Anonymous Civic Coinage

By David Kalina

Listed are coins I put into four groupings that can be attributed as anonymous civic issues due to their lack of inscriptions for any particular emperor. These issues are commonly known as anonymous under Maximinus II or coinage of the Great Persecution, due to the anti Christian events that were taking place in the Eastern Roman empire when these coins were supposedly being minted. I will breakdown each issue and explain why I think each series belongs where it does.

Background

Prior to the coinage reform of Diocletian, Roman coins struck in the 'provinces' were controlled by each city and there were literally hundreds of these mints. That last provincial mints to close would be in the final years of the 3rd century AD. Immediately after his reform there were approximately 16 imperial mints that were allowed to produce coinage, but that number changed as time passed. Three are of particular interest to the 'persecution' series of coins, those being Antioch, Nicomedia, and Alexandria. Any coinage allowed to be struck under it's own authority of the city are considered to be 'civic', and account for most of the mints prior to Diocletian's monetary reform. The coins discussed here were originally attributed to the reign of Julian II due to his renewed persecution of Christians in the 4th century, but that attribution has been challenged and mostly discarded. The more recent hypotheses are that these coins were minted during the reign of Maximinus II Daia for propaganda reasons against Christians and to aid in their persecution, which would make these the last of the civic coins. Four coins are listed here in no particular order, but are grouped so based on the similarities of their reverses and are labeled series I.

Series I
This series is grouped together because all of the reverses show Apollo facing left holding a lyre and patera.

Dating from Control Marks

The dating of series I can be extrapolated from the control marks found on the reverse on type A. Officina (workshop) 9 gives clues to the date range in which this series was minted. Only officina 9 replaces the θ (9th Greek number) with ε (5) above Δ (4). This was done due to the superstitious nature of theta being a symbol of death in Greek and Latin. ε and Δ combine to form 9 without using the the traditional symbol for 9. I was only able to find this particular vertical arrangement of the control in use at Antioch from May 310 till May 313 AD¹. I did not look past the reign of Maximinus II as the mint marks after his reign do not match what is found in series I, an example would be SMANTA instead of SMA. Logically these later issues should be excluded for that reason and well as the controls that appear in different fields of the coin. Officina 9 occurs in the right field of type A which should be distinguished separately from earlier as well as later officina 9's which place the ε and Δ on opposite fields of each other. Roman coins were very specific and had particular reasons as to the placement of mint marks and controls. There is ample room on either field for a single control and therefore it is my opinion that type A's workshop 9 should be exclusive to the earlier and later versions.

Type A showing workshop 9 in right field.E

Example predating type A showing controls at either side. Diocletian follis from Antioch, struck 299/300 AD.F

Example postdating type A showing controls at either side, and extended mintmark. Constantine I follis from Antioch, struck 326/327 AD.G

Series I mintmark

Of great debate has been the mint mark of Series I, it uses SMA instead of the more customary ANT (though some misspellings exist). It has been proposed that SMA should stand for sacra moneta antioch. SM or sacra moneta was used on base metal coinage at other mints at the time but it is also found on precious metal issues from Antioch as well. It should also be noted that SMA was used on base metal coins from Antioch, but after the dates proposed here and with the workshop appended as can be seen on example H.

Example postdating type A showing mintmark appending the workshop (SMANTZ). Crispus follis from Antioch, struck 325/326 AD.H

Other than Series I, no other base metal coins were struck during the reigns of Diocletian through Maximinus II at Antioch using SM. According to RIC VI², SM was used on gold issues made from special bullion supplies. That is why I theorize that SMA actually stands for signata moneta Antioch, or 'money struck at Antioch'. The reason why SMA was used instead of ANT, may be that Maximinus II was residing in Antioch at the time of striking (see purpose of minting below).

Purpose for Minting

One of the biggest questions about these coins is why were they made? Current theories are that these were struck to promote propaganda against Christianity and to aid in their persecution. While persecutions of Christians were taking place during this period I do not believe this is the reason for the striking of series I. Staying in the range of 310 to 313 AD from the use of workshop 9, there is no evidence I can find to link series I directly to reasons of persecution. Another reason could be for the building or repair of temples in Antioch, but I could not find instances of coins minted specifically for the purpose of building temples in Roman history. That would have been done with existing currency, such as by taxation and would not have a reference to the temple being built on the coin itself. Another event common in the 4th century which I believe is responsible for the production of series I, is for the use in festivals. This is not a new phenomenon as festival of Isis coins/tokens were already being used as early as the reign of Diocletian³.

Example of a Festival of Isis issue under Julian II, minted 360/363 AD.I

If series I lacked controls and a mint mark, I believe they would already be classified as festival tokens. But why were coins minted specifically for a festival instead of using existing coinage. According to Katsari⁴, bronze coins would be specially minted during shortages due to a sudden movement of the military or a local festival. Bronze coinage was designed to facilitate retail transactions by the use of small change in a specific area, any sudden enlargement of the local population would create an additional demand for more small change. The population of Antioch at the time was believed to be 200,000 to 300,000⁵. The small amount of series I know which probably number less than 1,000, and certainly are less than 5,000, would easily be absorbed by a population of this size. The vast majority of these belonging to type A.

Series I has two primary designs, one being the Tyche of Antioch, and the other sacred Apollo. The obverse represents the people, city, and protector of Antioch. Tyche was the goddess of fortune and protector of the town. On type A there is a swimmer below her feet representing the river Orontes on which the town was founded. Tyche also holds wheat stalks that symbolize the city's prosperity. The reverse of all series I's are shared by a robed Apollo facing left holding a lyre and patera. It is my opinion that the obverse links Antioch to it's past by proudly displaying the Tyche of Antioch, and the reverse represents the festival of the day. Antioch had many festivals in the early 4th century, and appears to be quite the party town. But one particular festival comes to mind when representing Apollo and the need to produce extra coinage for change and commerce, and that would be the festival of Apollo at Daphne in conjunction with the Olympics of 312 AD. Daphne was a suburb of Antioch and pleasure resort/residential area for Antioch’s upper classes. It also contained the shrine of Daphne which housed a colossal cult statue of Apollo made by the artist Bryaxis in the 4th century BC⁶. It is widely believed that this Tetradrachm from Antiochus IV shows the statue as it would have looked around 166 BC.

Tetradrachm of Antiochus IV 166 BC.J

The significance of that rare Tetradrachm is two fold. First it shows an image very similar to the reverse of series I coins, and second it has a precedence of being struck to celebrate not only the Panhellenic festival celebrated in the sanctuary of Apollo at Daphne but also coincided with the Olympics of 166 BC⁷. Assuming the attribution to the Tetradrachm of Antiochus IV is correct, it does not take a huge leap of faith to accept that the Romans of the the early 4th century AD would replicate a coin to commemorate such an occasion. Many sources place either the original statue or a rebuilt replica in Daphne during the reign of Maximinus II, and the festival of Apollo was also celebrated at this time. According to Remijsen⁸, Olympic games were restored under Caracalla in 212 AD, and occurred every 4 years. That would place the only Olympic event during the reign of Maximinus II as Augustus in the East as well as fit within the three year window given by workshop 9 to be 312 AD. More confirmation that the Olympics occurred during this year, is a source that names Maximinus II as Alytarch (an important official presiding over the games) in the year 312⁹. Another source shows him to reside in Antioch during the summer of 312 as well¹⁰.

Die Matching

Type A workshop 5 example to show matching diek

To futher link all of series I to the same date(s), I did a die comparison with type A (workshop 5 as seen above), type B, and type D. On all three of those I was able to find die links to the same reverse die, indicating they were made relatively at the same time. Below is an overly I made showing the three are indeed from the same die.

Type A workshop 5 lettering and Apollo superimposed over type D

Type A workshop 5 Apollo superimposed over type B

Type B Apollo superimposed over type D

These die matches show types A, B, and D were all minted contemporaneously. Further all type B's and D's share the same obverse die as well as can be see seen on this overlay.

Type B Tyche superimposed over obverse of type D

Type D obverse for comparison

It is clear from the shared dies that all of series I are closely linked and that they were most likely minted in a short time span, especially types B and D which are only known from one die each. I did not find any die links to type C with any other types, but it should be noted all type C's come from the same obverse and reverse dies as shown below.

Type C showing same dies to other type C

Type C showing same dies to other type CL

Series I denomination

Another question would be what denomination is series I as they do not fit the measurements for a standard 'follis' at the time. The size (13 to 17mm) and weight (1.0 to 2.0 grams) of this series is similar to that of half or quarter folles. Both quarter and half folles can range from 1 to 2 grams or more and an exact distinction is blurred between the two. Illustrated below are just three examples of each denomination, one from Antioch and two from Rome.

Typical follis struck 312 AD in Antioch at 20mm and 4.48 grams.M

Constantine I 1/4 follis struck 313 AD in Rome at 14mm and 1.20 grams.N

Constantine I 1/2 follis struck 313 AD in Rome at 16mm and 1.62 grams.O

The ranges seen in series I could put it into either the half of quarter follis category. Since an exact denomination can not be pinned down I will simply call series I an AE fraction.

Type A spelling variations

Of special note are spelling variations of type A that are very uncommon. These include the reverse inscription of "SANSTO" as well as mintmark variation "ANS".

Reverse inscription spelling SANSTOP

Mintmark reading ANS instead of SMAP

It is unclear how many dies carry these variations, but they are much less common. The assumption is that SANSTO is an error from the mint which would explain their scarcity. ANS could be a mint error or it may serve another purpose which is unknown.

Conclusion

Form workshop 9 control marks we can determine that series I was minted within a 3 year period following 310 AD. We can further narrow down the date to the summer of 312 AD from contemporaneous sources and a legacy that was done since the time of Antiochus IV of festivals and Olympics at Daphne. The reason Series I was minted is because it was at a time when a surplus of bronze coinage was needed during a well known festival in conjunction with the Olympics. Further, die links show all series I are closely linked and minted relatively close in time to each other, with 3 types coming from only one die each. Next is a discussion of the anonymous civic coins also from Antioch but portraying Jupiter.

Page on series II (IOVI CONSERVATORI)

Sources

¹ C. H. V. Sutherland, The Roman Imperial Coinage Volume VI Diocletian to Maximinus (London 1967). pp 638-644
² C. H. V. Sutherland, The Roman Imperial Coinage Volume VI Diocletian to Maximinus (London 1967). pp 91-92
³ A. Alfoldi, A Festival of Isis in Rome under the Christian Emperors of the IVth Century (Budapest 1937). p59 #1
⁴ C. Katsari, THE MONETARY ECONOMY OF THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN, FROM TRAJAN TO GALLIENUS Volume I (University College London 2001). p 208
⁵ G. Downey, The Size of the Population of Antioch (The Johns Hopkins University Press 1958). p 86
⁶ J. Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age (Cambridge University Press 1986). p279
⁷ R. Strootman, Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Daphne Festival (University of Utrecht 2007). pp. 309-313
⁸ S. Remijsen, The Introduction of the Antiochene Olympics: A Proposal for a New Date (Belgium 2010). p. 420
⁹ E. Bouchier, A Short History of Antioch, 300 B.C.-A.D. 1268 (London 1921). p. 54
¹⁰ E. Fowden, The barbarian plain: Saint Sergius between Rome and Iran (University of California Press 1999). p 16

Coin Images

^A,B,C,D,NAuthor's collection
^EClassical Numismatic Group Inc., Electronic Auction 315, Lot 509. November 20 2013. www.cngcoins.com
^FClassical Numismatic Group Inc., Electronic Auction 234, Lot 423. September 6 2010. www.cngcoins.com
^GRoma Numismatics Ltd., E-Sale 39, Lot 856. August 26 2017. https://www.romanumismatics.com
^HClassical Numismatic Group Inc., Electronic Auction 317, Lot 429. December 18 2013. www.cngcoins.com
^INumismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 92, Lot 766. May 23 2016. http://www.arsclassicacoins.com
^JClassical Numismatic Group Inc., Triton XIX, Lot 290. May 1 2016. www.cngcoins.com
^KRoma Numismatics Ltd., E-Sale 53, Lot 902. February 7 2019. https://www.romanumismatics.com
^MClassical Numismatic Group, Inc., web shop #155947. www.cngcoins.com
^OClassical Numismatic Group Inc., Electronic Auction 409, Lot 739. November 8 2017.www.cngcoins.com
^PPrivate Collection