A new Eastern mint for Probus and the Saturninus revolt

Probus, antoninianus, unidentified new Eastern mint

At the start of the reign of the emperor Probus (276-82) there were three Asian mints striking Roman coins, Cyzicus, Antioch and Tripolis. French numismatist Sylviane Estiot refers to a mysterious Roman mint that operated briefly in the late 3rd century AD, during the reign of Probus. Estiot proposed that this mint was established in Asia Minor, somewhere in Phrygia, to compensate for the loss of Antioch, which was seized by the usurper Saturninus in 280. The mint produced coins of the types CLEMENTIA TEMP and RESTITVT ORBIS, which were similar to those of Antioch, but with some stylistic and legend differences. Estiot based her hypothesis on a detailed analysis of the coins and their die links, published in a 2015 article titled “L’empereur et l’usurpateur: un 4e atelier oriental sous Probus”. However, the exact location and chronology of this mint remains uncertain and debated by other scholars

Probus, antoninianus, Antioch mint

According to Estiot, the coins of Antioch and the fourth eastern mint can be distinguished by some stylistic and legend differences, such as:

• The letter M at Antioch is usually rendered similar to IVI while at the new mint it’s fully formed.

Comparison of the two M styles, Antioch left, new mint right

• The lettering in general is higher and wider, with a more standardized shape and module throughout the legend, both on obverse and reverse on the coinage of the new mint.

• While Antioch during this period 277-80 employs both AVG and PF AVG for the Imperial title, the new mint only uses the full PF AVG.

• The bust style on the coinage of the new mint is sharper with stronger features, most obvious in the shape and dimension of the eye.

• On the reverse of some coins from Antioch there is a simple globe while the new mint has a globe surmounted by a Victory.

Probus, antoninianus, Antioch mint

Further reading

Estiot, S, “L’empereur et l’usurpateur: un 4e atelier oriental sous Probus”, in Bland, R, and Calamino, D, Studies in Ancient Coinage in Honour of Andrew Burnett, 2015, pp 259-76

Token sextantes of Minturnae from the Second Punic War

In 2012 I acquired two Roman sextantes that clearly did not fit into the arrangement of Crawford in his 1974 work Roman Republican Coinage (Cr). At approximately 16 mm in diameter and around 1.8 grammes they were smaller and lighter than any comparable material, although many authors subsumed them under the description of Cr. 56/6.

At the time I postulated whether they might be a local imitative type. I was corrected and told that these were issues from the time of the Second Punic War, frequently found overstruck on other types, and not referenced in the standard sources.

Recently the pieces have been put into a more secure dating context. Given the undertypes that have been identified on some of the coins, particularly the small module Neapolitan type with man headed bull reverse (HNI 595), produced c. 250-225 BC, the sextantes must have been overstruck on the donor coins some time after this date. Furthermore we know that they were in production before 191 BC as Livy records that in Minturnae lightning struck some shops in the vicinity of the Temple of Jupiter that were then set alight and a hoard of these sextantes was found below the secure destruction layer.

The probable place of minting of the pieces is, on the basis of a very restricted finds distribution, believed to be in Minturnae. The town was a significant naval base that controlled land access across the Liris from Latium to Campania and would have been crucial in the efforts to liberate Capua from Hannibal. The location was also a staging post to Sicily and North Africa and a significant economic hub of the period.

The conclusion is that these coins, whilst matching the design criteria of the Roman Republican bronze issues, do not correspond to the prevailing Roman weight standard. They represent an important token coinage during a period of conflict to meet an economic need.

References:

Stannard, C, “’Chopped’ Neapolitan bronze coins at Minturnae, overstrikes with Roman types, and the coin stock in Southern Latium and Northern Campania about 200 BC”, Numismatic Chronicle 178, 2018, pp 99-106

Stannard, C, “Small change in Campania from the fourth to the first century BC, and newly discovered Second Punic War mint of Minturnae” in Rahmstorf, L, Barjamovic, G and Ialongo, N, Weight and Value, 2, 2021, pp 261-287

Shipping tessarae from Ostia

In March 2000 the catalogue for CNG sale 53 arrived. Lots 1434 and 1435 were two curious, small, uniface square AE pieces with a galley/rowing boat with two occupants depicted on one side with the legend MPV above. They were identified as 1^st century tesserae and, as chance would have it, around the same time I came the temporary custodian of another example of the same type. I quickly sold it on but was left with a feeling more than a little regret. It is a coincidence that the Roman small rowed vessel probably depicted on the tokens is called a tesseraria(e) and is not linked to the name used for a Roman token. 

The feeling of regret was compounded when, on opening the 2015 Numismatic Chronicle, I came across a paper by Clive Stannard’s on the “Shipping tesserae of Ostia and Minturnae”. In there he brings together a corpus of all the types known to him, including the specimen I sold, plus the two CNG pieces. Overall he identifies 81 specimens forming twelve types, the boat type being the most prominent (32 specimens), the horse walking right the next most abundant group (23 specimens).

In 2020 I was able to acquire a shipping tessera to ease my regret, ex Italo Vecchi collection. Better still, the piece was a plated specimen from Stannard’s paper (type 1B, specimen 10.1). More than that it had also been illustrated in a paper by Ladich in Cronica Numismatica in 2008.

I’ve now picked up two further shipping tesserae:

There’s a boat type 1B, illustrated by Stannard in Numismatic Chronicle, 13.2. This piece is also illustrated by Keay, figure 29, number 501.017. The sale catalogue notes the provenance as “Romanphile” collection, aka Italo Vecchi. The cataloguer misses the Stannard plate identification.

There is also an example of Stannard's horse type 2C, specimen 10.2 in his plates. This is another “Romanophile” piece. Again the cataloguer misses the Stannard plate identification and, as with my first shipping tessera, this piece is also illustrated by Ladich.

The use of these paranumismatic items needs to be questioned. The  greatest number have been found around the the area of Ostia, the port of Rome and, given the most prominent design, are likely linked to a shipping or trade use. Stannard postulates that these items may have been some sort of tally system for the loading or off-loading of cargo from sea going vessels to alternative inland transport, either by boat or horse. Given the predominant nature of the designs encountered this may look to be the most obvious solution.

Keay suggests an alternate hypothesis, albeit with little confidence, that these may, be some sort of token for ferry use for crossing the waters in the busy port environs such as Ostia. This is also appealing given the type of craft depicted on the most abundant tesserae. 

Whatever the case the fact that these or manufactured in bronze, rather than lead or other, less substantial materials, shows that they were probably meant for re-use rather than some ephemeral purpose.

Bibliography

Keay, S, “The role played by the Portus Augusti in flows of commerce between Rome and it’s Mediterranean ports”, in Woytek, B, Infrastructure and Distribution in Ancient Economies; Proceedings of a conference held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, 28-31 October 2014; 2018, pp 147-74

Ladich, M, “Sono tessere e non frizioni di follaro” Cronaca Numismatica 190, November 2008, p 58

Stannard, C, “Shipping tesserae from Ostia and Minturnae?”, NC 2015, pp 147-54

Tetartemoria of Latmos, Cilicia

In 2005 Koray Konuk, the authority on Cilician coinage, identified a new location for the production of silver coin, Latmos.

Latmos is named after the mountain it resides under, the peaks known today as the Besparmak mountains. Indeed, the geographer Strabo (63BC - 24AD) actually calls the city Heraclea under Latmos, although that is apparently a relocation approximately 1km to the west of the original Latmos sometime after being conquered by Mausollos in the 4^th century BC. During the 5^th century BC it was part of the Delian League.

Konuk initially published a corpus of five coins, in three styles, all of the same basic design. On the obverse is the portrait of a kouros, a boy, right, or occasionally left. Sometimes the head is bearded, others not, but there is no real support to Konuk's assertion of a female head. The reverse is a stylised monogram of LAT with the T being over the twin peaks of the Greek letters of lambda and alpha. It has been suggested that this arrangement is to reflect the mountain(s) adjacent the city and the letter T is actually a denomination indicator.

The coins are tiny, all known specimens being tetartemoria, measuring around 6mm in diameter and weighing around 0.15 grammes.

Since acquiring my piece, a variant of Konuk’s issue B, I have tried to record all the specimens that come onto the market and that number is still a relatively small population of 15 coins of all styles. This number does include a number of new die identities.

Konuk's original classification of issues

Interpreting the design of the geometric quarters of the Durotriges

We are always encouraged to specialise in numismatic collection and study. That can, however, lead to a blinkered approach in interpretation, albeit unintentional.

Durotriges geometric quarter stater

I will cite one particular example, the silver quarter staters of the Durotriges known as the “geometric type” (Mack 319, Van Ardsell 1242/29, Spink 368). An earlier similar type of quarter stater is also known in gold.

The reverse is described as zigzag pattern in the Spink catalogue, whilst the obverse is a crescent design. The explanation of the obverse design has been elaborated on by some writers. In the orientation it appears in the Spink catalogue the spined crescent has been interpreted as a boar. Others have chosen to rotate the crescent 180 degrees for it to become a boat with occupants, an invocation of the sun maiden and her brothers, the heavenly twins (Nash-Briggs, D; “Reading the image on Iron-Age coins:1 the sun boat and its passengers”, Chris Rudd list 104, 2009).

Macedon, tetradrachm, Babylon mint

All these interpretations are, I believe, incorrect. I believe that the type derives from the Macedonian tetradrachm and drachms of Alexander the Great and his successors with Alexander in the scalp of the Nemean lion on the obverse and Zeus seated on the reverse. 

Himyarite tetradrachm

A series of imitations of the type, of somewhat crude design, are known from Himyarites in Arabia Felix in the 1st century BC. Rotating the Spink illustration of the Durotriges coin 45 degrees anticlockwise gives you the lion's scalp the other feature form the prominent facial features, forehead, ear and/or chin etc. Rotating the reverse zigzag and you get the impression of the seated Zeus, to the right or left, even though on the Macedonian prototype it is always to the left. 

Himyarite drachm

Given that the Macedonian Apollo stater of Philip II was copied and degenerated in its westward progression there can be little doubt that the Herakles tetradrachm and drachm was also copied westwards and that its progression should stop in the Balkans with the Danubian Celts.

Danubian Celts tetradrachm

The provenance of an aureus of Allectus in the BM

When the late Dr Mead’s collection came up for auction in 1755 it did not include the “Oriuna” denarius of Carausius,  that had previously been given to the King of France. What it did have, however, was an aureus of Allectus, lot 110 and reproduced on the plate. The engraving of the coin is true to life showing distinctive flan imperfections, such as the partial border on the left of the reverse.  With such detail it was possible to verify, using Burnett’s paper on the coinage of Allectus (BNJ 1984) that the coin now resides in the British Museum collection.

By using the online catalogue to the BM collection we can get the accession number,  1864,1128.179, and note that the coin was acquired from Edward Wigan by gift in 1864. The online citation notes Mead as the possible source but, from the Mead engraving, that is not in doubt. Is it possible to trace more of the coins history? The answer is a resounding yes.

My original copy of the Mead catalogue is hand annotated with all the buyers names and prices. Lot 110, the aureus, fetched £21/5 and was bought by Lord Charles Cavendish. Cavendish was the youngest son of the 2nd Duke of Devonshire and the father of the scientist Henry Cavendish. 

The collection,  including the Allectus, passed through the family until 1844 when William Cavendish, 6^th   Duke of Devonshire, sold the collection through Christies (lot 1239, £10/5). It may be at this time that Wigan purchased the coin.

The online BM record card for the Allectus contains another tantalising piece of information and that is that the Allectus was found at Silchester. This provenance is not in doubt to my mind as the details of the find are recorded in the personal notes of William Stukeley and mention that the ORIENS aureus ended up in the collection of Dr Mead. The entry reads as follows:

“22 December 1748. At the Royal Society. A long account of the old Roman city of Silchester, by Mr Ward, accompanied with a ground plot from an actual survey: and an intire (sic) flat Roman brick. The streets are very visible in the corn in the dry years, especially those two crossing each other from the four gates. He says there’s one place in the city called Silver Hill, remarkable for the many silver coyns (sic) found there, and some gold. One he gave to Dr Mead, of Allectus, finely preserved, reverse ORIENS AVG, exergue ML.”

A pomegranate privy mark on a coin of Side

In the early 1970s Konrad Kraft published a work on Roman civic coins that identified a number of cities that shared obverse dies. Although familiar with his ideas I have not had the opportunity to read this work. I am lucky enough though to have a modern continuation of his ideas, George Watson’s Connections, Communities and Coinage: The System of Coin Production in Southern Asia Minor, AD 218-276 (ANS, 2019).

Watson provides a detailed account of obverse mint styles, principally four, that suggest the centralised production of dies. He stays short of postulation centralised production and also recognising that the production of flans can be separate from the production of the dies.

He also suggests that the obverses were cut for specific cities and only as an “afterlife” were they used by other cities.

Salonina,  Side,  11 assaria (revalued to 5 assaria) Watson 1738

I am fortunate to have a coin struck from a very particular die from Side in Pamphylia that he cites in support of this (I won’t rehearse all the arguments here) . Its an 11 assaria piece of Salonina (countermarked on the obverse over the IA denomination mark with an E to revalue as a 5 assaria piece) that, although showing the stylistic traits of the central cutting style of Workshop A, shows a feature that can only associate it with Side. Above the bust of Salonina is a pomegranate, the badge of Side. This die, V135 in the catalogue, although coming from the central die source could only find a sensible use at Side.

Pomegranate detail from obverse