Minting of Antoniniani A. D. 238-249 and the Smyrna Hoard

Author: Eddy, Samuel K., 1926-2015
Series: Numismatic Notes and Monographs
Publisher: American Numismatic Society
Place: New York
Date: 1967
Source: Donum
Source: Worldcat
Source: Worldcat Works

License

Acknowledgement

Open access edition funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities/Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Humanities Open Book Program.

Export

FRONT

THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

Founded 1858 • Incorporated 1865

Broadway Between 155th & 156th Streets New York, N.Y. 10032

PURPOSES: The Society was founded for the collection and preservation of coins, medals, decorations and paper money and for the investigation of their history and other subjects connected therewith.

MEMBERSHIP: Applications for membership are welcomed from all interested in numismatics. Inquiries regarding membership should be addressed to the Secretary of the Society.

DUES: The annual dues for an Associate Membership are $10.00. Issues of the Notes and Monographs, Museum Notes, Hispanic Numismatic Series, and Numismatic Literature are distributed to all members.

PUBLICATIONS: The Numismatic Notes and Monographs consist of separately issued publications, each on a single topic, of which usually several appear each year. The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes is a publication, irregular in appearance, consisting of brief notes and papers, principally on items in the Society's collections. Numismatic Literature, published twice each year, lists current numismatic publications with abstracts of their content. Numismatic Studies is a series accommodating works in a larger format. The Hispanic Numismatic Series, published in cooperation with the Hispanic Society of America, consists of publications devoted to the coinage of the Iberian Peninsula, and is based on the collections of the Hispanic Society.

MUSEUM: The Society maintains a museum located in uptown Manhattan, New York City, which houses its offices, collections and library. Collections embrace coins of all periods from their inception to modern times, medals and decorations. Selections from its cabinets are on display in an exhibition. The library, consisting of about 20,000 volumes, covers all branches of numismatics.

The museum is open to Members and the public from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. In addition, the public exhibition is open on Sundays from 1 to 4 p.m. The museum is closed on Mondays and the following holidays: New Year's Day, Lincoln's Birthday, Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Election Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.

NUMISMATIC NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS

Number 156

PRINTED IN GERMANY

AT J. J. AUGUSTIN • GLÜCKSTADT

The Minting of Antoniniani a.d. 238–249 and The Smyrna Hoard

By SAMUEL K. EDDY

the american numismatic society new york 1967

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	vii
THE SMYRNA HOARD	1
THE MINTING OF ANTONINIANI UNDER GORDIAN III	51
THE MINTING OF ANTONINIANI UNDER PHILIP I	84
THE HOARDER AND SMYRNA, A.D. 238–257	123
KEY TO THE PLATES	128
PLATES	134
LIST OF TABLES
1. Distribution of Antoniniani of 1st/2nd Issue of Gordian III in Finds	58
2. Assignment of Antoniniani of 1st/2nd Issue of Gordian III from Small Hoards to Officinae	64
3. Assignment of Antoniniani of 1st/2nd Issue of Gordian III to Officinae	65
4. Positions of Obverse and Reverse Dies and Axis of Strike of Antoniniani of 1st/2nd Issue of Gordian III	66
5. Distribution of Antoniniani of 3rd Issue of Gordian III in Finds	67
6. Assignment of Antoniniani of 3rd Issue of Gordian III to Officinae	68
7. Positions of Obverse and Reverse Dies and Axis of Strike of 1st/2nd and 3rd Issues of Gordian III	70
8. Distribution of Antoniniani of 4th Issue of Gordian III in Finds	71
9. Assignment of Antoniniani of 4th Issue of Gordian III to Officinae	72
10. Distribution of Antoniniani of 5th Issue of Gordian III in Finds	75
11. Assignment of Antoniniani of 5th Issue of Gordian III to Officinae	76
12. Production of Numbers of Antoniniani by Officinae under Gordian III	76
13. Production of Weight of Antoniniani by Officinae under Gordian III	76
14. Production of Weight of Silver by Officinae under Gordian III	77
15. Denominations of Gold, Silver, and Aes Produced by Officinae under Gordian III	77
16. Assignment of Antoniniani of Balbinus and Pupienus to Officinae	80
17. Distribution of Antoniniani of 1st Issue of Philip I in Major Hoards	85
18. Distribution of Antoniniani of 2nd Issue of Philip I in Major Hoards	85
19. Distribution of Antoniniani of 3rd Issue of Philip I in Major Hoards	87
20. Distribution of Antoniniani of 4th and 7th Issues of Philip I in Major Hoards	87
21. Distribution of Types RIC 60, 61, and 63b of Philip I in Major Hoards	91
22. Distribution of Antoniniani of Philip I Struck at Antioch	96
23. Distribution of Antoniniani of 1st Issue of Philip I in Finds	100
24. Assignment of Antoniniani of 1st Issue of Philip I to Officinae	101
25. Distribution of Antoniniani of 2nd Issue of Philip I in Finds	104
26. Assignment of Antoniniani of 2nd Issue of Philip I to Officinae	104
27. Distribution of Antoniniani of 3rd Issue of Philip I in Finds	105
28. Assignment of Antoniniani of 3rd Issue of Philip I to Officinae	106
29. Distribution of Antoniniani of 4th Issue of Philip I in Finds	108
30. Assignment of Antoniniani of 4th Issue of Philip I to Officinae	109
31. Assignment of Antoniniani of 5th/6th Issue of Philip I to Officinae	117
32. Assignment of Antoniniani of 7th Issue of Philip I to Officinae	120

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research for this monograph was begun while I was a member of the faculty of the University of Nebraska, and was completed after I had joined the Department of History of the University of California at Santa Barbara. The task of locating certain books and articles in journals was much facilitated by the staffs of the libraries of these two universities, and I should like to thank Cecelie North of Nebraska and Shiela McMurray of California for their great patience and perseverence in tracking down several hard-to-find items.

I wish to acknowledge also the support granted by the Committee on Research of the University of California, Santa Barbara, which made possible the typing of the manuscript and the initial photography of the coins.

Above all, I am indebted to the Rev. I. C. G. Campbell, of Weeping Water, Nebraska, U.S.A., for the opportunity to study and publish this hoard. I should add, however, that since this monograph was written, the hoard has been broken up.

BODY

THE SMYRNA HOARD

The Smyrna hoard was found buried in a field near the site of ancient Smyrna , in the vicinity of modern Izmir in Turkey. The find was made by an unknown person probably in the winter or early spring of 1954. There were at this time road-building operations in the neighborhood, which are said to have cut through an ancient cemetery, but whether this was the place where the coins were discovered is unknown. The person who found the coins may have been stimulated to search for antiquities by the then recent Anglo-Turkish excavations at Smyrna . 1 The hoard was taken by the finder to a reputable coin dealer in Constantinople—a personal friend of Rev. Campbell—and sold to him. The original container was then in some way disposed of, and nothing is known of its description. When the hoard was eventually purchased, the coins were deposited loosely on a shelf of a cabinet in the dealer's shop. There is no reason to suppose, however, that any of the coins in the hoard have become lost, or that the hoard is anything but genuine, or that any of the above details is not trustworthy.

The hoard contains 1,243 antoniniani of certain emperors and their families, and one denarius, as follows:

Caracalla	5
Julia Domna	8
Elagabalus	12
Balbinus	2
Pupienus	2
Gordian III	662 and one denarius
Philip I	423
Otacilia	4
Philip II	38
Trajan Decius	54
Herennia Etruscilla	1

Herennius Etruscus	11
Hostilian	3
Trebonianus Gallus	7
Volusian	5
Aemilian	2
Valerian I	4
TOTAL	1,243 and one denarius

There were an additional ten coins in the lot purchased, which are certainly intrusions. They were presumably added by the finder of the hoard to increase its weight and therefore his sale price. These include seven denarii of emperors of the second and early third centuries. That these coins were not originally included with the antoniniani of the hoard is reasonably certain because of their rather clean condition and purple-gray patina, which differed noticeably from the green patina and brown dirt on the antoniniani. The seven denarii are as follows:

Emperor	RIC
Vespasian	4
Hadrian	237
Faustina	illegible
Antoninus Pius	431
Septimius Severus	40
Geta	9b
Caracalla	238 a

Emperors of the fourth century are represented by three silver coins which are certainly intrusions; there is one each of Constantine I , Licinius , and Gratian .

Campbell carried out cleaning ar??? preliminary identification. The latter was subsequently checked by the author, who also weighed the coins on a chemist's balance sensitive to one thousandth of a gram. Between these two operations, that is, before weighing, ten coins were unfortunately dispersed from the hoard, but this is a matter of small consequence. 2

The coins when cleaned were found to be in very good condition. All the antoniniani were readily identifiable and entirely legible. A respectable number are almost uncirculated (V.F.); most seem to have been in circulation for some time, but show no great amount or wear, and are unmarked in the catalogue. The rest are slightly worn (F.) and only a few are worn (G.) or badly worn (W.).

In the catalogue of the hoard the coins of emperors other than Gordian III and Philip I and his family are listed in groups of types according to the system of Mattingly, Sydenham, and Sutherland in the volumes of The Roman Imperial Coinage. For Gordian and Philip each specimen is listed, since the state of the mint during the reigns of these two emperors is the main subject of this monograph.

Identification as to mint (Rome , Antioch , Viminacium , Mediolanum ) is included for the specimens listed under Gordian III and Philip I . For Gordian III , attribution to mints follows Mattingly, Sydenham, and Sutherland. For Philip I , however, there are some departures from that system, as discussed below, pp. 84ff.

In the next column, which shows the direction of strike, the head of the arrow indicates at the nearest hour on a clock face the point of lightest impression. The base of the arrow, therefore, is the point of heaviest impression. An "X" indicates those specimens so fairly struck that no differences of impression around the edge are observable.

In the next column to the right the relationship of obverse and reverse dies is shown, counting as ↑↓ or ↑↑ all coins which are exactly in this alignment or only a few degrees off. Only coins whose dies were skewed more than a few degrees from vertical alignment are shown exactly. It is assumed that the position of the obverse is ↑, so that the column shows the position of the reverse die.

CATALOGUE OF COINS
Smyrna No.	RIC	wt.	Dir.	Rev. Die	Rev. Description/Remarks
			Caracalla (5)
1	258a	4.91			P.M.TR.P.XVIII COS.IIII P.P. Jupiter stg. holding thunderbolt and sceptre.
2	258b	4.92			As preceding.
3	264b	5.09			P.M.TR.P-XVIII COS.IIII P.P. Sol stg. holding globe.
4	281a	5.06			P.M.TR.P.XVIIII COS.IIII P.P. Sol stg. holding globe.
5	312c	5.41			VENVS VICTRIX Venus stg. holding helmet and sceptre; captives std.
			Julia Domna (8)
6	379a	5.44			LVNA LVCIFERA Luna in biga.
7–11	388a	4.99			VENVS GENETRIX Venus std. holding sceptre. (Av.wt.).
12–13	389a	5.31			VENVS GENETRIX Venus std. holding apple and sceptre; Cupid. (Av.wt.).
			Elagabalus (12)
14–16	1	4.67			Obv.: 2f. P.M.TR.P.COS.P.P. Roma std. holding Victory and sceptre. (Av.wt.).
17	18	5.05			Obv.: 3f. P.M.TR.P.II.COS.II. P.P. Fortuna std. holding rudder on globe and cornucopia; wheel.
18–19	22	4.50			Obv.: 3f. P.M.TR.P.II.COS.II.P.P. Providentia stg. holding rod and cornucopia; globe. (Av.wt.)
20	72	5.23			Obv.: 3f. FIDES MILITVM Fides stg. holding standard and vexillum.
21	120	4.97			Obv.: 1e. MARS VICTOR Mars adv. r. holding spear and trophy.
22–23	122	4.93			Obv.: 2f. As preceding (Av.wt.).
24	138	4.99			Obv.: 2f. SALVS ANTONINI AVG. Salus stg. feeding held snake.
25	149	4.90			Obv.: 3e. TEMPORVM FELICITAS Felicitas stg. holding caduceus and cornucopia.
			Balbinus (2)
26–27	11	4.34			FIDES MVTVA AVGG. Clasped hands. (Av.wt.).
			PUPIENUS (2)
28	10b	4.23			CARITAS MVTVA AVGG. Clasped hands.
29	11b	4.47			PATRES SENATVS Clasped hands.
			Gordian III (663)
			Mint of Rome
30	1	5.05	↘	↓	FIDES MILITVM Fides stg. holding standard and sceptre.
31		4.73	↘	↓	F.
32		4.72	↘	↓	(Plate I, 2).
33		4.56	↘	↓
34		4.54	→	↑	F.
35		4.53	↘	↓
36		4.44	→	↓
37		4.36	↘	↓	(Plate I, 1).
38		4.03	↗	↓
39	2	4.78	↘	↑	IOVI CONSERVATORI Jupiter stg. holding thunderbolt; Gordian stg. holding sceptre.
40		4.68	→	↑	V.F.; thick flan.
41		4.67	↘	↓
42		4.53	×	↓
43		4.34	↓	↑
44		4.17	↑	↓	(Plate I, 14).
45		4.13	↘	↑
46		3.68	↘	↓	(Plate I, 13).
47		3.51	↘	↑
48	3	4.58	↘	↑	PAX AVGVSTI Pax stg. holding branch and sceptre.
49		4.33	↘	↓
50		4.32	↘	↗
51		4.28	↙	↓	F.
52		4.25	↘	↙	F.
53		4.02	↘	↑	F. (Plate I, 7).
54		3.84	↘	↑	(Plate I, 8).
55	4	5.11	↘	↓	PROVIDENTIA AVG. Providentia stg. holding globe and sceptre.
56		5.08	←	↑
57		5.04	↘	↑
58		4.84	↘	↑
59		4.82	↘	↓
60		4.68	↘	↓
61		4.60	↘	↓
62		4.60	↘	↑
63		4.34	↙	↑
64		4.12	↘	↓
65		4.11	↘	↓	Same obv. die as No. 67.
66		4.11	↗	↓
67		4.10	↘	↑	Same obv. die as No. 65 (Plate I. 17).
68		3.96	↘	↑	(Plate I, 16).
69	5	5.19	↘	↓	VICTORIA AVG. Victory adv. 1. holding wreath and palm.
70		4.60	↘	↘
71		4.58	↘	↓
72		4.57	↘	↑	Same obv. die as No. 81.
73		4.49	→	↓	(Plate I, 5).
74		4.48	↘	↑
75		4.41	↘	↑
76		4.34	↘	↘	V.F. (Plate I, 4).
77		4.33	↘	↑	G.
78		4.28	↖	↓	G.
79		4.23	↘	↑	G.
80		4.07	↘	↓	F.
81		3.81	×	↓	F.; same obv. die as No. 72.
82	6	4.76	↘	↗	VIRTVS AVG. Virtus stg. holding spear; oval shield.
83		4.36	↘	↑
84		4.22	↙	↑
85		4.13	↘	↗	V.F.
86		4.05	↗	↓	(Plate I, 10).
87		3.93	↘	↑
88		3.90	↓	↑
89		3.86	×	↑	(Plate I, 11).
90		3.79	↘	↑
91		3.69	↘	↑
92	15	4.13	↘	↓	P.M.TR.P.II COS.P.P. Fides stg. holding standard and sceptre. V.F. (Plate I, 3).
93		3.67	↘	↑	V.F.
94		3.50	↘	↑	(Plate II, 4).
95	16	5.18	↘	↑	P.M.TR.P.II COS.P.P. Jupiter stg. holding thunderbolt; Gordian stg. holding sceptre. Thick flan.
96		4.51	↙	↓	(Plate II, 16).
97		4.44	↘	↓
98		4.44	↙	↑
99		4.04	↙	↓	(Plate I, 15).
100	18	5.18	←	↓	P.M.TR.P.II COS.P.P. Providentia stg. holding globe and sceptre.
101		5.15	↙	↖
102		4.96	↘	↑	F. (Plate I, 18).
103		4.73	↘	↓
104		3.91	↘	↑	(Plate II, 13).
105	19	5.14	↘	↑	P.M.TR.P.II COS.P.P. Victory adv. 1. holding wreath and palm. G.
106		4.74	↘	↑	V.F. (Plate II, 1).
107		4.36	↗	↓
108		4.07	↘	↙	F. (Plate I, 6).
109		3.88	↘	↑	F.
110		3.34	↘	↑	G.
111	20	4.88	↘	↗	P.M.TR.P.II COS. P.P. Virtus stg. holding spear; oval shield. (Plate I, 12).
112		3.99	↘	↑	(Plate II, 10)
113		3.91	↘	↙
114	34	5.40	↘	↗	AEQVITAS AVG. Aequitas stg. holding scales and cornucopiae.
115		4.82	↘	↙
116		4.54	↘	↙
117		4.47	→	↗	(Plate II, 8).
118		4.38	↘	↓	V.F.; base.
119		4.32	↙	↓
120		4.28	↙	↙
121		4.28	↙	↗
122		3.96	↙	↓
123		3.90	→	↑
124	35	5.26	↙	↓	CONCORDIA AVG. Concordia std. holding patera and double cornucopiae. Base.
125		5.14	↘	↓
126		4.77	↘	↑
127		4.67	↘	↓	F.
128		4.44	↘	↑
129		4.41	↘	↑
130		4.31	↘	↓
131		4.15	↘	↙
132		3.90	→	↓	Single cornucopia.
133		3.89	↘	↓
134		3.82	↘	↑	(Plate II, 11).
135		3.69	↗	↑
136		3.55	↗	↑
137	36	5.12	↘	↑	LIBERALITAS AVG. II Liberalitas stg. holding abacus and cornucopiae. (Plate II, 17).
138		4.93	↘	↓
139		4.90	↗	↑
140		4.84	↘	↓
141		4.83	↘	↑
142		4.80	↘	↑
143		4.73	↘	↑
144		4.61	↘	↓
145		4.14	↘	↓
146		4.05	↘	↑
147		4.03	↘	↓
148		3.99	↘	↑
149		3.84	↗	↑	F.
150	37	6.33	↘	↓	P.M.TR.P.II COS.P.P. Gordian stg. sacrificing, holding patera and wand.
151		5.16	×	↑
152		4.82	×	↓
153		4.49	↘	↓	F.
154		4.42	↘	↓	F.
155		4.38	↘	↓	F.
156		4.21	↗	↓
157		4.18	→	↓
158		4.03	×	↑
159		3.90	↘	↑
160		3.89	×	↑
161		3.65	↙	↑	Thin flan (Plate II, 14).
162		3.51	↘	↓	Thin flan.
163		3.12	↓	↓	Thin flan.
164	38	4.92	×	↓	ROMAE AETERNAE Roma std. holding Victory and spear.
165		4.64	↘	↙
166		4.64	↘	↗
167		4.15	↘	↗
168		4.13	×	↓	V.F.
169		4.07	↙	↓
170		4.06	↓	↑	V.F. (Plate II, 5).
171		3.96	×	↙
172		3.94	↘	↑
173		3.91	↓	↓	G.
174	39	5.60	×	↓	VIRTVS AVG. Virtus stg. holding branch and spear; shield.
175		5.57	↘	↑
176		4.85	↘	↑
177		4.69	↘	↓	F.
178		4.56	↘	↑
179		4.37	↘	↗
180		4.29	↘	↓
181		4.08	↙	↑
182		3.96	×	↑	(Plate II, 2).
183		3.72	↘	↑
184	—	3.90	↘	↓	Variant, as RIC 52n. (CONCORDIA MILIT).
185	51	4.88	×	↑	AEQVITAS AVG. Aequitas std. holding scales and cornucopiae. V.F.
186		4.25	↘	↗
187		4.24	↘	↑	V.F.
188		4.18	↘	↓	(Plate II, 9).
189		3.91	↘	↓
190		3.74	↙	↗
191	52	4.66	↙	↓	CONCORDIA AVG. Concordia std. holding patera and double cornucopiae. (Plate II, 12).
192		4.36	↘	↑
193	53	4.69	×	↑	LIBERALITAS AVG. II Liberalitas stg. holding abacus and cornucopiae.
194		4.23	↓	↑	F.
195		4.08	↙	↑	V.F. (Plate II, 15).
196		4.03	↘	↓
197		3.64	↙	↑
198		3.58	↓	↑	F.
199	54	4.54	↘	↓	P.M.TR.P.II COS.P.P. Gordian stg. sacrificing, holding patera and wand. (Plate II, 18).
200		4.44	↘	↓
201	55	4.77	↙	↑	ROMAE AETERNAE Roma std. holding Victory and spear.
202		4.34	↘	↓	(Plate II, 6).
203		3.81	↙	↑
204	56	4.48	↘	↓	VIRTVS AVG. Virtus stg. holding branch and spear; shield.
205		3.85	↙	↓	(Plate II, 3).
206	63	4.48	↘	↑	AEQVITAS AVG. Aequitas stg. holding scales and cornucopiae. Oval flan.
207		4.40	↘	↙
208		4.38	×	↑
209		4.36	×	↙
210		4.35	↙	↓	F.
211		4.28	↖	↗
212		4.22	↘	↙
213		3.92	↖	↓	(Plate III, 7).
214		3.84	↘	↙	G., oval flan.
215		3.74	↗	↗	G.
216	65	4.69	×	↑	CONCORDIA MILIT. Concordia std. holding patera and double cornucopiae.
217		4.56	↗	↗	Double struck.
218		4.51	↘	↑
219		4.25	↙	↗
220		3.88	×	↓
221		3.87	×	↓	(Plate III, 10).
222		3.18		↑	Thin flan.
223	67	5.86	↗	↓	LIBERALITAS AVG. III Liberalitas stg. holding abacus and cornucopiae. (Plate III, 13).
224		5.60	↘	↓
225		5.17	↖	↑
226		4.10	↙	↑
227		3.46	×	↑
228		3.40	↘	↓	Thin, oval flan.
229	68	5.01	↘	↓	P.M.TR.P.II COS.P.P. Gordian stg. sacrificing, holding patera and wand.
230		4.88	↗	↓	V.F. (Plate III, 16).
231		4.75	↘	↑
232		4.72	↘	↓	Clipped.
233		4.66	↓	↓
234		4.57	↓	↓
235		4.52	↙	↑
236		4.24	↘	↓
237		3.93	↘	↑	G.
238	69	4.46	→	↑	P.M.TR.P.III COS.P.P. Gordian stg. sacrificing, holding patera and wand. Oval flan.
239	70	5.52	×	↓	ROMAE AETERNAE Roma std. holding Victory and spear. Oval flan.
240		5.29	↘	↑	V.F.
241		5.14	↘	↓
242		5.10	↘	↓
243		4.98	↘	↑	Oval flan.
244		4.49	↘	↑
245		4.44	↓	↑	F.
246		4.11	×	↓
247		3.95	↙	↑
248		3.93	↘	↓
249		3.92	↓	↓	F.
250		3.73	↘	↓	Thin flan; clipped.
251		3.58	↘	↓	Thin flan (Plate III, 1).
252		3.37	↗	↑	Thin flan.
253	71	5.17	↖	↓	VIRTVS AVG. Virtus stg. holding branch and spear; shield.
254		4.59	↘	↑	F.
255		4.56	↘	↑
256		4.52	↘	↓	Oval flan.
257		4.44	↘	↑	(Plate III, 4).
258		4.37	↘	↓	Oval flan.
259		4.30	↗	↓
260		4.30	↘	↙
261		4.22	↘	↓	G.
262		4.01	↘	↓	Oval flan.
263		3.80	↘	↓	G.
264		3.62	↖	↓	Oval flan.
265		3.61	↖	↑	V.F.
266		3.19	↗	↑	G.; thin flan.
267					Dispersed.
268	83	5.28	↙	↓	AETERNITATI AVG. Sol stg. holding globe. (Plate III, 8).
269		5.18	↘	↓
270		5.03	↙	↓	V.F.
271		4.79	↘	↑
272		4.75	×	↓
273		4.64	↘	↓
274		4.64	↘	↓
275		4.61	↘	↓
276		4.60	↘	↓
277		4.60	↖	↗
278		4.56	↘	↑	G.
279		4.53	↗	↑
280		4.45	↙	↓	Bent flan.
281		4.40	↙	↓
282		4.38	↙	↓
283		4.35	↙	↓	F.
284		4.34	→	↑
285		4.33	↘	↓	Oval flan.
286		4.32	↘	↙
287		4.27	↓	↑
288		4.16	↗	↓
289		4.16	↙	↑
290		4.11	↘	↑	V.F.
291		4.11	↘	↑	Oval flan.
292		4.09	→	↑
293		4.07	↗	↓	Oval flan.
294		4.07	↘	↓
295		4.01	×	↑	V.F.
296		3.96	→	↑
297		3.92	↗	↙
298		3.89	↖	↓
299		3.89	↘	↓
300		3.86	→	↓
301		3.67	↗	↓
302		3.60	↘	↑	F.
303		3.53	←	↓	F.; thin flan.
304		3.49	↘	↓
305		3.44	↙	↓
306		3.42	↙	↑	G.
307		3.25	↙	↑	Clipped; thin flan.
308					Dispersed.
309	84	5.55	↘	↓	IOVI STATORI Jupiter stg. holding long sceptre and thunderbolt.
310		5.41	↘	↑	F.
311		5.34	↘	↓
312		5.19	→	↑	V.F.
313		5.14	↘	↓	V.F.
314		5.09	↗	↓
315		4.96	↘	↓
316		4.87	↗	↓
317		4.81	↘	↓	V.F.
318		4.79	×	↓
319		4.66	↗	↓
320		4.62	↘	↑
321		4.59	↘	↓	F.
322		4.54	↘	↓
323		4.52	↙	↓
324		4.43	↙	↓
325		4.41	↘	↑
326		4.40	↙	↑	F.; oval flan.
327		4.38	↙	↑	V.F.
328		4.38	↘	↑	V.F.
329		4.36	↖	↓	G.
330		4.33	↘	↓
331		4.32	←	↑
332		4.24	↗	↑
333		4.24	↘	↑
334		4.23	↙	↓
335		4.21	↘	↑
336		4.19	↘	↑	Oval flan.
337		4.17	↘	↑	Oval flan.
338		4.11	→	↖
339		4.09	↙	↑
340		4.03	↘	↑
341		3.98	↘	↑	Oval flan.
342		3.90	→	↓	V.F. (Plate III, 2).
343		3.90	←	↓	Oval flan.
344		3.86	↓	↓
345		3.83	↖	↓	Oval flan.
346		3.83	←	↑
347		3.81	↘	↑
348		3.78	↙	↗
349		3.74	↘	↓	Oval flan.
350		3.71	↘	↓	Oval flan.
351		3.69	↘	↓
352		3.63	↙	↓
353					Dispersed.
354	85	5.96	↖	↓	IOVIS STATOR Jupiter stg. holding long sceptre and thunderbolt.
355		4.83	↓	↓
356		4.64	↙	↖
357		4.51	↙	↓
358		3.93	↘	↑
359	86	5.80	×	↑	LAETITIA AVG. N. Laetitia stg. holding wreath and anchor.
360		5.23	↗	↑	Oval flan.
361		5.17	×	↓
362		4.91	↘	↑
363		4.88	↙	↑	V.F.
364		4.77	↖	↓
365		4.77	↘	↑
366		4.74	↙	↓
367		4.74	×	↓
368		4.70	×	↓
369		4.70	↗	↑
370		4.64	↘	↓
371		4.56	↘	↓
372		4.52	↘	↖
373		4.51	↘	↑
374		4.46	↙	↓
375		4.42	↘	↓
376		4.39	↖	↓
377		4.38	↘	↓	V.F.; oval flan.
378		4.35	↘	↓	Oval flan.
379		4.31	↘	↓
380		4.24	→	↑
381		4.22	↘	↑
382		4.21	↘	↑
383		4.21	↘	↑	V.F.; oval flan.
384		4.20	↗	↓
385		4.19	↗	↘	V.F.
386		4.16	↙	↑
387		4.09	↗	↑	V.F.
388		4.08	↗	↑
389		4.08	↙	↖
390		4.05	↙	↑
391		4.01	↙	↓	V.F.
392		3.95	↖	↓	V.F.; oval flan.
393		3.91	↙	↑
394		3.83	↘	↑
395		3.82	↖	↓
396		3.78	↙	↓
397		3.75	↙	↑
398		3.72	↗	↓	V.F. (Plate III, 5).
399		3.72	↙	↑
400		3.69	↘	↓	Thin flan.
401		3.49	↘	↓	Thin, oval flan.
402					Dispersed.
403					Dispersed.
404	87	5.30	↘	↑	P.M.TR.P.III COS.II P.P. Apollo std. holding branch; lyre.
405	88	5.17	↘	↑	P.M. TR. P. IIII COS. II P.P. Apollo std. holding branch; lyre.
406		5.09	↖	↑
407		4.83	←	↓	Oval flan.
408		4.81	↑	↓
409		4.60	↙	↗	Oval flan.
410		4.48	↙	↑
411		4.43	↖	↓
412		4.38	↖	↑
413		4.37	↘	↑	(Plate III, 14).
414		4.37	↘	↑	V.F.
415		4.36	↙	↓
416		4.34	↘	↓	V.F.
417		4.17	↗	↓	Oval flan.
418		4.14	↙	↓	V.F.
419		3.97	↘	↓	Clipped; oval flan.
420		3.84	↘	↓
421					Dispersed.
422	89	5.19	↙	↑	P.M.TR.P.V COS.II P.P. Apollo std. holding branch; lyre.
423		5.10	↘	↓
424		4.97	↗	↑
425		4.77	×	↓	Oval flan.
426		4.76	↗	↓
427		4.71	↘	↗	Base.
428		4.55	↘	↓
429		4.37	→	↗
430		4.36	×	↓
431		4.26	↖	↑
432		4.26	↗	↑
433		4.24	↗	↓
434		4.21	×	↓
435		4.13	→	↑	V.F.; oval flan.
436		4.12	↘	↑
437		4.07	↙	↑
438		3.70	×	↓	V.F.
439		3.57	↙	↑	Base.
440	90	5.38	↘	↓	P.M.TR.P.VI COS.II P.P. Apollo std. holding branch; lyre.
441		4.18	×	↓
442	91	4.37	↘	↑	P.M.TR.P.III COS.II P.P. Gordian stg. holding spear and globe.
443		4.03	↘	↓
444		3.75	←	↓	(Plate III, 11).
445	92	5.49	↘	↑	P.M.TR.P.IIII COS.II P.P. Gordian stg. holding spear and globe.
446		4.85	↓	↓
447		4.82	↖	↑	Oval flan.
448		4.52	↘	↘	Clipped.
449		4.49	↘	↓
450		4.34	↗	↓
451		4.27	↙	↓
452		4.23	↘	↓	G.
453		4.17	×	↓
454		4.15	↘	↓	G.; clipped.
455		4.13	↘	↑	Double struck.
456		4.13		↑
457		4.03	↘	↓	Base; oval flan.
458		3.73	↗	↑	Thin flan.
459		3.63	↘	↑	Edge off flan.
460	93	4.89	↖	↓	P.M.TR.P.V COS.II P.P. Gordian stg. holding spear and globe.
461		4.81	↙	↑	G.
462		4.70	↘	↑
463		4.68	↙	↑
464		4.62	×	↙	V.F.
465		4.59	↘	↑
466		4.58	↘	↑	Oval flan.
467		4.56	↗	↑
468		4.54	↘	↓	W.
469		4.53	↘	↑
470		4.37	↘	↓
471		4.23	↙	↓	d.M.TR.P. V COS.II P.P.
472		4.09	×	↓
473		4.02	↘	↑
474		4.01	↗	↑	F.
475		3.87	×	↓	G.
476		3.77	↘	↑	F.; thin flan.
477		3.76	×	↓	Thin flan.
478		3.39	↙	↓	Thin flan.
479	94	4.08	↙	↑	P.M.TR.P.VI COS.II P.P. Gordian stg. holding spear and globe. F.
480		3.68	↘	↑
481	95	5.36	↙	↓	VIRTVTI AVGVSTI. Hercules stg.; club on rock; lion-skin.
482		5.08	↗	↙
483		4.98	↘	↓	F.
484		4.92	↘	↓
485		4.92	↙	↙
486		4.79	↘	↗
487		4.73	×	↓	V.F. (Plate III, 17).
488		4.73	×	↙
489		4.70	↙	↑
490		4.70	↘	↑	G.; oval flan.
491		4.69	↓	↗
492		4.63	→	↓
493		4.60	↖	↓
494		4.54	→	↗	Oval flan.
495		4.53	→	↙	Split flan.
496		4.52	↘	↑
497		4.47	↘	↓
498		4.41	↙	↓
499		4.33	↙	↗	F.
500		4.29	↙	↙
501		4.29	↘	↑
502		4.27	→	↓
503		4.25	×	↑
504		4.11	↗	↑	Oval flan.
505		4.01	↙	↙	G.
506		3.94	↘	↓	V.F.
507		3.83	↙	↙	V.F.; split flan.
508		3.77	→	↓	Oval flan.
509		3.76	↖	↙
510		3.62	↘	↗	Thin flan.
511		3.52	↙	↙	G.; base; split flan.
512					Dispersed.
513	129	3.62	↙	↑	PIETAS AVGVSTI Pietas stg. raising hands. V.F.; oval flan. Denarius.
514	140	4.97	↙	↓	FELICIT. TEMP. Felicitas stg. holding long caduceus and cornucopiae.
515		4.90	×	↓	F.
516		4.89	↙	↓	G. (Plate V, 16).
517		4.71	↘	↓	G.
518		4.43	↗	↓	Oval flan.
519		4.36	↘	↑	F.
520		4.32	↘	↑	F.
521		4.28	↖	↓	(Plate III, 18).
522		4.28	→	↑	F.; oval flan.
523		3.93	↖	↑
524		3.79	→	↑	Base.
525	141	5.58	×	↑	FELICIT. TEMPOR. Felicitas stg. holding long caduceus and cornucopiae. G.
526	142	5.10	↙	↙	FELICITAS TEMPORVM Felicitas stg. holding long caduceus and cornucopiae. F.
527		4.70	↖	↓	G.
528		4.61	↗	↓
529		4.40	↗	↗	F.; oval flan.
530		4.15	↗	↑	F.
531		4.04	↙	↓
532		3.72	↘	↗	Thin, oval flan.
533	143	5.16	↙	↑	FORT. REDVX Fortuna std. holding rudder and cornucopiae; wheel. (Plate IV, 1).
534		5.07	↙	↓
535		4.82	↗	↑
536		4.61	→	↓	F.
537		4.59	↙	↑	F.
538		4.48	↘	↙	F.
539		4.20	↘	↑	F.
540		4.20	↗	↑	Oval flan.
541		4.02	↘	↙	G.
542		3.95	↑	↓	G.
543		3.88	↗	↓
544	144	4.87	↘	↓	FORTVNA REDVX Fortuna std. holding rudder and cornucopiae; wheel. G.
545		4.68	↘	↑	(Plate III, 6).
546		4.55	↖	↑
547		4.52	↗	↑	G. (Plate V, 1).
548		4.48	↗	↑	G.
549		4.42	↗	↑	F.
550		4.01	↘	↓
551		3.87	↘	↗	G.
552	145	5.01	↘	↑	MARS PROPVG. Mars adv. r. holding spear and shield. F.
553		4.86	↙	↓	Oval flan.
554		4.75	↘	↓
555		4.69	↘	↓
556		4.61	↘	↓
557		4.51	↘	↓	(Plate IV, 7).
558		4.34	→	↓	(Plate V, 13).
559		4.31	↗	↓	F.
560		4.00	↖	↑	Obv. scraped.
561		3.86	↖	↓	F.
562	147	4.62	↘	↓	MARTEM PROPVGNATOREM Mars adv. r. holding spear and shield. Oval flan.
563		4.49	↗	↙
564		4.27	×	↙	V.F. (Plate III, 15).
565	148	5.27	↘	↑	PROVID.AVG. Providentia stg. holding wand over globe and sceptre.
566		4.82	↙	↓	V.F. (Plate V, 10).
567		4.68	←	↗
568		4.63	↘	↓
569		4.47	→	↙	Oval flan (Plate III, 12).
570		4.46	↙	↑	F.
571		4.37	↙	↑
572		4.27	↘	↑
573		4.25	↖	↗
574		4.21	↙	↑	F.
575		4.00	↙	↑
576		3.76	↘	↑
577		3.19	↙	↓	Thin flan.
578		2.98	←	↑	Thin flan.
579	150	4.99	↖	↑	PROVIDENTIA AVG. Providentia stg. holding wand over globe and sceptre.
580		4.73	↙	↓	V.F.
581		3.96	↘	↓
582		3.72	↙	↑
583		3.61	↖	↓	F.; thin flan.
584	151	5.04	↙	↑	SECVRIT. PERP. Securitas stg. holding sceptre; column. F.; oval flan.
585		4.80	↘	↑	G.
586		4.77	↘	↑
587		4.48	↘	↑
588		4.46	↘	↓
589		4.34	↗	↓	G. (Plate III, 9).
590		4.08	↑	↓	F.; oval flan.
591		3.94	↘	↑	Oval flan.
592		3.89	↗	↓	Oval flan.
593		3.80	↑	↓	F.; oval flan.
594		3.76	↖	↓	F.
595		3.58	↑	↑
596		3.51	←	↓	Base.
597		3.43	↘	↑	F.; thin, oval flan.
598		3.40	↙	↑	F.; thin, oval flan.
599	152	4.91	×	↓	SECVRIT. PERPET. Securitas stg. holding sceptre; column. F.
600	153	4.79	↘	↑	SECVRITAS PERPETVA Securitas stg. holding sceptre; column.
601		4.68	↘	↑
602		4.61	↙	↓	F.
603		4.47	→	↑	G. (Plate IV, 4).
604		4.45	↘	↓	F.
605		4.43	↓	↑
606		4.36	↙	↑	Oval flan (Plate V, 7).
607		4.22	↙	↑
608		4.05	↙	↑
609		3.83	↙	↑
610	154	5.52	↘	↑	VICTOR.AETER. Victory stg. holding palm; captive under shield. (Plate V, 4).
611		5.02	↘	↑
612		4.80	↘	↑	Oval flan.
613		4.69	↙	↓
614		4.54	×	↓	Oval flan.
615		4.36	↘	↓
616		4.26	×	↓	Clipped.
617		3.94	↓	↑	F.
618		3.88	↖	↓	(Plate III, 3).
619		3.72	×	↑	F.; oval flan.
620		3.22	↙	↓
621	155	4.37	↘	↑	VICTORIA AETER. Victory stg. holding palm; captive under shield.
622		4.16	↖	↑
623	156	4.49	↘	↓	VICTORIA AETERNA Victory stg. holding palm; captive under shield. Oval flan.
624		4.40	↓	↓	F.
625		4.40	↘	↑	Base.
626		4.34	↘	↑	F.
627		4.29	↗	↓
628		4.00	↘	↓
629		3.98	↗	↓
			Mint of Antioch
630	187a	4.74	↙	↑	LIBERALITAS AVG. Libertas stg. holding pileus and rod. F.; oval flan.
631		4.04	↘	↑
632		4.00	↘	↑	G.; oval flan.
633	209	5.31	↘	↑	FIDES MILITVM Fides stg. holding two standards.
634		4.54	↗	↑	V.F.; edge off oval flan.
635		4.36	↖	↑	G.; irregular flan (Plate IV, 8).
636	210	5.73	↙	↓	FORTVNA REDVX Fortuna std. holding rudder and cornucopiae. F.
637		5.58	↘	↓	Irregular flan.
638		4.84	↖	↓	V.F.
639		4.75	↙	↙	Oval flan.
640		4.69	↘	↑	V.F.
641		4.56	↓	↙	F. (Plate IV, 9).
642		4.56	↑	↗	F.
643		4.43	↙	↑
644		4.42	↘	↓
645		4.38	↘	↗	G.
646		4.23	→	↓
647		4.08	↘	↓	F.; base.
648		4.01	→	↙	Oval flan.
649		3.96	↙	↗	G.; clipped.
650		3.86	↗	↑	F.
651		3.68	↗	↙	F.
652	211	4.60	↘	↑	IOVI CONSERVATORI Jupiter stg. holding sceptre and thunderbolt.
653	212	4.88	↗	↑	MARTI PACIFERO Mars adv. 1. holding branch, shield and spear rev. G.
654		4.46	↙	↑
655		3.87	↖	↑	(Plate IV, 2).
656	213	5.68	↖	↓	ORIENS AVG. Sol. stg. holding globe; raising r. hand. V.F.; oval flan (Plate IV, 3).
657		5.38	↖	↑	F.
658		5.15	←	↑	F.; base.
659		5.06	↘	↗	Oval flan.
660		4.90	↘	↓
661		4.72	↙	↑
662		4.62	↘	↑
663		4.59		↓
664		4.42	↙	↓
665		4.06	↗	↓	F.
666		4.00	↙	↓	V.F.; oval flan.
667		3.84	→	↓
668		3.54	↙	↑	F.; thin flan.
669		3.42	↘	↓	Thin flan.
670		3.33	↙	↓	F.; thin flan.
671		3.19	↙	↓	F.; thin flan.
672	214	4.64	↘	↑	PAX AVGVSTI Pax adv. 1. holding branch and sceptre.
673		4.33	↘	↑	(Plate IV, 5).
674		3.95	↘	↑	G.
675	216	5.12	←	↓	SAECVLI FELICITAS Gordian stg. holding spear and globe.
676		4.90	←	↓	G.
677		4.87	↘	↓
678		4.67	↘	↓
679		4.61	↘	↓	F.
680		4.60	←	↓	W.
681		4.30	↖	↓	F.; base.
682		4.28	↖	↑	G.
683		4.22	↖	↓
684		4.22	↗	↓	F.
685		4.20	↘	↓	Oval flan (Plate IV, 6).
686		4.11	↓	↓	F.
687		4.11	↗	↑	F.
688		4.03	↙	↓	F.
689		3.70	←	↓	G.
690		3.59	↓	↑	Thin flan.
691		3.35	↗	↑	G.; thin flan.
692	217	4.17	↘	↓	VICTORIA AVG. Victory adv. r. holding wreath and palm. F.
			Philip I (423)
			Mint of Rome
693	2b	5.31	↘	↓	P.M.TR.P.II COS.P.P. Philip I std. holding globe and short sceptre. V.F.
694		4.94	↘	↓	F.; base.
695		4.60	→	↑	V.F.; obverse scraped; base.
696		4.49	↘	↓
697		4.40	↓	↑	Base.
698		4.38	↘	↑
699		4.36	←	↑	Base.
700		4.18	↓	↑
701		3.71	↙	↘
702		3.44	↙	↑
703	3	5.22	↙	↓	P.M.TR.P.III COS.P.P. Felicitas stg. holding caduceus and cornucopiae.
704		4.87	↗	↓
705		4.61	↙	↓	F.
706		4.58	↙	↓	F.
707		4.51	↙	↓
708		4.36	↙	↓	(Plate VI, 13).
709		4.20	↗	↓
710		4.13	↙	↑	F.; base.
711		4.10	↗	↓
712		4.08	↘	↑
713		4.04	→	↓
714		3.95	↗	↑
715		3.95		↑	Oval flan.
716		3.85	↘	↓	F.
717		3.74	↖	↓	V.F.
718		3.64	↖	↓	F.
719		3.54	↙	↑
720	4	4.54	↘	↓	P.M.TR.P.IIII COS.II P.P. Felicitas stg. holding caduceus and cornucopiae. F.
721		4.26	↗	↑	F.
722		4.18	↗	↑
723		3.95		↓	F.
724		3.89	↖	↑
725		3.82	↗	↓
726		3.38	↙	↓	Thin flan.
727	5	4.40	↘	↓	P.M.TR.P.IIII COS.II P.P. Felicitas stg. holding caduceus and cornucopiae. F. (Plate VI, 17).
728		4.36	↙	↓
729		4.30	↘	↓
730		4.17	↗	↓	F.
731		3.99	←	↑	Base.
732		3.91	×	↓
733		3.81	↗	↑
734		3.64	↙	↓
735	7	5.31	↙	↑	P.M.TR.P.V. COS.III P.P. Mars stg. holding branch; spear and shield; in field A.
736		5.22	←	↓	(Plate VII, 1).
737		4.00	↙	↓
738		3.81	↗	↓
739		3.74	↙	↑
740		3.64	↘	↓
741	8	4.09	↘	↑	NOBILITAS AVGG. Nobilitas stg. holding sceptre and globe; in field Z. Oval flan (Plate VII, 13).
742		3.93	↙	↓	F.
743		3.77	↖	↑	Base.
744		3.65	↙	↑
745		3.58	↘	↓	G.
746		3.57	↙	↓	Oval flan.
747	9	5.46		↓	TRANQVILLITAS AVGG. Tranquillitas stg. holding capricorn(?) and sceptre; in field B.
748		4.37		↑
749		4.12	↗	↑	(Plate VII, 4).
750		3.57	↙	↓	Base.
751	10	4.03	↙	↓	VIRTVS AVGG. Philip I and II on horses adv. r., r. hands raised (no spear); in ex. ϵ. (Plate VII, 16).
752	12	4.92	→	↑	SAECVLARES AVGG. Lion adv. r.; in ex. I. Base.
753		4.90	↗	↑	Base; oval flan.
754		4.37	↙	↑
755		4.09	↗	↑
756		3.98	↙	↓
757		3.80	×	↓
758		3.71	↙	↓
759		3.60	↘	↑
760		3.01	↗	↑	Thin flan (Plate VI, 3).
761	15	4.71	↘	↓	SAECVLARES AVGG. She-wolf stg. suckling the twins; in ex. II. Uncleaned wt.
762		4.70	↘	↓
763		4.29	↘	↓
764		4.15		↑
765		4.10	↘	↑	(Plate VI, 6).
766		4.05	↖	↑
767		3.84	↙	↑
768		3.68		↓	Base.
769		3.66		↓
770	19	5.07		↑	SAECVLARES AVGG. Stag adv. r.; in ex. V or U. (Plate VI, 15).
771		4.68	↗	↓
772		4.41	↘	↑
773		4.39	↖	↓	V.F.
774		4.19	↘	↙
775		4.15	↙	↑
776		4.07	↖	↑
777		4.06	↘	↓
778		3.98	↗	↗
779		3.89	↙	↓
780		3.85	↖	↓
781		3.33	↘	↓
782	21	6.42	↙	↑	SAECVLARES AVGG. Antelope adv. 1.; in ex. VI or UI.
783		5.12	↘	↑
784		4.40	↙	↓
785		4.35	↑	↑
786		4.25	→	↑
787		4.07	↙	↑
788		4.04	↙	↓	V.F. (Plate VI, 18).
789		4.04	↙	↑	F.; base.
790		3.97	↘	↑
791	23	3.48	×	↑	SAECVLARES AVGG. Goat adv. 1. Base.
792	24c	5.26	↗	↓	SAECVLARES AVGG. Low column or altar insc. COS.III. V.F.
793		4.96	↗	↙
794		4.64	↙	↓
795		4.62	↙	↓
796		4.41	↘	↑
797		4.10	↘	↓
798		3.96	↙	↓
799		3.92	↗	↑	(Plate VII, 14).
800		3.74	↙	↓
801		3.14	↘	↑
802	25b	5.11	↙	↓	SAECVLVM NOVVM Temple with statue (Roma) in center of columns.
803		4.27	↘	↑	Oval flan.
804		3.98	↙	↓
805		3.81	↖	↑
806		3.76	↙	↑
807		3.73	↙	↓
808		3.61	↙	↓
809		3.46	↗	↓	(Plate VII, 5).
810	26b	5.65	↘	↗	ADVENTVS AVGG. Philip on horse adv. 1. holding spear; r. hand raised.
811		4.94	↗	↓
812		4.69	↗	↗
813		4.67	↖	↑	Base.
814		4.57	↗	↑
815		4.56	↗	↑
816		4.51	↓	↑
817		4.42	↘	↓	(Plate V, 18).
818		4.41	↗	↙	Oval flan.
819		4.23	←	↓
820		4.08	↘	↓	F.
821		3.93	↘	↓
822		3.70	↙	↓
823		3.66	↖	↑
824	27b	6.17	×	↓	AEQVITAS AVGG. Aequitas stg. holding scales and cornucopiae.
825		5.47	↗	↓	F.
826		5.06	↙	↑	Aequitas' r. arm raised.
827		4.95	↖	↓
828		4.87	↖	↓	V.F.
829		4.75	↘	↑
830		4.62	↗	↓
831		4.55	↗	↑	F.
832		4.45	↘	↓	Aequitas' r. arm raised.
833		4.41	×	↓	V.F.
834		4.40	×	↓
835		4.34	↘	↑
836		4.32	↘	↓
837		4.29	↘	↑
838		4.28	↘	↓	V.F.
839		4.26	↘	↓
840		4.25	↖	↑
841		4.23	↔	↓	Aequitas' r. arm raised. F.; oval flan.
842		4.15	↗	↓
843		4.13		↓	Oval flan.
844		4.10	↖	↑	(Plate VI, 4).
845		4.09	↖	↑	V.F.
846		4.08	↗	↑
847		4.04		↑
848		4.01	↙	↙
849		4.01	↙	↑
850		3.99	↗	↑
851		3.98	↙	↓	Aequitas' r. arm raised.
852		3.95	↙	↓
853		3.93	↙	↓
854		3.93	↗	↖	Aequitas' r. arm raised.
855		3.92	↗	↑
856		3.91	↙	↓	V.F.
857		3.91	↗	↑
858		3.91	↘	↑
859		3.90	↙	↓	F.
860		3.82	↙	↓
861		3.81	↙	↓
862		3.81	↗	↑
863		3.78	↑	↑	Aequitas' r. arm raised.
864		3.77	↘	↑
865		3.75	↘	↑	Base.
866		3.70	↙	↑	Aequitas' r. arm raised.
867		3.68	↗	↓
868		3.66	↑	↑
869		3.65	↖	↓
870		3.53	↕	↓
871		3.49		↓
872		3.26	↖	↗
873	28c	5.10	↖	↓	ANNONA AVGG. Annona stg. holding corn-ears over modius and cornucopiae.
874		5.09	↙	↓
875		4.90	↘	↓	F.
876		4.90	↘	↑
877		4.69	↙	↓
878		4.60	↘	↑	F.
879		4.54	↗	↓
880		4.47	↙	↓
881		4.47	↘	↑
882		4.36	↘	↑	F.
883		4.23	↖	↓	Oval flan.
884		4.07	↘	↓	F.
885		4.05	↖	↑
886		4.00	↙	↑
887		3.88	↖	↑
888		3.86		↑
889		3.85	↘	↓
890		3.77	↔	↑	Oval flan.
891		3.52	↙	↓	(Plate VI, 16).
892		3.30	↗	↓
893		3.01	×	↓
894	29	4.90	↙	↑	ANNONA AVGG. Annona stg. holding corn-ears over prow and cornucopiae.
895		4.44	↘	↓
896		4.43	↙	↓
897		4.32	↗	↓
898		4.21	↓	↑	F.; oval flan.
899		4.10	↙	↑
900		4.05	↘	↑	Oval flan.
901		3.99	↘	↑	Oval flan.
902		3.90	→	↓
903		3.86	↖	↑
904		3.80	↘	↓	Oval flan.
905		3.76	↗	↑	F.
906	31	5.02	↘	↗	FELICITAS TEMP. Felicitas stg. holding long caduceus and cornucopiae.
907		4.60	↘	↓
908		4.56	↖	↓
909		4.55	↗	↓
910		4.50	→	↑
911		4.46	↘	↑
912		4.34	↑	↓
913		4.20	↗	↑
914		4.08	↗	↓
915		4.02	↗	↑
916		3.88	↘	↓
917		3.71	↙	↓	V.F. (Plate V, 6).
918		3.42	↙	↑
919		3.35	↘	↓
920	32b	4.65	↓	↑	FIDES MILIT. Fides stg. holding two standards.
921		4.56	↗	↓
922		4.56	↘	↙
923		4.52		↗	Oval flan.
924		4.02	↙	↓	(Plate V, 11).
925		3.97	↘	↑
926		3.70	↙	↑	Oval flan.
927	33	4.90	↙	↑	FIDES MILIT. Fides stg. holding sceptre and standard.
928	34b	3.92	↖	↓	FIDES MILITVM Fides stg. holding two standards. Base.
929	36b	5.00	↙	↓	LAETIT. FVNDAT. Laetitia stg. holding wreath and rudder.
930		4.73	↗	↑
931		4.63	↗	↓	F.
932		4.39	↖	↓
933		4.29	↓	↓
934		4.24	←	↓
935		4.12	↙	↓
936		4.09	×	↓	(Plate V, 5).
937		4.02	↙	↑
938		3.98	↖	↓	G.
939		3.95	←	↑
940	37b	4.49	→	↑	LAETIT. FVNDAT. Laetitia stg. holding patera and rudder; prow.
941		3.83	→	↑
942	38b	5.33	↙	↑	LIBERALITAS AVGG.II Liberalitas stg. holding abacus and cornucopiae. G.
943		4.95	×	↑	Oval flan.
944		4.91	←	↓
945		4.88	←	↑
946		4.79	↖	↑
947		4.71	←	↓
948		4.68	↘	↑	Oval flan (Plate V, 15).
949		4.54	↘	↓	G.; base.
950		4.44	↘	↑
951		4.36	↖	↓
952		4.24	↗	↑
953		4.17	↘	↓	Oval flan.
954		3.61	×	↓	Base.
955	40b	4.82	↖	↓	PAX AETERN. Pax stg. holding branch and sceptre. F.
956	41	4.61	↘	↓	PAX AETERN. Pax adv. 1. holding branch and sceptre. V.F. (Plate V, 14).
957		4.55	↗	↑	G.
958		4.53	↗	↓
959		4.45	↖	↓
960		4.34	↙	↓
961		4.29	↘	↑
962		4.25	↘	↓
963		4.04	↘	↑
964	42	3.89	↙	↓	PAX AETERNA Pax adv. 1. holding branch and sceptre. F.
965	44b	4.93	↙	↓	ROMAE AETERNAE Roma std. holding Victory and sceptre; shield.
966		4.91	↘	↑
967		4.88	↘	↓
968		4.67	↙	↓
969		4.65	↘	↓	F.
970		4.60	↖	↓
971		4.55	↙	↓
972		4.40	↘	↑
973		4.28	↙	↑
974		4.26	↘	↑	(Plate VI, 1).
975		4.19	×	↓
976		4.19		↑	Base.
977		4.17	↙	↑
978		4.12	↘	↓
979		4.09	↗	↑
980		4.07	↗	↓
981		4.04	↘	↓
982		4.02	↙	↓	Oval flan.
983		3.94	↘	↑
984		3.89	↗	↓	Uncleaned wt.
985		3.89	↔	↓	Oval flan; uncleaned wt.
986		3.85	←	↑	V.F.
987		3.83	↖	↓
988		3.73		↓
989		3.63	↙	↓	V.F.
990		3.63	×	↑	Oval flan; base.
991		3.60	↗	↓	V.F.
992		3.56	↘	↓	F.
993		2.98	↖	↓	Thin flan.
994	45	5.06	↓	↑	ROMAE AETERNAE Roma std. holding Victory and sceptre; shield, altar. V.F.
995		4.88	↗	↑
996		4.47		↓
997		4.29	↙	↓
998		4.23	↘	↓
999		4.19	↗	↑
1000		4.06	↑	↓	Oval flan.
1001		3.97	↗	↑
1002		3.88	↗	↓
1003		3.84	↖	↓	F.; oval flan; base.
1004		3.70	↗	↑
1005	46b	4.78	↗	↑	SALVS AVG. Salus stg. feeding held snake.
1006	47	4.76	↘	↑	SALVS AVG. Salus stg. holding rudder and feeding snake coiled around altar. (Plate V, 17).
1007		4.66	↘	↓
1008		4.52	↓	↓	V.F.
1009		4.42	↑	↑	Oval flan.
1010		4.26	↘	↑
1011		3.99	↗	↑
1012	47A	4.44	×	↓	SALVS AVGG. Salus stg. feeding held snake.
1013	48b	4.90	↗	↑	SECVRIT. ORBIS Securitas std. holding sceptre; head on 1. hand.
1014		4.74	→	↑
1015		4.73	↓	↑	F.
1016		4.52	↘	↑
1017		4.49	↘	↓
1018		4.38	↘	↓	Oval flan (Plate V, 3).
1019		4.37	↙	↑
1020		4.19	↘	↑
1021		4.13	↓	↓
1022		4.07	↙	↑
1023		3.89	↘	↑	F.
1024		3.87	↘	↑
1025		3.72	↘	↓
1026		3.52	↗	↓
1027	49b	5.28	→	↑	VICTORIA AVG. Victory adv. r. holding wreath and palm. F.; oval flan.
1028		4.64	↙	↓	Base.
1029		4.49	↖	↑
1030		4.47	↙	↑
1031		4.34	↙	↑
1032		4.29	↘	↑
1033		4.15	×	↑	(Plate V, 2).
1034		4.12	→	↑	F.
1035		3.85	↙	↑	F.
1036	50	4.64	↘	↑	VICTORIA AVG. Victory adv. 1. holding wreath and palm.
1037		3.99	↗	↓
			Mint of Viminacium
1038	51	5.14	×	↓	VICTORIA AVGG. Victory stg. holding wreath and palm. (Plate VII, 18).
1039		4.39	→	↓
1040		4.18	↙	↑
1041		4.00	↙	↘
1042		3.98	↗	↑	G.
1043		3.29	↙	↓	(Plate VII, 15).
			Mint of Rome
1044	52	4.60	↘	↙	VIRTVS AVG. Virtus stg. holding branch and spear; foot on helmet. F. (Plate V, 8).
1045		3.59	↘	↓
1046	53	4.51	↘	↗	VIRTVS AVG. Virtus std. holding branch and spear; no shield.
1047		4.44	↗	↓	Shield.
1048		4.37	↙	↓	Shield.
1049		4.27	↓	↗	Shield.
1050		4.21	↙	↑	Shield. Base.
1051		4.04	→	↗	Shield.
1052	57	4.75	↖	↑	AEQVITAS AVGG. Aequitas stg. holding scales and cornucopiae.
1053		4.41	↙	↑	(Plate VI, 5).
1054		4.09	↘	↑
1055		3.55	↗	↑	F.
1056	58	4.51	↙	↑	AETERNITAS AVGG. Elephant adv. 1.; driver with goad and wand.
1057		4.50	↘	↑
1058		4.43	×	↑	F.
1059		4.43	↙	↓
1060		4.31	↖	↓	V.F.
1061		4.17	↙	↓
1062		3.93	↘	↓	V.F. (Plate VII, 2).
1063		3.89	↙	↓
1064		3.80	↙	↑
1065		3.63	↙	↑	Oval flan.
1066		3.63	↘	↑	V.F.
1067		3.48	↗	↑
1068	59	4.47	↖	↑	ANNONA AVGG. Annona stg. holding corn-ears over prow and cornucopiae. (Plate VI, 2).
1069		4.09	↙	↓	Weak strike.
1070		3.85	↗	↙
1071		3.74	↙	↑	V.F.
1072		3.63	←	↑	F.
1073		2.98	→	↓	Oval flan.
			Mint of Mediolanum (Milan)
1074	60	5.29		↓	FELICITAS IMPP. in three lines in laurel-wreath.
1075		4.88	↗	↓	V.F. (Plate VII, 3).
1076		4.83	×	↓
1077		4.62	↘	↓
1078		4.30	↙	↑
1079		4.09	↗	↑
1080		3.79	↙	↑	V.F.
1081	61	4.28	×	↑	FIDES EXERCITVS Fides stg. holding vexillum and standard.
1082		4.20	↘	↑	V.F.
1083		3.98	↗	↓
1084		3.96	↙	↙	V.F. (Plate VII, 6).
1085		3.93	←	↑
1086		3.86	↘	↓
1087		3.42	↙	↑
			Mint of Rome
1088	62	4.80	↘	↑	FIDES EXERCITVS Four standards. (Plate VI, 14).
1089		4.32	↙	↑
1090		4.14	×	↑
1091		4.12	↙	↑
1092		4.09	↙	↑	Uncleaned wt.
1093		4.06	↗	↓
1094		4.03	↖	↓
1095		4.02	↘	↑	V.F.
1096		3.76	↖	↓
1097		3.73	↗	↓	V.F.; base.
1098		3.48	↙	↗
1099					Dispersed
			Mint of Mediolanum (Milan)
1100	63b	4.84	↕	↓	FORTVNA REDVX Fortuna std. holding rudder and cornucopiae; wheel. F.; oval flan.
1101		4.72	↙	↙	(Plate VII, 9).
1102		4.37	↗	↓
1103		4.16	↙	↓
1104		3.85	↙	↑
			Mint of Rome
1105	65	5.54	↙	↑	ROMAE AETERNAE Roma std. holding Victory and spear; shield, altar.
1106		4.48	↗	↓
1107		4.31	↘	↑	Oval flan.
1108		4.04		↓	F.
1109		3.76	↙	↓	Uncleaned wt.
1110		3.60	↗	↓	V.F. (Plate VII, 17).
1111		3.54	↘	↓	G.
			Mint of Antioch
1112	71	4.29	↙	↓	VIRTVS EXERCITVS Virtus stg. holding spear; 1. hand on shield; no helmet.
1113		4.22	↘	↓	(Plate IV. 10).
1114		4.18	↙	↑
1115	78	4.18	↘	↓	P.M.TR.P.VI COS.P.P. Felicitas stg. holding long caduceus and cornucopia.
			Otacilia (4)
			Mint of Rome
1116	125c	4.60	↗	↓	CONCORDIA AVGG. Concordia std. holding patera and double cornucopiae. (Plate VI, 10).
1117		3.86	↙	↑
			Mint of Antioch
1118	127	3.44	↙	↓	IVNO CONSERVAT. Juno stg. holding patera and sceptre. Obv. scraped (Plate IV, 11).
			Mint of Rome
1119	130	3.72	↙	↓	PIETAS AVGVSTAE Pietas stg. holding box of perfume; r. hand raised. V.F. (Plate VII, 11).
			Philip II (38)
			Mint of Antioch
1120	213	3.95	↗	↓	IOVI CONSERVAT. Jupiter stg. holding thunderbolt and sceptre.
1121		3.85	↙	↓
1122		3.72	↗	↓	V.F. (Plate IV, 12).
			Mint of Rome
1123	216c	4.24	↘	↙	PRINCIPI IVVENT. Philip II stg. holding globe and sceptre. (Plate V, 9).
1124		3.98	×	↑
1125		3.96	↖	↑
1126	217	4.68		↙	PRINCIPI IVVENT. Philip II stg. holding globe and sceptre; soldier holding spear.
1127	218d	4.75	↘	↑	PRINCIPI IVVENT. Philip II stg. holding globe and standard.
1128		4.62	↘	↑	Globe and spear. V.F.
1129		4.52	→	↓	Globe and spear. Same obv. die as No. 1136.
1130		4.32	↙	↓	Globe and standard.
1131		4.24		↓	Globe and spear.
1132		3.93	↙	↓	Globe and standard.
1133		3.88	↗	↑	Globe and standard.
1134		3.73	↘	↓	Globe and spear. F.
1135		3.67	↙	↓	Globe and standard. Oval flan (Plate VI, 7).
1136		3.51	←	↑	Globe and spear. Same obv. die as No. 1129; oval flan.
1137		3.28	↗	↑	Globe and standard.
1138		3.19	↗	↓	Globe and spear.
1139		3.14	×	↗	Globe and standard. F.
1140	219	5.13	←	↓	PRINCIPI IVVENT. Philip II stg. holding globe and standard; captive.
1141		3.86	↘	↑
1142	223	4.08	↗	↙	VIRTVS AVGG. Mars adv. r. holding spear and trophy; in field Γ. (Plate VII, 7).
1143	224	4.92	↙	↓	SAECVLARES AVGG. Goat adv. 1.; in ex. III.
1144		4.06	↙	↓
1145		4.01	↙	↑	(Plate VI, 9).
1146		3.59	↘	↓
1147		3.31	↙	↑
			Mint of Viminacium
1148	226	3.96	←	↑	AETERNIT. IMPERI Sol adv. 1. holding whip; r. hand raised.
1149		3.84	↙	↑
1150		3.56	↙	↓
			Mint of Rome
1151	230	5.17	↙	↑	LIBERALITAS AVGG.III Philip I and II std.; Philip I holds short sceptre.
1152		4.16	↘	↑	(Plate VII, 8).
1153		4.08	↘	↓
1154		3.84	↘	↓	V.F.; oval flan.
1155		3.77	↗	↓
1156		3.75		↓
1157					Dispersed.
			Trajan Decius (54)
1158	2b	4.06			DACIA Dacia stg. holding staff with ass's head.
1159–1161	10b	3.64			ABVNDANTIA AVG. Abundantia stg. emptying cornucopiae. (Av. wt).
1162–1171	11b	4.22			ADVENTVS AVG. Trajan Decius on horse holding sceptre; r. hand raised. (Av. wt).
1172–1181	12b	3.82			DACIA Dacia stg. holding staff with ass's head (Av. wt.).
1182	13	3.96			DACIA Dacia stg. holding standard.
1183–1190	16c	3.86			GENIVS EXERC. ILLVRICIANI Genius stg. holding patera and cornucopiae; to r. standard. (Av. wt.).
1191–1192	18	3.99			GENIVS EXERCITVS ILLVRICIANI Genius stg. holding patera and cornucopiae; to r. standard. (Av. wt.).
1193–1195	21b	3.90			PANNONIAE Two Pannoniae stg. holding standards (Av. wt.).
1196–1203	28b	4.02			VBERITAS AVG. Uberitas stg. holding purse and cornucopia. (Av. wt.).
1204–1208	29c	4.04			VICTORIA AVG. Victory adv. 1. holding wreath and palm. (Av. wt.).
1209	38a	3.75			GEN. ILLVRICI Genius stg. holding patera and cornucopiae. (Plate VII, 12).
1210	77	3.18			CONSECRATIO Eagle.
1211	90	3.31			CONSECRATIO Altar.
			Herennia Etruscilla (i)
1212	59b	3.61			PVDICITIA AVG. Pudicitia std. holding sceptre; r. hand drawing veil.
			Herennius Etruscus (ii)
1213–1216	138	3.73			CONCORDIA AVGG. Two clasped r. hands. (Av. wt.).
1217	142b	3.91			PIETAS AVGG. Mercury stg. holding purse and caduceus.
1218	146	4.51			PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS Apollo std. holding branch; lyre.
1219–1222	147c	3.78			PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS Herennius stg. holding wand and spear. (Av. wt.).
1223	149	3.80			SPES PVBLICA Spes adv. 1. holding flower and raising skirt.
			Hostilian (3)
1224	174b	3.29			CONCORDIA AVGG. Two clasped r. hands.
1225–1226	181d	4.10			PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS Hostilian stg. holding standard and spear rev. (Av. wt.).
			Trebonianus Gallus (7)
1227	31	3.69			ANNONA AVGG. Annona stg. holding rudder upright and corn-ears; prow.
1228	44	3.45			PROVIDENTIA AVGG. Providentia stg. holding globe and sceptre.
1229	48a	3.44			VICTORIA AVGG. Victory stg. holding wreath and palm.
1230	69	4.12			IVNO MARTIALIS Juno std. holding corn-ears(?) and sceptre.
1231–1233	72	4.17			PIETAS AVGG. Pietas stg., both hands raised; altar. (Av. wt.). No. 1233=V.F.
			VOLUSIAN (5)
1234	179	3.36			PAX AVGG. Pax stg. holding branch and sceptre.
1235	180	3.76			PAX AVGG. Pax stg. holding branch and sceptre; in field star.
1236	205	4.11			FELICITAS PVBL. Felicitas stg. holding long caduceus and cornucopiae.
1237–1238	206	3.48			VIRTVS AVGG. Virtus stg. holding spear; shield. (Av. wt.).
			Aemilian (2)
1239	3b	2.51			ERCVL. VICTORI Hercules stg. holding bow; r. hand on club; lion-skin on 1. arm.
1240	8	3.73			PACI AVG. Pax stg. holding branch and sceptre; column.
			Valerian (4)
1241	92	4.17			IOVI CONSERVA. Jupiter stg. holding thunderbolt and sceptre.
1242	106	3.53			ORIENS AVGG. Sol stg. holding whip; r. hand raised.
1243	248	4.67			PROVID. AVGG. Providentia stg. holding baton and cornucopiae; globe.
1244	271	206.88			VIRTVS AVGG. Soldier stg. holding spear; r. hand on shield.

The Smyrna hoard is important in that it is sizeable enough to afford something of a check on the deductions drawn from the great Dorchester hoard, and yet small enough to permit a rather closer study of certain aspects of the coinage than has heretofore been made. These considerations make possible a fresh examination of the working of the Roman imperial mint system between a.d. 238 and 249. The hoard also gives us a blurry insight or two into the history of Smyrna between 238 and 257, the dates between which it was accumulated. These points will be dealt with in subsequent chapters.

End Notes

1	J. M. Cook, "Archaeology in Greece, 1952," JHS LXXIII (1953), 124–125.
2	The following coins were given away (numbers refer to RIC): Gordian III : 1–71, 1–83, 1–84, 2–86, 1–88, 1–95. Philip I : 1–62. Philip II: 1–230. Decius: 1–12b.

THE MINTING OF ANTONINIANI UNDER GORDIAN III

One of the principal problems numismatists have still to settle is the organization of the mint of Rome just before the middle of the third century. We are still uncertain as to the number of officinae (sub-sections) which existed at Rome, and the way they were designated, and which of the known coin-types each struck.

For a long time it has been thought that during the reigns of "Gordian III and Philip the mint at Rome was organized in six officinae. This hypothesis was reinforced by Mattingly's study of the great Dorchester hoard, in which he found that from Gordian III on, the issues of antoniniani of the Roman mint uniformly contained six reverse types, and that the number of coins of each of the types in any given issue was more or less the same. In Gordian's first issue, for example, the six were represented by 129, 104, 129, 114, 120, and 132 coins. The similarity of these numbers led Mattingly and Sutherland to the firm opinion that there were indeed six officinae at Rome, and that each struck a single reverse type. Each one was Roman in style and fabric, and differed from the other five in exceedingly small and subtle ways. They went on to say, however, that the shades of distinction between these sections were so fine and narrow, that they could not be communicated. 1

This theory has, admittedly, been followed by a number of important scholars, among them R. A. G. Carson, M. Grant, and P. Le Gentilhomme. 2 The idea also goes back to the work of K. Pink, and especially that of O. Voetter, who in the last century suggested that the six reverse types of the various issues of Gordian were each of them struck in a single officina, a system whose origins he placed at least as early as the time of Maximinus (a.d. 235–238) and whose use continued into the principate of Philip I (a.d. 244–249). 3

But in truth, not one of these scholars has adduced much evidence; none has argued that he has detected specific variations in style to support the thesis. There is, therefore, little real evidence that there were six distinct sections of the mint at Rome under Maximinus, Balbinus and Pupienus, Gordian III , and in the first years of Philip . The case, such as it is, rests partly on analogy. In a.d. 248, Philip struck two series of antoniniani, one in six types with the Roman numbers I through VI on the reverses of the coins, the other in six types stamped with the Greek numerals A through Z. These numbers have been universally taken, rightly I think, to represent the officinae numbers. Later on, in the reign of Valerian and Gallienus, the use of similar officinae marks began to become almost regular. 4 The existence of six officinae in the last year of Philip and in subsequent reigns is not evidence, of course, that such existed earlier. The best that can be said is that it creates a possibility that they did.

The other part of the case is the undoubted fact that the Dorchester hoard and other sizeable hoards show a certain similarity of numbers among the six types of each given issue. But to assume on the basis of numbers alone that there were six officinae makes it a priori impossible to conceive of the mint as having, say, two officinae each striking three types, or three striking two, or even twelve, with two collaborating on a single reverse type. What is needed is some sort of corroboratory evidence to support the simple fact that there were always six types with more or less similar numbers. And we need some kind of explanation as to why, for a few months, the antoniniani of Philip should have been struck with the numerals one through six upon them.

As is generally known, we have little literary or epigraphical evidence concerning the organization and workings of the Roman mint. We do have certain evidence that at least two officinae existed at the beginning of the fourth century. 5 But for the time of Gordian III , we have no written evidence at all, and must depend on a study of the coins themselves for whatever deductions we are to make.

The task of separating and identifying the product of the different officinae from the mass of the Roman mintage must be done along fairly rigorous lines. I should make it axiomatic that the officinae, if they actually existed, must have differed from one another in some slight, but nonetheless real, degree, because each one must have been made up of numbers of individual workmen and artisans— malleatores, flatuarii, scalptores—who made the coins entirely by hand. I should make a second assumption, which earlier scholars have also made, and which seems entirely reasonable, that the sections of the mint were of the same size and produced almost exactly the same number of coins in each issue. One might assume that the most important reason the Roman government divided the mint into officinae was to facilitate administrative control over that sizeable organization. As we shall see, the number of officinae bears only a partial relationship to the number of antoniniani actually produced. With administrative reasons, then, paramount, there would be little sense in complicating matters by setting up sub-sections of differing sizes in the mint. Thus, the mint was probably organized along lines that the imperial government had had experience with, notably, with the army. Here, there had been a grouping of the mass of the soldiers into uniform legions for strategic, tactical, and administrative reasons. If the parallel is valid, the mint at Rome would have been the analogue of the legionary field army, provincial mints analogues of the provincial cohorts.

In the reign of Gordian, the imperial mints were located in two principal cities, the chief and most important was Rome , and the secondary was Antioch. The coinages of these two places can be distinguished from one another, and it seems sensible to use the detectable differences between the currencies of these two mints as the starting point for detecting the differences between the coinages of the different officinae at Rome . In a sense, we can think of the small mint at Antioch as one more officina of the whole imperial system. What differences exist between Rome and Antioch, then, should also exist, in greater or lesser degree, between the officinae at Rome .

Between Rome and Antioch, there are five detectable differences:

reverse types and legends;
style of obverse portraiture;
average weights of coins;
alignment of obverse and reverse dies relative to one another; and
direction of strike, that is, the direction the blow of the hammer took, as measured by the point of deepest impression (here assumed to be always the heel of the hammer) on the edge of the flan.

The differences of reverse legends between Rome and Antioch, and of their respective styles of portraiture, are well known and need not detain us here. I should, however, stress the fact that the average weights of Antiochene and Roman issues did vary. In the Smyrna hoard the sixty coins of Gordian III struck at Antioch between 242 and 244 have an average weight of 4.394 grams, whereas the contemporary Roman issues of Gordian have an average of 4.354 grams (361 examples). This conclusion is corroborated by Mattingly's findings in the case of the hoard from Plevna. 6 Such a difference of weight between Rome and Antioch existed because the flatuarii and aequatores in the two mints made and trimmed the blanks by hand, and, therefore, the blanks they prepared differed in weight according to the sum of the actions of the two sets of different personalities involved. Of course, the standard weight of the antoninianus at this or at any other time was fixed by the imperial govern- ment, but the evidence we have shows that the government was indifferent toward small variations of weight. Perhaps the difference was more or less made up for by the purity of the metal employed, the slightly heavier Antiochene coins having a somewhat smaller percentage of silver than the Roman. I have not been able to find sufficient evidence of silver analysis to insist, however, on this point. 7

The relationship between the positions of the obverse and reverse dies also differs between Rome and Antioch. At Rome , between 242 and 244, 52.96% of the coins have the relationship ↑↓; at Antioch, 56.67%. These figures are based on the coins from Smyrna. Lastly, the direction, or impression, of strike also differs, but, again not to any marked degree. At Antioch, the average point (on a clock face) where the deepest impression was made by the hammer was 5.6; at Rome 6.2. This means that at Antioch a bare majority of coins were struck by a hammer wielded from the right side of the axis of the coin (assuming the axis to be ↑); at Rome , essentially from either side of the same axis.

With these points in mind, we may begin to analyze the coinage of Gordian III . So far as numbers of coins go, I shall use total figures compiled from most of the principal published hoards. This procedure is superior to reliance upon a single hoard, no matter what the size of that hoard may be. I have used altogether twenty-two groups of coins: the hoards from Smyrna, Dorchester, 8 Edlington Wood, 9 Caister-by-Yarmouth, 10 Elvedon, 11 Sully, 12 Lime Street, 13 Couvron, 14 Nanterre, 15 Baalon, 16 Schwarzenacker, 17 an unknown place in Yugoslavia, here NZ 17, 18 Üsküb, 19 Rustschuk, 20 Nicolaevo, 21 Smederevo, 22 Jagodina-Kruschewatz, 23 Reka-Devnia, 24 and Plevna; 25 and the excavation coins from the Athenian agora, 26 Antioch, 27 and Dura-Europos. 28 The advantage of using this sample of coins instead of a single large hoard is twofold. First, one has a larger number of coins to work with. Second, these twenty-two groups come from several provinces of the Roman Empire, from Mesopotamia in the east to Britain in the west, so that, if a uniform distribution of coin types was ever interfered with for reasons unknown to us, as will appear later actually to have happened, the use of these widely separated hoards should cancel this out insofar as we are able to do so.

I have, furthermore, in compiling totals used the Dorchester figures at only 10% of the actual figures. I have done so because of the very size of this hoard, which is so large that it would distort the results obtained from the other twenty-one groups. There are some 8,000 coins of Gordian from Dorchester, as opposed to some 6,000 from all the others together. To assume that the Dorchester hoard is typical of the output of the Roman mint is unwarranted. There is prima facie evidence that for at least one issue the numbers in the Dorchester hoard are not typical. In issue five, RIC 151–153 amount to 418 coins; RIC 145–147 amount to only 279. Evidently something is wrong, for to have one putative officina producing as little as two-thirds of another is difficult to understand. Mattingly has suggested that the one began production sooner than the other, but this seems difficult to accept without proof. 29

Last of all, in dealing with the earlier coins of Gordian III , I have lumped together the coins assigned in the RIC to issues one and two. One reason for doing so is to gain larger samples for analysis. It seems to me entirely legitimate, moreover, to proceed thus, since issue two is simply a continuation of issue one, and the two might have been dealt with in RIC as issues 1 a and 1 b, as the third issue of Gordian was dealt with in RIC as 3 a, 3 b, and 3 c, instead of as 3, 4, and 5. In the second issue of the RIC, the obverse legend remains the same as in the first issue; the style and fablic of the coins remain the same. This last point is illustrated in columns two and three (Plate I). The reverse types remain the same, RIC 1 being continued as RIC 15, 2 as 16, and so on. The reverse legend only is changed. RIC 3 was PAX AVGVSTI; RIC 17 became P.M. TR.P. II COS. P.P., but the type of the latter was still Pax. So far as the aes of these two issues are concerned, the second issue actually continues the types struck in the first. 30

The distribution of the twelve reverse types of the first two issues of Gordian III among the twenty-two finds is detailed in Table 1. From the results of this tabulation, two classes of coins may be designated: one whose total numbers are above 210, and one whose total numbers are below.

TABLE 1
RIC	1.15	2,16	3,17	4,18	5.19	6,20	TOTAL
Smy	12	14	7	19	19	13	84
Dor	16	14	16	16	15	17	94
EW	1	1	0	2	1	1	6
C-Y	3	1	1	1	2	1	9
Elv	3	3	3	0	0	1	10
Sul	0	0	1	2	0	3	6
L S	2	2	4	6	3	2	19
Cou	5	1	1	4	0	2	13
Nan	II	14	15	13	12	16	81
Baa	21	12	18	10	10	16	87
Sch	35	32	27	28	33	33	188
NZ	7	6	10	8	5	9	45
Üsk	1	3	1	4	9	3	21
Rus	2	1	0	0	1	0	4
Nic	6	6	2	7	6	11	38
Sme	46	43	45	62	58	67	318
J-K	0	0	1	3	2	0	6
R-D	18	23	14	30	25	18	128
Ple	10	8	15	12	10	17	72
Dur	4	3	7	1	2	7	24
Ant	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
Ath	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
TOTAL	203	187	189	228	214	237

The average weights of these types in the Smyrna hoard, with these total numbers from the twenty-two groupings, are as follows:

RIC 1,15	4.355 grams	203
RIC 2,16	4.364 grams	187
RIC 3,17	4.231 grams	189
RIC 4,18	4.602 grams	228
RIC 5,19	4 364 grams	214
RIC 6,20	4.113 grams	237

From these figures, it seems that we are probably dealing with three groups or sets of coins. Because, if we match numbers of coins with average weight of coins, we find that where one type is represented by more than 210 coins, there is another type of generally similar weight represented by less than 210 coins, and that the three sets thus made are each of them roughly identical in number. Thus, the lightest pair, RIC 6 and 20, 4.113 grams, have 237 examples (more than 210), and RIC 3 and 17, the second lightest pair (4.231 grams) have 189 examples (less than 210). Combined, the four types in this set have 426 coins. Second, RIC 4 and 18, 4.602 grams, the heaviest types, have 228 examples, and seem to be associated with RIC 2 and 16, which have the second heaviest average weight (4.364 grams) and the low number of 187 examples. Together, the coins of this group total 415. Third, the remaining RIC 5 and 19 (4.364 grams, 214 coins) and RIC 1 and 15 (4.355 grams, 203 examples) together amount to 417 coins.

The evidence of style of obverse portraiture when combined with the above evidence, makes for excellently converging results; we do appear to have three unique sets: RIC 2 and 16, and 4 and 18; RIC 1 and 15, and 5 and 19; and RIC 3 and 17, and 6 and 20. Each set exists in about the same numbers, has a distinctive average weight, and each has peculiarities of obverse portraiture, to be discussed below. We shall also see that each set has its own unique relationship of obverse to reverse die alignment and of direction of strike, so that these three sets fulfill the five prerequisites for officinae outlined above.

The peculiarities of style are seen in the different ways different engravers made the details of Gordian's face and head. Obviously, all the coins look more or less like Gordian, but details do differ. These include the relationship between the size of his neck and the size of his head; his chin, whether jutting forward or recessed; the lines (if any) around his nose and mouth; the exact shape given the back of his head; the way the mouth itself is shown; his nose, whether pointed or blunted; the line that runs from the end of the nose up to the hairline; and, last, the lettering around the portrait. Although all coins within one set do not have all these characteristics rendered with consistent uniqueness when compared to all the coins of the other two sets, the coins in the groups do tend to portray several of the characteristics uniquely and more or less consistently uniquely.

Three coins, representative of the individual style of each officina, are illustrated here in enlargement. The general style of each group may be noted through a description of the pertinent details. Coins of the first group, RIC 2, 16 and 4, 18, render the following details of Gordian's portrait in about the same way, whereas the coins of the other two groups differ in most details.

In figure 1, which shows a coin of type RIC 4 (Smyrna No. 68), the portrait has a rather slender neck (A), on which is set a large cranium. There is a line (B), which represents the crease around the emperor's mouth (missing in figure 2), which runs right down from his nose toward his chin, and the line is nearly straight (curved in figure 3). Lips (D), nose (E), and bridge of nose (F) show no special characteristics in this officina, but a point on which the officina does differ from the other two is that the back of Gordian's neck and head (G) is made with a smoother and more graceful line than by the others. The lettering is large, firm, and neat.

On the other hand, the coins of group RIC 1, 15 and 5, 19, here represented in figure 2 by an enlargement of an RIC 1 (Smyrna No. 37), share different peculiarities in many of these facial characteristics. Here, the neck (A) is a good deal heavier than before; there is no crease (B) around the mouth; the chin (C) is somewhat recessed, and the upper lip (D) overhangs the lower quite obviously. The nose (E) is larger, more nearly straight, and with a fine tip. The back of the head (G) is more sharply rounded. The lettering has nothing especially distinguishing about it.

Last, the coins of group RIC 3, 17 and 6, 20 (figure 3) from which there is an enlargement of an RIC 6 (Smyrna No. 86), have lettering that is neat and small. Figure 3 does not show this point well, but see RIC 6, Smyrna No. 89 (Plate I). Again, the emperor's neck (A) is heavier than in group one, but about the same as in group two. The crease (B) around the mouth is shown (usually not in group two), but it is more curvilinear than in group 1. The chin (C) is not recessed as in figure 2, and it is stronger and more bulbous than in figure 1. The lips (D) are pursed and of roughly even length; in other coins of this group the purse becomes a pout. The nose (E) is sharp and pointed (in some coins quite obviously so). The line from the tip of the nose up across the forehead (F) is a more graceful curve than in the coins of the two other groups, with less of a break at the bridge. I should add that among the coins of this group one occasionally meets a portrait (it is not illustrated) with a unique quality about it: the style is almost archaic Greek, with strong nose, bulging eye, and curved, half smiling lips. So far as the coins in the Smyrna hoard are concerned, this striking style is always found associated with only two reverse types in any one issue.

Fig. 1. (RIC 4, Smyrna No. 68)]

Fig. 2. (RIC 1, Smyrna No. 37)

Fig. 3. (RIC 6, Smyrna No. 86)

These three peculiar styles of Gordian's portrait-bust are also evident in Plate I. There, the coins are grouped in three sets horizontally, as well as in vertical columns. The two top rows, the two middle rows, and the two bottom rows—each set of two rows represents the product of one of the three officinae at work in Rome . Comparison of the coins of each horizontal set in column one will also illustrate the various styles as outlined above.

Now, these styles tend to shade off into one another, and in Plate I this tendency is also illustrated. Compare column one with column two. This comparison shows that, coin for coin, the same reverse type is associated with an obverse with varying style of portraiture. For example, the two bottom coins have rather dissimilar chins. I point this out to emphasize that style of portraiture cannot always be used alone as a certain criterion for distinguishing officinae. Differences between obverses linked with the same reverse type existed because there were a number of individuals making dies for each section of the mint, and these men each produced his dies with simple hand tools. No man could produce dies identical with those of his colleagues, or even two of his own dies that were exactly alike. The most that a man could do—and no doubt often did—was to make dies that had a very strong similarity to other dies made by himself or his fellows. That is, therefore, the most we can hope to demonstrate. It is also entirely possible that some die-makers were transferred from one officina to another for whatever reasons of expediency or necessity. If the argument for three officinae was based on the single criterion of style, instead of on the cumulative, interlocking arguments set forth above, it would be necessary to prove that there were die links between the reverses of RIC 2 and 4, 1 and 5, and 3 and 6. Unfortunately I have been able to find no such links in the Smyrna hoard. In fact, there are only two pairs of coins struck from the same obverse dies among all the coins of Gordian, and one pair among Philips'. Die-linkage among the antoniniani is rather uncommon; even in a great hoard like the Dorchester, Mattingly found only something like five per hundred among the coins of Philip I , a very large proportion compared with other finds. This led him to suppose that the hoard might have been a private bank which received its currency fresh from the mint. 31 The Smyrna hoard, on the other hand, was a gradual accumulation of coins taken from general circulation at random, and this almost assures the absence of die-linkage. But, speaking generally, it is exceedingly unlikely that the same obverse die would have been used with different types of reverse dies in one of the officinae. Production of the two reverse types had to be regulated, and teams of malleatores and suppostores must have been assigned to the production of a single reverse type. This would have been the economical and sensible means of preventing haphazard production. Therefore, once the dies were made and placed in the officina's anvils, probably enclosed in the little iron boxes that C. C. Vermuele has argued were used to hold them, striking went on, a certain obverse die always matched with a certain reverse die, until they were worn out and replaced. 32

The style of obverse portraiture, moreover, changed; even when a single man might be involved continuously in making dies. There is undoubted evidence that such occurred, and, therefore, one reverse type could easily be associated with a variety of obverse styles. The fact is especially clear in respect to coins belonging to the first issue of Gordian . While those coins were being fabricated, the scalptores had to change from portraying Balbinus and Pupienus, rather old men, to portraying Gordian, a mere youth. In the coins of type RIC 5, for example, Gordian's portrait begins to be made with features unmistakeably those of an old man, but as time goes on, it becomes more nearly an exact rendering of Gordian, and a charming portrait develops, one which Mattingly has aptly characterized as "the young head on old shoulders." 33 These differences, in some cases rather wide differences, are the ones shown in columns one and two in Plate I.

What was true of one man, in one officina, was true of the officina as a whole. No doubt, men who worked together in one section would tend to develop a certain number of more or less common habits in portraying parts of a bust. They would tend to have a number of characteristics in common that men of another officina would not share with them. This is what the evidence of column two in Plate I shows. Therefore, within limits, the dies of one officina can be distinguished from those of another. But the whole problem of separating and identifying the product of any one section of the mint cannot be solved by means of studying styles of dies alone, as the foregoing remarks are intended to prove. We must use in conjunction the evidence of numbers produced and the evidence of fabric, which includes the very important criterion of average weight.

Returning, then, to a statistical analysis of the antoniniani of Gordian, an arrangement of the mint in a three-officina system is much superior to an arrangement in six. The results obtained from the three-officina arrangement make the smallest officina produce at a rate 97.41% of the largest, a difference of 2.59%. 34 The three-officina system, moreover, allows of considerably more nearly equal results between sections in the smaller hoards. We should not expect even here to find the enormous discrepancies that the six-officina hypothesis gives us, in view of B. Thordeman's work with the Lohe hoard. He found by comparing the numbers of coins unearthed with the records of the Swedish mint that the hoard faithfully reflected the known production. 35 Table 2 shows the results obtained by the application of the three-officina system to the small hoards in our sample.

TABLE 2
Officina	RIC	EW	C-Y	Elv	Sul	LS	Cou	NZ	Üsk	Rus	Nic	J-K	Dur
I	1, 15	1	3	3	0	2	5	7	1	2	6	0	4
	5, 19	1	2	0	0	3	0	5	9	1	6	2	2
	TOTAL	2	5	3	0	5	5	12	10	3	12	2	6
II	3, 17	0	1	3	1	4	1	10	1	0	2	1	7
	6, 20	1	1	1	3	2	2	9	3	0	11	0	7
	TOTAL	1	2	4	4	6	3	19	4	0	13	1	14
III	2, 16	1	1	3	0	2	1	6	3	1	6	0	3
	4, 18	2	1	0	2	6	4	8	4	0	7	3	1
	TOTAL	3	2	3	2	8	5	14	7	1	13	3	4
	Grand total	6	9	10	6	19	13	45	21	4	38	6	24

The results of this tabulation are interesting; the assignment of the various types to these officinae evens out the differences between types. This is particularly true in the case of the Nicolaevo find, where, out of a total of thirty-eight coins, the six types are present in such diverse numbers as "2" and "11"; but, on the three-officina system, the thirty-eight are almost exactly distributed in thirds. We must not, of course, insist on absolute equality of numbers. We have to deal with a method of production based on hand work. More importantly, these numbers are based on only the principal types produced by the mint for mass issue, and contemporaneously with these twelve types there are a few others made in very small numbers, such as RIC 14, VOTIS DECENNALIBVS, or the coins in the series RIC 27–33.

There is, moreover, an undoubted connection between the numbers of coins produced, as known from this sample of twenty-two finds, and the average weights of the types, as known from the Smyrna hoard. It would seem that each of the officinae was assigned a weight of silver to be changed into currency. The weight of antoniniani of issue 1/2 of Gordian is indicated by officinae in table 3.

TABLE 3
Officina	RIC	Ave. Wt.	No.	Wt. of Coinage
I	1, 15	4.335	203
	5, 19	4.364	214
	TOTAL	4.360	417	1,818.120 gr.
II	3, 17	4.231	189
	6, 20	4.113	237
	TOTAL	4.155	426	1,770.030 gr.
III	2, 16	4.364	187
	4, 18	4.602	228
	TOTAL	4.501	415	1,867.915 gr.

It would appear that in these issues, there were under Gordian III three officinae, and that each struck two types, not six striking one as heretofore supposed. It follows that each struck one "major" and one "minor" type. Why this should have been so we have no certain means of telling. Probably, the "major" types were the most important from the point of view of the coinage reflecting the propaganda of the government. We know that the government did use the reverses of the currency to inform the people of the empire as to policies that the emperor was pursuing at any particular time, to advertise the existence of beneficial conditions in the empire—whether real or imaginary—or to announce great military victories. The government undoubtedly felt that certain of its messages were more important than others. Thus, in issue 1/2 of Gordian, the types PROVIDENTIA AVG, VICTORIA AVG, and VIRTVS AVG, which have in common praise of the emperor's thirteen-year-old person, were struck on a larger scale than FIDES MILITVM, IOVI CONSERVATORI, or PAX AVGVSTI. It seems, therefore, that the advertisement of the imperial prowess of Gordian was itself more important than honoring Jupiter or the army or the peace of a.d. 238.

It is extremely likely that these three officinae were designated by numbers, even if numerals do not appear on the coins. All the information we have of officinae in the third century points in this direction. At Rome , under Philip, they were numbered I through VI in Latin numerals, and A through Z in Greek. At Antioch, the offi- cinae were distinguished by the same Greek letter-numbers, and also by a number of dots. Under Gallienus, they were indicated sometimes by Roman numerals, sometimes by the letters P, S, T, and so on, standing for prima, secunda, tertia, and so on. The inscription from Ostia cited above mentions "of[f]icina prima." We might also assert the parallel usage in identifying the legions and auxiliary formations of the army, all of which bore numbers. Therefore, the officinae ought to have been numbered under Gordian and during the first years of Philip as I, II, and III. For the moment, I shall simply arbitrarily say that I struck 1, 5, 15, and 19; II, 3, 6, 17, and 20; and III, 2, 4, 16, and 20. Suffice it to say here, that I shall trace the continuity of these three officinae until a.d. 248, when there were six numbered officinae, and when I come to that issue, then I shall justify the numbers assigned here.

The validity of all the foregoing arguments rests, in part, on whether the same set of circumstances of style, weight, and numbers existed for the remaining issues of Gordian. Perhaps, too, we shall find that the three officinae, whose existence has been argued for, consistently produced coins with roughly the same constant percentages of reverse dies ↓ and ↑, in relation to the obverse, as well as exhibiting a more or less constant direction of strike. So far as this is concerned, I shall now only state what the percentages and average direction of strike were for the officinae for issue 1/2.

TABLE 4
Officina	↑↓	Direction
I	61.29%	4.3
II	25.00%	4.5
III	4545%	5.3

Having examined the properties of the three officinae in issue 1/2, we may now proceed to issue 3. I shall handle all the sub-issues, designated 3 a, 3 b, and 3 c by Mattingly and Sutherland, together. In this issue, the average weights of the six types again allow a division into three sets of two each, and the average weights of these sets remain almost exactly the same as they were in the preceding issue. Furthermore, in two of the pairs, there is again a "major" and a "minor" type. Last of all, the numbers of coins in the twenty-two groups are in each case almost the same, as is the weight of coinage produced. These numbers are shown in table 5; the grouping of types is indicated in table 6.

TABLE 5
RIC	34, 51, 63	35, 52, 64	36, 53, 66, 67	37, 54, 68, 69	38, 55, 70	39, 56, 71	TOTAL
Smy	26	23	25	26	27	27	154
Dor	28	27	30	30	28	27	170
EW	3	1	2	1	2	0	9
C-Y	3	3	2	6	1	4	19
Elv	3	8	4	1	3	3	22
Sul	2	2	0	2	0	1	7
LS	13	6	5	11	5	9	49
Cou	2	1	1	3	3	6	16
Nan	33	20	23	23	28	25	152
Baa	16	20	17	29	32	34	148
Sch	68	63	44	76	56	56	363
NZ	13	12	19	18	10	16	88
Üsk	9	7	4	11	5	5	41
Rus	1	0	2	1	1	2	7
Nic	9	8	7	9	5	5	43
Sme	94	64	70	86	83	75	472
J-K	2	0	0	1	0	4	7
R-D	12	13	13	17	11	14	80
Ple	25	14	14	13	16	13	95
Dur	2	4	4	2	5	0	17
Ant	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Ath	0	2	0	0	0	1	3
TOTAL	364	298	286	367	321	327

The amount of greatest difference between officinae under this arrangement is that between I and III, 79.767 grams of metal. This is a good deal less than the greatest difference between sections of Mat- tingly's arrangement: one hundred seven coins. In other words, in the latter system the smallest officina produced 83.76% as many coins as the largest; under this new arrangement, the smallest struck 97.98% as many as the largest.

TABLE 6
Officina	RIC	Ave. Wt.	No.	Wt. of Coinage
I	39, 56, 71	4.335	327
	38, 55, 70	4.329	321
	TOTAL	4.332	648	2,807.913 gr.
II	34, 51, 63	4.289	364
	35, 52, 64	4.255	298
	TOTAL	4.273	662	2,828.726 gr.
III	37, 54, 68	4.416	367
	69
	36, 53, 66 67	4.426	286
	TOTAL	4.421	653	2,886.913 gr.

Furthermore, the style of obverse portraiture shared by the two types of each pair is exceedingly close, in fact, even closer than in issue 1/2. The resemblances are particularly striking between RIC 54, Smyrna No. 199, and RIC 53, Smyrna No. 197. This extreme similarity probably came about because by this time the die-cutters had refined and more-or-less standardized their portraits of the emperor, instead of having to make dies in rapid succession for Maximinus, Pupienus and Balbinus, and Gordian in that year of upheaval, 238. Similarities of the obverses are illustrated in the horizontal rows of Plate II.

These three groups, moreover, show absolute continuity of style from the groups of issue 1/2, each set of characteristics being associated with coins of the two issues of similar average weight. Officina I produced RIC 38, 39, 55, 56, 70 and 71. The emperor's neck is made somewhat thicker than in the other two sections, and the head rests on it more solidly. The back of the head has a jog where the radiate crown goes around it, and there is a rather deeper indentation at the bridge of the nose than there is with the other two. The nose itself is handled in such a way that it is large but blunt at the end, and the upper lip is long. From the nostril, a line curves round into the chin, which is not so sharp and pronounced as is customary with the other two officinae. The lettering is undistinguished.

RIC 34, 35, 51, 52, and 63 through 65 were produced by Officina II. The neck, again, is thick, and the back of the head has the smooth line running down into the neck. The line running down the emperor's forehead into his nose, however, curves gracefully without much indentation at the bridge. The nose itself is strong, sometimes pointed, sometimes not. It is not blunt. The line running from the nostril to the corner of the mouth is curved. The chin shows a much more pronounced jawbone than is the case with I, which makes for a bulbous effect in contrast with the pointed treatment it receives in III. A few coins have pouting lips. The lettering is consistently small, sometimes being quite neat and precise. The work of the "archaicengraver" is sometimes in evidence, as in RIC 34, Smyrna No. 117.

Officina III, producing RIC 36, 37, 53, 54, and 66 through 69, tends to make necks slender, and top them with a large cranium. The back of the head is made to curve down gracefully into the neck. There is a normal break at the bridge of Gordian's nose, and the nose itself is long and usually pointed. Occasionally, a straight line is found running from the nose to the corner of the mouth, and the lips most often pout. The chin is sharp and bony, and rather pointed. The lettering in the legends is generally neat, sometimes small, but normally rather large.

So far there is great continuity with the characteristics of the officinae in issue 1/2. But when we investigate the proportions of reverse dies ↓ and ↑, as well as the average direction of strike, there is some but not complete continuity. This means, I think ,that so many new malleatores and suppostores have been taken on by the mint for this issue, that the work-habits of these new individuals alter the proportions observed for the old individuals. There can be no doubt that there were new men involved with the production of the third issue, since the number of coins manufactured per month rose strikingly over the old one. Issue 1/2 was struck during a period of about seventeen months, from near the beginning of August, 238, until the end of December, 239. The third issue was struck during the following year. These dates are not precise, but do well enough for our present purpose. 36 Issue 1/2 is represented by 946 coins in the Dorchester hoard, or by an average accumulation of fifty-six coins a month. Issue 3 is represented by 1,688 coins, an average accumulation of 141 coins per month. In other words, the rate of production went up to somewhere between double and treble the previous rate. Naturally, the mint required more workmen, and these new men show their presence by the altered proportions of obverse to reverse alignment, and in the differing direction of strike. The proportions are shown in table 7.

TABLE 7
Issue	1/2	3	1/2	3
Officina	%↑↓	%↑↓	Direction	Direction
I	61.3	54.7	4.3	4.4
II	25.0	51.0	4.5	4.4
III	45.5	60.0	5.3	4.2

Since these figures show so much variance between issues, I regard them as useless in tracing the continuity of the officinae, and shall disregard them subsequently.

We now arrive at the very large fourth issue, the one that was contemporary with the arrival of Timesitheus as Praetorian Prefect. His influence was very wide-spread in the government as a whole, and doubtless affected the working of the mint. We can show that the following changes were effected. First, production of antoniniani at Rome was somewhat reduced. From the Dorchester hoard, coining is seen to have been about four-fifths the rate of the previous issue. 37 But this was offset by the reopening and thorough reorgani- zation of the mint at Antioch, which now commenced to produce large issues of money with a new style of portraiture which Mattingly has well characterized as "assimilated to Roman style and usage." 38 The nature of this change is such that it probably involved an actual transfer of personnel from Rome to Antioch, a point to be examined presently.

The numbers of coins of the six types of this issue are indicated in table 8.

TABLE 8 39
RIC	83	84–85	86	87–90	91–94	95	TOTAL
Smy	41	50	45	38	39	32	245
Dor	58	65	61	65	66	55	370
EW	6	4	3	4	3	4	24
C-Y	7	8	2	4	3	3	27
Elv	4	10	7	6	9	8	44
Sul	2	3	5	2	2	2	16
LS	5	11	9	15	9	14	63
Cou	3	8	5	9	8	8	41
Nan	39	31	29	47	55	58	259
Baa	35	43	35	37	48	34	232
Sch	106	112	114	134	94	127	687
NZ	16	25	21	17	37	19	135
Üsk	18	12	15	13	21	21	99
Rus	0	6	1	3	1	2	13
Nic	19	19	15	9	18	25	105
J-K	0	5	1	5	10	3	24
R-D	3	16	0	0	0	0	19
Ple	40	28	34	34	35	39	210
Dur	18	19	17	12	11	18	95
Ant	1	0	0	2	1	1	5
Ath	2	3	2	0	1	2	10
TOTAL	423	478	421	456	471	474

These numbers help to show that, as in the case of previous issues, this one was minted in three officinae. Officina I produced RIC 85, 84, and 86; II produced 83 and 91–94; and III was responsible for 87–90 and 95. 40 The evidence is that these coins reflect the characteristics of the same three officinae working earlier. So far as style of portraiture is concerned, the only important change is that Gordian is made to look a bit older than he perhaps would appear at about the time of his marriage to Sabinia Tranquillina—partly by means of a mustache and beard, partly by making his face more mature. But the same peculiarities in the rendering of neck and head, nose and chin, and mouth and lettering, appear as before.

These continuing traits are matched with coins of almost nearly the same average weight as those of issue 3. The numbers of coins of each of these three sets are about the same.

TABLE 9 41
Officina	RIC	Ave. Wt.	No.	Wt. of Coinage
I	85,84	4.411	478
	86	4.334	421
	TOTAL	4.375	899	3,933.125
II	91–94	4.279	471
	83	4.219	423
	TOTAL	4.249	894	3,798.606
III	95	4.429	474
	87–90	4.474	456
	TOTAL	4.468	930	4,155.240

A word about the differences in numbers of total coins minted. As we shall see later, the total numbers of coins produced by each of the officinae during Gordian's whole reign was almost identical. But in this fourth issue, there is a larger discrepancy than obtained in either issue 1/2 or 3. Officina III, the largest, is represented by thirty-six more coins than II, the smallest; in issue 3 the greatest difference was only fourteen. It is likely that Officina III began production of coins of issue 4 about the same time as the other two, but continued production a bit longer while the other two went over to the types assigned them for issue 5. Officina III is ninety-two coins short of II in the fifth issue, and one hundred eight short of I, so that Mattingly's suggestion that the officinae did not always begin to produce at precisely the same time is probably correct. 42

A consideration of the contemporary production of the mint at Antioch is in order. Mattingly and Sutherland observe that the mint seems to have been organized in three sections, and that between 242 and 244 this branch of the Roman system struck off two issues, one small one, RIC 209, 212, and 214, and a second large one, RIC 210, 213, and 216. 43 I think that this was the case, and would even go a bit further, and suggest that this mint was created on the Roman model, and that personnel were transferred from Rome to Antioch to staff each officina, each related to one of the Roman ones. The branch struck two issues, the first a small one consisting of RIC 209, FIDES MILITVM; 212, MARTI PACIFERO; and 214, PAX AVGVSTI. A larger issue followed from the same three officinae, respectively, as shown by similarity of style: 210, FORTVNA REDVX (no wheel); 213, ORIENS AVG; and 216, SAECVLI FELICITAS.

The evidence of relationship to the Roman officinae lies partly in the average weights of the coins made at Antioch. RIC 209 and 210 average 4.525 grams; 212 and 213 4.374 grams; and 214 and 216 4.290 grams, all only a little bit heavier than the respective weights observed as in use by the three officinae in Rome .

More precisely still, what seems to have happened is that while engravers and blank makers were transferred, the reconstituted mint at Antioch had to depend on local strikers. The evidence for the engravers is that the three sets of coins show very similar details in comparison with the three sets of the contemporary fourth and fifth issues of Rome . This is illustrated in the middle of Plate IV, where, in the left-hand column, I have placed coins from the fifth issue of Rome , and in the middle and right-hand columns coins from Antioch. The similarity of styles will be at once obvious, and also the continuity of the three traditions of portraiture we have been noticing in the Roman issues. The similarity of average weight indicates the probability that Roman flan makers were also sent to Antioch.

The evidence that local men were used to strike the coins is that the relative positions of obverse and reverse dies and the average direction of strike show the usual divergences from any previously observed practice. Exactly the same thing occurred in Rome in the transition from issue 3 to issue 4. The proportions of reverse die down to reverse die up change noticeably, as does the average point of impression of the striking hammer. Of course, with the fluctuating amount of coinage struck, as well as normal replacement of unskilled labor, it was necessary for a mint always to be changing its personnel, and these men naturally produced coins reflecting their own skills or lack of them, and their own individual characteristics.

The fifth and last issue of Gordian at Rome contained no fewer than seventeen different reverse legends, there being a progression from long to short form of six basic types. 44 Again, we find that the numbers of coins, average weights, and elements of style we have been considering make three pairs as shown in tables 10 and 11.

The criterion of style still operates. Officina I has the usual large nose and the usual crescent line running from the nostril toward the point of the chin. There is the break at the back of the head, where the crown is bound around it. Officina II has a smooth line along the back of Gordian's head, usually small, neat lettering, and a pointed nose. The "archaic-engraver" seems to have died by this time. Officina III produces coins with a smooth line from forehead to the tip of a long, strong nose. Similarly, there is a smooth transition along the line running from the back of the head down to the neck. There is only a short line from the nostril to the corner of the mouth, and the chin is sharply pointed. The total production of each officina throughout the reign of Gordian III is indicated in table 12.

TABLE 10 45
RIC	140–142	143–144	145–147	148–150	151–153	154–156	TOTAL
Smy	19	19	13	19	26	20	116
Dor	33	35	28	37	42	29	204
E W	2	7	1	4	4	2	20
C-Y	2	4	7	3	7	3	26
Elv	5	9	4	4	1	5	28
Sul	1	5	0	3	2	1	12
L S	2	8	8	7	13	8	46
Cou	6	10	3	2	4	9	34
Nan	24	15	20	21	28	26	134
Baa	25	30	22	29	24	21	151
Sch	52	60	51	71	49	62	345
N Z	7	11	9	12	10	14	63
Üsk	6	10	2	8	11	3	40
Rus	1	3	0	2	1	0	7
Nic	11	22	6	6	6	6	57
Sme	85	88	73	90	84	82	512
J-K	2	0	3	3	1	2	11
Ple	13	22	18	20	22	21	116
Dur	17	0	14	12	19	14	76
Ant	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Ath	0	2	3	0	1	2	8
TOTAL	313	360	285	350	356	330

TABLE 11
Officina	RIC	Ave. Wt.	No.	Wt. of Coinage
I	143–144	4.441	360
	154–156	4.319	330
	TOTAL	4.378	690	3,020.820
II	148–150	4.230	350
	151–153	4.234	356
	TOTAL	4.232	706	2,987.792
III	140–142	4.482	313
	145–147	4.486	285
	TOTAL	4.484	598	2,681.432

TABLE 12
Officina	1/2	3	4	5	TOTAL
I	417	648	899	690	2,654
II	426	662	894	706	2,688
III	415	653	930	598	2,596

Officina III, the one with the smallest production, is 96.58% of II, the one with the largest. This is a small difference, and it is made even smaller if the average weights of the coins struck are multiplied by the numbers of coins struck to arrive at the weights of currency actually minted.

TABLE 13
Officina	Ave. Wt.	No.	Wt. of Coinage
I	4.363	2,654	11,579.402
II	4.241	2,688	11,399.808
III	4.464	2,596	11,588.544

Here, the smallest officina, II, is 98.37% of III, the largest. I is 99.92% of III.

Last, if these weights of metal are multiplied by the average silver content of each officina, taken from Le Gentilhomme's analyses of coins in the Nanterre hoard, the results are almost as close. 46

TABLE 14
Officina	Ave. Anal.	Wt. of Silver
I	40.47%	4,686.184 gr.
II	40.13%	4,574.743 gr.
III	39.54%	4,582.110 gr.

Officina II, with the least weight of silver, is 97.62% of I, the heaviest. On the other hand, II is 99.84% of III. Although the results are not quite as close as in the weight of metal, these numbers are still closer than the simple number of coins.

What this shows, I think, is that the organization of the mint outlined above is correct and that the mint at Rome was indeed organized in three officinae during the reign of Gordian III . Each of these officinae was self-contained, and struck coinage in all three metals. This fact emerges from the arrangement of the currency in bronze, gold, and other denominations of silver which parallel the antoniniani.

TABLE 15
Off	RIC	Au	Q	D	S	Dup	As
Issue 1/2
I	1, 15	×	×		×	×	×
	5, 19	×	×		×	×	×
	TOGETHER	×	×		×	×	×
II	3, 17	×			×	×	×
	6, 20	×
	TOGETHER	×			×	×	×
III	2, 16	×			×		×
	4, 18	×			×		×
	TOGETHER	×			×		×
Issue 3
I	39, 56, 71	×	×		×	×	×
	38, 55, 70	×	×		×	×	×
	TOGETHER	×	×		×	×	×
II	34, 51, 63	×			×	×	×
	35, 52, 64, 65	×			×	×	×
	TOGETHER	×			×	×	×
III	37, 54, 68, 69	×	×		×	×	×
	36, 53, 66, 67	×		×	×	×	×
	TOGETHER	×	×	×	×	×	×
Issue 4
I	85, 84	×	×	×	×	×	×
	86	×		×	×	×	×
	TOGETHER	×	×	×	×	×	×
II	91–94	×		×	×	×	×
	83	×	×	×	×	×	×
	TOGETHER	×	×	×	×	×	×
III	95	×	×	×			×
	87–90	×	×	×	×	×	×
	TOGETHER	×	×	×	×	×	×
Issue 5
I	143–144	×			×		×
	154–156	×			×		×
	TOGETHER	×			×		×
II	148–150	×			×
	151–153	×			×		×
	TOGETHER	×			×		×
III	140–142	×	×		×	×	×
	145–147	×			×		×
	TOGETHER	×	×		×	×	×

From table 15, it is apparent that each of the three officinae struck in all three metals with great consistency. It holds true with almost the same consistency that each struck the major denominations in all three metals as well. There are a few exceptions to this: each struck aureii in all issues except 3 c, when Officina I struck gold quinarii instead. Quinarii, in fact, were minted by I rather frequently, III sometimes assisting. Officina II struck quinarii only for issue 4.

All three struck sesterces with complete regularity, and usually dupondii and asses, or one or the other, with nearly the same regularity. This sustains the observation of R. A. G. Carson that since we have nowhere a specific statement that at Rome there were separate establishments for the minting of bronze coins and coins of precious metals, such separate establishments did not exist. 47

The organization of the mint in three officinae appears to be older than the time of Gordian, and to have existed at least when the second issue of antoniniani was struck in the joint reign of Balbinus and Pupienus (a.d. 238). I feel somewhat diffident in saying this, since I can give no evidence from style or average weight, the Smyrna hoard having only four coins of the joint emperors. But, nonetheless, I should like to venture a few observations regarding the state of the mint in their time. When they began to issue antoniniani (the first issue's silver was denarii), the mint seems to have had three officinae, each one shared by the two men, more or less equally. This hypothesis differs from the currently accepted one, which holds that there were six officinae, each emperor controlling three. 48 But from the scant statistical evidence at our disposal, it would seem that the three officinae organization fits the statistical and what stylistic evidence I have seen in books rather well. The organization would be as in table 16, the numbers of coins being taken from the same finds as before.

TABLE 16
Emperor	RIC	Reverse	No.
Balbinus	10	CONCORDIA AVGG	19
Pupienus	12	PATRES SENATVS	14
TOTAL			33
Balbinus	II	FIDES MVTVA AVGG	11
Pupienus	10	CARITAS MVTVA AVGG	18
TOTAL			29
Balbinus	12	PIETAS MVTVA AVGG	9
Pupienus	9	AMOR MVTVVS AVGG	20
TOTAL			29

This arrangement, from the point of view of numbers alone, is a good deal more satisfactory than one based on the six officinae of the past, which would have to account for the vast difference in production between one section represented by nine coins (Balbinus, RIC 12), and one represented by twenty (Pupienus, RIC 9). It also has the virtue of fitting the literary evidence which speaks of the mutually suspicious nature of these two men. Herodian says that each was jealous of the other and desired to become sole ruler, information which is substantiated by the Augustan History. 49

This apportionment of the six types also goes very well with the organization I have made for the first issue of Gordian III . It is known that there is considerable continuity between the last coins of the co-emperors and the first coins of the boy-emperor, as is plainly evident from the elderly quality of some of the earliest portraits of Gordian. Mattingly has observed that RIC 1, 2, and 6 of Gordian have been influenced by the portraiture of Pupienus, RIC 3, 4, and 5 by that of Balbinus. 50 Since I have assigned Gordian's RIC 1, 2, and 6 to each of the three officinae, and RIC 3, 4, 5 each to a different officina, this criterion of style would seem to confirm that there were in fact three officinae before Gordian became emperor.

All the foregoing has been set forth to justify the hypothesis that the mint at Rome , from 238, when the Senate succeeded in killing the tyrant Maximinus and in conferring the principate upon two of its members, until 244, when Gordian was murdered by the usurper Philip, was organized in three sections, each striking gold, silver, and aes. I should now like to suggest that each of the officinae was controlled by one of the Triumviri Monetales. This may not hold true for any other period of the empire; further research, reign by reign, must be carried out. But, this hypothesis has also been suggested for a much earlier period by C. M. Kraay. To be sure, K. Pink feels that under the empire, while the triumviri doubtless continued to exist, nonetheless their office had become a mere archaic decoration. 51 However that may be for other periods, it is likely that in this time of senatorial resurgence under Balbinus, Pupienus, and Gordian III , if the office had indeed lost real significance earlier, it was re-established and played a part in the control of the mint. There is really no compelling evidence one way or another. But the institution existed, and men listed it in the cursus honorum engraved on their funeral monuments, so that it would appear to have had some importance. The complete title, too, deserves to be stressed, that is, Triumvir Monetalis Aere Argento Avro Flando Ferivndo. Since we find that each officina did strike in all three metals, the title does fit the fact of actual production. Also, there were three men and three officinae.

Therefore, the organization of the mint in 238 may have been as follows. At the head of the whole financial organization was the secretary a rationibus, directly under the emperor himself. Responsible to this, high official was the procurator monetae, who was in direct charge of the mint. The technical side of production was in the hands of an optio et exactor. His orders came from the procurator. The latter also probably gave orders to the triumviri, each of whom was in administrative charge of one officina. If their duties were the same as in the days of the Republic, they were responsible for having dies made, for turning metal into a certain number of coins, and for delivering the money to the fiscus. The actual work was performed by a staff of scalptores, flatuarii, aequatores, malleatores, suppostores, and officinatores. Most of these men, and the optio et exactor, were freedmen or slaves; the triumviri, however, were members of the ruling class of the empire. The latest dated inscription attesting the existence of the office, CIL. 3850, is the cursus honorum of a man who was first triumvir and finally consul in a.d. 235. 52

The important workmen in the mint were the scalptores, who cut the dies, and the aequatores, who trimmed the blanks used for striking. The evidence of the variability of positioning the dies of the axis of strike shows that the malleatores (strikers) and suppostores (positioners) were taken on by the mint and released according to the needs of the moment. I have discussed this above.

It appears, therefore, that at Rome during the reign of Gordian III the mint functioned in three officinae, each separate, distinct, and self-contained, each striking in the three usual metals, and each managed by a triumvir monetalis, under the ultimate supervision of the procurator monetae.

End Notes

The Dorchester hoard is described in H. Mattingly, "The Great Dorchester Hoard of 1936," NC 1939, 21–61; the numbers of coins in Gordian's first issue are taken from that article, and are duplicated in RIC IV.3, 15n. Mattingly's and Sutherland's remarks on the distinctions, ibid., xvi-xvii. See, too, Mattingly in his Roman Coins, 2nd ed. (1960), 131; BMCEmp. V, xxv, xxvii.

2 R. A. G. Carson, "System and Product in the Roman Mint,'' Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly (1956), 238–239; "The Coinage and Chronology of A.D. 238," ANSCent. Publ. (1958), 198; M. Grant, Roman Imperial Money (1954), 55; P. Le Gentilhomme, "La trouvaille de Nanterre,'' RN 1946, 24, 29–30.

K. Pink, "Der Aufbau der römischen Münzprägung in der Kaiserzeit," NZ 1935, 24–25, 29; O. Voetter, "Die römischen Münzen des Kaisers Gordianus III und deren antike Fälschungen," NZ 1894, 387, 394–395.

RIC V. 1, 15 and n.; RIC IV. 3, xvi.

CIL XIV. 1878, from Ostia mentions "of[f]icina prima."

Mattingly found that the sixteen examples of the type ORIENS AVG (RIC 213) of Antioch in the Plevna hoard had a mean weight of 4.67 grams, and that all Roman and Antiochene together one of 4.263 grams (H. Mattingly and F. S. Salisbury, "A Find of Roman Coins from Plevna in Bulgaria," NC 1924, 237). The average of coins struck at Rome from Plevna seems low, however, since the average weight of the same issues found at Smyrna is 4.354 grams (361 examples), at Dorchester 4.348 grams (567 examples—H. Mattingly, "The Great Dorchester Hoard of 1936," NC 1939, 40); and at the Villa Patrizi 4.38 grams (1,550 examples—A. Segre, Metrologia e circolazione monetaria degli antichi [1928], 367–368, n. 7).

Of the coins of the first issue of Gordian III in the Smyrna hoard, the heaviest weighed 5.19 grams, the lightest 3.51. By our standards this difference is extraordinary.

P. Le Gentilhomme, "La trouvaille de Nanterre," RN 1946, 41, gives analyses of a small number of antoniniani of this period. His results actually show that the coins of Antioch contained more silver (and were also heavier) than those from Rome , but the minute number of coins tested (7) seems to me to render this result inconclusive, so that the matter seems still moot.

Mattingly, NC 1939, 21–61.

A. S. Robertson, 'The Edlington Wood Find," NC 1935, 202–207.

G. K. Jenkins, "The Caister-by-Yarmouth Hoard," NC 1947, 175–179.

R. A. G. Carson and J. W. Brailsford, "The Elvedon (Suffolk) Treasure Trove," NC 1954, 204–208.

H. A. Grueber, "Find of Roman Coins and Gold Rings at Sully, near Cardiff," NC 1900, 27–65.

The Lime Street hoard has been reported in three separate articles: J. Evans, "Roman Coins Discovered in Lime Street, London," NC 1882, 57–60; "Further Notice of Some Roman Coins Discovered in Lime Street," NC 1883, 278–281; and R. Merrifield, "An Unpublished Portion of the Lime Street Hoard Found in 1882," NC 1956, 247–254.

A. de Belfort, "Trouvaille de Couvron," Annuaire de la société française de numismatique I (1877), 456–460.

P. Le Gentilhomme, "La trouvaille de Nanterre," RN 1946, 15–114.

I have not been able to find the original publication of this hoard. The figures are taken from Le Gentilhomme's article on the Nanterre find. See n. 15, above.

M. Bernhart, "Der Münzfund von Schwarzenacker." Mitteilungen der Bayernischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft (1914–1915), 67–74.

After the journal reporting it: B. Saria, "Aus dem Belgrader National Museum," NZ 1924, 90–96.

W. Kubitschek, "Ein Denarfund aus der Gegend von Üsküb (Albanien)," NZ 1908, 37–54.

N. A. Muschmow, "Münzfunde aus Bulgarien," NZ 1918, 43–54.

G. Seure, "Trésors de monnaies antiques en Bulgarie. II. Le trésor de Nicolaévo," RN 1923, 111–153.

J. Petrovic, "The Smederevo Hoard," (in Serbian) Starinar VI (1931), 32–77.

W. Kubitschek, "Ein Fund römischer Antoniniane aus Serbien," NZ 1901, 185–194.

N. A. Mouchmov, Le trésor numismatique de Réka-Devnia (Marcianopolis). Annuaire du Musée National Bulgare V (1934).

H. Mattingly and F. S. Salisbury, "A Find of Roman Coins from Plevna in Bulgaria," NC 1924, 210–238.

M. Thompson, The Athenian Agora. Vol. II. Coins (1954).

D. B. Waage, Antioch-on-the-Orontes. IV, Part 2. Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and Crusaders' Coins (1952).

A. R. Bellinger, The Excavations at Dura-Europos. VI. The Coins (1949).

In RIC IV, 3, 30n.

RIC IV. 3, 5.

Mattingly, NC 1939, 38–39.

C. C. Vermuele, Some Notes on Ancient Dies and Coining Methods (1954), 40–44.

In RIC IV. 3, 8.

Using the figures from Dorchester alone, the following results obtain for the six-officina system:

RIC 1,15	162 coins
2,16	141
3,17	162
4,18	164
5,19	148
6,20	169

That is to say, the putative officina producing RIC 2 and 16 worked at 83.4% of the rate of the officina producing RIC 6 and 20, a difference of 16.6%.

B. Thordeman, "The Lohe Hoard," NC 1948, 188–204.

That there is a close correspondence between the accumulation of coins in a hoard and the actual number of coins produced is shown by B. Thordeman, NC 1948, 188–204. I think he overstates his results, but the general conclusion as I have said it is undoubtedly true.

The approximate length of time during which this issue was struck was thirty-two months. The issue is represented by 3,700 coins at Dorchester, an average accumulation of 116 a month, as compared to the 141 of issue 3.

In RIC IV. 3, 1–2, 36.

The Smederevo hoard is omitted from this table, since the number of coins, type RIC 83, was left out of the report, no doubt on account of careless printing.

RIC 85 was struck for only a short time, and was then superseded by RIC 84, which remained current until the end of the issue. This is apparent from the portraits of 85, which, so far as I have been able to discover, never pictured the emperor with beard or mustache. This hairy decoration, however, is common on RIC 84.

P. Le Gentilhomme ("La trouvaille de Nanterre," RN 1946, 34–35) reports somewhat different average weights for these six types. I have disregarded his results, however, because he did not weigh and report all of the coins at his disposal, and does not say what his principle of selection was.

In RIC IV. 3, 30n.

RIC IV. 3, 13, 36–37.

P. Le Gentilhomme, RN 1946, 32.

This table contains some slight inaccuracies which cannot be avoided. First, for the Smederevo hoard, published by J. Petrovic in Starinar VI (1931), the number of coins given for RIC 144 is eighty-six. This number is so much larger than the number of coins of the other types of this issue that I have regarded it as a typographical error for "thirty-six." The article was not well printed, the number of coins for RIC 83 being altogether omitted.

Second, in making up the figures for RIC 144, FORTVNA REDVX (wheel), I have had to make changes in the published numbers in certain finds. For example, in the case of the Plevna hoard, there is a total of thirty-one coins reported for type 98 of the now out-dated catalogue of Cohen. This type is now divided into RIC 144, FORTVNA REDVX (wheel), struck at Rome , and RIC 210, FORTVNA REDVX (no wheel), struck at Antioch. On analogy with the proportions in the Dorchester and Smyrna hoards, I have divided the thirty-one coins of the Plevna hoard into five RIC 144 and twenty-six RIC 210. Similar adjustments have been made for other finds reporting C. 98, but complete accuracy will be lacking.

The analyses are given in his article, "La trouvaille de Nanterre," RN 1946, 36–37. To arrive at the average silver content of the coinage of each officina, I have established first the weight of silver struck in each officina by multiplying the weight of each coin by the percentage of silver, adding up these weights of silver, and dividing this result by the total weight of the coinage. Unfortunately, Le Gentilhomme gives analyses for only forty coins of Gordian. L. C. West, Gold and Silver Coin Standards in the Roman Empire, NNM 94, reports twenty-two antoniniani of Gordian III as 41.7% fine, but does not identify the coins by type.

R. A. G. Carson, "System and Product in the Roman Mint," Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly (1956), 230. See, also, S. B. Platner and T. Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (1929), s.v. Domus Aurea.

For the content of the issues of Balbinus and Pupienus I follow R. A. G. Carson, "The Coinage and Chronology of A.D. 238," ANSCent. Publ., 197–8.

The current hypothesis is mentioned by Carson (op. cit., 196), who, it is true, does not specifically say that he believes in six officinae for the second issue, but who does, with some doubts, for the first issue. He also accepts six for the first issue of Gordian III , which immediately followed the second of Balbinus and Pupienus. The existence of six officinae is also accepted by P. Le Gentilhomme, "La trouvaille de Nanterre," RN 1946, 29–30. His statements are not supported by evidence other than appeal to the authority of Mattingly's article on the Dorchester hoard. There, the case rests on the untested assumption that one reverse legend means one officina.

My opinion that only three officina were used to strike the second issue of Balbinus and Pupienus is, perhaps, supported by what little information we have for the first issue. In it, the aes coinage almost certainly did not come from six officinae, since there were only five main reverse types struck. Only one of these, incidentally, appears associated predominantly with a single emperor, and even it (PAX PVBLICA) was not exclusively Balbinus'. As A. M. Woodward has shown, the reverse dies of the aes were actually shared in varying degrees by the two men. As far as the parallel issue of silver denarii is concerned, we seem, again, to have only three and not six main types, so that my notion that only three officinae were working and were shared by the two men perhaps holds good for the first issue, as well as the second. (The information on the first issue used here is from Carson, op. cit., 195–6).

Hdn. VIII. 8. 4; SHA Max. et Bal. XIV. 1, 4.

H. Mattingly, "The Great Dorchester Hoard of 1936," NC 1939, 47; and with C. H. V. Sutherland in RIC IV. 3 (1949), 15n.

C. M. Kraay, The Aes Coinage of Galba, NNM 133, 30–31. For the triumviri see, now, K. Pink, The Triumviri Monetales and the Structure of the Coinage of the Roman Republic (1952), 8, 56–57, 63, 66.

This paragraph on the organization of the mint owes much to H. Mattingly in CAH XII (1939), 714–715, and in his Roman Coins, 2nd ed. (1960), 129– 131. R. A. G. Carson, "System and Product in the Roman Mint," Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly (1956), 227–239, has written an excellent review of the ancient evidence. See, too, K. Pink, The Triumviri Monetales and the Structure of the Coinage of the Roman Republic (1952), especially 56–57, 63; K. Menadier, "Die Münzen und das Münzwesen bei den Scriptores Historiae Augustae," ZN 1914, 1–144; R. Mowat, "Le bureau de l'Équité et les ateliers de la Monnaie impériale à Rome ," NZ 1909, 87–116; S. B. Platner and T. Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (1929), s.v. Iuno Moneta. H. Strasburger in RE VII-Al, 515–518, s.v. Triumviri, lists the inscriptions mentioning triumviri, to which K. Pink, op. cit., adds a few.

THE MINTING OF ANTONINIANI UNDER PHILIP I

Before proceeding to investigate the organization of the mint at Rome in the reign of Philip , I wish to make some remarks about the content of his issues of antoniniani. I think that in general Mattingly's and Sutherland's assignment of specific coins to the different issues is correct, but on several points I feel it is necessary to deviate from the arrangement. Mattingly himself has remarked that only the general arrangement was satisfactorily made, and that several details of his system were still open to question. 1

Mattingly has assigned RIC 48 b, SECVRIT ORBIS, to both the first issue and the second. His reason for doing so is that the numbers of RIC 46 b, SALVS AVG (standing right), together with RIC 47, SALVS AVG (standing left), in the Dorchester hoard are not enough to fill an officina. 2 Therefore, the same officina continued in this issue and the next to strike 48 b. His method, again, assumes that the numbers of these two types in Dorchester are in accurate proportion to the actual output of the mint, whereas in fact they are not. Dorchester is short of these two, as their representation in other hoards shows (see table 17).

The other hoards, then, show more or less equal numbers as usual distributed among these six types. Furthermore, the styles of obverse portraiture of SECVRIT ORBIS and the two SALVS AVG types are quite different, as Plate V shows. RIC 48b has a short face with small lips and tight mouth; the other two have tall, narrow faces. Actually, the types were struck in different officinae. Last, for one design to have been used as a type for mass coining in two separate issues would have been without precedent for this period. These considerations taken together indicate decisively that RIC 48 b belongs to issue 2 alone. A date later than that of 46b and 47 is attested by the older, heavier face of the emperor on SECVRIT ORBIS.

TABLE 17 3
RIC	Dor	Smy	Nan	Sch	Ple	Sme	TOTAL
32b, 33, 34b	147	9	12	22	7	37	131
35b, 36b, 37b	172	13	10	27	7	39	140
40b, 41, 42	158	10	14	20	6	30	119
46b, 47	47	8	7	25	10	37	117
49b, 50	170	11	11	19	9	42	136
52, 53	151	8	10	23	5	26	114

This shift, however, leads to a difficulty in the second issue, since the six types already included in it by Mattingly and Sutherland do not require the addition of a seventh. But if we study the numbers of these seven types, we may note peculiarities.

TABLE 18 4
RIC	Dor	Smy	Nan	Sch	Sme	Ple	TOTAL
26b	155	15	8	25	49	7	143
31	151	14	6	22	42	12	136
38b	178	13	12	32	44	11	161
48 b	167	14	8	26	45	13	151
51	75	6	10	5	69	8	124
123 c	166	0	19	29	44	15	163
215, 216c	141	3	13	22	34	6	120

Table 18 shows that the type RIC 51, VICTORIA AVGG, does not really belong to this issue. It is present at Dorchester in only half the amount of the other coins; in Schwarzenacker it is about a fifth as numerous. On the other hand, its representation in the Smederevo hoard is one and a half to two times greater than that of the other six types. These peculiarities make it impossible to assign this coin to the second issue.

Besides banishing RIC 51, VICTORIA AVGG, from issue 2, I have made one other change in Mattingly's and Sutherland's arrangements. That is to assign RIC 217, 219, and 220b, PRINCIPI IVVENT and variants, to the third issue. This is a small point. I have done so on analogy with the general aspect of the second issue: that is, except for Otacilia's coins, the other four types were not accompanied by variants in any appreciable quantity at all. Such were, however, common to all six types of the third issue. It seems to me, also, that the portraits of the three variants look enough older than the basic RIC 216c to warrant shifting them forward to share the third issue with RIC 218d. Perhaps, however, one of them does belong to this issue.

For the third issue, except for this change in Philip II's coinage, I follow Mattingly and Sutherland.

The fourth issue, however, and the seventh, present difficulties. At some time, Philip had struck the type RIC 62, FIDES EXERCITVS (four standards), which Mattingly and Sutherland have assigned to the last issue of this emperor. I should say that these coins belong to the fourth issue, because the numbers of them found in hoards show that the volume of production was more like that of the other types assigned to this series, as shown in table 19.

The eighty-six coins of RIC 65, ROMAE AETERNAE, seem too many for issue four, so that I exchange this type for RIC 62. The legend of RIC 65, furthermore, is more in keeping with the basic theme of the propaganda of the seventh issue, which began to be struck in the thousand and first year of Rome 's long continuity. Other coins of the series celebrated the new saeculum and the aeternitas of the regime. The number of coins of type RIC 65, does in fact, match rather well the numbers of the other five main types of the seventh issue, as shown in table 20.

TABLE 19 5
RIC	Dor	Smy	Nan	Sch	Sme	Ple	TOTAL
5, 6	73	8	5	7	20	5	68
57	83	4	6	18	21	7	70
59	91	6	9	15	25	5	82
62	113	12	10	14	17	2	76
65	94	5	11	18	26	4	86
129	80	0	5	13	13	5	53
227, 231c	119	0	9	15	29	5	82

TABLE 20 6
RIC	Dor	Smy	Nan	Sch	Sme	Ple	TOTAL
24c	135	10	8	26	12	8	99
25 b	88	8	6	12	32	6	86
58	93	12	5	17	17	4	80
60	37	7	0	5	4	1	23
61	42	7	3	7	12	1	42
63b	34	5	3	6	9	3	30
65	94	5	11	18	26	4	86
130	114	1	9	28	17	11	93
226	39	3	10	6	22	4	65
230	III	7	8	17	27	8	89

The ten types listed in table 20 show a range in number from twenty-three to ninety-nine. Of these, however, four, RIC 60, 61, 63 b, and 226, certainly form a group apart from the rest, and have, moreover, such a peculiar distribution among the hoards, that they certainly do not belong to the seventh issue. We shall set them aside for the moment, for with the types RIC 24c, 25b, 58, 65, 130, and 230, we have a normal issue of six. The eighth issue of Mattingly and Sutherland thus disappears, since the four types just excluded from the seventh issue do not make a normal Roman issue. In fact, RIC 226 cannot be assigned, as Mattingly and Sutherland suggested, to a late issue at all. The obverse legend is IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG, which was in use only earlier in the reign, in 246 and 247, that is, between the earliest coins of Philip II, whose legends include the title CAES, and the last ones, which have the short title IMP PHILIPPVS AVG.

To solve the problem of the five types which do not fit into the normal Roman system, let us begin with RIC 51, VICTORIA AVGG. As remarked earlier, the distribution of coins of this type shows extraordinary peculiarities. The number in the Smederevo hoard is a very large percentage of that in Dorchester, a most unusual 92.00%. Normally, the percentage is a good deal smaller, falling somewhere between 32.15 and 20.63% in the seven Roman issues. The Smederevo hoard probably does contain a somewhat larger than usual number of this type, as shown by comparison with other Balkan hoards: NZ 17, Üsküb, Nicolaevo, Jagodina-Kruschewatz, and Plenva, have 33.33% as many as Smederevo. It is usual for these smaller Balkan hoards to vary between 80.00 and 52.54% of Smederevo. But, these small hoards show the same relation to Dorchester that Smederevo does. They are, at 30.67%, about twice as large as is customary, for the normal relationship varies between 18.82% and 13.11%. The Dorchester hoard does not have, in this case, an excessively small representation. Comparison with small British hoards, the ones from Edlington Wood, Caister-by-Yarmouth, Elveden, Sully, and Lime Street, shows that these combined have 1.45% of Dorchester's number. In the seven issues they fluctuate between 5.85% and 2.41%.

Evidently, something is radically different about this type. The statistics show that Britain as a whole did not receive as many coins proportionately as did the Balkan provinces. The same was true also for Gaul and Germany. Smederevo is 1,380.00% of Schwarzenacker. In the normal Roman issues the ratio varies between 168.42% and 103.05%. Much the same is true of Nanterre: Smederevo has 690.00% of the French hoard, the normal figure lying between 405.06% and 250.00%.

All this indicates, then, a place of minting other than Rome , and, in view of the large numbers of RIC 51 in Balkan hoards, a Balkan origin. It is difficult, however, to assign the coins to some particular mint, in view of the paucity of the evidence. There were two Balkan mints of some consequence functioning in Philip's reign, Viminacium in Upper Moesia, which began to strike in copper in a.d. 239, and the provincial mint of Dacia, which began to operate in a.d. 246. The former is the more likely place. In this city was located the mint of the rebel Pacatianus, who rose against Philip in a.d. 248. He actually had struck here very rare antoniniani picturing himself, of course, on the obverse, but with Philip's VICTORIA AVGG on the reverse. 7 Nothing is more plausible than that when Pacatianus began to issue silver at Viminacium, he should use reverse dies already in the mint until he could have his own made. 8

The style of RIC 51 is undoubtedly Roman, but it seems to me that there is a certain eclecticism that sets it off from the main issues of the capital. I have pictured two of these coins in Plate VII, column 3. Occasionally the emperor's chin protrudes beyond his lips. Smyrna No. 1039 has a sharp break at the back of the head and small, neat lettering. No. 1040 has the smooth line from forehead to nose; otherwise, the coins from Smyrna show a break at the bridge of the nose. Smyrna No. 1038 pouts; the others do not. There is here admittedly little resemblance with the local product of either Viminacium or the provincial mint of Dacia. 9 But that makes little difference, for the Roman style antoniniani of Antioch bear only a little resemblance to the local billon. The eclecticism of these coins probably means that this mint was operated with scalptores drawn from the three officinae in the capital, or, perhaps, with men drawn from Antioch, whose production of antoniniani declined greatly in volume from a.d. 245 on.

The date of this coin is ca. 245–247. It was probably struck contemporaneously with issues 3 and 4 of the mint of Rome . The obverse legend, IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG, prevents a later date. The occasion for its having been issued at all is doubtless to be sought in the invasion of the Carpi, which began in 245. The coinage of Viminacium, then, would support the army concentrated in Moesia under the command of the emperor to repulse the barbarians' attacks. The general scheme would have been to copy the method employed for the mint at Antioch, itself intended to maintain the army gathered to fight the Persian War of 242–244.

Associated with this type was a coin of Philip II, RIC 226, AETERNIT IMPERI. Its legend is a complement of the father's: VICTORIA brings the lastingness of the state. This type is distributed among Balkan hoards in rather the same proportions as RIC 51. Smederevo in this case has a normal number of this type, as shown by the smaller Balkan hoards amounting to 72.72% of the large one. Dorchester is also normal, the small British hoards having 2.56% of the large one. Smederevo, then, has 56.41% of Dorchester; the five small Balkan hoards 41.03%. Smederevo is 220.00% of Nanterre; it is 366.67% of Schwarzenacker. The date of this coin can be rather accurately fixed. It falls between 246, when Philip Junior became Augustus, and 247, when his coins gave up the long obverse title, IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG, in favor of the shorter, IMP PHILIPPVS AVG. Since the volume of Philip's Balkan coinage was twice that of his son's, the type probably was not issued until the end of 246 or the beginning of 247, when the Carpi began to withdraw from the empire.

Finding places for RIC 60, 61, and 63 b among the various issues of Philip is also difficult. H. Mattingly was unsure that he had solved this problem satisfactorily, and felt that placing these three types with RIC 226 and two of the seventh issue as an eighth issue was uncertain. 10 As already noted, RIC 226, AETERNIT IMPER cannot belong to this issue, since the obverse legend is that of the middle and not of the last years of the prince. The impression made by the prince's portrait is also one of youth. If we remove this coin from the arrangement, then, the number of coins of Philip II for both the seventh and the hypothetical eighth issues falls to III, much behind the 155 of FIDES EXERCITVS, so that the whole arrangement, for which Mattingly claimed, indeed, nothing more than plausibility dependent mainly on the Dorchester numbers, cannot stand. 11

Yet, these three types are related in some way because of the similarity of the volume of each. 12 They do have the point in common of being present in Dorchester in numbers of 37, 42, and 34 coins. In this case the Dorchester hoard is, again, representative of the actual output of these coins. Its numbers compare very well, type by type, with the usual percentage established against other hoards. The distribution of these coins in some important hoards is shown in table 21.

TABLE 21 13
RIC	Percentage of Dorchester
	Nan	Sch	Sme	Balk	Smy
60	0.00	13.51	10.81	2.70	18.92
61	7.14	16.67	28.57	9.52	16.67
63b	8.82	1765	29.41	8.82	14.71

Here we have a rather different state of affairs than met with before. Smyrna is much inflated over its usual 5% to 10% ratio toward the Dorchester hoard. This would suggest, again, a nonRoman origin. The Smederevo hoard, except for RIC 60, is a normal fourth of Dorchester, so that one should expect a point of origin rather near the capital. The small Balkan hoards, on the other hand, are much smaller than usual. The scant numbers of these three types in the important Plevna hoard, one, one, and three respectively, show that this place was cut off from the mint by the Carpi. Üsküb, in southern Yugoslavia, has none of these types, probably for the same reason. One Balkan find with large numbers is hoard NZ 17, but unfortunately its provenance is unknown. 14 Representation in Gaul, as known from Couvron and Nanterre, is very good.

We can explain these phenomena by positing a location able to export its product both to the western Balkans and to France and the Aegean. Mediolanum (Milan ), a mint city in the reign of Decius (a.d. 249–251), would satisfy these requirements. Its position as a road center in northern Italy would allow of its coinage reaching Gaul in respectable quantities through the passes of the Alps and up the river valleys so as to be hoarded in such places as Couvron and Nanterre, as well as going eastward across the Isonzo into the Balkan provinces. The Aegean regions, actually, also readily received coins from Milan . The excavations of the Athenian agora have produced sixty-one identifiable antoniniani of the emperors from Hostilian to Valerian. Of these ten came from Milan . The proportion in the Smyrna hoard is even greater. Of the twenty-one coins of these same emperors nine, nearly half, are from Milan . The other twelve are Roman. Of the former, one, Smyrna No. 1233, is virtually uncirculated. 15

There is historical justification for establishing a mint in such a place as this, for there was a strong tendency at this time to open mints near places where military operations were in progress; and from 246 on, troops were stationed in northern Italy . In that year, near Petra Pertusa there was brigandage and a force had to be deployed to cope with it. A contingent of auxilia was stationed at Concordia, and a vexillum of Legio XIII Gemina at Aquileia, probably to block that important gateway to Italy against Gothic raiders. 16 This whole concentration would seem, after all, to have been intended as a backstop for those troops actually fighting the Carpi, who had succeeded in breaking through the frontier defenses in 245 and in ravaging Moesia in 246. This incursion must temporarily have disturbed communications between Italy and the Danubian legions, which would account for the scantiness of these three types in central and eastern Balkan finds. Probable, too, is that the larger numbers of RIC 61 and 63 b, in comparison with the number of RIC 60, are evidence of an eastward advance by those troops following the retreating enemy in 247.

The evidence at our disposal shows that the concentration of soldiers in northern Italy was not as great as that effected by Gordian III and Timesitheus in Syria for the campaign of 242. 17 But the issues of Mediolanum , as outlined here, were struck in a single officina, whereas the Antiochene issues come from a mint organized in three sections. If Mattingly is right, the mint at Milan working for Decius was also organized in three sections, but this would now appear to be simply an enlargement of this mint beyond its size in the last year of Philip. 18

If, then, Mediolanum is the place where these coins originated, Philip established the mint there, and not Decius. Philip would also deserve credit for having put to more extensive use Gordian's (Timesitheus') practice of decentralizing production by opening a branch of the central mint to supply the most active theater of war, a practice that gradually became common. Philip did continue to operate the mint at Antioch, even for a while taking the local tetradrachms into the imperial system, but he returned it to its status of before 242 when the eastern frontier ceased to be in danger. 19 Next, however, he opened a mint at Viminacium, then at Mediolanum . These three locations were all operated by personnel drawn from the imperial mint at Rome . Certainly the style of these coins is essentially Roman. In fact, the dates assigned to the coins of Viminacium and Mediolanum , 246–247, and 247–249, suggest the possibility that the coins were struck by a travelling officina.

The history of these three Milanese coins, as well as of RIC 51 and 226, would seem to be as follows. Upon the outbreak of the Carpic War in 245, Philip hurried north to take command in person, and in 246 he opened the branch at Viminacium. There was no need to operate with more than one officina (Antioch had had three under Gordian , six under Philip ), since there was no need to coin silver for local needs as was usual at Antioch. The latter city and the province of Syria were a good deal more populous and a great deal more sophisticated economically than Viminacium and Moesia, so that all Philip had to do was to provide for the pay of the army. In a.d. 246, RIC 51, VICTORIA AVGG was struck, and continued in 247 along with RIC 226, AETERNIT IMPER, with the new Augustus, Philip II, on the obverse. By the end of the year this mint was closed down, since the war had ended. A few reverse dies of RIC 51 were left to be found by Pacatianus a year later.

In 247, probably before Viminacium had entirely ceased to operate, a mint was opened at Mediolanum , where it continued to issue currency until the end of Philip's reign, when it was taken over and enlarged by Decius. The obverse legends of the three Milan ese coins, IMP PHILIPPVS AVG, show all three to be later than the change of legend, which occurred in a.d. 247. This mint struck in a single officina according to the following schedule.

First came RIC 60, FELICITAS IMPP. These coins were executed in more or less normal Roman style, but with a subtle difference in detail. The eye of the portraits is more deeply set, the size of the lower lid exaggerated, and the corner more clearly defined than was usual at Rome . I show an example of this coin in Plate VII, number 3, where it can be compared with a coin of Decius (number 12) struck at Milan . In keeping with most provincial issues of antoniniani, there are no parallel coins of either gold or aes.

This type was issued in a.d. 247, and thus was contemporary with the coins of Roman issue 4. The portraits of RIC 60 are certainly younger than either those of the fifth/sixth issue of the central mint, or those of RIC 61 and 63 b. Particularly to be noted is the almost complete absence of a beard on the emperor's neck, the lack of fullness of his jowls, and the lack of heaviness about the jaw. These three traits are very much in evidence among the later issues, and incidentally, is further evidence that this coin cannot be assigned to a hypothetical eighth issue.

The average weight of this type at Smyrna was 4.543 grams (seven examples). It was followed by RIC 61, the average weight of these being 3.947 grams (seven examples from Smyrna). Evidence will be presented later that at this time the weight of the antoninianus tended to decrease. This type, FIDES EXERCITVS (vexillum and standard) was contemporary with the fifth/sixth Roman issue. Issue 4 had included a similar type, but showing four standards on the reverse, instead of the single standard and vexillum of Milan . The portraits are somewhat older than those of RIC 60, as comparison of the two coins in Plate VII will show. That this type was struck for about a year is shown by its being about twice as numerous as either RIC 60 or 63 b, the latter struck for about the eight months in 249 that Philip was emperor. Again, there is neither gold nor aes coinage of this type.

About the beginning of 249, RIC 63 b, FORTVNA REDVX, appeared at Milan . The portraits seem to be as old as any of Philip's. The type was paralleled by very rare aurei and by a common issue of sestertii and asses. With the victory of Decius over Philip at Verona in September 249, the type ceased.

Concerning the mint at Antioch, I would suggest that production of antoniniani here was reorganized by Philip in 244 on the basis of a mint functioning with six officinae. The issue of this year was as follows:

Philip I	RIC 69, 72	PAX FVNDATA CVM PERSIS
	70, 73	SPES FELICITATIS ORBIS
	71, 74	VIRTVS EXERCITVS
Otacilia	127, 128	IVNO CONSERVAT(RIX)
Philip II	213, 214	IOVI CONSERVAT(ORI)

The inclusion of these coins of Otacilia and Philip Junior among the Antiochene issues of the family now seems to me to be assured. The style of the coins is Roman-Antiochene, and the numbers of these types in western hoards is about right for Antioch as point of origin. Dorchester has 158 of them and 6,483 of Rome (main issues only); Nanterre 6 and 603; Couvron 4 and 74; Schwarzenacker 32 and 1,184. 20 Unfortunately, the reports on most of the hoards I have used quote finds in terms of Cohen's second edition, so that the authors do not distinguish between Otacilia's IVNO CONSERVAT and IVNO CONSERVATRIX. It is therefore impossible to say whether these were struck in approximately equal numbers, and therefore in two officinae. But there is such a balance of numbers among all these six types as to suggest that they were struck in six officinae, Philip having three, Otacilia two, and Philip Junior one.

TABLE 22 21
RIC	Dor	TOTAL
69, 72	18	33
70, 73	24	41
71, 74	34	54
127, 128	57	127
213, 214	26	68

There is no doubt that Antioch was, at this time, on a six-officinae system for production of at least the local tetradrachms. The section numbers are clearly marked on the coins, which have Greek letter-numerals A through Z on the reverse. I cannot explain why it was felt necessary to change from three to six, unless it was done to increase production. The excavation of nearby Dura-Europos has yielded ninety-two Antiochene tetradrachms struck by Gordian III , but no fewer than 524 of Philip and his family. Fifty of the latter have been assigned by A. R. Bellinger to the six months, or so, that Philip was emperor in 244. 22 This amount would represent almost exactly a sixfold increase over Gordian's production of 238–244, which apparently come from a single officina. It is therefore attractive to think that the mint was expanded six-fold as well. That this number of officinae probably was employed to strike the imperial silver as well is shown by the fact that the local billon at this same time was inscribed MON VRB, which is interpreted to stand for MONETA VRBICA, that is, imperial money. 23 The imperial silver would, therfore, appear to have come from the same mint, and as such, was probably subject to the same system.

The principal types of antoniniani, then, appear to have been struck by Philip according to the following arrangement:

RIC	Reverse
	Rome : Issue 1, a.d. 244.
32b, 33, 34b	FIDES MILITVM and variants
35b, 36b, 37b	LAET FVNDATA and variants
40b, 41, 42	PAX AETERNA and variants
46b, 47	SALVS AVG and variant
49b, 50	VICTORIA AVG and variant
52, 53	VIRTVS AVG and variant
	Antioch: Imperial Issue of 244–245 (?).
69, 72	PAX FVNDATA CVM PERSIS
70, 73	SPES FELICITATIS ORBIS
71, 74	VIRTVS EXERCITVS
127, 128	IVNO CONSERVAT(RIX)
213, 214	IOVI CONSERVAT(ORI)
	Rome : Issue 2, a.d. 245.
26 b	ADVENTVS AVGG
31	FELICITAS TEMP
38b	LIBERALITAS AVGG II
48 b	SECVRIT ORBIS
123 c	PVDICITIA AVG (Otacilia)
119b	CONCORDIA AVGG (Otacilia)
120b, 121, 122b	PIETAS AVG and variants (Otacilia)
215	PIETAS AVGVSTOR (Philip II)
216c	PRINCIPI IVVENT (Philip II)
	Rome : Issue 3, a.d. 245–247.
27 b	AEQVITAS AVGG
28c, 29	ANNONA AVGG and variant
2b, 3, 4	PM TRP II (III, IV) COS (II) PP
44b, 45	ROMAE AETERNAE and variant
125c, 126	CONCORDIA AVGG and variant (Otacilia)
217, 218d, 219, 220b	PRINCIPI IVVENT and variants (Philip II)
	Viminacium: a.d. 246–247.
51	VICTORIA AVGG
226	AETERNIT IMPER (Philip II)
	Rome : Issue 4, a.d. 247.
57	AEQVITAS AVGG
59	ANNONA AVGG
62	FIDES EXERCITVS (four standards)
5, 6	PM TRP IIII (V) COS II (III) PP
129	CONCORDIA AVGG (Otacilia)
227, 231c	PAX AETERNA (Philip II) and variant
	Mediolanum : Issue 1, a.d. 247.
60	FELICITAS IMPP
RIC	Reverse
	Rome : Issue 5/6, a.d. 248.
12, 13	SAECVLARES AVGG (lion), I in exergue
15, 16	SAECVLARES AVGG (wolf), II in exergue
224	SAECVLARES AVGG (goat), III in exergue (Philip II)
17	SAECVLARES AVGG (gazelle), III in exergue (Philip I )
116b	SAECVLARES AVGG (hippopotamus), IIII in exergue (Otacilia)
18	SAECVLARES AVGG (antelope), IIII in exergue (Philip I )
19, 20	SAECVLARES AVGG (stag or elk), V or U in exergue
21, 22, 23	SAECVLARES AVGG (antelope or goat), VI or UI in exergue
7	PM TRP V COS III PP, A in field
9	TRANQVILLITAS AVGG, B in field
223	VIRTVS AVGG, Γ in field
115	PIETAS AVGG, Δ in field
10	VIRTVS AVGG, E in field
8	NOBILITAS AVGG, Z in field
	Mediolanum : Issue 2, a.d. 248.
61	FIDES EXERCITVS (vexillum and standard)
	Rome : Issue 7, a.d. 248–249.
58	AETERNITAS AVGG
65	ROMAE AETERNAE
24C	SAECVLARES AVGG
25b	SAECVLUM NOVVM
130	PIETAS AVGVSTAE (Otacilia)
230	LIBERALITAS AVGG III (Philip II)
	Mediolanum : Issue 3, a.d. 248–249.
63b	FORTVNA REDVX

During the years 245 through 249, Antioch continued to strike small numbers of antoniniani (RIC 75–87).

Using the above arrangement, it is possible to turn to an investigation of which types were struck in the three officinae of the mint of Rome . Table 23 indicates the distribution of the six types of the first issue. The three pairs which emerge through arranging these six types according to their average weights and style of portraiture are noted in table 24.

TABLE 23
RIC	32b, etc.	35b, etc.	40b, etc.	46b, etc.	49b, etc.	52, etc.	TOTAL
Smy	9	13	10	8	11	8	59
Dor	15	17	16	5	17	15	85
EW	0	2	1	2	1	1	7
C-Y	3	0	2	0	1	1	7
Elv	1	0	3	0	2	1	7
Sul	1	1	0	0	0	1	3
LS	5	2	4	3	5	4	23
Cou	1	2	3	3	2	0	11
Nan	12	10	14	7	11	10	64
Sch	22	27	20	25	19	23	136
NZ	10	8	3	6	4	5	36
Üsk	3	3	4	3	3	2	18
Rus	0	1	0	2	2	3	8
Nic	4	5	3	3	3	8	26
Sme	37	39	30	37	42	26	211
J-K	1	2	0	2	3	1	9
Ple	7	7	6	10	9	5	44
Ath	0	1	0	0	1	0	2
TOTAL	131	140	119	116	136	114

These pairs continue the peculiarities of style of the three officinae working under Gordian III . The continuity is illustrated in the first two columns of Plate V. Note that this arrangement by officinae not only shows that there was very close similarity between the numbers of coins struck and weights of metal used, but also

TABLE 24
Officina	RIC	Ave. Wt.	No.	Wt. of Coinage
I	49b, etc.	4.387	136
	35b, etc.	4.289	140
	TOTAL	4.334	276	1,196.184 gr.
II	52, etc.	4.254	114
	32b, etc.	4.311	131
	TOTAL	4.284	245	1,049.580 gr.
III	46b, etc.	4.479	117
	40b, etc.	4.377	119
	TOTAL	4.422	236	1,043.592 gr.

that the three officinae each struck one type with two variants and one type with one.

There is very great continuity in style and fabric between this first Roman series of Philip and the last of Gordian. Not only did the fifth issue of the latter (in the Smyrna hoard) average 4.351 grams and the first of Philip 4.322, a difference that is not significant, but also the first portraits of Philip were closely modelled on the last of Gordian. 24 The mint seems, therefore, to have commenced production of coinage for the new emperor very smoothly and without a break in development. I should like to suggest, moreover, that there was a very short period of time when the mint issued antoniniani with portraits of Philip and reverses of Gordian. This would account for a few of the hybrid coins listed in the standard catalogues.

Mattingly and Sutherland think that many of these hybrids are the work of ancient forgers. 25 This is no doubt true, but, at the same time, we should be careful to discriminate even among the hybrids. The RIC lists thirteen of Philip I having reverses of Gordian III . It is at least plausible to think that for a short time, immediately after Gordian was killed, the mint would have been hard pressed to maintain production, since without prior notice the new emperor would demand that it very quickly cut completely new sets of dies, not only obverse dies, but reverse dies as well.

The mint no doubt made the new obverse dies first. The emperor's portrait always received more attention than the reverse designs, as is shown by the more careful workmanship and artistry of the obverses, and by the fact, too, that the obverse dies were more frequently renewed than the reverse dies. This last seems obvious since the obverses of coins are usually sharper and more legible than the reverses. Sharpness and legibility depend on the amount of wear a coin receives from handling and also on the condition of the dies in use when the coin was actually struck. Since one can except wear from handling to be approximately equal on both sides, it follows that the obverse dies were more often renewed in order to maintain a clear "image and superscription" of the emperor, since he himself was, of course, more important than whatever message of policy or propaganda he intended the reverse to convey. 26 Philip would, therefore, have considered it important to inform the empire that he and not Gordian ruled. It is, consequently, possible that a short period elapsed during which the mint had new obverse dies of Philip , but no corresponding fresh reverse designs. It might well be, then, that certain reverses of Gordian would for a short time be used. I assume, here, that at the moment when there was a change in regime, the new emperor required at once amounts of currency for reasons of state, the giving of donatives, rewards, and bribes. He could not afford to let the mint stop working.

Now, what grounds can be found for thinking that the hybrids are the work of forgers and not official products? We can begin by eliminating as genuine four of the thirteen, those with the obverse legend IMP PHILIPPVS AVG. This form was not adopted until a.d. 247. This leaves nine, with the early form of legend, IMP C M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG, but with the following reverses of Gordian III :

RIC	Reverse	Issue and Type of Gordian
91	COS II PP (Apollo)	4 — RIC 87–90
92	FELICIT TEMPOR	5 — RIC 141
94	LAETITIA AVG N	4 — RIC 86
96	PM TRP III COS PP	4 — RIC 87
97	PM TRP V COS II PP	4 — RIC 89
98	PM TRP VI COS PP	4 — RIC 90
99	PAX AVGVSTI	1 — RIC 3
100	PAX AVG	1 — RIC 3
101A	PROVIDENT AVG	5 — RIC 149
102	PROVIDENTIA AVG	5 — RIC 150 (base metal)

Of these, we can at once reject as spurious the four dated types; it would not have been reasonable for Philip to have issued these in his first year of tribunician authority. Next, we may eliminate the two PAX types, which are not actually perfect facsimiles of Gordian's coins. Finally, RIC 102, PROVIDENTIA AVG, is known only in base metal, so that it, too, would seem to be counterfeit. This leaves only 92, 94, and 101A as possibly genuine issues of the mint. There is no prima facie reason not to accept these coins; they had actually been issued for Gordian by Officinae III, I, and II respectively. It is not merely fortuitous that we can eliminate for very good reasons all but three of the hybrids, and find that each of the three remaining was struck originally by a different section of the mint.

Table 25 shows the distribution of the coins of issue 2. Table 26 indicates the pairs formed through the similarities of average weight and style.

Here, Officina II stops striking coins with portraits of Philip I , and begins to strike for Otacilia, the Augusta, and Philip II. It is likely that III began to issue its coins of this series slightly in advance of I. At any rate, the disparity between I and III of weight of metal struck has now largely been made up. The figures for the three officinae at the end of this issue are: I—2,407.898; II—2,198.560; and III—2,413.112 grams. The average weight of II's coins for this issue is based on only three specimens, and therefore is not accurate. It should probably be somewhat higher. In that case, the disparity between this section and the other two would not be as great as these figures show it. Still, II was beginning to lag slightly, as shown by the absolute number of coins recovered: I—563; II—528; and III—540. Perhaps the necessity of producing two whole new sets of

TABLE 25
RIC	26b	31	38b	48 b	123 c, etc.	215, 216	TOTAL
Smy	15	14	13	14	0	3	59
Dor	16	15	18	17	17	13	96
EW	0	2	1	0	1	2	6
C-Y	2	2	0	2	0	1	7
Elv	1	1	2	3	3	4	14
Sul	0	2	0	0	1	0	3
LS	5	1	3	6	5	6	26
Cou	2	0	2	4	3	1	12
Nan	8	6	12	8	19	13	66
Sch	25	22	32	26	29	22	156
N Z	5	3	6	4	7	7	32
Üsk	0	3	1	4	1	1	10
Rus	1	1	0	0	0	0	2
Nic	6	8	13	2	5	4	38
Sme	49	42	44	45	44	34	258
J-K	1	0	1	1	12	0	15
Ple	7	12	11	13	15	6	64
Dur	1	0	0	0	0	1	2
Ant	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Ath	0	2	2	2	1	0	7
TOTAL	143	136	161	151	163	120

TABLE 26
Officina	RIC	Ave. Wt.	No.	Wt. of Coinage
I	48b	4.251	151
	31	4.192	136
	TOTAL	4.222	287	1,211.714 gr.
II	123c, etc.	?	163
	215, 216	4.060	120
	TOTAL	4.060	283	1,148.980 gr.
III	38b	4.585	161
	26b	4.377	143
	TOTAL	4.505	304	1,369.520 gr.

obverse dies, one for the Augusta, one for the Caesar, interfered with a smooth and constant rate of production.

The large third issue of Philip , (table 27) was struck for a period of about two years, beginning some time in 245 and lasting until nearly the end of 247. It was thus almost exactly contemporary with the duration of the Carpic War along the Danube. This issue rivaled in size the fourth or fifth issues of Gordian.

TABLE 27
RIC	2b, etc.	27 b	28 c, 29	44b, 45	125 c, etc.	218d, etc.	TOTAL
Smy	34	49	33	40	2	16	174
Dor	46	53	51	50	47	51	298
EW	3	3	5	4	3	4	22
C-Y	4	2	3	4	6	3	22
Elv	8	8	3	7	2	4	32
Sul	3	2	2	2	0	5	14
LS	14	14	8	18	14	14	82
Cou	4	4	4	8	4	5	29
Nan	37	42	36	37	36	49	237
Sch	117	90	110	95	74	84	570
N Z	35	17	27	16	25	19	139
Üsk	5	2	6	6	2	5	26
Rus	3	3	4	5	5	5	25
Nic	29	23	20	26	19	29	146
Sme	171	170	177	170	124	148	960
J-K	4	4	5	4	1	3	21
Ple	32	41	26	29	41	36	205
Dur	1	0	0	0	0	1	2
Ant	0	0	1	0	0	1	2
Ath	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
TOTAL	550	528	521	521	405	482

Characteristics of style and fabric show that, as before, the issue came from three officinae. Officina II continued to strike for Philip Junior and Otacilia. The other two worked for Philip , according to the arrangement indicated in table 28.

TABLE 28
Officina	RIC	Ave. Wt.	No.	Wt. of Coinage
I	44b, 45	4.153	521
	27 b	4.149	528
	TOTAL	4.151	1,049	4,354.399 gr.
II	125 c, etc.	4.230	405
	218d, etc.	4.028	482
	TOTAL	4.051	887	3,992.387 gr.
III	2 b, etc.	4.212	550
	28 c, 29	4.195	521
	TOTAL	4.203	1,071	4,501.413 gr.

The numbers of coins struck by I and III are about the same; the difference is only twenty-two out of a total of 2,120. Officina I, therefore, was producing at a rate 97.95% that of III. This is almost as close a figure as was determined for the whole reign of Gordian. Officina II, however, is still laging behind the other two even more than in issue 2. I do not think that this difference of 184 coins can be explained along the lines previously used. I shall, however, reserve explication until issue 4 has been considered.

It is noteworthy that the average weight of this issue for the first time departs from the average of about 4.35 or 4.34 grams which had been maintained at Rome since the first issue of Gordian III . Here, there is an apparent drop to 4.161 grams, a loss of 0.18 grams per coin over the immediately preceding issue.

Actually, the coins of the third issue were struck on two standards. The standard of the second issue was replaced in 246 by a new, lighter standard. This can easily be determined by comparing the weights of the dated types RIC 2b, 3, and 4, which are, respectively, 4.381 (ten examples), 4.198 (seventeen), and 4.003 (seven) grams. The coins of RIC 3 should be divided between the coins of 2 b and 4 to make up the two groups. That there were two and only two groups can be seen from the frequency table on p. 122, on which all the coins of Philip I of this issue are plotted. Note that in the case of RIC 27 b, there is a cluster of weights around 4.30 grams, and another around 3.90 grams. RIC 45 and 44b show the same thing; one cluster is around 4.20, a second around 3.90 grams. This, incidentally, shows that RIC 45 was struck first. Its average weight is 4.234; 44b has a mean of 4.122. RIC 28c and 29 (struck in that order) seem to have been minted first at about 4.45 grams, then at about 3.85. There is no mathematical or statistical method whereby we can determine with precision what the second standard was. 27 We can merely estimate it by observation of the dated coins. RIC 2 b, which began at 4.381 grams, was near the old average of 4.345 of the second issue; it ended at 4.003. This is about the mean weight of antoniniani of the fourth issue, which is 4.024 grams, although this figure does not take into account any of the light coins of Officina II. The figure 4.003 does correspond roughly with the observed clusters of weights on the frequency table. Let us say, therefore, that the standard weight decreased from 4.345 to roughly 4.00 or 4.05 grams. While the mean weight of the antoninianus thus fell by 0.35 or 0.30 grams, the fineness seems to have been maintained at more or less the same standard. A similar, though lesser, loss of weight is observable in the aureus. 28

The cause of this loss of weight is not difficult to assess. By 246, the Carpi had succeeded in entering the Balkan provinces, and in marching about in them for upwards of a year. Since this region was an important source of precious metals, and since the weights of the coins decrease contemporaneously with the barbarian disaster, the reduced standard of the antoninianus must reflect the loss of certain mines or the loss of communication between the mines and the mint, or both.

We can check the effect suggested by comparing the Roman standard with the standard in use in Syria at the same time. The weight of the silver tetradrachms of Antioch held up well throughout this period. Under Gordian it was 3.11 grams; under Philip 3.05. Probably, the mint there obtained its silver from sources nearer Syria than the Danubian provinces, possibly from Asia Minor. 29

This question of average weight, mines and Carpi is best dealt with after an examination of issue 4. The coins of issue 4 are distributed among the hoards as indicated in table 29. The distribution among the officinae is noted in table 30.

TABLE 29
RIC	5.6	57	59	62	129	227, etc.	TOTAL
Smy	8	4	6	12	0	0	30
Dor	7	8	9	II	8	12	55
E W	2	0	0	0	0	0	2
C-Y	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Elv	0	1	2	0	1	0	4
LS	2	3	6	1	3	1	16
Cou	1	0	0	1	3	0	5
Nan	5	6	9	10	5	9	44
Sch	7	18	15	14	13	15	82
N Z	4	1	4	6	1	7	23
Nic	3	1	1	0	1	2	8
Sme	20	21	25	17	13	29	125
J-K	2	0	0	0	0	0	2
Ple	5	7	5	2	5	5	29
Ath	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
TOTAL	66	70	82	76	53	82

The lack of any coins of type RIC 129, 227, or 231c in the Smyrna hoard prevents me from saying what their average weight was; if it conformed to the usual 0.10 gram less than that of Officina I, it would have been about 3.85 grams, which for 135 coins would amount to 519.75 grams.

The average weight of this issue, even without the light coins of Officina II included, is 4.024 grams; with II's coins included it

TABLE 30
Officina	RIC	Ave. Wt.	No.	Wt. of Coinage
I	57	4.200	70
	59	3.793	82
	TOTAL	3.956	152	601.312 gr.
II	129	?	53
	227, etc.	?	82
	TOTAL	?	135	?
III	5, 6	4.073	66
	62	4.050	76
	TOTAL	4.059	142	576.378 gr.

would have been less that 4.00 grams, perhaps about 3.95 grams. This is the average weight of Officina I, and it is normal for I to approximate the average weight of any particular issue. This means that there was a further decline of about 0.05 grams per coin from the standard of the preceding issue.

All of this—the continuing decline in weight, II's continuing low production in comparison with I and III, as well as the fact that the very next issue appeared with officina numbers I through VI— requires explanation. No doubt, all of these facts, so intimately concerned with the currency itself, are related to one another.

Let us begin with the weight standard. The second decline in these two issues may be accounted for by one of two alternatives. Philip himself may have decreed the decreases in weight for some reason or another; or, the mint officials may have done it themselves illegally.

Since the evidence that can be used to check these hypotheses is exceedingly scanty, the only recourse is to examine the two possibilities with the intention of eliminating the one that appears unlikely. The remaining possibility, then, must suffice for the present.

Philip might have further lowered the standard because he needed more coinage and had to turn a more or less constant amount of bullion into a greater number of coins than was usual. If so, he did so for one of three, and only three, reasons. First, he might have embarked upon a very large and more extensive than usual program of public works. In fact, we can be reasonably certain that he did not. Such a policy would be very extravagant at a time when the state was being assailed by so many enemies. Furthermore, the only project attributed to him by the sources is the construction of a reservoir in the capital to relieve a shortage of water. Aside from this, we hear only of the usual repair of roads, and that is all. 30 This is certainly not extensive.

Second, Philip may have granted numerous liberalitates to the people. The coins themselves are evidence that he did not. He gave three, whereas Gordian had given four. True, Philip had to bear the cost of the great Secular Games of 248, but for this, we happen to know, part of the cost was saved by the use of animals collected by Gordian to celebrate his victory over the Persians. 31 All this smacks of careful economy.

Third, Philip may have increased the size of the army or simply increased its pay. In fact, there is no evidence that he added to the establishment of either the legions or the auxilia, or that he did increase their pay. Indeed, there seems to have been no immediate reason that he should. Certainly he had had to face a difficult military problem in the invasion of the Goths, but this attack does not seem to have been more acute than the military dangers of Gordian's reign, during which there was a very serious invasion and even short occupation of parts of Syria by the Persians. This was accompanied by troubles along the same Danube front. 32 If anything, the invasion of the Carpi alone was less of a threat. At any rate, Gordian had been able to maintain the situation without resorting to a lower standard for the currency. There seems to be no reason to suppose that Philip had to lower the standard for this reason.

Actually, Philip did not increase the output of silver currency over the level used by Gordian. We may compare his production with that of Gordian. Neither emperor seems to have had a surplus of metal to work with. In view of the heavy-handed and rapacious attitude of Maximinus toward the property of private citizens— which provoked the hostility of men not only of the class of notables, like Herodian, but also of more humble origin, like the Christians whose feelings have come down to us through the tradition in Eusebius—it is extremely unlikely that Gordian began his reign with anything like a surplus of uncoined bullion. 33 The joint reign of Balbinus and Pupienus was much too short to have created one. We may, therefore, treat Gordian's issues—particularly the fourth and fifth—as reflecting, more or less, the coining of the total income of silver. Those two issues were struck over a period of about forty-two months, from around January, 241, until about July, 244. The output is represented by 5,734 coins (main Roman issues only) in the Dorchester hoard. In a similar forty-two month period of Philip , from about July, 244 until the end of 247, there are 5,491 antoniniani in Dorchester. 34 It is evident that the drop in weight did not come from an expansion in the number of coins minted.

Philip , again, might have lowered the standard a second time himself because of a shortage of metal. This had led to the first lowering of weight, as noted, on account of the loss of mines in the Balkans. Possibly as early as a.d. 244, certainly in the following year, Carpi crossed the Danube in large numbers and ravaged Thrace, Macedonia, and Lower Moesia and Dacia. In 245 Philip left the capital and proceeded to the troubled provinces personally to direct operations. Fighting continued throughout 246, and only in 247 did the emperor succeed in defeating the Goths and in expelling them from the empire. Upon his return to Rome , a short but triumphant irregular issue of antoniniani proclaimed a VICTORIA CARPICA. 35

This invasion must have diminished the supply of gold and silver available to the mint, since the Balkan region, which was so sharply affected by the Carpi, was one of only a few places where precious metals were extracted. Sardinia had small workings, but they were not extensive. Spain's once rich deposits had dwindled seriously by the third century. Gaul contributed some silver, as did Britain, but the latter was especially far-distant from Rome . Compared with these provinces, the mines of Greece, Macedonia, and Italy itself were unimportant. 36

The Balkan provinces of Moesia, Dacia, Pannonia and Dalmatia, on the other hand, were of great significance. We know of much activity here, even for the troubled third century, through actual excavation of the ancient mines, and from the study of inscriptions found near them. Evidence of intensive silver mining has been unearthed in Moesia. The important gold mines of Dacia we know to have been under the supervision of a freedman procurator located at Zalatna. The procurator supervising the works of Dalmatia and Pannonia, however, was of equestrian rank, and had his headquarters at Domavia, near the modern Gravina. 37 In view of these facts, therefore, it is extremely likely that the weight of the Roman gold and silver coins fell in 246 (affecting the coins of the third issue) because a substantial number of the productive Balkan mines were in a region of great disturbance, and the loss of metal from this region could not be entirely compensated through use of metals produced elsewhere.

I must emphasize that the argument pertains, so far, only to the third issue, whose average weight fell from about 4.35 to about 4.00 or 4.05 grams. The average weight of the fourth issue, however, is a stumbling block, because its average weight is even lower, amounting to only about 3.95 grams. This scarcely can be accounted for by the above argument, since during 247 the Roman armies were repelling the Gothic forces, and certainly by the end of the year, but more probably sooner, the enemy had been completely driven out. 38 Therefore, what silver lands were lost must have been by then entirely recovered, and their communications with Rome safeguarded. It would probably be safe to assume that this was already done by the end of the campaigning season of 247, that is, by the end of summer. The coinage of issue 4, struck in the last months of 247, should reflect this. One would expect it to return to the standard of 245, or at least to return part way. In fact it declines again. Therefore, in terms of our present knowledge, there seems to be no reason of state by which we can account for the continuing decline of weight.

This brings us to the second principal alternative, that is, unofficial activity on the part of the mint officials. Suppose that we consider the average weight of the fourth issue in conjunction with that of the immediately following fifth/sixth issue of the spring of 248. The average weight of 4.152 grams is a rise of about 0.15 grams over the second standard of the third issue. 39 Also, these coins of issue 5/6 were, for the first time, marked with officina numbers and the number of sections rose to six. This can only mean that the old sections were broken up. Furthermore, the new ones had, for the first time, to sign their product publicly. In itself, this fresh departure hints strongly at some kind of disciplinary or punitive action. All things considered, I feel that the weight of evidence inclines to the hypothesis that the mint officials—probably not only the triumviri monetales, but also the procurator monetae, were involved. It is hard to imagine that the section heads could themselves lower the standard, for whatever reason, without the head of the mint being privy to it. Perhaps, of course, he was not. It is certain that from about this time the title triumvir monetalis ceases to appear in our epigraphic record, suggesting strongly that the office was abolished, no doubt for some important reason.

I would even go a bit further, and suggest that the leadership of this bit of dishonesty was provided by the triumvir of Officina II. This hypothesis would explain why, beginning already at the time of the third issue, the output of II was smaller than that of the other two sections. The figures for this issue show that II struck some 887 antoniniani, while the other two were coining 1,071 and 1,049. In issue 4, II continued behind again, but with a much smaller difference. One would expect a priori that the officina with the least number of coins would have the heaviest average weight. But the reverse is true: II's coins are always lightest. The fineness of this section's coins was also lowest, being about 37.5%, as compared to the 40–40.5% of the other two. These figures are based on the small number of identified and analyzed coins in the Nanterre hoard, there being ten of Officina I, nine of II, and nine of III. The accumulated totals of production for the first three issues show, moreover, that Officinae I and III struck almost identical numbers of coins. The figures are I—1,612; III—1,611; and II—1,415 coins. The weight of metal struck, on the other hand, was I—6,762.297; III— 6,914.525; and II—6,190.947 grams. Whereas I is 97.80% of III, II is only 89.54%. Possibly the head of Officina III was also involved in the conspiracy, while the triumvir in charge of I was not. The evidence for this is by no means compelling, resting on a single analyzed antoninianus of the third issue from the Nanterre hoard. It is base, containing only a trace of silver. If we take the weights of coinage and multiply by the percentage of fineness, we find that II struck 2,329.653 grams of silver and III 2,481.763, while I minted 2,712.357, a significant amount more than the other two. 40

This cheating in the mint would coincide, after all, with the absence of Philip from Rome during the Carpic War. Possibly the triumvirs represented senatorial resentment with Philip's conduct of the government in his later years. If it is correct that the triumvirs were in charge of the officinae, we may be reasonably certain that they were men of the senatorial class and faction. The inscriptions show this, and the title itself suggests the old senatorial republic. Philip's relationship with the Senate did worsen during his reign. The address Eis Basilea should certainly be interpreted as containing the protests of the order against his imperial policy, and in no wise as a simple encomium. Philip even offered to abdicate before the Senate in a.d. 248, and only Decius rose among the Fathers to reject the suggestion. 41 Many kept silent, no doubt out of anger with the emperor and resentment with Decius. The Senate of 248, after all, still must have counted many members who had but lately helped, and in no indecisive way, to rid the state of the barbarous Maximinus, and had allied itself with the two elder Gordians. It is not difficult to suppose, therefore, that some of its members hoped to rid the state of the upstart, "Arab" murderer of Gordian the Third. This hypothesis is at least attractive, for it leads to the interpretation that the cheating by the heads of officinae was perhaps part of a plot against the emperor which included some or one of the provincial rebels of a.d. 248. Is this why the aurei of Sponsianus had a republican reverse? 42

Dishonesty and disloyalty towards Philip in the mint should occasion no surprise in view of what we know of disloyalty and dishonesty in other branches of his administration. The rebellions of Pacatianus, Sponsianus, Iotapianus, and Decius are well known. In 245 or 246 the emperor had to check the heavy-handedness of his offi- cials towards private citizens. One case of this was oppression by soldiers and officials practised against people in the Phrygian village of Aragüe. Then, indeed, we hear of injustice in the fiscus itself, which brings us very close to the mint. 43

The literary evidence for the reign of Philip is sparse at best; for the mint itself under this emperor, it is totally lacking. But shocking dishonesty is known to have occurred at other times. Constantine the Great had to forbid imperial minters from issuing counterfeit money, and his son Constantius had to threaten the death penalty to prevent flatuarii from tampering with the metal used for coining. 44 Nor should we doubt that the personnel of the mint were incapable of taking drastic measures for their own ends when they chose. There is one example of actual rebellion known, that of Feliccimus during the dominate of the strong emperor Aurelian (270–275). 45 These examples from later times prove nothing more, of course, than what happened in the reigns of Aurelian, Constantine, and Constantius. But they do suggest possibilities, and in view of the general situation the unfortunate Philip faced in the last two years of his reign—dishonesty in the administration and disloyalty in the provinces—the parallels of other times make malfeasance in his mint plausible.

Whether these lamentable conditions inside the mint had anything to do with the unequal distribution of coinage in the empire we can- not know. It is certainly possible. Perhaps the simple slowing down of production in Officina II meant that some parts of the empire did not receive the normal amount of money. At Smyrna there was an extreme shortage of the coins of this officina. 46

Philip's return to the capital brought discovery of the discrepancies, and the fifth/sixth issue was produced by a reorganized mint. The new coins commemorated the millenial anniversary of the founding of the Caput Orbis. Two sets of six antoniniani each were issued, the one with the officinae numbered in Latin I through VI, the other in Greek A through Z. The two sets were probably struck contemporaneously. 47 With the help of the numerals, there is no difficulty in assigning the twelve types to their respective officinae.

TABLE 31 48
Officina	RIC	Ave. Wt.	No.	Wt. of Coinage
I	7,12	4.140	117	414.380 gr.
II	9, 15	4.204	99	416.196 gr.
III	223,224	3.995	80	319.600 gr.
IV	115, 116b	?	107	?
V	10, 19	4.161	108	449.388 gr.
VI	8, 21	4.171	97	404.587 gr.

Here we see the results of the reorganization. The four officinae which struck for Philip I (I, II, V, and VI) show a remarkable similarity in average weight, the difference between highest and lowest being only 0.064 grams. This is in marked contrast with the older, more careless habits of the mint, which had tolerated a difference as great as 0.20 grams between officinae during the previous ten years. Still, there was not perfect uniformity of production, as the numbers of coins found shows. Officina III, with eighty coins, is far behind I with 117. This can be explained in several ways. 48 48

Temporarily, at least, such an important reorganization must have somewhat disorganized the mint. Such inevitably happens when the personnel of a large organization are rearranged on a grand scale. We have seen a similar phenomenon, although on a smaller scale, in the reign of Gordian. Second, Officina III seems to have issued aurei in larger numbers than either I or IV. These were the only three sections to strike gold at this time. Third, and most important, III, striking for Philip II, was descended from old Officina II, the leader in dishonesty. Whatever retribution Philip wreaked on the personnel of this section, it would have been very hard hit, and would have had difficulty in keeping up with the others.

The relationship of the six new to the three old officinae can be determined on grounds of style and fabric. These criteria show that I and II were descended from old I; III and IV from old II; and V and VI from old III. The close resemblances of the obverse portraits produced in the old and new sections are illustrated in columns two and three of Plate VI. There is an obvious continuity between RIC 5 and 62 and RIC 19 and 21. Note, too, that the latter pair have average weights of 4.161 and 4.171 grams, only 0.010 grams apart. These strong similarities of portraiture and manufacture show that a division of the old officinae was made, and that each was split two for one. Since one officina became Officinae V and VI, with the highest numbers in the series, I have assumed that the old one similarly had the highest number in the old series, and that is why I designated the one officina working between 238 and 248 Officina III. In the same way, I suppose that new I and II had earlier been numbered as I. Such a method of naming the old officinae and of making them into the new ones might reasonably have been expected, since it was the simplest procedure to follow. It was generally similar to, moreover, methods otherwise used in Roman administrative practise, as for example, forming one legion out of the parts of two others, and not making two new ones, or as in Diocletian's creating new, small provinces out of old large ones when he reorganized the empire. Like Diocletian, Philip made disloyalty more difficult by making the parts of the mint smaller and less important in themselves, which would have, therefore, also the effect of minimizing the effect of any future dishonesty. In going from a three- to a six-officinae organization, of course, he may have been inspired by the changes made earlier in his reign at Antioch, which went to a six-officinae system in a.d. 244.

The rate of production of this fifth/sixth issue does not show any increase. Nor does the subsequent seventh. This, coupled with the increase in number of officinae shows once again that the number of sections was by no means entirely related to the mass of coinage actually struck, but was, in large part, an important means of administrative control alone. To be sure, the number of sections did bear some relationship to the amount of currency struck. This is clear from the reign of Gallienus, when the number of officinae rose as high as twelve, and the mint worked at high pitch to flood the empire with enormous amounts of debased and all but worthless coin. 49

The seventh and last issue of Philip appeared at about the end of spring or beginning of summer in 248. It continued to be struck until the end of his reign in September, 249. It was produced by six officinae (see table 32), and this organization was inherited by Decius. 50

I do not repose much confidence in these average weights, since the number of coins used to establish them is small, being only eight, seven, one, and seven for Officinae II, III, IV, and VI. The numbers of coins produced, however, now show a respectable uniformity, Officina III having caught up with the rest. The evidence for the assignment of these six types to the six sections rests largely on style, and I have not relied on the criterion of weight because of the small sample. The continuity is illustrated by comparison of

TABLE 32
Officina	RIC	Ave. Wt.	No.	Wt. of Coinage
I	58	4.059	80	324.720 gr.
II	25 b	3.996	86	341.076 gr.
III	230	4.128	89	367.392 gr.
IV	130	3.720	93	345.960 gr.
V	24 c 51	4.275	99	423.225 gr.
VI	65	4.181	86	359.566 gr.

columns one and two of Plate VII. The similarity between the coins of Otacilia and Philip II of issues 5/6 and 7 are patent and obvious: the officinae continue to produce portraits of these two rulers designed along the same lines as before. More subtle is the continuity between the coins with portraits of Philip I . But RIC 12 and 7 are continued in RIC 58, which has a hooked, sharp nose and rounded back of the head, an aggressive chin, and narrow, firm lips. RIC 19 and 10 are succeeded by RIC 65, as seen from the big, long, pointed nose, the straight back of the head, and short heavy mouth. RIC 24 c followed 21 and 8, all three having an overhanging nose, a heavy neck diminishing in size as it enters the shoulders, a firm, straight mouth, and a slightly recessive chin. The portrait style of RIC 15 and 19 appeared on RIC 25 b, with strong, jutting chin, powerful neck, a tall head, and large, even lettering.

It is difficult to suggest why the officinae numbers now disappear. Perhaps, it was felt that the reorganization having been completed and made known to both government and people, there was no longer any need to have the numbers appear on the coins.

The average weight of all the coins of this issue indicates a new drop in standard. Issue 7 averages 4.021 grams. This, in all likelihood, was caused by the outbreak of a series of fresh disasters in the same region as those of 245 and 247. The mean weight certainly fell to about the same level it had been in the earlier period. We do not have sufficient information to pronounce upon the fineness of the coins each of the new officinae minted, or even upon the average degree of purity of the fifth/sixth and seventh issues. Taking both issues together, however, thirteen coins from Nanterre have an average silver content of 38.15%. This statistic is probably significant, and shows that when the mint was reorganized, new standards were adopted for the currency, and the old standards inherited from Gordian and used in the first years of the regime were dropped. The new mean weight was about 0.20 grams less, and the fineness about 2.0% lower. The standard of purity may have been intended only as a temporary expedient in force in a.d. 248, as the succeeding coinage of Decius seems to have been finer.

The series of new disasters included the rebellion of Pacatianus, who seized Viminacium about the middle of 248. Here he began a small and short-lived issue of silver. As if this were not enough, the Goths went over to the attack, and led by Gunthericus and Argaithus invaded Moesia. Iotapianus revolted in the east, probably in Asia Minor. Decius, dispatched by Philip to retrieve the Danubian situation, himself rebelled, and ultimately met and defeated Philip in battle near Verona in the fall of 249. 52 To him belonged, therefore, the burdens of empire.

The antoniniani of Decius followed those of Philip without much break in development. The average weight over his whole reign was identical with that of Philip's last issue, 4.02 grams. His silver was about 41.5% fine. 53

End Notes

1	In RIC IV. 3, xviii, 57–59.
2	RIC IV. 3, 56–57.
3	The figures for Dorchester in this table are actual, not reduced to 10%. The other tables in this chapter will, however, except where noted, report Dorchester at only 10% (see p. 56). The figures for the other hoards are taken from the same sources as used in the last chapter. The Reka-Devnia hoard no longer appears, since by the reign of Philip it had been buried. Nor does the Baalon hoard, because I have been unable to find a published report of its contents. It should also be noted that the figure given under "Total" includes the coins in the smaller hoards, e.g., from Elvedon or Lime Street, although these hoards are not specifically listed in the table. The total number is therefore not a total of only the six hoards named in the table. The same thing obtains for tables 18–20.
4	In this table, RIC 119b, 120b, 121, and 122b are included with RIC 123c. The figures for Dorchester are actual. The total figures, however, include Dorchester at only 10%, and the other nineteen groups used in this chapter.
5	See n. 4 above, for the Dorchester figures.
6	See n. 4 above, for the Dorchester figures.
7	The coin (called a hybrid by Mattingly) is Pacatianus, RIC 7 (C. 8). Literature on the mint at Viminacium includes the Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection, University of Glasgow, I, ed. G. Macdonald (1899), 406–408; F. S. Salisbury and H. Mattingly, "The Reign of Decius," JHS XIV (1924), 18–23; G. Elmer, "Die Münzprägung von Viminacium und die Zeitrechnung der Provinz Ober-Moesien," NZ 1935, 35–43; K. Pink, "Antioch or Viminacium," NC 1935, 94–113; and B. Saria, "Viminacium," RE XVI (2e Reihe, 1958), 2172–2181.
8	For what it may be worth, the mint at Viminacium had issued copper for Gordian III in 244, with the legend VICTORIA (G. Elmer, NZ 1935, 38).
9	Coins of Viminacium and the provincial mint of Dacia are pictured in Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection, I (1899), pl. XXVII, 10–11,
10	H. Mattingly, RIC IV. 3, 59. The numbers of RIC 61 and 62 found at Dorchester were 42 and 113 respectively, according to Mattingly's article in NC 1939, 25. The numbers are reversed in the RIC, which has numerous printer's slips.
11	In RIC IV. 3, 59.
12	See Table 20, p. 87, where totals of 23, 42, and 30 are listed.
13	"Balk" means the usual small Balkan hoards.
14	B. Saria, "Aus dem Belgrader National Museum," NZ 1924, 91. Does its being in Belgrade imply discovery in northwestern Yugoslavia?
15	Athens: M. Thompson, The Athenian Agora. Vol. II. Coins (1954), s.v. Hostilian—Valerian. Smyrna: Nos. 1224–1244.
16	Petra Pertusa: Dessau, 509. Concordia: ibid., 9479. Aquileia: CIL V. 808. For the situation in general see H. M. D. Parker, A History of the Roman World from A.D.138 to 337, rev. ed. (1958), 156.
17	Gordian's army collected for the Persian War included either detachments from or the whole body of Legio I Adiutrix (CIL III. 196); IV Flavia (CIL III. 8154, 195); V Macedonica (K. Pink, "Antioch or Viminacium," NC 1935, 98); VII Gemina (CIL III. 194); VIII Augusta (CIL III. 195); and probably II Parthica, III Parthica, X Gemina, and XIV Gemina, for which s.v. Legio, RE XII. 2.
18	The existence and product of the mint of Milan is discussed by H. Mattingly, "The Mint of Milan ," Numismatika (1934/36), 12–25; and in RIC IV. 3, 107108. But see, too, the doubts of its existence summarized by P. Le Gentilhomme, "La trouvaille de Nanterre," RN 1946, 46–47. The first issue of Decius at Milan seems to have included RIC 34, ADVENTVS AVG; RIC 40, GENIVS EXERC ILLVRICIANI; and RIC 43, VICTORIA GERMANICA. The first coin must be a very early type, as shown by the substance of the legend, and both of the others would go well with it, since they celebrate the victories of Decius over the Goths in the first half of 249. These types, furthermore, are all rare, implying a short issue before the mint began production in earnest about a.d. 250.
19	See pp. 95–97, 100, below.
20	Ratios of Roman to Antiochene coins are given in K. Pink, "Antioch or Viminacium," NC 1935, 105; and by P. Le Gentilhomme, "La trouvaille de Nanterre," RN 1946, 39, 41.
21	See n. 4 above, for the Dorchester figures.
22	A. R. Bellinger, The Excavations at Dura-Europos. VI. The Coins (1949), Nos. 373–567, pp. 20–27. This report supersedes his earlier Two Roman Hoards from Dura-Europos, NNM 49 and The Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Dura Hoards, NNM 69.
23	H. Mattingly, Roman Coins, 2nd ed., (1960), 206; A. R. Bellinger, The Excavations at Dura-Europos. VI. The Coins (1949), Nos. 387–391, p. 20. The existence of six officinae is mentioned briefly by K. Pink, "Der Aufbau der römischen Münzprägung in der Kaiserzeit," NZ 1935, 29.
24	RIC IV. 3, 56.
25	RIC IV. 3, 4, 14.
28	H. Mattingly, Roman Coins, 2nd ed. (1960), 141–143, discusses the relative importance of obverse and reverse types.
27	So the mathematicians of the University of Nebraska say.
28	Fineness: this remark is based on the reported analyses of coins from the Nanterre hoard. The number is too small to admit of certainty. The government may have resorted to issuing grossly debased coins along with the good ones—say, one out of every ten—but again enough data are lacking to prevent more definite conclusions. The decline of the aureus is reported in S. Bolin, State and Currency in the Roman Empire to 300 A.D. (1958), 255–256.
29	The weight standards of the tetradrachms are from L. C. West, Gold and Silver Coin Standards in the Roman Empire, NNM 94, 22–23, based on seventy-six of Gordian and two hundred sixty-four of Philip . For Asia Minor as a source of silver, see T. R. S. Broughton in ESAR IV (1938), 620–621.
30	The reservoir: Aur. Vic. Caes. XXVIII. 1. Roads: list in E. Stein, "Julius (Philippus)," RE X (2e Reihe), 766. On Philip's building in general see W. Ensslin in CAH XII (1939), 91.
31	Liberalitates - Gordian: RIC IV. 3, No. 137; Philip : RIC IV. 3, No. 230. Secular games - SHA, 3 Gord., XXXIII. 1–2.
32	SHA, 3 Gord., XXXI. 1. See, too, D. Magie's note on this passage in the Loeb edition; P. Townsend, "The Administration of Gordian III ," YClS IV (1934), 122–123.
33	For Maximinus' volume of coinage see Hdn. VII. 3. 5, and R. A. G. Carson, "The Coinage and Chronology of A.D. 238," ANSCent. Publ. (1958), 193. Herodian's judgment on Maximinus is VII. 3. 1. Christians: Eus. H.E. VI. 28, and see, on this point, W. Ensslin in CAH XII (1939), 75–76.
34	Includes RIC 51, 60, 61, 63b, and 226.
35	Authorities for this war include E. Stein, "Julius (Philippus)," RE X (2e Reihe), 761–762; W. Ensslin in CAH XII (1939), 90–91; A. Alföldi, ibid., 140–142; and H. M. D. Parker, A History of the Roman World from A.D. 138 to 337, rev. ed. (1958), 153. The coins are RIC 66.
36	Sardinia: O. Davies, Roman Mines in Europe (1935), 71. Spain: T. Frank in ESAR I (1933), 146; V (1940), 292; J.J. van Nostrand in ESAR III (1937), 122, 128, 151, 158. O. Davies, op. cit., cites the ancient evidence and adds important archaeological evidence, 94–95, 98, 108 and n. 7, 109–111 and n. 12, 112 and n. 9, 130–131, 136–137, 147. An article on the subject is that by T. A. Rickard, "The Mining of the Romans in Spain," JRS XVIII (1928), 129–143. The remarks of M. I. Rostovtzeff, SEHRE, 2nd ed. (1957), I. 343, 413–414; II. 691, no. 102 are important. Gaul: O. Davies, op. cit., 76–78, 80–82, 85–86. Britain: ibid., 140, 148–149, 161; R. G. Collingwood in ESAR III (1937), 34, 64, 111; T. Frank, ibid., V (1940), 197, 291. Greece: O. Davies, op. cit., 251. Macedonia and Italy : T. Frank in ESAR I (1933), 262–264; J. A. O. Larsen in ESAR IV (1938), 297, 313.
37	The ancient evidence, both archaeological and epigraphic, is given and discussed in O. Davies, op. cit., 182, 193–194 and n. 1, 201, 205–206, 216–217, 222, 224, 228. See, too, M. I. Rostovtzeff, SEHRE, 2nd ed. (1957), II. 643, n. 83.
38	Philip's title, "Germanicus Maximus," assumed in a.d. 246 (A. Alföldi, CAH XII [1939], 142) clearly implies a great initial success against the invaders, and this strengthens the case that in 246 the Romans were successfully ending the barbarian threat.
39	Based on forty-five coins from Smyrna. The average compares well with data from elsewhere. Thirty-five of the six animal types, RIC 12, 15, 224, 116b, 19, and 21, inscribed SAECVLARES AVGG, from Nanterre, average 4.18 grams: P. Le Gentilhomme, "La trouvaille de Nanterre," RN 1946, 46.
40	Fineness: the figures for the officinae are worked out from the figures published for the Nanterre hoard. They are I—40.11%; II—37.63%; and III—41.44%. The average of all three is 39.81%. L. C. West, Gold and Silver Coin Standards in the Roman Empire, NNM 94 reports fourteen, antoniniani at 43.7%. He does not identify them by type. If we reject the plated coin as a chance find, the weight of silver struck by Officina III would rise to 2,865.379 grams, which would make its output comparable with that of Officina I. We need more evidence.
41	Eis Basilea: See the remarks of M. I. Rostovtzeff, SEHRE, 2nd ed. (1957), I. 451–459. The scene in the Senate is described by John. Ant., frag. 148 = FHG IV. 598. See, too, W. Ensslin in CAH XII (1939). 93.
42	Sponsianus: RIC IV. 3, No. 1, p. 67; p. 106, n. 1.
43	Heavy-handedness: Cod., IX. 51. 7; Aragüe: OGIS 519, and the reading of this inscription of M. I. Rostovtzeff, SEHRE, 2nd ed. (1957), II. 741, n. 26. Fiscus: Cod., IX. 49. 5, and the remark of W. Ensslin in CAH XII (1939), 89.
44	Constantine: Cod. Theo. IX. 21. 1 (a.d. 321); Constantius: ibid., IX. 21. 6 (a.d. 349). If one is permitted to be perverse towards the propaganda of the coinage, one might interpret the message of the silver medallions of 246 or 247 as a clue to dishonesty in the mint. These medallions are RIC 54, 55, and 228. Each officina seems to have struck one of them. They must have been issued in 246 or 247 because Philip Junior has the title "Augustus." The medallions show the three Monetae holding scales, and have the unfortunate legends AEQVITAS PVBLICAE, AEQVITAS AVGG, and AEQVITAS MONETAE. Certainly by then, the coinage was no longer being struck on the old standard and the untruth of the legends might be put alongside the AETERNITAS AVGG of Philip 's last issue as more an effort to incite hope than as an attempt honestly to describe.
45	SHA Aur. XXXVIII. 2; Aur. Vic. Caes. XXXV. 6; Eutrop. IX. 14.
46	Officinae I and III: 419; Officina II: 38.
47	RIC IV. 3, 62.
48	In this table, the average weight of the coins of Officina III, and therefore the total weight of coinage struck, is determined only from the six examples in the Smyrna hoard. There are none of Officina IV.
49	The number of officinae from P. H. Webb, RIC V. 1, 21. The volume of Gallienus' coinage can be judged from both finds and excavation coins. At Verulam, for example, a report of 1932 mentions six of Gordian III , Philip , Gallus, and Valerian I together, but seventy-one of Gallienus (H. Mattingly, "St. Albans. Site Finds," NC 1932, 239–242). The Poole hoard gives even more striking figures: Gordian III to Valerian I , fifteen coins; Gallienus, two hundred fifteen (H. Mattingly, "Poole Hoard of Roman Coins," NC 1933, 229–232). From Athens we have altogether twenty-eight of Gordian, twenty-six of Philip and his family, eleven of Decius, fifteen of Gallus, four of Aemilian, thirty-eight of Valerian, and three hundred forty-nine of Gallienus (M. Thompson, The Athenian Agora. Vol. II. Coins [1954]). On the mint of this period see the remarks of F. Oertel in CAH XII (1939), 266.
50	The organization of the mint in Decius' time in H. Mattingly and F. S. Salisbury, "A Find of Roman Coins from Plevna in Bulgaria," NC 1924, 210–238; and RIC IV. 3, 109–113.
51	Surely, what Mattingly (in RIC) calls a low column, and K. Pink (in "Der Aufbau der römischen Münzprägung in der Kaiserzeit," NZ 1935, 31) a "cippus" on this coin is really an altar of the familiar type.
52	Authorities for these events include Mattingly and Sutherland, RIC IV. 3, 65–67; E. Stein, "Julius (Philippus)," RE X. 762–763, who outlines the invasions of the Goths, as does W. Ensslin in CAH XII (1939), 92–93 and A. Alföldi, ibid., 140, 143; G. Seure, "Trésors des monnaies antiques en Bulgarie. II. Le trésor de Nicolaévo," RN 1923, 129 and n. 2. The role of Decius is discussed by F. S. Salisbury and H. Mattingly, "The Reign of Trajan Decius," JHS XIV (1924), 1–23.
53	The average weight is made without consideration of the "Divi" issue struck at Milan late in the reign. The number of coins used in determining it is 2,475: 594 from Dorchester (H. Mattingly, "The Great Dorchester Hoard of 1936," NC 1939, 40); 1,364 from Plevna (H. Mattingly and F. S. Salisbury, "A Find of Roman Coins from Plevna in Bulgaria," NC 1924, 237–238); 160 from Nanterre (P. Le Gentilhomme, "La trouvaille de Nanterre," RN 1946, 49–50); and 357 from the Villa Patrizi hoard (A. Segre, Metrologia e circolazione monetaria degli antichi [1928], 367–368, n. 7). The fineness is established from twenty-eight examples, fifteen from Nanterre (P. Le Gentilhomme, op. cit., 54–55), and thirteen reported by L. C. West, Gold and Silver Coin Standards in the Roman Empire, NNM 94, 25.

THE HOARDER AND SMYRNA

The beautiful and wealthy seaport of Smyrna in the province of Asia was an important city in the third century. 1 It was not only significant commercially, it also enjoyed the prestige of being a center for the worship of Dea Roma and Divus Augustus. The town had been hard hit by the plague in the principate of Marcus Aurelius and suffered an earthquake in 178, but it survived them as well as could be expected and entered the third century in still prosperous condition.

In a.d. 238, the province of Asia declared against the tyrant Maximinus when the first two Gordians rebelled against him. 2 No doubt, the confiscations that Maximinus had exacted in Asia, as elsewhere, made certain people yearn for his violent end. 3 Such men must, therefore, have been overjoyed to learn that the oppressor had been killed in the spring of the year.

The career of Maximinus was of great importance for the social history of the times. Some of the notables of the cities must have been impoverished through his numerous and heavy confiscations. The money was taken, and was spent, and passed in many cases into new hands. An important redistribution of wealth therefore occurred. Perhaps, the owner of the Smyrna hoard was one person who was able in some way to gain from this. At any rate, the hoard began to be amassed about the time that Gordian III became emperor, in the summer of 238. 4 The hoard certainly bears every appearance of having been gradually accumulated from coins taken at random from ordinary circulation. This is evident from the diverse conditions of the money, some pieces being virtually uncirculated, rather more somewhat worn, a few badly, and so on, as well as from the lack of a number of coins struck from identical dies, which might have indicated spasmodic but relatively larger deposits in the hoard. That accumulation began about 238 would appear from the fact that there are only twenty-five antoniniani from the period 215222, and four of Balbinus and Pupienus together. Moreover, the find contains eight-four coins of Gordian III struck between his accession and a.d. 240; as a group these show considerably less wear than the earlier ones. Most of the hoard was accumulated between 238 and 249, during the proconsulships of M. Asinius Sabinianus (until a.d. 241/2) and L. Egnatius Victor Lollianus (until 249/50). These two men earned the reputation of conferring just and quiet government, and the province recovered from the excesses of Maximinus. The polis of Smyrna praised Lollianus as foremost among rhetoricians, and strove to develop friendly relations with the nearby cities. 5 The hoarder amassed upwards of a thousand coins.

During the first three years accumulation was gradual. But Gordian's concentration of troops in the east provided the opportunity for a more rapid rate of saving. In 242, having repelled barbarian attacks along the lower Danube, the emperor and his Praetorian Prefect hastened across Asia on their way to relieve Antioch and Syria from the Persians. They had with them a considerable number of troops, including detachments of at least two legions, IV Flavia and V Macedonica. There were probably others as well. 6

D. Magie has remarked that Asia had to endure the passage of this army. The effect of this is seen in the Smyrna hoard, as the rate of accumulation increased noticeably. Coins of the first two issues of Gordian, struck 238–240, were collected near Smyrna at a rate between 3.7 and 8.9% of our whole sample number. But of the third issue, which appeared in 241, and which the marching soldiers would have had to spend in 242, the rate rose to between 7.1 and 8.4%. With the fourth issue, struck between 242 and 243 mostly after the troops had crossed Asia, the percentages fell back to between 4.7 and 7.9%, an approximate return to conditions existing before the deployment of the legions. The passage of an army, therefore, must of itself have forced a certain rearrangement of wealth. The soldiers spent their pay, which some people were able to gain and amass, while other people were being compelled to provide money and services to the army—taxes and angareia—and thereby lost wealth. The extensive movements of the numerous armies which were called into being between 235 and 284 ultimately affected virtually the whole empire, and this turmoil must have been one significant cause of the economic revolution of the third century, which did so much damage to the old, established landowning families of the ancient world. It helped in its own way to redistribute wealth among the new men thrown up by the political upheavals of the period of military anarchy, and the Smyrna hoard affords one small example of the process. 7

The return across Asia Minor of part of the troops collected in the east followed Philip's murder of Gordian around July, 244. The movement left another similar deposit in the Smyrna hoard, but thereafter things were quiet for some time. 8

The sources of wealth of the hoarder began to dry up after the beginning of Rome 's second millenium in 248. The northern frontier was heavily assailed by Carpi, Goths, and other Germanic peoples. The situation was momentarily held in check by the early victories of Decius, but even in the reign of this emperor, disturbances of one kind or another severely limited the savings of the Smyrnaean. Only sixty-nine antoniniani of Decius and his family found their way into the hoarder's chest. No doubt the worn Philips and Gordians were also acquired about now. But there were economic difficulties—a shortage of bread at Smyrna in the spring of 250. There was vague uncertainty and fear—the repression of the Christians after Decius' empire-wide decree. 9

After Decius' unfortunate death in battle in 251, Smyrna was even more depressed, and only eighteen coins struck between 251 and 257 could be accumulated in the hoard. Smyrna herself began to live in yearly fear of barbarian attack. Furthermore, perhaps as early as 251, the second great plague in a century began to infect the empire, bringing in its train such numbers of deaths of people as the world has seldom known. In 253, disaster threatened when the Goths passed Smyrna, attacking and ravaging the territory of her great rival, Ephesus, only some fifty-five miles to the south. Smyrna herself may have suffered an actual depredation, too. Our literary sources are scanty and concerned only with threats to the great historic shrines at Ephesus and Pessinus. But, since the Goths came from the Black Sea, and since Smyrna is north of Ephesus, the city certainly lay just to one side of their advance, and may, therefore, have been damaged. At any rate, Germanic peoples were actively sailing in the Aegean, and the economic dislocation they caused is attested in no uncertain terms by the appearance of only eighteen coins struck between 251 and 257; of these, fourteen having been struck before 254. The effect of the Germans was felt not only in the tangible damage they did, but also in the anxiety and terror that the approach of barbarians always excited among the civilized, city people of the classical world. 10

The situation grew steadily worse. Bithynia was attacked in 256 or 257, and at Chalcedon the garrison actually fled and abandoned the city. Nicaea and Nicomedia were plundered, along with Cius and Apamaea-Myrlaea. The hoarding at Smyrna came to an end in a.d. 257/8, with the saving of three coins of Valerian (RIC 106, 248, and 271) struck in 257. A Gothic raiding party probably turned south from Bithynia, and for a time threatened the coast of Ionia before they actually laid parts of it waste in 262 or 263. 11 We must suppose that in this year, 257/8, our Smyrnaean fled from them in fear of his life, first having buried his silver, and, for reasons unclear to us, never returned to claim it. Thus passed from the apocalyptic age of the third century an unnamed person, manner and cause of death unknown.

End Notes

1	Two excellent general authorities used for this chapter are C. J. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna. A History from the Earliest Times to 324 A.D. (1938); and D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950).
2	P. W. Townsend, "The Revolution of A.D. 238," YClS XIV (1955), 67 and nn. 52–53; but see W. Ensslin in CAH XII (1939), 79.
3	Hdn. VII. 3.5; SHA 2 Max. VIII. 2; XIII. 5 represent the tradition of hatred.
4	The chronology of the reign of Gordian is discussed by P. W. Townsend, "The Chronology of the Year 238 A.D.," YClS I (1928), 231–238; "A Yale Papyrus and a Reconsideration of the Chronology of the Year 238 A.D.," A J Ph LI (1931), 62–66; and, now, by R. A. G. Carson, "The Coinage and Chronology of A.D. 238," ANSCent. Publ. (1958), 181–199.
5	General conditions in C. J. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna (1938), 295–296, and D. Magie, Roman Rule (1950), I. 700. Lollianus: SEG II. 652. Relations: list and sources in Cadoux, 295, nn. 3–7, and 296, n. 7.
6	Gordian's problems: SHA 3 Gord. XXIII. 4–5; XXVI. 3–5, and the comments of W. Ensslin in CAH XII (1939), 86–87 and D. Magie, Roman Rule (1950), I. 697. See, further, P. W. Townsend, "The Administration of Gordian III ," YClS IV (1934), 128. Evidence for the troop movements is carefully collected by K. Pink, "Antioch or Viminacium," NC 1935, 98–99.
7	D. Magie's remark in Roman Rule (1950), I. 697.
8	The chronology of Philip's reign is now dealt with by R. A. G. Carson, "The Coinage and Chronology of A.D. 238," ANSCent. Publ. (1958), 183. Return of the troops: K. Pink, "Antioch or Viminacium," NC 1935, 112.
9	C. J. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna (1938), 297–299; D. Magie, Roman Rule (1950), I. 703. Bread shortage; Mart. Pion. VII. 1. Christians: ibid., and Eus. H.E. VII. 15. 47.
10	These attacks are outlined by A. Alföldi in CAH XII (1939), 146, 165–169. The sources are collected and discussed by D. Magie, Roman Rule (1950), I. 702–706; II. 1566–1567, n. 28.
11	Sources for these attacks include SHA Gall. IV. 7; VI. 2; VII. 3; XI. 1; XII. 6; and XIII. 8, which refer to attacks later than these. Zos. I. 28. 1; Eutrop. IX. 8. 2; Amm. Marc. XXXI. 5. 15; Oros. VII. 22. 7 refer to the ones outlined here. The vexed problems of chronology are dealt with by D. Magie, Roman Rule (1950), I. 706; II. 1566–1567, n. 28. See, too, A. Alföldi in CAH XII. (1939), 147–148; C. J. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna (1938), 298–299.

BACK

KEY TO THE PLATES

The illustrations in the plate section are arranged in such a way as to present visually the lines of development of obverse portraiture discussed in the text. The illustration of the reverse of each coin is to be found in the corresponding position on the facing plate.