

77 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. • D2 12.97 1

78 Eagle stg. r., head r. ... D2 11.10 12
79 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. .... D2 12.13 12
80 Eagle stg. r., head r. .... D2 11.32 12
81 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. S D2 11.33 12
82 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. z D2 13.12 12

83 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. unm. D2* 10.94 7

84 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. unm. D2* 11.72 1
85 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. unm. D2* 13.06 12
86 Eagle stg. r., head r. unm. D2* 11.87 6
87 Eagle stg. r., head r. unm. D2* 12.45 7
88 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 12.70 12
89 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 12.89 12
90 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 13.28 12
91 Eagle stg. I., head I. D2* 12.56 2
92 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 11.18 1
93 Eagle stg. r., head r. •• D2* 11.28 7
94 Eagle stg. r., head r. •• D2* 11.67 5
95 Eagle stg. r., head r. •• D2* 12.31 1
96 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 9.02 12
97 Eagle stg. r., head r. ... D2* 11.33 12
98 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 13.27 6
99 Eagle stg. r., head r. .... D2* 11.95 1
100 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Z D2* 11.15 7
101 Eagle stg. r., head r. Z D2* 11.14 12
102 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. ?49 D2* 1 0 .1 2 12
103 Eagle stg. r., head r. ? D2* 9.79 1
104 Eagle stg. r., head r. ? D2* 10.97 5
105 Eagle stg. r., head r. 9 D2* 1 2 .6 8 5

(e) Obv.: AYT K F Me KY TPAIANOC AeKIOC CeB, single pellet between eagle’s legs on reverse (1)

106 Eagle stg. 1., head r. ? B2* 10.51 6

49 Mint-mark said to be 3 : unlikely, confirmation required.

585
 HERENNIA ETRUSCILLA (1)

(b) Obv.: ePeNNIA eTPOYCKIAAA CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC /IS C
No. Rev. type Officina Bust Weight Axis
107 Eagle stg. L, head 1. S E2 11.13 5

HERENNIUS ETRUSCUS (6)

Obv.: ePeNN eTPOY Me KY AeKIOC KeCAP

Rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //SC

108 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. C2+ 16.14 7

109 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. C2+ 11.78 6
110 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. C2+ 12.29 12
111 Eagle stg. r., head r. C2+ 10.04 5
112 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. C2+ 10.32 6
113 Eaele ste. r.. head r. C2+ 12.41 12

TREBONIANUS GALLUS (15)

Obv.: AYTOK K T OYIB TPeB TAAAOC CeB

First series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC A-Z//S C (10)

No. Rev. type Obv. Rev Bust Weight Axis

114 Eagle stg. 1., head r. B D2* 10.20 7
115 Eagle stg. 1., head r. ... r D2* 11.76 7
116 Eagle stg. r., head 1. ... r D2* 11.16 6
117 Eagle stg. 1., head r. S s D2* 12.26 6
118 Eagle stg. r., head 1. S s D2* 9.44 6
119 Eagle stg. r., head 1. s s D2* 9.99 12
120 Eagle stg. T.y head 1. s s D2* 10.81 1
121 Eagle stg. r., head 1. s s D2* 12.44 1
122 Eagle stg. r., head 1. z z D2* 11.20 12
123 Eagle stg. 1., head r. ? ? D2* 10.27 5

Second series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO B A-Z//S C (5)

124 Eagle stg. r., head 1. A D2* 12.69 4

125 Eagle stg. 1., head r. B D2* 11.23 1
126 Eagle stg. 1., head r. A D2* 13.46 12
127 Eagle stg. 1., head r. Z Z D2* 12.23 6
128 Eagle stg. 1., head r. Z Z D2* 14.08 6

586
 HOARD V

CARACALLA (2)

Beroaea (1)

Obv.: AYT K M A [ ................]NeINOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eE YIIATOC TO A
No. Rev. type Reference Bust Weight Axis
1 Eagle, head 1.; beneath, animal between B e B 83 A ll 11.19 12

Damascus (1)

Obv.: AYT KAI ANTWNINOC Ce[B]

Rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATOC TO A
2 Eagle, head 1.; beneath, ram’s head 1. B 219 Al* 14.94 6

MACRINUS (1)

Berytus (1)

Obv.: AYT K M OH Ce MAKPelNOC

Rev.: AHMPX eE YUAT C
3 Eagle, head 1.; beneath legs, 3 ears of wheat; B 285 var. A l* 13.00 6
in exergue, dolphin around trident

ELAGABALUS (1)

Obv.: AYT K M A-ANTWNelNO-C CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eE YIIATOC TO B, A e/i*
4 Eagle, head 1. B 44 var. D2* 13.19 12

GORDIAN III (1)

Obv.: AYTOK K M ANT TOPAIANOC CeB

First series, rev.: AHMAPX eEOYCIAC //SC
No. Rev. type Bust Weight Axis
5 Eagle facing, head 1. D2* 12.79 12

PHILIP I AND FAMILY (9)

First series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //SC (1)

Obv.: MAP IOYAI OlAIimOC KeCAP (Philip II)
6 Eagle stg. facing, head 1. C2+ 13.09 12

587
Second series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO A //SC (1)
Obv.: MAP HTAKIA CeOYHPAN CeB
No. Rev. type Bust Weight Axis
1 Eagle stg. facing, head I.50 E2 10.94 11.30

Third series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC S C //MON VRB (1)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYA OIAim iO C CeB (Philip I)
8 Eagle stg. facing, head 1., off. S D2* 11.59 12

Fourth series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO T //ANTIOXIA SC (5)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI <I>IAIimOC CeB (Philip I)
9 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2 12.58 12
10 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 11.70 6
11 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. B ll 51 13.35 12
12 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Bll* 13.53 12

Obv.: MAP IOYAI OIAmnOC KeCAP (Philip II)

13 Eagle stg. r., head r. C2+ 12.57 7

Fifth series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO A //ANTIOXIA SC (1)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI <&IAIUIIOC CeB (Philip II)
14 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 11.46 12

TRAJAN DECIUS (1)

(c) Obv.: AYT K T Me KY AeKIOC TPAIANOC CeB (1)

Rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //SC
No. Rev. type Officina Bust Weight Axis
15 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. S D2* 11.22 6

HERENNIA ETRUSCILLA (1)

(b) Obv.: ePeNNIA eTPOYCKIAAA CeB (1)

Rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //S C
16 Eagle stg. r., head r. • E2 12.45 6

HERENNIUS ETRUSCUS (1)

Obv.: ePeNN eTPOY Me KY AeKIOC KeCAP (1)

Rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //S C
17 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. C2+ 11.77 6

50 Same obverse die as Baldwin’s hoard no. 46 (rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO T,
ANTIOXIA//SC).
51 Gorgoneion on cuirass. Same obverse die as BMC 516.

588
 TREBONIANUS GALLUS AND VOLUSIAN (3)

First series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC A-Z//S C (2)

Obv.: AYTOK K T OYIB TPeB TAAAOC CeB
No. Rev. type Obv. Rev. Bust Weight Axis
18 Eagle stg. 1., head r. •• B D2* 12.54 12
19 Eagle stg. 1., head r. .... A D2* 1 2 .6 8 6.30

Second series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO B A-Z//S C (1)

Obv.: AYTOK K T A<MN TAA OYeNA OYOAOYCCIANOC CeB
20 Eagle stg. r., head 1. A Dl 11.54 6

589
 HOARD VI

ELAGABALUS (1)

Obv.: AYT K M A ANTWNINOC CeB

Rev: AHMAPX eE YIIATOC TO B, A e II*
No. Rev. type Reference Bust Weight Axis
1 Eagle facing, head 1. B 42 A3* 12.75 12

GORDIAN III (3)

Obverse legend always: AYTOK K M ANT TOPAIANOC CeB

First series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //SC (1)

No. Rev. type Bust Weight Axi
2 Eagle facing, head 1. D2* 11.73 12

Third series, rev.: AHMAPX eS YIIATO B, ram (2)

3 Eagle facing, head 1.; ram 1. D2* 11.61 12
4 Eagle facing, head 1.; ram 1. D2* 11.69 12

PHILIP I AND II (45)

First series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //SC (4)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYA 4>IAIHnOC CeB (Philip I)

5 Eagle stg. facing, head 1. D2 10.24 1
6 Eagle stg. facing, head 1. D2* 12.24 7
7 Eagle stg. facing, head 1. B21 8.58 12

Obv.: MAP IOYAI 4>IAIimOC KeCAP (Philip II)

8 Eagle stg. facing, head 1. C2+ 11.04 1

Third series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC S C //MON VRB (3)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYA 4>IAimiOC CeB (Philip I)

9 Eagle stg. facing, head L, no off. D2* 8.85 1
10 Eagle stg. facing, head 1., no off. D2* 10.63 6
11 Eagle stg. facing, head 1., off. T D2* 10.29 1

Fourth series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO T //ANTIOXIA SC (10)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI 4>IAmnOC CeB (Philip I)

12 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2 12.69 6
13 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 10.37 11
14 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 10.56 6
15 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 1 1 .0 1 11
16 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 1 1 .6 6 7
17 Eagle stg. 1., head r. B ll 1 0 .1 0 12

590
Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI <I>IAlimOC CeB (Philip II)
No. Rev. type Bust Weight Axis
18 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2 10.49 12
19 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2 10.64 12
20 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 10.40 6
21 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Bll* 8.25 6

Fifth series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO A //ANTIOXIA SC (26)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI OIAIimOC CeB (Philip I)

22 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Dl* 11.56 7
23 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Dl* 12.75 6
24 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Dl* 13.12 12
25 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2 11.19 11
26 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 11.58 1
27 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 10.43 12
28 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 1 1 .2 0 6
29 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 11.36 6
30 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 11.71 7
31 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 10.32 1
32 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 10.64 7
33 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 1 1 .6 8 7
34 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 1 1 .8 6 12
35 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 12.61 12
36 Eagle stg. r., head r. Bll* 10.54 12

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI OLAIimOC CeB (Philip II)

37 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 9.50 1
38 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 10.69 6
39 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 1 1 .2 1 1
40 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 9.34 7
41 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 10.75 12
42 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 10.95 6
43 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 11.49 6
44 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 11.63 12
45 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 1 2 .1 0 7
46 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 12.36 6
47 Eagle stg. r., head r. Bll* 11.73 12

Sixth series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO A //ANTIOXIA SC, 4 officinae (2 )

Officina 1 (Philip II) Off.

48 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 11.80 6

Officina 3 (Philip II)

49 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 9.83 12

TRAJAN DECIUS (i)

(c) Obv.: AYT K T Me KY TPAIANOC AeKIOC CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //SC
No. Rev. type Off. Bust Weight Axis
50 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2 10.47 7

591
 TREBONIANUS GALLUS AND VOLUSIAN (4)

First series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC A-Z//S C (3)

Obv.: AYTOK K T OYIB TPeB TAAAOC CeB
No. Rev. type Obv. Rev Bust Weight Axis
51 Eagle stg. r., head I. •••* A D2* 10.51 1

Obv.: AYTOK K T AOIN TAA OYeNA OYOAOYCCLANOC CeB

52 Eagle stg. 1., head r. A Dl 11.40 5
53 Eagle stg. 1., head r. ••• T Dl 10.40 6

Third series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO B S C//A-Z (1)

Obv.: AYTOK K T OYIB TPeB TAAAOC CeB
54 Eagle stg. r., head 1. ••• T D2* 12.76 11

592
 CAPHARNAUM HOARD

GORDIAN III (4)

Obv.: AYTOK K M ANT TOPAIANOC CeB

Third series, rev.: AHMAPX eE YIIATO B, ram
No. Rev. type Bust Total
1 Eagle stg. L; beneath, ram 1., head r. D2* 1
2 Eagle stg. 1.; beneath, ram 1., head r. D ll 1
3-4 Eagle stg. 1.; beneath, ram r., head 1. D2* 2

PHILIP I AND FAMILY (64)

First series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //SC (4)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYA OIAIimOC CeB (Philip I)

5 Eagle stg. facing, head 1. D2 1
6 Eagle stg. facing, head 1. D21 1

Obv.: MAP IOYAI <bIAHmOC KeCAP (Philip II)

7 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. C1+ 1
8 Eagle stg. facing, head 1. C2+ 1

Second series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO A //SC (1)

Obv.: MAP flTAKLA CeOYHPAN CeB

9 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. E2 1

Third series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC S C //MON VRB (2)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYA <t>IAHmOC CeB (Philip I)

10 Eagle stg. facing, head 1., officina A D2* 1
11 Eagle stg. facing, head 1., officina T D2* 1

Fourth series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO T //ANTIOXIA SC (15)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI OIAHHIOC CeB (Philip I)

12-3 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2 2
14-8 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 5
19-20 Eagle stg. 1., head r. D2* 2
21-3 Eagle stg. r., head r. Bll 3

Obv.: MAP IOYAI <bIAHmOC KeCAP (Philip II)

24 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 1

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI OIAIHnOC CeB (Philip II)

No. Rev. type Bust Total
25 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Dl* 1
26 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 1

593
Fifth series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO A //ANTIOXIA SC (38)

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI OIAIIHIOC CeB (Philip I)

No. Rev. type Bust Total
27 Eagle stg. r., head r. Dl 1
28-30 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D l* 3
31 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2 1
32-3 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2 2
34-9 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 6
40-1 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 2
42 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. B ll 1
43 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Bll* 1
44 Eagle stg. r., head r. Bll* 1

Obv.: AYTOK K M IOYAI OIAIffllOC CeB (Philip II)

45 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Al 1
46 Eagle stg. r., head r. Al 1
47-9 Eagle stg. r., head r. Dl* 3
50-2 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2 3
53-4 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 2
55-62 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 8
63 Eagle stg. r., head r. Bll* 1
64 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. Dll* 1

Sixth series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO A //ANTIOXIA SC, 4 officinae (4)

Officina 1 (Philip I)
No. Rev. type Officina Bust Total
65 Eagle stg. r., head r. • D2* 1

Officina 3 (Philip II)

66 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 1
(Philip I or II, uncertain)
67 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. ... Bll* 1

Officina 4 (Philip II)

68 Eagle stg. r., head r. •••• D2* 1

TRAJAN DECIUS (76)

Reverse always AHMAPX € SOYCIAC //SC

(a) Obv.: AYT K TAI Me KYIN AeKKIOC CeB (2)

69-70 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. unm. D2* 2

(b) Obv.: AYT K T Me KY AeKIOC TPAIANOC CeB (40)

71 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. ... Dl 1
72 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. • D2 1
73 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. •• D2 1
74 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. .... D2 1
75-6 Eagle stg. r., head r. .... D2 2
77 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. S D2 1
78-9 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. z D2 2
80 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. ? D2 1

594
No. Rev. type Officina Bust Total
81 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. unm. D2* 1
82 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. • D2* 1
83-5 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. •* D2* 3
86-9 Eagle stg. r., head r. •* D2* 4
90-3 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. ... D2* 4
94 Eagle stg. r., head r. ... D2* 1
95-6 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 2
97-9 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 3
100-6 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. ? D2* 7
107-9 Eagle stg. r., head r. ? D2* 3
110 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. ? Bll 1

(c) Obv.. AYT K T Me KY TPAIANOC AeKIOC CeB (34)

Ill Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2 1
112-4 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. S D2 3
115 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. ? D2 1
116-7 Eagle stg. r., head r. ? D2 2
118 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 1
119 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 1
120 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. D2* 1
121-3 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. .... D2* 3
124 Eagle stg. r., head r. .... D2* 1
125 Eagle stg. r., head r. D2* 1
126 Eagle stg. r., head r. S D2* 1
127 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. z D2* 1
128-32 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. 7 D2* 5
133-43 Eagle stg. r., head r. ? D2* 11
144 Eagle stg. r., head r. •• Bll 1

HERENNIA ETRUSCILLA (1)

(a) Obv.: ePeNNLA TPOYCKIAAA CeB

Rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //S C

145 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. ....[.] E2 1

HERENNIUS ETRUSCUS (7)

Obv.: ePeNN eTPOY Me KY AeKIOC KeCAP
Rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC //SC
No. Rev. type Officina Bust Total
146 Eagle stg. r., head r. • C2+ 1
147-8 Eagle stg. r., head r. .... C2+ 2
149 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. S C2+ 1
150 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. z C2+ 1
151 Eagle stg. 1., head 1. 7 C2+ 1
152 Eagle stg. r., head r. ? C2+ l52

52 This coin is pierced.

595
 TREBONIANUS GALLUS (8)

Obv.: AYTOK K T OYIB TPeB TALLOC CeB

First series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC A-Z//S C (7)

No. Rev. type Obv. Rev. Bust Total
153 Eagle stg. 1., head r. • A D2* 1
154-5 Eagle stg. r., head 1. S S D2* 2
156-8 Eagle stg. 1., head r. z Z D2* 3
159 Eagle stg. r., head 1. z z D2* 1

Second series, rev.: AHMAPX eSOYCIAC YIIATO B A-Z//S C (1)

160 Eagle stg. r., head 1. ••• G D2* 1

596
■S'
z

s
<

<
tu
O
X
CA

H
<

&,
ca
w

cc

showing some of the places mentioned in the text

 THE

PLATES
 Plate 1

I-4 Radiates o f Balbinus arid Pupienus

1 Balbinus, BMC 71
2 Balbinus, BMC 76
3 Pupienus, BMC 79
4 Pupienus, BMC 94

5-10 Gordian, radiates o f issue I with portraits similar to those of Balbinus

and Pupienus
II-16 Gordian, radiates o f issue I with new portraits
5 & 11 RIC 1
6 & 12 RIC 2
7 & 13 RIC 3
8 & 14 RIC 4
9 & 15 RIC 5
10 & 16 RIC 6

17-20 Gordian, aurei o f issue I

17 RIC 7
18 RIC 8
19 RIC 10
20 RIC 11

21 - 22 Gordian, aes o f issue I

21 Sestertius, RIC 254a
22 * As, RIC 254b
5

17 18 19 20 21 22

Plate 1: Balbinus and Pupienus; Gordian, Mint of Rome, Issue I

 Plate 2

1 -8 Gordian, aes o f issue I

1 As, RIC 255b
2 Sestertius, RIC 256a
3 Sestertius, RIC 257a
4 Sestertius, RIC 258a
5 Sestertius, RIC 260a
6 Sestertius, RIC 261a
7 As, RIC 262b
8 Sestertius, RIC 259a

9-14 Gordian, radiates o f issue II

9 RIC 15
10 RIC 16
11 RIC 17
12 RIC 18
13 RIC 19
14 RIC 20

15 Gordian, denarius o f issue II, RIC -

16-17 Gordian, aurei o f issue II

16 RIC 21
17 RIC 23
Plate 2: Gordian, Mint of Rome, Issues I - II
 Plate 3

1 Gordian, aureus o f issue IIy RIC 25

2 -4 Gordian, aes o f issue II

2 Sestertius, RIC 264a
3 Sestertius, RIC 265a
4 Sestertius, RIC 266a

5-11 Gordian, radiates o f issue Ilia

5 RIC 34
6 RIC 35
7 -8 RIC 36
9 RIC 37
10 RIC 38
11 RIC 39

12 Gordian, denarius o f issue Ilia,RIC 45

13 -17 Gordian, aurei o f issue Ilia

13 RIC 40
14 RIC 41
15 RIC 42
16 RIC 43
17 RIC 44

18-21 Gordian, aes o f issue Ilia

18 Sestertius, RIC 267a
19 • Sestertius, RIC 268a
20 Sestertius, RIC 269a
21 Sestertius, RIC 271a
Plate 3: Gordian, Mint of Rome, Issues II - Ilia
 Plate 4

1 -5 Gordian, aes o f issue Ilia

1 Sestertius, RIC 272a
2 Sestertius, RIC 273a
3 Dupondius, RIC 273c
4 Dupondius, RIC 274b
5 As, RIC 270a

6 -7 Gordian, coins that cannot be attributed to an issue

6 Radiate, RIC 14
7 Sestertius, RIC 263a

8 -9 Comparative coins o f Severus Alexander (p. 114)

8 Bronze medallion, BMC 670
9 As, BMC 667

10-21 Comparative reverse types o f Rome (upper row) and Antioch (lower
row)
10 & 16 AEQVITAS AVG, RIC 34 and 3/38
11 & 17 FIDES MILITVM, RIC 1 and 12/7
12 & 18 PAX AVGVSTI, RIC 3 and 21/10
13 & 19 ROMAE AETERNAE, RIC 38 and 56/3
14 & 19 VICTORIA AVG, RIC 5 and 60/12
15 & 20 VIRTVS AVG, RIC 6 and 63/5
 R om e

A ntioch

16 17 18 19 20 21
(3 /3 8) (12/7) (21/10) (5 6 /3 ) (6 0 /1 2 ) (63/5)

Plate 4: Gordian, Mint of Rome, issue Ilia; Reverse types of Rome

and Antioch
 Plate 5

1 Engraver A (44/37)
2 Engraver B (30/1)
3 Engraver C (3/38)
4 Engraver D (51/3)
5 Engraver E (8/1)
6 Engraver F (7/25)
7 Engraver G (18/17)
8 Engraver H (24/1)
9 Engraver I (53/7)
10 Engraver J (3/36)
11 Engraver K (44/15)
12 Engraver L (50/6)
13-30 Radiates o f first series,
 Eng. C (3/38) Eng. D (51/3) Eng. E (8/1) Eng. F (7/25)
Eng. A (44/37) Eng. B (30/1)

Eng. G (18/17) Eng. H (24/1) Eng. 1 (53/7) Eng. J (3/36) Eng. K (44/15) Eng. L (50/6)

3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3 /16 3/17

P la te 5: G o rd ian , th e style o f d ifferen t en g av ers o f A n tio ch ; M in t o f A n tioch,

R ad iates, F irs t S eries
3/36 3'37 3/38 3/39 3/40

Plate 6: Mint of Antioch, Radiates, First Series

 7/14 7/15 7/25 8/1 8/2
7/13

Plate 7: Mint of Antioch, Radiates, First Series

12/9 12/10 12/11 12/12 12/13 12/14

Plate 8: Mint of Antioch, Radiates, First Series

12/15 12/16 12/17 12 A/1 13/1 13/2

13/3 13/4 13/5 13/6 13/7 13/8

14A/1 15/1 16/1 16/2 16/3 18/1

Plate 9: Mint of Antioch, Radiates, First Series

 18/12 18/13 18/14

18/16 18/17 18/18 18/19

18/22 18/23 18/39 19/1 20/1

Plate 10: Mint of Antioch, Radiates, First Series

 21/2 21/3 21/4 21/5 21/6
21/1

21/14

21/21 21/22 21/23 21/24 21/25

21/20

Plate 11: Mint of Antioch, Radiates, First Series

21/26 21/27 21/28 21/29 2 1 /3 0 21/31

21/32 21/34 21/35 21/37

26/1 27/1 28/1 29/2

Plate 12: M int of Antioch, Radiates,

F irs t S eries
 33/1 33A /1 34/1 34/2

43/1 43/2 43/3 44/1 44/2

42/1

Plate 13: M int of Antioch, Radiates, First Series

 44/3 44/4 44/5 44/6 44/7 44/8

44/9 44/10 44/11 44/12 44/13 44/14

44/21 44/22 44/23 44/24 44/25 44/26

Plate 14: M int of Antioch, Radiates, First Series

44/27 44/28 44/29 44/30 44/31 44/32

44/33 44/34 44/37 46/3

50/2 50/3 50/4 50/5 50/6 51/1

Plate 15: Mint of Antioch, Radiates, First Series

 52/13

53/11 53/12 53/13 54/1 54/2

Plate 16: M int of Antioch, Radiates, First Series

 56/8 56/11 5 6/12 56/13 56/14

60/4 60/5 60/6 60/7 60/8 60/9

Plate 17: Mint of Antioch, Radiates, First Series

 63/1 63/2 63/3 63/4 63/5 63/6

63/13 63/14 63/15 63/16 50n

Plate 18: Mint of Antioch, Radiates, First Series

Plate 19: Mint of Antioch, Tetradrachms, First Series
Plate 20: Mint of Antioch, Tetradrachms, First Series
4/61 4/62 4/64 4/65

Plate 21: M int of Antioch, Tetradrachms, First Series

4/85 4/86 4/87 4/88 4/89

Plate 22: Mint of Antioch, Tetradrachms, First Series

 4/90 4/91 4/92 4/93 4/94

4/95 4/96 4/97 4/98 4/99

4/100 4/101 4/102 4/103 4/104

4/151 5/1 5/2 5/3 6/3

Plate 23: Mint of Antioch, Tetradrachms, First Series

12/2 12/4 13/1 13/5 13/7

Plate 24: Mint of Antioch, Tetradrachms, First - Third Series

 13/12

17/12 17/14

17/15 ™ 6 17/23 n /2 5 17/29

Plate 25: Mint of Antioch, Tetradrachms, Third Series

17/32 17/33 17/38

17/41 17/42
17/46

17/47 17/48

20/1 20/3 20/8 20/14

Plate 26: Mint of Antioch, Tetradrachms, Third Series

 20/17 20/18 20/19

20/22 20/23

24/11 24/15 24/17

Plate 27: Mint of Antioch, Tetradrachms, Third Series

 Plate 28

A Damascus, bronze coin of Trebonianus Gallus, BMC 29 (p. 189)

B Cyrrhus, bronze coin of Philip I, BMC 31 (p. 189)
C Silver tetradrachm of Caracalla attributed to Damascus, Bellinger
219 (p. 190)
D Antioch, bronze coin of Severus Alexander, BMC 484 (p. 190)
E Alexandria, base silver tetradrachm of Gordian III, AD 239-40, BM
1979-5-13-7 (p. 488)
 24/52

A B C D E

Plate 28: M in t of Antioch, T e tr a d r a c h m s , T h ird Series;

C o m p a ra tiv e specim ens
 Plate 29

Bronze coins o f Gordian III from Viminacium (all in BM) (see p.

1 Yea 1, AMNG 71, BMC - (1958-3-4
2 Yea 1, AMNG 71, BMC 1, 16.27g
3 Yea 1, AMNG 74, BMC 2, 4.68g
4 Yea 1, AMNG 72, BMC 3, 5.27g
5 Yea 1, AMNG 72, BMC 4, 6.42g
6 Yea 2, AMNG 76, BMC 5, 14.24g
7 Yea 2, AMNG 76, BMC 6, 22.84g
8 Yea 2, AMNG 77, BMC 7, 6.28g
9 Yea 3, AMNG 81, BMC 8, 16.38g
10 Yea 3, AMNG 79, BMC 10, 14.99g
11 Yea 3, AMNG 80, BMC - (1958-3-4
12 Yea 4, AMNG 83, BMC 12, 19.56g
13 Yea 4, AMNG 83, BMC 13, 23.55g
14 Yea 4, AMNG 85, BMC 14, 20.34g
15 Yea 4, AMNG 84, BMC 15, 8.06g
16 Yea 5, AMNG 92, BMC 16, 19.09g
 minif

Plate 29: Bronze coins of Gordian from the Mint of Viminacium

 67/10 67/11 67/12 67/13 67/14

67/15 67/16 67/17 67/18 67/19 67/20

67/21 67/28 67/30 67/31 67/32 67/34

Plate 30: Mint of Antioch, Radiates, Second Series

67/35 67/38 67/39 67/43 68/1 69/2

71/10 71/11 71/12 71/13 71/14

71/15 71/16 71/17 71/23 71/26 71/27

Plate 31: Mint of Antioch, Radiates, Second Series

 71/30 71/32 71/40
71/29

73/15 73/16 73/17 73/18

73/21 73/22 73/27 73/29 73/30 73/36

Plate 32: Mint of Antioch, Radiates, Second Series

75/11 75/13

76/6 76/7 77/1 77/3

Plate 33: Mint of Antioch, Radiates, Second Series

77/5 77/6 77/7 78/12 78/13 78/14

78/47 78/48 78/49 78/50 78/51

78/46

78/53 78/54 78/55 78/56 78/57

78/58 78/71 78/72 78/73 78/74 78/75

Plate 34: Mint o f Antioch, Radiates, Second Series

#$#$#
#$####
78/81 78/82 78/83 78/84 78/88 78/113

78/116 78/120 78/154 79/40 79/41 79/42

79/44 79/46 79/48

79/43

79/49 79/50 79/51 79/52 79/53 79/54

Plate 35: M int of Antioch, Radiates, Second Series

 79/80 79/82 79/89 79/90
79/79

79/94 79/110 79/114 79/117 79/120 80/1

81/1 82/40 82/41 82/42

80/2 80/4

82/43 82/44 82/45 82/46 82/47 82/48

Plate 36: Mint of Antioch, Radiates, Second Series

82/75 82/76 82/82 82/83 82/84 82/90

82/104 82/108 83/1 83/2 83/3 83/4

83/5 83/11 83/12 83/13 83/14 83/15

Plate 37: Mint of Antioch, Radiates, Second Series

 84/14

P late 38: M in t o f Antioch, R a d ia te s , Second Series

C o n te m p o ra ry Copies
 14/1
10/1 11/1 12/1 13/1

Plate 39: Mint of Caesarea, Silver, Year 3

Plate 40: Mint of Caesarea, Silver and Bronze, Year 3; Silver, Year 4
24/1

26/2

34/1 35/1 36/1 37/1

Plate 41: Mint of Caesarea, Silver, Year 4

40/3 40/4 40/5 40/6 40/7

46/3 47/1 48/1 49/1 50/1

46/1

Plate 42: Mint of Caesarea, Silver, Year 4

63/2 64/1 64/3 65/2 66/1

Plate 43: Mint of Caesarea, Silver and Bronze, Year 4

78/2 79/4 79/5 79/6 80/1

Plate 44: Mint of Caesarea, Bronze, Year 4

92/1 93/1 93/2 94/1 95/1

Plate 45: Mint of Caesarea, Bronze, Year 4

 100/1 101/1 102/1 102/2

109/1 110/1 112/1 113/1 114/1

Plate 46: Mint of Caesarea, Bronze, Year 4

 119/2

121/2 123/1 124/1

125/1 127/2

130/1 131/1 131/3 131/5 132/1

Plate 47: Mint of Caesarea, Bronze, Year 4; Silver, Year 5; Bronze, Year 6
133/1 134/3 136/1

139/4 139/9

142/2

146/1 146/2 147/1 148/1 149/1 150/1

Plate 48: Mint of Caesarea, Bronze, Years 6 and 7

154/3 154/4 156/2 156/10

156/13 156/15

160/2 160/3 160/7 161/1 162/1

Plate 49: Mint of Caesarea, Bronze, Year 7

1/14 (A) 29/1 (C) 4/29 (A) 35/1 (C)

21/1 (C) 4/91 (A) 21/3 (C)

4/3 (A) 36/1 (C) 4/62 (A) 40/8 (C)

10/4 (A) 40/4 (C) 22/1 (A) 12/1 (C)

Plate 50: Stylistic Comparison between Tetradrachms of Antioch

and Tridrachms of Caesarea