THE EIGHTH AND NINTH DURA HOARDS

About the beginning of the third century B. C., Eutychides of Sicyon made for the city of Antioch a statue of Tyche of gilded bronze. 1 The goddess wore a headdress of walls and towers, which shows that she was conceived not as a symbol of abstract Fortune, but as an embodiment of the city itself. Her local significance was further emphasized by her rocky seat, which represented Mount Silpius, and by the river god of the Orontes, shown at her feet as a half figure with arms extended as though swimming. This was by no means the earliest statue of Tyche, but it became very popular and in Antioch itself was used as the city's device on the coins, beginning with Tigranes of Armenia, 83-69 B.C. 2 and continuing to the last autonomous bronze under Valerian, 253–257 A. D. 3 Moreover, when Julian made his celebrated attempt to revive paganism, he had coins issued from the imperial mint at Antioch with Apollo on the obverse and this figure of Tyche on the reverse, 4 and, what is much more surprising, the goddess reappears on little bronzes struck at Antioch by Justin I and Justinian I, 527 A. D. 5

There is much variation of detail: on the best known copy that has come down to us—the Vatican statuette—the right arm is bent upward; more generally it is extended; the right hand most often holds ears of wheat, but sometimes a palm branch and sometimes a cornucopia. The general attitude, however, is always the same when the whole figure is shown and we may be sure that the turreted busts which appear from the time of Severus Alexander on are derived from the same statue. 6 Their identity is made plain by the ram over the head, which occurs in the same position with the full figure on coins of Elagabalus and thereafter. K. O. Müller conjectured that this was a sign of the zodiac, commemorating the time of year when the city was founded, and the suggestion has been commonly adopted. 7 Of course it is out of the question that it should have formed a part of Eutychides' group; its true relation is shown on the bronzes of Trajan Decius and his successors, where it surmounts the tetrastyle shrine within which Tyche is seated. Malalas reports that Trajan erected such a shrine for the statue, though he says nothing of the ram above.

His description does, however, include material which our copies do not. Tyche, he says, is crowned by the kings Seleucus and Antiochus. Now it is generally agreed that the kings were no part of Eutychides' original design but were later additions, though no date is assigned to them. Allègre, following Müller, takes it for granted that the Antiochus represented is the son of Seleucus Nicator. 8 Malalas' words imply that both monarchs were crowning Tyche, which would doubtless be possible, though somewhat awkward and, I think, an arrangement without parallel. It is reasonable to follow instead the analogy offered by those coins of Severus Alexander which show the Tyche of Antioch being crowned by the emperor while another Tyche of a different kind stands to her left.

We may imagine, then, a group whose central figure is the Tyche of Eutychides with Seleucus to the right, crowning her, while Antiochus stands to the left. But what is the significance of these additional figures and by whom were they set up? An interpretation is afforded by a bas-relief discovered at Dura in 1935 and discussed by Rostovtzeff. 9 It shows the Gad of Dura (the Semite counterpart of Tyche) under the form of Zeus Olympius, enthroned. To his right is Seleucus Nicator, identified by the Palmyrene inscription, crowning him; to his left stands the dedicant. The date is A. D. 158. It is astonishing to find the first Seleucus at so late a time, and the only possible explanation seems to be that he was the center of a cult worship which outlasted the temporal power of his descendants. 10 In this relief, therefore, both the Gad and Seleucus are to be regarded as divine, while the third figure, the mortal dedicant, does honor to them both. On this analogy, in the group at Antioch, Tyche would be crowned by the divine Seleucus while Antiochus would occupy the position of dedicant. The latter would be the reigning king and might be the second or third of the name quite as easily as the first.

Now in the time of Severus Alexander the assumption of divine honors by the living Emperor was so regular a convention that there is no difficulty in supposing that he occupies in his group the same position that Seleucus did in the earlier one. The second Tyche would then represent the dedicant. Allègre has already seen the significance of this duplication. Both Tyches stand for the city, but the first is the permanent and essential spirit of the place, the second an embodiment of the citizens actually concerned in the dedication. This second figure of the goddess, standing holding a cornucopia, is of a type equally familiar and perhaps more ancient than that of Eutychides; it has been conjectured that it is derived from a statue of Praxiteles. 11 It was evidently used for city goddesses throughout Asia Minor and would have been instantly understood even if there was no dedicatory inscription. The whole group is represented not only on coins but also on contemporary gems, one of which is in the collection of Mr. Newell; the Metropolitan Museum has three.

There is no way of telling whether Alexander and Tyche directly replaced Seleucus and Antiochus, or whether there was an interval when Eutychides' group was restored to its original state. The earlier coins show Tyche with no accompanying figures, but, if Malalas is right, they still formed part of the group in the time of Trajan. 12 It is likely, however, that Alexander's additions were later removed. Not only is this inherently probable on historical grounds, but the type of Decius, showing Tyche in a tetrastyle shrine which she occupies with no room for other figures, seems to be a true picture of the monument as it appeared in his time.

It was the Tyche of Antioch which became the pattern for city goddesses in the Mesopotamian cities with whose mints we are here concerned. 13 Edessa, Carrhae, Nesibi, Singara and Rhesaena all show the seated figure and the river god, though the last named makes use of the other form of Tyche as well. But it is not simply a case of one mint copying the type of another. At some periods certain Syrian mints were so closely connected that the same obverse die could be used for two cities, 14 and a similar relation existed between Nesibi and Singara, but there was no such connection between Antioch and Mesopotamia. Rather it is a case of these cities borrowing from Antioch her Tyche to be used in statues or pictures of their own, these later to be reproduced on the coins. Proof of this is found in the fresco of the Tribune from Dura 15 where the Tyche of Palmyra and that of Dura, so entitled, appear in the form of seated women with turreted headdresses, though the details are altered to suit the particular cases. Doubtless all the cities of the district had similar representations which showed the same general indebtedness to Antioch and the same minor variations. For example, the coins of Philip from Nesibi show Tyche seated in a tetrastyle shrine as do those of Decius from Antioch, but, in the former case, the ram over her head is within the shrine and therefore part of the group. As already remarked, this would be absurd, if not impossible in sculpture in the round, but it is quite understandable if the agalma of Nesibi was a painting or a relief. As the illustrations will show, there is some variety in the style, but greater differences between periods than between mints so that we can get no reliable idea of the quality of the originals.

In the descriptions of the coins, references to Tyche without further details mean the type of Eutychides when the full figure is shown, the type with veil and turreted headdress, when it is only a bust. It is to be noted that the alternate type is regularly used on the Pontic coins of Septimius Severus, and Rhesaena and Gabala show still other forms.

In contrast with the poverty of subjects of the other Mesopotamian mints Rhesaena presents an interesting variety of which the vexillum and the colonist ploughing are entirely Roman in character while the complicated scene of the two Tyches clasping hands and the accessory eagles on most of the types have a distinctly Roman look compared with the simple patterns of the neighboring cities. Rhesaena's part in the hoard is too small to justify more than the reminder of this dissimilarity. A special monograph on Rhesaena is being prepared by Carl O. Castelin of Prague which will deal with the civic types at length.

The types of Amasia are partly of imperial, partly of local significance. Of the former, the commonest is that which shows two figures in togas clasping hands. The most probable explanation of this is that it represents Caracalla and Geta in their joint consulship of 205. It is no valid objection that the same scene reappears dated in the next year, for there was evidently no effort to revise the list of subjects for the second year of the issue. A more puzzling thing is that so far no example of this type has been found with Geta on the obverse. To be sure Geta's coins are not numerous and this may be merely accident, but one would have expected that type to be most particularly associated with him. Nevertheless, it can hardly be doubted that the figures are the two brothers.

The standing Tyche needs no further comment, but there is a group of coins bearing the picture of a flaming pyre which deserves some discussion. It should be remarked at the beginning that the structure is not an altar as it is called in the British Museum Catalogue, but a burning pyre sometimes of two stages. This agrees well with the description of a sacrifice of Mithradates to Zeus Stratios described by Appian (Mithr. 66) , 16 Zeus Stratios was a deity of barbarous origin having some affinity to Ahura-Mazda and regarded as a sun god. The eagle and the quadriga which frequently appear on or above the pyre presumably refer to him. Cumont believes that the tree or trees beside the pyre symbolize the sacred grove which he supposes to have surrounded it. 17 But however appropriate a sacred grove may be to a temple, it seems doubtful if it could have stood about this pyre. According to Appian's account, the flames were visible a thousand stades away and it took several days for the place to cool off enough for people to come back to it. Surely no trees could live to become venerable if they were near enough to such a bonfire to be regarded as an adjunct! Moreover the trees of the coin do not appear to be either pine or oak. Figure 1 shows the peculiar form, with twisted stems and round head often, though not always, surrounded by a circle of dots which seem to represent fruit. The tree on the pyre is obviously a pine, and the smaller shoots to right and left are of still another kind, so that the die-sinker must have known how to differentiate. The appearance of the tree beside the pyre is much more that of an olive or possibly a fig. I confess that I cannot offer the least suggestion as to its meaning or explain its position, but the theory of the sacred grove does not seem to me tenable.

There are certain other variations of this type, rare or unpublished, of which I present drawings since the coins themselves are none too clear. In Figure 2 the second stage of the pyre seems to be separated from the first by a pine branch; in Figure 3 the eagle is under a pediment for which no building can be seen and in Figure 4 he is perched on a very dead bull. Waddington speaks of Mithraic elements, and one is naturally reminded of the Mithraic bull, though I cannot find that he is ever shown in such a position. But M. Cumont, whose word on such a question is authority, writes me that the suggestion of Mithraism is a mistake. He believes that the type should be compared with the Cappadocian bronzes of an eagle on a bull's head to which he refers in an article entitled "L'Archevêché de Pédachtoé et le Sacrifice du Faon," 18 but he admits with pleasant candor that this is merely explaining obscurum per obscurius. Figure 5 shows an astonishing modification of the quadriga type. The chariot itself is invisible but the horses—or rather the foreparts of the horses—are placed one pair above another. Whether this is an individual experiment in perspective or whether the sun god on occasion drove a kind of divine stage coach, the effect is to eliminate the deity himself altogether. It may be that only future excavation at Amasia itself will make clear the significance of these curious details but it has seemed worth while to call attention to features which are new.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Mention ought also to be made of the hitherto unknown type of the seated river god Iris (p. 77, No. 319) though it is similar to others previously known.

Much the commonest type from Neo-Caesarea is a tetrastyle temple, and this apparent monotony may obscure the fact that it is not a single building that is shown, but a number of different ones. Not only are some Ionic and some Corinthian but the statues visible between the columns show a surprising diversity. Unfortunately the scale is so small and the relief so low that their identity is never certain and frequently not even to be guessed. I have included in the catalogue such conjectures as I could make. Without counting too minute details, there appear to be fifteen separate sanctuaries on the pieces in this hoard. The happy excavator of Neo-Caesarea ought to find the world's finest collection of tetrastyle temples!

There is preserved at Yale a manuscript catalogue showing all the variations that occur, but it has seemed wiser in the printed catalogue to list only such differences as seem to have a significance greater than accidental, merely summarizing the observed variants in the legends. Of course it is impossible to be sure that varieties grouped together may not, in fact, have constituted separate issues but it is more likely that the error has been in the direction of giving too much detail. The plates have covered, so far as possible, differences of minutiae and also differences of style which could not be adequately described. This has necessitated the illustration of many pieces whose condition is far from satisfactory but whose evidence is serviceable if not a delight to the eye.

An attempt has been made to arrange the mints in a geographical order expressive of their relation to Dura. The types are numbered consecutively. Then follows the number of specimens in each type (in parenthesis) and then the size in millimeters. Types illustrated in the plates are marked with an asterisk. References to specimens already published are given only in the case of exceptional pieces.

195–201

The dating of this series is discussed in Dura Report, VII–VIII, pp. 399 f.

June 8, 218–March 11, 222

The normal obverse inscription is AϒTKMAANTωNԐINOC CԐB for Aὐτοκράτωρ Kαῑσαρ Mάρκος Aὐρήλιος Ἀντωνεῑνος Σεβαστός; one coin has KAIC instead of K, one has Ω instead of ω, two have I instead of ԐI. One has the inscription AϒTKMAANTNANOCC (Sic!) Pl. I. 9.

The official name of the town is Kολωνία Mαρκία Aὐρηλία Ἀντωνινιανή Ἐδέσσα. The following forms occur in these hoards: KOΛωMAPԐΔԐCC, KOΛANTAVPԐΔԐCC, MAPAVANKOԐΔԐCC, MAPKOΛԐΔԐCCA, MAKAVPHKO – –, – – ΛMԐΔԐCCA. These variations, like those of the obverse, are certainly without significance as to date or denomination. There is one coin, however, which reads MHKԐΔԐ – –, the MH standing for Mητρόπολις. Since the title occurs regularly on the coins of Severus Alexander but not earlier than Elagabalus, its introduction may belong to the end of his reign. The piece may be a hybrid, however. The reverse type is the seated Tyche discussed above, pp. 2–8.

With the Title Metropolis

July 10, 221–March 11, 222

March 11, 222–March 19, 235

There are four issues identifiable under Severus Alexander as Augustus. Since his reverse as Caesar has no stars and is without the titles Metropolis or Colonia it is apparent that the pieces with the same reverse (B. M. Arab., p. 104, No. 86) are the first issued under him as Augustus.

The second issue is that with the titles Metropolis and Colonia. It is of two denominations: the second, represented in the hoards, and the third by B. M. Arab., p. 109, Nos. 113 f.

The third issue would then consist of the coins with two stars. Here again there are two denominations: the first and second. Hill distinguishes a series ( B. M. Arab., pp. 107 f., Nos. 102–112) on which the seat of Tyche is regular in form while the bust of the Emperor is slightly bearded. The reverse inscription begins MHTKOΛ. On others ( B. M. Arab., p. 106, Nos. 93–96) the inscription begins MHKO, the seat is irregular and the beard is not apparent. A similar difference in inscription appears in the large denomination, some ( B. M. Arab., p. 105, Nos. 87–89, 92) read MHTKO (not KOΛ) while others (B. M. Arab., p. 105, Nos. 90 f.) have MHKO. It may be that the other characteristics accompany the diverse readings, but among the specimens in these hoards I can find no distinctions. Most of the inscriptions are incomplete, it is generally impossible to say whether the Emperor is bearded or not, and the seat of Tyche exhibits so many gradations of regularity that I have made no attempt to subdivide the third issue on these grounds. The variation in the obverse inscription makes one suspect that variation on the reverse is significant of nothing more than the preference of the die-sinker. Coins of Mamaea with two stars (B. M. Arab., p. 110, Nos. 121–123) are to be assigned to this issue.

The fourth series includes the pieces with four stars of Alexander, Alexander and Mamaea together and Mamaea alone; of this issue there are two denominations, the first (only Alexander and Mamaea together) and the second (all three obverses).

The commonest form of the Emperor's title is AVTKMAV CԐAΛԐΞANΔPOC CԐ for Aὐτοκράτωρ Kαῑσαρ Mάρκος Aὐρήλιος Σεουῆρος Ἀλἕξανδρος Σεβαστός. A number of variations occur; KAI instead of K, MAP instead of M, A instead of AV, C or CԐϒ instead of CԐ for Σεουῆρος, and CԐB instead of CԐ for Σεβαστός. These have no discernible connection with the issues or the denominations.

The title on the reverse, Mητρόπολις Kολωνία Ἐδεσσήνων appears as MHKOԐΔԐCCHNωN or MHTKOԐΔԐCCHNωN on the first denomination and, in addition to those forms, as MHTKOԐΔԐCCHNωN on the second denomination.

SECOND ISSUE

Second Denomination

THIRD ISSUE

First Denomination

Second Denomination

*28.	(10) 24–28mm.	Head r., laur.
		Rev. Tyche l., holding fruit; before her, altar; in field to 1. and r., eight-pointed stars.
*29.	(44) 24–28mm.	Bust r., laur.
		Rev. Same.
30.	(3) 23–24mm.	Head r., laur.
		Rev. Same, but Tyche holds ears of corn.
*31.	(3) 24–25mm.	Bust r., laur.
		Rev. Same.
*32.	(3) 22–29mm.	Head r., rad.
		Rev. Same, but Tyche holds uncertain object.
33.	(19) 22–27mm.	Bust r., laur.
		Rev. Same.
34.	(1) 26mm.	Head l., laur.
		Rev. Same.
*35.	(21) 22–28mm.	Bust l., laur. with shield and eagle-topped scepter.
		Rev. Same.
36.	(5) 23–26mm.	Bust l., laur., with shield; r. hand raised.
		Rev. Same.
*37.	(8) 24–27mm.	Bust l., rad.
		Rev. Same.
38.	(4) 26–27mm.	Head r., laur.
		Rev. Tyche l., holding fruit; altars before and behind her; in field, to l. and r., eightpointed stars.
*39.	(3) 25–26mm.	Bust r., laur.
		Rev. Same.
40.	(2) 26–27mm.	Bust l., laur., with shield and eagle-topped scepter.
		Rev. Same.
*41	(1) 26mm.	Bust l., laur., with shield; r. hand raised.
		Rev. Same.
*42.	(2) 26mm.	Bust l. rad., holding scepter l.
		Rev. Same.
*43.	(1) 27mm.	Bust r., laur. with shield and eagle-topped scepter.
		Rev. MHTKOΛԐΔԐCωN (sic) Tyche 1., holding ears of corn; altars before and behind her; in field to l. and r., eightpointed stars.
*44.	(1) 28mm.	– – KMACԐOANTωNԐIN 19 Bust l., laur., with shield and eagle-topped scepter.
		Rev. —TKOΛԐΔ[ԐCC]HNω [N] Same but only one altar, before Tyche.

FOURTH ISSUE

Second Denomination

March 11, 222–March 19, 235

The obverse inscription is always AVTKMACAΛԐΞANAPOCCԐBIOVΛMAMԐAC. The reverses have been discussed above, pp. 18–20.

FOURTH ISSUE

First Denomination

Second Denomination

March 11, 222–March 19, 235

The obverse inscription is IOVΛMAMԐA CԐBACTH. The reverses have been discussed above, pp. 18–20.

THIRD ISSUE

Second Denomination

FOURTH ISSUE

Second Denomination

240-242

The date of these issues is discussed in Yale Classical Studies V, pp. 95–154, where it is shown that, under Gordian, the regal coinage precedes the colonial.

There are four denominations, of which three are represented here. The obverse bears the portrait of Gordian and the invariable inscription AϒTOKKMANTΓOPΔIANOCCԐB for Aύτοκράτωρ Kαῑσαρ Mάρκος Ἀντώνιος Γορδιανòς Σεβαστός; on the reverse of the first denomination appear Gordian and Abgar with the inscription AVTOK ΓOPΔIANOC ABΓAPOC BACIΛԐVC or Abgar on horseback and merely ABΓAPOC BACIΛԐVC; on the lower denominations the reverse is always the bust of Abgar with the inscription ABΓAPOC BACIΛԐVC. Abgar's tiara is sometimes decorated with a rosette of pellets, sometimes with a network. There is a star in the field on both obverse and reverse of the lower denominations.

Second Denomination

Third Denomination

242–March, 244

The obverse types and inscription remain unchanged, but the reverse now bears a bust of Tyche, l. Before it is a pedestal on which stands a statue of Aquarius (?). Between bust and pedestal, usually but not invariably (cf. Pl. IV, 71) stands a little temple with pediment (cf. Pl. IV, 69, 72) such as appears elsewhere on coins of Edessa (e. g. B. M. Arab., p. 101, No. 69, Pl. XV, 4), although its careless execution makes it frequently look like a flaming altar, as it is described in B. M. Arab., p. 111. The inscription is MHTKOΛԐΔԐCCHNωN. These are all of the first denomination though slightly smaller than the regal issue.

242–March 244

The obverse inscription is ΦOVPCABINATPANKCԐB for Φούρια Σαβίνια Tρανκυλλῑνα Σεβαστή.

The reverse is that of Gordian.

October 249–May 251

214–217

242–March, 244

There are two issues, each of two denominations. The first denomination of the former is very much like Gordian's contemporary colonial issues from Edessa. The portraits and the obverse inscription, AVTKKMANTΓOPΔIANOCCԐB are the same. On the reverse a very similar bust of Tyche appears, faced by the same statue on a pedestal. Between them is sometimes a small altar (Pl. IV). Generally there is a crescent above the bust though sometimes it is omitted. 20 The reverse inscription is MHTPKOΛKAPPHNωN. The second denomination of this issue has the same obverses but, on the reverse, a bust of Tyche, r., appears between two stars. The inscription is MHTPKOΛKAPPHNωN

On the second issue (though we have no means of telling whether it was later in time) the obverse is the same, but the reverse type is replaced by a crescent within which is one eight-pointed star on the first denomination, two on the second. On both the inscription is MHTPKOΛKAPPHNωN.

FIRST ISSUE

First Denomination

Second Denomination

SECOND ISSUE

First Denomination

Second Denomination

March 11, 222–March 19, 235

October, 249–May, 251

There are three varieties of the obverse inscription: AVTKΓMԐKVΔԐKIOCTPAIANOCCԐB (Aύτοκράτωρ Kαῑσαρ Γαῑος Mἕσσιος Kυίντος Δἕκιος Tραιάνος Σεβαστός), AVTKAIΓAIMԐCKVTPAΔԐKIOCCԐB, and AVTKΓMԐKVTPAΔԐKIOCCԐB the first two used on the second denomination, the third, which is merely an abbreviation of the second, used on the third denomination. I have conjectured (Hoards I, II, p. 40) that the form which reads "Decius Traianus" precedes that with the usual order "Traianus Decius," and consequently I here divide them into two issues, though this must be understood as a mere possibility.

The reverse inscription is generally CԐΠKOΛPHCAINHCIωNLIIIP (Σεπτιμία Kολωνία Pησαινησίων Legio III Parthica) though on one of our pieces (No. 94) the title "Colonia" is omitted. It is noticeable in the British Museum collection that this omission always accompanies the second obverse inscription ( B. M. Arab., pp. 128 f., Nos. 16–21, 27) which I have considered to be later than the first, but the absence of "Colonia" cannot be taken as an indication of date for the title occurs under Severus Alexander (ibid., p. cx, n. 2).

FIRST ISSUE

Second Denomination

SECOND ISSUE

Second Denomination

Third Denomination

March 11, 222–March 19, 235

As in the case of Edessa, the inscriptions show considerable variation under Alexander with no discernible significance. The usual form in the obverse is AVTKAIMAPAVCAΛԐΞNΔPOCC from which I have noted the following deviations: AV and AVTO for AVT, K and KA for KAI, M for MAP, A for AV, CԐ for C, CԐB for C. The laureate heads are of better style and may be earlier.

The reverse inscription, CԐΠKOΛONԐCIBIMHT (Σεπτιμία Kολονία (sic) Nέσιβι Mητρόπολις varies only in sometimes reading MH, MHTP or MHTPO for MHT. The bust of Tyche is sometimes accompanied by one star, sometimes by two and sometimes by two and an ear of corn. I have recorded these varieties which seem to be more than vagaries of the die-sinker; but if they are separate issues there is nothing in the appearance of the coins to suggest their order.

March 11, 222–March 19, 235

On none of our coins is the obverse inscription complete. It certainly contained the names of both Emperor and Empress, and in the case of the former, probably showed variations already familiar. The reverses are those of Alexander.

March 11, 222–March 19, 235

The obverse inscription is always IOV MAMԐA CԐBACTH. The bust without the crescent is of better style and may be earlier. The reverses are those of Alexander.

242–March, 244

These coins must come after the reconquest of this territory from the Persians in 242. The obverse is AVTOKKMANTΓOPΔIANOCCԐ or CԐB the reverse CԐΠKOΛONԐCIBIMHT with KOΛ sometimes for KOΛO and MH, MHTP or MHTPO for MHT. The denomination is always the second, the first being reserved for the coins of Gordian and Tranquillina together.

242–March, 244

247–October, 249

The British Museum does not attempt to distinguish between Philip Sr. and Philip Jr. on these issues, but the division here made seems to be borne out by the portraits. The obverse inscription (for both) is invariably AVTOKKMIOϒΛIΦIΛIΠΠOCCԐB (Aύτοκράτωρ Kαῑσαρ Mάρκος Ἰούλιος Φζλιππος Σεβαστός). Since this is the formula used in Antioch with tetradrachms of Philip's third and fourth Consulship (248, 249) and since Philip Jr. always appears at Nesibi as Augustus (247 according to Liebenam) I assume that all these issues come from the last years of the reign, certainly not before 247. 21

The reverse inscription for both Philips and Otacilia is IOVCԐΠKOΛΩNԐCIBIMHT showing that Philip had given given his name to the colony (and incidentally reformed its spelling). The only variation is in the case of No. 128 where the final T is omitted.

247–October, 249

247–October, 249

242–March, 244

The city of Singara issued money only during the last years of Gordian III. As the easternmost mint in Mesopotamia it represents the full extent of his campaign against the Persians and there is little doubt that these coins were chiefly intended to make clear the Emperor's control of the whole region so recently reconquered. But it is unlikely that the striking was actually done on the spot. The extreme similarity between the coins of Singara and those of Nesibi is proof that the same hands cut the dies, and the identity of style is strikingly illustrated by the mules of No. 139 where a second obverse is used by mistake for a reverse. They are here attributed to Singara only on the ground that there are more of Gordian's coins from Singara in this hoard than from Nesibi but there is no possible way of telling where they were supposed to circulate. It may be that the dies were cut in Nesibi and sent to Singara, but it seems more probable that the pieces were actually minted in the former town.

Gordian's obverse inscription is exactly the same as at Nesibi. The reverse type differs only in the substitution of Sagittarius for the ram over Tyche's head. The reverse inscription is AVP CԐΠKOΛCINΓAPA. The title Aὐρηλία presumably refers to Marcus Aurelius or Lucius Verus.

242–Octobe, 244

242–October, 244

Here, as at Nesibix, the Emperor and Empress together appear on the first denomination. The obverse inscription is the same.

June 8, 218– March 11, 222

July 10, 138– March 7, 161

142.	(1) 23mm.	Inscription illegible. Head l., laur.
		Rev. εΓΓM ATεωN ε Tetrastyle temple with peribolos, all in laurel wreath. B. M. Gal., p. 125, No. 6.

Elagabalus

June 8, 218– March 11, 222

247–October, 249

The coins of Philip and his family from Samosata, Zeugma and Cyrrhus all bear a strong resemblance to those from Antioch. Their close connection to one another is proven by B. M. Gal., p. 129, No. 43 where an obverse die used on a coin of Zeugma is the same as that on p. 123, No. 59, from Samosata. It seems likely that all these coins were struck at Antioch and then distributed to the other cities. If not, then at least the same die-sinkers must have been employed. Since the obverse inscription of both Philips, AVTOKKMIOVΛIΦIΛΠΠOCCεB comes not before 247 at Antioch and since Philip Jr. appears always as Augustus at the three other cities it is reasonable to suppose that here, as at Nesibi (cf. above, p. 39) the whole issue comes after 247.

144.	(1) 29mm.	Bust r., laur.
		Rev. ZεVΓMATεΩN Tetrastyle temple with peribolos; in ex. capricorn, r.
145.	(1) 29mm.	Same.
		Rev. Same, but for Z.

July 10, 138– March 7, 161

March 7, 161–March 17, 180

This might be a coin of Pius, Verus, Commodus, or even Trajan, but the very little of the obverse that can be seen is most suggestive of Marcus.

March 7, 161–February, 169

June 8, 218–March 11, 222

Although the coin is badly corroded, the reverse type is unmistakable. But, as certainl, the obverse is not Philip, but is either Caracalla, Elagabalus or Severus Alexander., The second is the most likely.

247–October, 249

For the date, cf. the remarks on Philip, Jr., at Zeugma, above, pp. 44 f.

July 10, 138–March 7, 161

March 7, 161–February, 169

February 4, 211–April 8, 217

March 11, 222–March 19, 235

49–16 B. C.

This is a contemporary forgery, which must originally have been plated, of those imitations of the coins of Philip Philadelphus which constituted the first Roman issues from the mint of Antioch. The series was first identified by Newell in a paper entitled "The Pre-Imperial Coinage of Roman Antioch," Num. Chron., 1919, pp. 69–113, and the Fifth Dura Hoard, which he published (Num. Notes & Monogr., No. 58, 1933), contains fifteen of the genuine tetradrachms. The date on this forgery is illegible and it might belong to any year of the series, though its appearance suggests that it is later than 31/0 B. C.

September 14, 81–September 18, 96

July 10, 138–March 7, 161

March 7, 161–March 17, 180

April 11, 217–June 8, 218

April 11, 217–June 8, 218

May 16, 218–March 11, 222

Elagabalus struck in three denominations, of which the third continues the types of Macrinus and Diadumenianus, while the first and second introduce the new type of the seated Tyche. The old SC reverse which had begun under Augustus as the first denomination had been growing steadily smaller and the Tyche reverse of Elagabalus was designed as a reform to give Antioch bronze of respectable size once more. Doubtless it was simultaneous with the striking of big coins at Edessa. The third denomination, therefore, may actually have been the first issue, later replaced by the larger pieces, but one or other of the varieties of little coins may well have been struck throughout the reign, so that it is safer not to assume a difference in time on these grounds. However, Nos. 163 and 164 which do not bear the title "Metropolis" may represent an early issue before that title was conferred.

The obverse inscription reads AVTKAIMAPAVPANTΩNεINOCCεB with the following variations: AV for AVT, K for KAI, M and MA for MAP, A and AV for AVP, ANTΩNINOC for ANTΩNεINOC, C and Cε for CεB. 22

The reverse inscription is ANTIOXεΩNMHTKO with M, MH, MHTP, MHTPO and MHTPOΠ occurring for MHT, and K, KOΛ and KOΛΩ for KO.

First Denomination

Without the title "Metropolis"

With the title "Metropolis"

Second Denomination

Third Denomination

March 11, 222–March 19, 235

There are three issues under Alexander, the first, a continuation of the seated Tyche type of Elagabalus, the second with the group of Tyche crowned discussed above, pp. 5 f., and the third with the bust of Tyche which is continued on the coins of Philip., All Alexander's pieces are of the first denomination.

The obverse inscription AVTKAIMAPAVCεAΛεΞNΔPOCCε shows the following variations: AV for AVT, KAIC for KAI, AVP for AV, CεO for CS or Cε omitted. The reverse inscription is the same as that on the first denomination of Elagabalus and exhibits the same variations; in addition KOΛΩN sometimes appears for KOΛ on the third issue.

FIRST ISSUE

SECOND ISSUE

THIRD ISSUE

March 11, 222–March 19, 235

The obverse inscription is IOVΛIA MAMԐA CԐBACTH

The reverses are those of Alexander.

FIRST ISSUE

THIRD ISSUE

March, 244–October, 249

There are two issues for Philip and his family, distinguished by obverse inscription and by reverse inscription and type. As determined in Hoards I, II, pp. 30 f., the form AVTOKKMIOϒΛIΦIΛIΠΠOCCεB comes not earlier than 247. The bronzes which bear that inscription would then be of the second issue, like those of Philip Jr. as Augustus with the same inscription. On these pieces the reverse inscription reads ANTIOXεΩN MHTPOKOΛωN and there is a star under the bust of Tyche (though there are exceptions, e. g. No. 203, Pl. IX).

The first issue, then, consists of those pieces without the star beneath the bust of Tyche, on which the reverse inscription ends KOΛΩ and the obverse inscription reads AVTOKKMAIOϒΛΦIΛIΠΠOCCεB (like my obverse B, Hoards I, II, p. 33, except that the bronze reads MA for M). Neither obverse nor reverse inscription offers any variation except that the S of SC is occasionally reversed (cf. No. 194, Pl. VIII).

FIRST ISSUE

244–246

SECOND ISSUE

247–249

March, 244–October, 249

On the first issue Philip, Jr. appears as Caesar with the inscription MAPIOVΛIΦIΛIΠΠOCKAICAP On the second he is Augustus with the inscription AVTOKKMIOVΛIΦIΛIΠΠOCCԐB identical with that of his father. Reverse types and inscriptions are those of the elder Philip.

FIRST ISSUE

244–246

SECOND ISSUE

247–249

SECOND ISSUE

247–249

March, 244–October, 249

Otacilia appears on both issues; on the first with the inscription MAPΩTAKIΛCεOVHPANCε (Mάρκιαν Ὼτακίλιαν Σεουῆραν Σεβαστήν); on the second with MAPΩTAKIΛICεOϒHPANCεB. 23

FIRST ISSUE

244–246

SECOND ISSUE

247–249

October, 249–May, 251

The suggestion made in Hoards I, II, p. 40 that coins with the inscription AVTKΓMԐKVΔԐKIOCTPAIANOCCԐB precede those with AVTKΓMԐKV- TPAIANOCΔεKIOCCεB finds some support from the bronze, for the reverse type with the bust of Tyche, which is a continuation of Philip's, bears the former legend, while that with Tyche within a temple, which is an innovation, bears the latter. 24 The reverse inscription of both issues is ANTIOXԐΩN MHTPOKOΛΩN

FIRST ISSUE

SECOND ISSUE

July 10, 138–March 7, 161

216

June 8, 218–March 11, 222

February 4, 211–April 8, 217

April 8, 217–June 8, 218

115

141

142

May, 193–February 4, 211

4February 4, 211–April 8, 217

June 8, 218–March 11, 222

February 4, 211–April 8, 217

March 11, 222–March 19, 235

June 8, 218–March 11, 222

June 8, 218–March 11, 222

June 8, 218–March 11, 222

March 17, 180–Dec. 31, 192

230/1

May 193–April 8, 217

February 4, 211–April 8, 217

July 10, 138–March 7, 161

March 7, 161–March 17, 180

March 7, 161–February, 169

225

227

*246.	(1) 21mm.	[AVK]CεOVHAΛεΞANΔP Head r., laur.
		Rev. P KAIC Three double ears of corn tied together. In field, εTς Cf. Sydenham, p. 125, Nos. 570 ff.

October, 205–October, 206

The date for this issue which Babelon and Reinach 26 assign to 208/9 is discussed in Dura Rep. VII-VIII, p. 413. It is there shown that the five Pontic towns, Amasia, Comana, Neo-Caesarea, Sebastopolis-Heracleopolis and Zela struck money simultaneously in 205/6 and Amasia and Zela again in 206/7. The date εT (ἕτους) CH 27 sometimes is placed in the exergue, sometimes in the field r., or l. and r. Sometimes it is written reversed.

The normal obverse inscription is AVTKAIΛCεΠTCεOVHPOCCεB for Aὐτοκράτωρ Kαῑσαρ Λούκιος Σεπτίμιος Σεουῆρος Σεβαστός sometimes with the addition of ΠεP for Περτίναξ before CεB, AV instead of AVT, K instead of KAI, CεΠ instead of CεΠT also occur.

The normal reverse inscription, AΔPCεVANTAMACIACMHNEΠPΠO for Ἀδριανεία Σευηρεία 28 Ἀντωνινιανὴ Ἀμάσια Mητρόπολις Nεωκόρος Πρώτη τοῡ Πόντου 29 presents a number of variations: Cε instead of CԐV, AMACI instead of AMACIAC, MHT instead of MH, N instead of NԐ, Π or ΠPΩ instead of ΠP, Π or ΠON or ΠTC (sic) instead of ΠO; sometimes ΠO is omitted.

October, 206–October, 207

The types are in general repetitions of those of the previous year. The only difference is that the date is CΘ.

October, 205–October, 206

The obverse inscription, which is never complete on our coins, would have been IOVΛIA ΔOMNA CԐBACTH though the variant IOVΛIA ΔOMNA AVΓ CԐ occurs in Waddington Recueil, 2nd Ed., I. 1. p. 43, No. 62. The reverse inscription is like that of Septimius Severus.

October, 205–October, 206

The obverse inscription is AV KAIMAVPANTΩNINOC for Aύτοκράτωρ Kαῑσαρ Mάρκος Aύρήλιος 'Aντωνίνος Sometimes CԐB is added; K appears in stead of KAI and AV instead of AVP The reverse inscription is like that of Septimius Severus.

October, 206–October, 207

October, 205–October, 206

The obverse inscription is ΠCԐΠTIΓԐTACKԐCAP for Πόπλιος Σεπτίμιος Γέτας Kαῑσαρ Sometimes ΠO stands for Π On only one coin can the title Augustus be read. That is No. 334 of whose inscription only CԐB can be seen. The reverse inscription is that of Septimius Severus.

205/6

These coins are dated ԐT("Eτους)PMB 31 Babelon and Reinach (Op. cit., Tome I, Fasicule 1, p. 120, n. 2) mistaking the form R for digamma, dated some of them 209/10. But R for B is not uncommon at this period. Cf. above, No. 240. The date is always placed in the exergue.

The obverse inscription is like that of Amasia, with the same variations. The reverse inscription is KOINΠONNԐOKAIMHTPO for Kοῑνον τοῦ Πόντου Nεοκαισάρεια Mητρόπολις KOI sometimes occurs instead of KOIN; KAIC instead of KAI.

205/6

Only MNA of the obverse inscription can be read. The complete inscription was IOVΛIA ΔOMNA CԐBACTH as at Amasia. The reverses are like those of Septimius Severus.

205/6

The obverse inscription is like that at Amasia. The reverses are like those of Septimius Severus.

205/6

Only ΛCԐΠ and ΓԐTA of the obverse inscription can be read. The complete inscription was like that at Amasia. The reverses are like those of Septimius Severus.

205/6

The coins are dated, in the exergue, ԐT("Eτους) BOP 32 Of the obverse inscription only KΛCԐΠCԐOVH can be read. The complete inscription was like that at Amasia. The reverse inscription is IԐPOKAICAKOMANԐ for 'Iερέων Kαισαρέων Kομανέων with KAIC sometimes for KAICA

205/6

Of the obverse inscription only –AN– can be read. The complete inscription was like that at Amasia. The reverses are like those of Septimius Severus.

205/6

October, 205–October, 206

The era is the same as that of Amasia.

206/7

The era is the same as that of Neo Caesarea and the dates in the exergue ԐTPMB and ԐTPMΓ are equivalent to 205/6 and 206/7. The obverse inscription is illegible. The reverse inscription for both issues is ZHΛITωN TOV ΠON

205/6

The obverse inscription, which is never here complete, was the same as that at Amasia with the additional substitution of ω which is generally given for Ω The reverses are like those of Septimius Severus.

206/7

Date Illegible

February 4, 211-April 8, 217

February 4, 211–April 8, 217

202–205

The following coins from towns in Greece all belong to the period of sudden activity, under Septimius Severus, of mints many of which had not struck for centuries. It is probable that these issues were simultaneous. If so, they are dated by the appearance on some of them of Plautilla, who was married to Caracalla in 202 and banished in 205. The references are to Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias.

202–205

202–205

202–205

202–205

202–

202–205

202–205

202–205

B. C. 226–222

March 11, 222–March 19, 235