Anonymous Civic Coinage

By David Kalina

Series II
Second issue attributed to Antioch
This series is also known to be from Antioch, but features Jupiter on the obverse and Victory on the reverse.

Dating from Control Marks

Similar to series I control marks, series II also contains the same ε Δ combination for workshop 9, but in a different position. Instead of being in the right field, those two control marks are on opposite fields from each other.

Series I workshop 9.B Image courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group. www.cngcoins.com

Series II workshop 9 showing controls at either side.C Image courtesy of Agora Auctions. www.AgoraAuctions.com

I believe that series II workshop 9 should be dated differently from series I and should be placed earlier during the reign of Diocletian. ε and Δ in opposite fields were used on bronze coins in Antioch as early as 299 AD by the tetrarchy through 310 AD and was picked up again later in the 320's¹. Solely off this information as well as the the mint mark which is later discussed, series II must be minted from 299 to 310 AD.

Example showing controls at either side within 299 to 310 date frame. Diocletian follis from Antioch, struck 299/300 AD.D

Workshop 9 as it appears after 310 AD postdating series II. Maximinus II follis from Antioch, struck 312 AD.E

Example showing same control lay out but postdating series II, and showing extended mintmark. Constantine I follis from Antioch, struck 326/327 AD.F

Series II mintmark

Unlike the unique SMA mintmark of series I, series II uses a more traditional ANT. This mark clearly stands for an abbreviation of Antioch and this 3 letter form was used on bronze coinage from this mint from 294 to 313 AD². Again I did not look past the reign of Maximinus II as the mint mark/control combinations after his reign do not match what is found in series II. ANT does appear as late as 317 AD, but the controls are arranged vertically as they appear on series I, thus excluding those years. After 317 ANT is changed to an expanded control in the exergue i.e. ANT is changed to SMANT or similar.

Again example showing Antioch mintmark within 299 to 310 date frame. Maximinus II follis from Antioch, struck 312 AD.E

Example postdating series II showing extended mintmark. Constantine I follis from Antioch, struck 326/327 AD.F

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 II. Staying in the range of 299 to 310 AD from the use of workshop 9, there is no evidence I can find to link series II 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 II, 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 Jullian II, minted 360/363 AD.G

If series II 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 II know which probably number less than 2,000, would easily be absorbed by a population of this size.
Series II has two primary designs, one being Jupiter and the other Victory. To put into context these images within the time frame of 299 to 310 AD, we must analyze what connection they have to the tetrarchy. Diocletian and Maximian became the representatives of Jupiter and Hercules during this period. Libations and sacrifices were made to the genii of the emperors and all the legitimacy of the tetrarchs stemmed from this divine birthright rather than any fictional hereditary claim.⁶. This can be seen on many coins of Diocletian.



This aureus combines the portrait of Diocletian with the image of Jupiter, the supreme god of the Roman pantheon and a deity with which the emperor closely associated himself beginning around AD 287. At this time he began to style himself as Jovius and his co-emperor, the Caesar Maximianus, as Herculius to reflect their roles in administering the empire. Diocletian would be like Jupiter, giving orders and making plans, while Maximianus would be his heroic agent, like Hercules. This explicit association emphasized the divine qualities of the emperor and undercut the ability of the army to manipulate the imperial power. It is easy to proclaim a new general as emperor if an emperor is merely an illustrious head of state, but more difficult if the emperor is truly viewed as the earthly agent of the gods. Through the sanctification of their authority, Diocletian and Maximianus elevated themselves beyond the reach of most potential military usurpers and ushered in a new age of imperial ideology.
The reverse portrays Jupiter, which ties in nicely with Diocletian. But there still needs to be a festival large enough to accommodate the minting of series II. According to Remijsen⁷, Olympic games were restored under Caracalla in 212 AD, and occurred every 4 years. Three Olympics occurred between 299 and 310 AD, being 300, 304, and 308 AD. In order to make the connection to Jupiter and Diocletian we need to determine when Diocletian was in Antioch to preside over the Olympics. 308 can be eliminated because it was past his abdication. In 304 he would have been in the Danube frontier and later in Nicomedia. He would also not be in adequate physical condition to be Alytarch after he contracted an illness, which would require sleeping outdoors⁸. This only leaves 300 as the possible date and sources name Diocletian as Alytarch (an important official presiding over the games) for that year⁹. Jupiter which is the Roman representation of Zeus is also closely related to Olympic games. Prior to Diocletian, the Olympics in Antioch were in decay and possibly even moved to another city after being celebrated there for hundreds of years¹⁰. He renewed the games at Antioch and consecrated them to Zeus, making it a religious renewal. In Daphne, he built a new stadium and temple of Zeus for the games¹¹. Daphne was a suburb of Antioch and pleasure resort/residential area for Antioch’s upper classes.
The reverse of series II shows a Victory or Greek Nike, which is also closely tied to Zeus and the Olympics. The inscription AVGG refers to the joint rule of the Augusti Diocletian and Maximianus and is common from coins of this period.



Series II denomination

Another question would be what denomination is series II as they do not fit the measurements for a standard 'follis' at the time. Unlike series I, fractional bronze coinage was much rarer closer to 300 AD. The size (13 to 16mm) and weight (1.0 to 2.0 grams) of this series is similar to that of a AE quinarius. The quinarius matches up quite well with the size and weight if series II issues. Though not struck at Antioch, other mints did make them. Illustrated below are two examples of AE quinarii, one from Trier and the other an unknown mint.

AE quinarius struck 302 AD under Diocletian in Trier at 1.51 grams.J

AE quinarius struck 286 to 305 AD under Diocletian at 1.57 grams.K

Unmarked Issue

It is interesting to note that there exists also an unmarked issue of series II, similar to what is found from Series I type B.



This variation is unrecorded and may be either a prototype or tessera. I was unable to find a die match for this unmarked example with any other series II's.

Conclusion

Form workshop 9 control marks we can determine that series II was minted within a 11 year period following 299 AD. We can further narrow down the date to the summer of 300 AD from contemporaneous sources and a strong connection of Diocletian to Jupiter and festivals in conjunction with the Olympics at Daphne. The reason Series II 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. Next is a discussion of the anonymous civic coins from Nicomedia.

(Comming soon) Page on series III from Nicomedia Page on series I (APOLLONI SANCTO)

Sources

¹ C. H. V. Sutherland, The Roman Imperial Coinage Volume VI Diocletian to Maximinus (London 1967). pp 620-644
² C. H. V. Sutherland, The Roman Imperial Coinage Volume VI Diocletian to Maximinus (London 1967). pp 618-644
³ A. Alfoldi, A Festival of Isis in Rome under the Christian Emperors of the IVth Century (Budapest 1937). p 59 #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 P. Kiernan, Imperial Representation under Diocletian and the Tetrarchy (Thesis of the University of Cincinnati 2004). p 27
⁷ S. Remijsen, The Introduction of the Antiochene Olympics: A Proposal for a New Date (Belgium 2010). p. 420
⁸ O. Nicholson, Hercules at the Milvian Bridge: Lactantius Divine Institutes (Brussels 1984). p 136
⁹ S. Remijsen, The End of Greek Athletics in Late Antiquity (Cambridge University Press 2015). p. 94
¹⁰ B. Silke-Petra, S. ElmAntioch II: The Many Faces of Antioch: Intellectual Exchange and Religious Diversity, CE 350-450 (Mohr Siebeck 2018). pp 56-59
¹¹ Society of Antiquaries of London, Archaeologia, Or, Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Volume 44 (London 1871). pp 60-61

Coin Images

^AAuthor's collection
^BClassical Numismatic Group Inc., Electronic Auction 315, Lot 509. November 20 2013. www.cngcoins.com
^CAgora Auctions, Sale 48, Lot 242. January 12 2016. https://agoraauctions.com
^DClassical Numismatic Group Inc., Electronic Auction 234, Lot 423. September 6 2010. www.cngcoins.com
^EClassical Numismatic Group, Inc., web shop #155947. www.cngcoins.com
^FRoma Numismatics Ltd., E-Sale 39, Lot 856. August 26 2017. https://www.romanumismatics.com
^GNumismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 92, Lot 766. May 23 2016. http://www.arsclassicacoins.com
^HNumismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 100, Lot 611. May 29 2017. http://www.arsclassicacoins.com
^IClassical Numismatic Group Inc., Triton XVII, Lot 784. January 7 2014. www.cngcoins.com
^JThe New York Sale, Auction 14, Lot 402. January 10 2007. http://www.thenewyorksale.com/nysale/
^KNumismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 72, Lot 749. May 16 2013. http://www.arsclassicacoins.com
^LPaul-Francis Jacquier - Numismatique Antique, Auction 38, lot 567. September13 2013. http://www.coinsjacquier.com