The pre-imperial coinage of Roman Antioch / [E.T. Newell]

8/9/2019 The pre-imperial coinage of Roman Antioch / [E.T. Newell]

1/51

/ ;-=09 )(8* =-0/ ]

This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:10:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


2/51


3/51

VI.

THE PRE-IMPERIAL COINAGE OFROMANANTIOCH.

[SeePlates VI, VIL]

From among the many tetradrachms which bearthe name and types of the Seleucid king PhilipPhiladelphusone series stands outprominently ecauseof the distinctiveness of its fabric and style, and

becauseit alwaysdisplaysthe characteristicmonogramand certain interesting alphabetical numbers.Thesevery individual characteristicsplace the tetra-drachmswhich we propose to discuss in a categoryby themselves. They evidently form a continued andcompact series entirely separate from the regularissues of the Seleucid king. Moreover,the portraitthey bear is commononly to themselves,and utterlyat variance with the features of Philip as we havecometo knowthem on the coins which werecertainlystruck during his reign (comparePl. VI. a with theother tetradrachms n this plate).

Particularly curious is the technique displayed byour tetradrachms. The relief is exceptionally low,the workmanship mediocre and uninteresting, thedetails repeated in stereotyped fashion throughoutthe series. The drapery of Zeus,the Nike which he

holds,the figure of the god himself, re all executedNUMISM.HRON.,OL.IX,ERIESV. Q.



4/51

70 E. T. NEWELL.

in a flat, tiff, nd unchangingmanner. The individualletters of the inscription are clumsilyfashioned,whilethe heavy guiding lines, which were first engravedon the die to ensure a uniformheight to these letters,are left plainly visible. The letters themselves weremadeby drilling large dots at the salient points and

later filling n the requiredstrokes. As aconsequence,the inscriptions are wellnigh illegible, doubly sobecausein this series the flans or blanks used weregenerallysmallerthan the dies themselves. Thewholeeffect s one ofuncouthness, lumsiness, ack ofartisticingenuity and skill, and a general air of uniformdegeneracy that definitely distinguishes our coinsfrom the remainder of Philip's issues although thelatter, in all conscience,can lay small claim to anyartistic excellence. It is as if the die-cutters had allbeen given one modelto follow,and had, indeed,beeneminently successfulin accomplishingthis feat,witha resultant ossof originality and artistic feelingonlyequalled on the late tetradrachms of the Ptolemaickings.

In a recent monograph1the present writer callsattention to the curious series now under discussion,

because close inspection reveals the interesting factthat it could not possiblyhave been issued by theking whose nameand titles it ostensiblybears. Themonograph in question,placesbefore us a long andcompactseries of coinsundoubtedly ssued at Antiochby the Seleucid kings from Seleucus II to the captureof the city by Tigranes of Armenia. The numerouscoins actually struck by Philip Philadelphus during

1"TheSeleucid

Mint fAntioch,Amer.ourn.

fNum.,ol.

i,1917.



5/51

PEE-IMPERIAL COINAGEOFROMANANTIOCH.71

his six-year reign at Antioch2 are there broughttogether, nd bear clear evidenceof having completelycoveredthe entire period of his rule in the Syrianmetropolis. These coins are indeed the direct suc-cessorsof the Antiocheneissuesof AntiochusVIII andIX, SeleucusVI, AntiochusX and XI, DemetriusIII,and are, furthermore, he direct predecessorsof theAntiochene issues of Tigranes. A continuous andclosely joined sequence of style, magistrates, andmint-marks definitely proves the correctness of thisassertion. Now into such a continuousand compactsequenceof issues ourparticularseries oftetradrachms,with their odd style, ndividual monogram, nd alpha-betical numbers,will in no wise fit. In other words,the A" series, because of great divergence of styleand monogram, nd becauseof many reasonsyet to beenumerated, cannot possiblybe assigned to Antiochduring the years of Philip's reign in that city. Onthe other hand, we are placed in an embarrassingdilemma becauseit is equally certain that this veryseries must undoubtedly have once been struck inAntioch, and not in some provincial mint. Thecharacteristic monogram appears throughout on

all the membersof the series. This same monogram(the forms■ft and are bothused) invariablyoccursin the reverse field of the later tetradrachms struckat Antiochby Augustus between the years 6 b.c. anda.D.11 (B.M.Cat, Nos. 131, 132, 137, 140, 144,146,149). It also occurs on a municipal bronze coin ofAntiochof the sameperiod(B.M.Cat,No.68,PL xix.6).

2AccordingoBevan,heHousef Seleucusvol.i,pp.260-1,Demetrius

II heldAntioch ntil hortlyefore8B. . ThereforePhilip's inal ulen that ity asted rom9/8 o83b.c.

G 2



6/51

72 E. T. NEWELL.

The monogram howeverwemaytransliterate t. eitheras AYTONO... 3or ANTIOX. . ., or both) is evidentlycharacteristic of the Antiochene mint, and as suchappears on the coins of no other city. Additionalevidence of the Antiochene origin of our coins isfurnishedby the monogram& beneath the throne on

the reverse. Thismonogramappearsagain and againon Seleucid coins from Grypus to Philip which mustbe assignedto Antioch, s isbroughtout n the writer'srecent monograph. Our curious tetradrachms ndeedseem to present an enigma. On the one hand, theportrait they bear is unlike any in the entire Seleucidseries on the other hand, the name and titles areexactly those of Philip Philadelphus,and yet, becausethese coins were evidently struck in Antioch, theycannot be attributed to that ruler, since they willnot fit in with the coins we know he actually didstrike in that city. To cut this Gordianknot we mustevidently accept the only obvious solution, namely,that the AT seriesof Philip, having undoubtedlybeenstruck at Antioch, were nevertheless struck thereat a later date than the reign of the monarchwhosenameand titles they seemto bear. Nowthat we have

progressed thus far our eyes will readily recognizewhat has heretofore been somewhat puzzling. Thecurious and stereotyped technique displayed by ourtetradrachms s simply due to the fact that they arenothing more or less than late and degenerate copiesof the true Antiochene issuesof Philip.

Fortunately for us these results may be arrivedat in another and more definite way. Insufficient

3See secondote, .

166of heB.M.Cat.,GalatiaCappctdocia,andSyria



7/51

PRE-IMPERIALCOINAGEOF ROMANANTIOCH.73

consideration seems to have beenpaid by numismatiststo the interesting and highly important numericalletters found in the exergues of all the M series.At present the known numbersare : 1",A, H,Bl, ©I,K,AK,BK,KA, SK,XK,HK,0K- whichundoubtedlyforma numericalseriesrunning from three to twenty-nine.

Theycan evidently be only one of two things eitherserial numbers to designateconsecutiveissues of thetetradrachms, or dates. If the former, we can only,logically, conceive of the series having once beencompletefrom A to ©K. But to the present, n spiteof the commonnessof the coinsin question,and insteadof a nearly complete series suchas weought certainlyby this time to have had, only thirteen of the twenty-nine numbers are known to us. This point may bemade moreapparent by noting that ofthe first ineteennumbersthe impossiblysmall proportion of only fiveappears to be in existence. The fact, therefore, hatof certain of the numberswe possessmany examples,but that of more than half not a single specimenhascomedown tous,Sufficiently isposesof the suggestionthat they might be serial numbers to designate con-secutiveissuesof tetradrachms. They must, therefore,

be dates. This beingthe case,they must,again,eitherrepresent the regnal years of the king who struckthese particular coins, or years reckoned accordingto somelocal era. Nowat once it is plain that theycannot possibly be regnal years. The coins all bearthe name of Philip, and Philip reigned but six yearsat Antioch. Not only can our coins not have beenstruck by Philip, but neither can they have beenissuedby his successorTigranes. The Armenianking,as Dr. Macdonald has shown (Num. Chron., 1902,



8/51

74 E. T. NEWELL.

pp. 193ff.), truck arge numbers of coins at Antioch,all bearing his own types. These amply cover thefourteenoddyears of his reign in that city, and leaveno room, either stylistically or by the actual datessome of them bear, for the insertion of our A- series.It would,moreover,be most difficult o believe that

such a powerful and proud monarch as the greatTigranes would strike coins bearing the name, titles,and types of his Seleucid predecessor,whom he hadso ignominiouslyousted from his realm. No, it iscertain that Tigranes, immediately upon enteringinto possessionof Antioch, commenced the coinageof tetradrachms bearing his own name and types.After the victorieswon by Lucullus in Asia and thesubsequent evacuation of Antioch by Tigranes, thelatter's successor,Antiochus III, issued a series oftetradrachms which apparently cover his short reignof four years ("The Seleucid Mint of Antioch",loc cit , pp. 125ff.). With these coins the possibleuse of dates according to regnal years ceases. Theonly alternative that now remains must thereforebe accepted,and the dates f" o ©Kmust admittedlycorrespond to the years of some era yet to be

determined.We have thus arrived at a point where it can beconfidently tated that our series of Philip coins cannothave been struck before 64 b.c., and that the datesthey bear cannot be regnal but should be referred osome local era. Now it is equally evident that ourseries cannot be placed after 7/6 b.c., for with thatyear there suddenly developsa continuous nd feverishactivity in the Antiochenemint. From this time on

we possessa prolific and practically unbroken series



9/51


of imperialtetradrachms n silverand smalldenomina-tions in bronze, together with large senatorial andmunicipal issues also in bronze, into whose serriedranks it would be impossible even to suggest theinsertion of the tetradrachms. From this it isclear that these coins can neither be royal Syrian nor

Roman imperial issues. They must, therefore, fallbetweenhese two categories,or between64and 7 b.c.This at once simplifiesour search for the true erato which the dates T to ©Kmust apply.

Of the five eras which we know were in vogue atone time or another during the course of the firstcentury before Christ at Antioch, only one perfectlyfits the dates as they are found on the series.Before discussingthis particular era, however, et usreviewthe evident reasonsthat force us to reject theremaining four. The first and undoubtedlythe mostcommon ystemofreckoning imeemployedat Antiochdown to the arrival of the Romanswas the Seleucid,taking its inception with the autumn of 312 b.c.For our purposesthis era is at once ruled out, becausethe numbers on our coins run only from three fcotwenty-nine. Nofurther notice of it wouldhave been

taken were it not for the fact that it has beensuggested4that these are really Seleucid dates, butthat the century cipher (in this case Z) has beenomitted. This customof leavingout the higher figuresin dates,while commonto Mohammedan, mediaeval,and early modern coinages,has never, so far as thewriter is aware, been employedfor Greek coinages.Even if this suggestionwereplausible,the fact remains

4Leake,

Numismataellenicafirstart Kings, c.),p.

87,first ote.



10/51

76 E. T. NEWELL.

that T(Z), A(ï), H(Z),and BI(Z) would fall betweenthe years 109and 100b.c. In other words,the coinsstruck in the name of Philip, and bearing thesesupposed dates, would have then appeared not onlybefore the death of AntiochusGrypus, but (absurdlyenough) previousto the accessionof Philip himself

Sestini has evengoneso far as to publish coins of ourvariety with the evidentlyfictitiousdates AKZ,ZKX,and 0KZ (Sestini,Descr. Num.Vet.,p. 502,Nos.1, 2,and 3, and later given by Mionnetin his Supplement,Nos.385, 386,387). No specimensof these pieceshavesince turned up, and experience has taught numis-matists that unusual readings in Sestini are alwaysopen to grave suspicions. As we have seen, any eraapplied to our dates V to ©K that would bring theissueof these coins before the flight of Tigranes fromAntioch, and the subsequent reorganization,of theprovincebyPompeyin 64b.c.,need not be considered.This observationalso rules out the Aspendian systemof reckoning. This era, based on the year 111 b.c.when Antiochus Grypus returned from his flight toAspendus,seems for a while to have been in use forpublic documents,5 nd is also found employed on

certain issuesof Tigranes. Not only would the lowfigures on the c°ins place the striking of someof these piecesbefore the accessionof the king whosename they bear, but the highest date (29)would fallin 82 b.c., or one year after the depositionof Philip,and some eighteen years before the earliest possibledate (64b.c.)which we have established for the firstappearanceof our coins. In 64b.c.,on the reorganiza-

5Wilcken,ermesxxix, p.436ff.



11/51


tion of the Syrian provinceand its incorporation ntothe Roman dominions by Pompey, a new era, thePompeián, was inaugurated and for a time used.At Antioch, however, it lasted but sixteen years, asshortly after the battle of Pharsalus, the Caesarian,of which more later, was adoptedin its stead. As the

dates on our coins run to twenty-nine hey evidentlycannot be based on the Pompeian era. Likewise,wecannot refer these dates to the Actian era, because,with dates running to twenty-nine as they do, ourcoins would interfere with the large issues of silvertetradrachms nauguratedby Augustusin the twenty-fourth year of that era.

The fifth nd, next to the Seleucid,the most im-portant system of reckoning time at Antiochwas theCaesarian. This was based on the great battle ofPharsaluswhichtookplace in 48 b.c., though the firstyear was counted from the preceding autumn of49b.c. This era not only was used for dating thebronzemunicipal coinage of Antioch from the timeof Caesarthrough that of Antoninus Pius (.B M.Cat.,Nos. 122-5), but was continued on inscriptions,edicts, &c., down to Byzantine times. Is it, then,

possibleto apply to this era the dates found on ourcuriousseriesof tetradrachms? We now have no lessthan forty dd yearsat our disposal,because the firstuse of the Actian era on Antiochene coins occurredin 7b.c.,when the governorof Syria,QuinctiliusVarus,causedto be struck a series of bronze coins for localpurposes. These bearhis name and the numerals EK,

6Thisdoesnot take nto account certain etradrachmf

Augustus,hich eemsohave been truck n the twelfth earoftheActianraor20/19 .c.,seep.110.



12/51

78 E. T. NEWELL.

evidently of the Actian era or 7/6 b.c. Secondly,we have a large and prolific ssue of municipalbronzecoins,first ppearing in the autumn of 47 b.c.,bearingthe undoubtedCaesariandates I",A, H, 0, Al, BI,01,K,AK,EK,ZK. The first hing that will impress theobserveris the striking identity between this series

of dates and the series as found upon the tetra-drachms. In view of what has gone before, his mustbe lookedupon as somethingrather morethan a merecoincidence. "We must therefore recognize in ourcurioustetradrachmsofpure Seleucidtype,but of lateand degeneratestyle,a municipalreissueof the Philiptetradrachm, but now bearing the monogramof thecity and, in the exergue, dates reckoned accordingto the Caesarianera.

Perhaps some numismatists of the old school,atthe mere suggestionof such an unorthodoxtreatmentof coins bearing the supposedportrait and certainlythe name and titles of the Seleucid king PhilipPhiladelphus, will still feel reluctant to accept thenew attribution here proposed. How is it possibleor even probable that Antioch, after becoming thecapital of a Roman provinceand the residence of its

governor,wouldbe allowed tostrike a series of silvercoinsbearing the types and name of a Seleucidprincelong dead? For their benefit let us recapitulate.We start out with the followingdefinite conclusionsdrawn directly from the coins themselves: (1) thatthe series of Philip's coins forms a category byitself, 2) that their degenerate style shows them tohave been struck ater than the true Antiocheneissuesof that prince, (3) that our particular coins, because

of their characteristic monogram,"were struck in



13/51


Antioch, 4)that for stylistic reasons,for ack of space,and becauseof the dates they bear, they cannothavebeen struck before 64 b.c. or after 7 b.c., and (5) thatthese dates must be based on some local era, butthat this era could not have been the Seleucid,theAspendian,the Pompeian,or the Actian. The onlypossibleroom remaining for our tetradrachms n thecloselyfollowingand compact ranks of silver issues,struck in Antioch from the reign of Seleucus II tothe last daysof TrebonianusGallus,is the period from64to 7 b.c. It would,indeed,bea curiousphenomenonif, for the duration of this interval of nearly sixtyyears, in the great and populous city of Antioch,secondonly to Alexandria in importance and wealth,the metropolis and capital of Syria, no silver tetra-drachms shouldhave been struck.7 On applying thedates T-0K found on our tetradrachms to the onlyremaining era known to have been used, namelythe Caesarian,we find that these dates fall absolutelywithin the period of time at our disposal.

Ourorthodoxnumismatist, n spite of the seeminglyconclusive evidencethat has thus far piled up infavour of the, to him, somewhat surprising date

assigned to the ÀT tetradrachms, may still hesitateand be inclined to deny all on the only ground nowleft for him. How,he will ask, is it conceivablethatthe people of Antioch, citizens of an "autonomous"," inviolate", and "sacrosanct" city, under Roman

7Aside romertainssuesfRomanenarii, hichmay rmaynothavebeen truckt Antioch,t ispossiblehatMarkAntony,at thecommencementf hisParthianampaign,aused hewell-knownetradrachmsearing

isandCleopatra'sortraits

ohavebeenssued romhismint, ut venhere uthoritiesiffer.



14/51

80 E. T. NEWELL.

protection, houldchoose for the types of their silvercoinagethe "portrait and the inscriptionsof a long-dead king of a vanished dynasty? Furthermore,is it conceivablethat the Roman government wouldpermit the city of Antioch, in fact if not in namean integral portion of their empire, to strike silver

coins with the portrait, the titles, and the types ofoneof its formerkings? To answer these interestingand perfectly ustifiable questions we must stop fora moment oconsiderthe probable monetary onditionsin Syria during the first entury b.c. Philip, the lastof the Seleucid kings ruling in Antioch, must havestruck an enormous quantity of coin, because overtwenty-four arietieshave been describedn the writer'srecent monograph on this mint. Indeed, to-dayPhilip's tetradrachms easily remain the commonestof those of any of the Seleucid princes. It is alsonoticeable that these particular tetradrachms showa falling off n weight and certainly in the purityof their metal. Although there are no recordsat thewriter's disposal,experienceseems to show thatPhilip'stetradrachms seldom occur in hoards extensivelymingled with those of his predecessors. In other

words, his coinage,being lighter and of baser metal,soon drove out of circulation, according to a well-knownlaw, the better coins of preceding rulers. Thesucceedingissues of the Armenian Tigranes appearto be of similarweight and metal to Philip's. There-fore, at about the time when Pompey reorganizedthe provinceof Syria, by far the greater bulk of thecirculatingsilver moneyin Syria must have consistedof Philip's tetradrachms. These conditions asted untilCaesararrived in Syria and, in his turn, reorganized



15/51

PRE-IMPERIALCOINAGEOFROMANANTIOCH.81

the province. But by now the circulating mediummust have been in a deplorablestate, and in greatneed ofreplenishment. We know that Caesarhimselfdid not issueany of his owncoin in this portion of theworld. It is therefore probablethat now,when a newcoinagewas the crying need to replacethe old pieceswornby anything from wentyto forty years constantcirculation,the types best known and mostacceptableto the people were chosen. For it would,perhaps,be hardly meet for the Antiochene mint authoritiesto strike silver money of purely autonomoustypes,seeing that their city, though by solemn decree freeand inviolate, was, nevertheless, the capital of aRoman province, the governor's residence, and theseat of his

power.What objection,on the other hand,

couldthere possiblyhave beenagainst issuingcoinsincloseimitation of those at this time most extensivelyin actual circulation,and known to all neighbouringpeoplesby forty years of constant use? Thus wouldtheir own commercialinterests be best served, and,at the sametime, no offence iven to the ruling power.However,n placeof the magistrate'smonogramfoundon the old royal issue there was now substituted the

monogramA*. thus designating in a fairly clear anddefinite manner that Antioch the Autonomouswasthe issuing authority for these new-old coins. Thisvery same monogramappears again a little later asa badge of authority, not only on purely municipalbronzecoinsof localtype (B.M.Cat.,No. 68),but alsoon the silver tetradrachms truck under joint imperialand municipal authority in the reign of Augustus.To the writer it would seem sufficiently lear thatreasons of trade and commerce really dictated the



16/51

82 E. T. NEWELL.

types chosen in the autumn of 47 b.c. for the silvercoinageabout to be struck at Antioch, a city which,next to Alexandria,wasthe greatest commercialcentreof the eastern Mediterranean. As regardsthe Romanpolicy in thus countenancing a reissue of Seleucidtetradrachms, the words of Dr. Head apply with

redoubledforce for Antioch and the Syrian province.Onp.155 of his monograph, TheCoinageof Ephesus"

(Num,Chron^New Series,vol.xx, 1879),in speakingof the continuation of the cistophoriccoinage underthe Romans, he says: "In this reorganization thepolicy of the Romans was to conciliate the urbancommunitiesas being no less the centres of westerncivilization and commercethan bulwarks against theflood of Oriental barbarism/' How wellthis wouldapply to Antioch, as the champion of Hellenism thefarthest ast, the centre of commerce n these regions,and the principal bulwark against the ever-presentthreat of Parthian invasion Ourtetradrachmsweretherefore truck under the same policy, by virtue ofthe same conditions, nd for the same reasons as thelarge coinage of cistophori at Ephesus. The latterwerebut another type of royal coin,and if not actually

bearing a royal portrait and a royal name (as ourtetradrachms do), were, nevertheless,obviously partand parcelof the previousroyalPergamene régime. Inspite of this their coinagewas continued,with littlelet or hindrance, under direct Roman rule, from133b.c.- the date of the constitution of the provinceof Asia- down to imperial times. Similarly, andthroughout he sameperiod as our posthumousPhilipcoins, other cities, free and autonomous,but, likeAntioch, integral portions of the Roman empire,



17/51

PKE-IMPEKIALCOINAGEOFKOMANANTIOCH.83

continued n seemingly perfect freedomto issue largequantities of silver money bearing purely local typesand showingno signs of Romansuzerainty. The mostimportant of these were cities like Athens,whocoinedher Athene tetradrachms ownto the reign ofAugustus(Head,p. 386,ClassIV (ß), circa 86b.c. to Augustus),Tyre,who coinedher Heraklesand eagletetradrachmsand didrachmsaslate asA.D.69/70 B.M.Cat,No.245),and Aradus,who coinedher Tyche tetradrachmsdownto 46/45 b.c. (B.M.Cat, No. 291). We thus possessseveral clear-cut exampleswith which to meet anypossibleobjectionsthat might be raised against thenew assignment on the somewhatsuperficialgroundthat the Romans would never have countenancedthe reissue of a silver coin, bearing royal types, inthe city of Antioch, the capital of their provinceof Syria and the actual residence of the Romangovernor. There were,indeed,additional reasons thatpermitted the Roman government not only to coun-tenance, but perhaps even to approve, the choice ofcertain well-knownroyal Seleucidtypes for the newcoinage of the Syrian city. In the first place, thelast important claimants to the throne of Seleucus,

Philip II and another prince nicknamedKybiosaktesby the Alexandrians,seem to have both disappearedor died about58/56b.c.,and with them the direct lineevidently became extinct for all practical purposes.8The fact that Antioch was striking coins in the nameand with the types of a Seleucidprincewouldthereforebe of as little importance politicallyas if Austria wereto continue the issue of her Maria Theresa thalers

8Bevan,oc. it., ol. i,p.268.



18/51

84 E. T. NEWELL.

for the African trade after the extinction of the Houseof Hapsburg. As we have considerable reason tobelievethat tetradrachms f the actual time of PhilipPhiladelphus were still current in Syria in the timeof Julius Caesar, therefore the addition of new onesof the samegeneraltype would beof slight mportance.

Finally, it may have been quite acceptable to theRomangovernment hatthe coinageofthesepoliticallybut not commerciallyobsolete coinsshould continue,rather than that the citizens ofAntiochshouldchoosetypes of greater local significancefor their proposedsilvercoinage. This wouldhave been a muchgreaterevidenceof and claim to an absoluteautonomywhichAntiochreally possessedin name but not in fact.

Before proceeding to the detailed descriptionanddiscussionof the Antiochene coinage of this periodas a whole, it may be well to call the reader'sattention to one more and undoubtedly determiningpieceof evidence in favour of the new date assignedto our particular variety of the Philip tetradrachms.One should comparethe reverses of these coinswiththe reverse of the first etradrachm truckbyAugustusat Antioch n 20 b.c.(Num.Chron,vol.xii, 1912,PI.vii,

No. 12. See our PI. VII. b). A glance will sufficeto showthe absolute identity n style and details oftype between the two series.9 The head of Zeus,hisdrapery,his throne, he figure of Nike, the techniqueof the inscriptions, re all extraordinarily like. Onecould almost suppose that one artist had cut therespective dies. As the Augustan coin appeared in

9Thecoin s dated B= twelfth earof theActianra,

orbetweeneptemberf 0 andSeptemberf19b.c.



19/51

PRB-IMPERIALCOINAGEOF ROMANANTIOCH.85

20 b.c. it is inconceivablethat the mint authoritiesof that year should go back over sixty years inchoosinga modelfor their coin,for surelyfew, f any,,of Philip's owncoins couldstill be in general circula-tion at so late a date as this. Now it will no doubt beadmitted by all that it was really the to series of

tetradrachms that had been used as a model for theAugustan issue; their similarity in style, technique,and type is far too close to supposeotherwise. Ifthese coins had really been struck in the time ofPhilip there would be still less reasonwhy they shouldhave been chosen as a model instead of the betterstyle coins of that king. The ^1" tetradrachmsweretaken as a model for the Augustuscoin because,as wehave already deducedfor other reasons,they were ofvery recent issue and therefore till in generalcircula-tion. The new assignmentof these interesting piecesnowbridges the gulf betweenthe real issues of Philipand those of the Roman emperor, and so does,awaywith the otherwise astonishing lacuna in the longseries of Antiochene silvercoinagesthat appeared toexist betweenthe respectivereigns of Tigranesand ofAugustus.

NUMISM.HKON.,OL.IX,KEIESV.



20/51

86 E, T. NEWELL.

PERIOD I.Issuesof the years47 to 45 b.c.

Denominations.a. Tetradrachm.

Diademed andyouthful BAZIAEÍ1Z| 4>IAITTTTOY|headofking or. Fillet onr. ETTI^ANOYZ| 4>l-border. AAAEAOYon 1. Zeus

enthronedoi.,hold wreath-bearing ike noutstretchedright and sceptrein left.Thunderboltbove.Beneaththrone,A.10The whole n-circled y aurelwreath.

b. Bronze(large ize,22to 25mm.,grammes 0to 14).Laureatehead of Zeus ANTIOXEÍ1NTHZ | MH-

to r. Both filleted nd TPOTTOAEÍ1Z| onr.IE-

dotted orders ccur. PAZ KAI AZYAOYļKAIAYTONOMOYoni. ZeusNikephoros,s onthe tetra-drachms,eated o 1. Thun-derboltabove. Thewholeencircledy aurelwreath.

c. Bronze middleize,circa18mm.,grammes to 7).Head ofZeus asonpre- ANTIOXEÍÍNJTHZ| MH-ceding. Circleofdots. TPOTTOAEÍ11E.Tyche,

standingto 1., holds tillerin right ndcornucopiaenleft.

10n publishing variety f this coinin the Num.Chron,4thSeries,ol.xii,p.262,Rev. dgarRogersiveshemonogramas¿s». Themonogrameallys^ asthe upposedisformedbythe ornerfZeus'shimationangingownndtouchinghemonogram. ike lsoholds wreath,susual,but the clumsycutting f hedie has the ffect fmakinghe owerhalf f thewreathndulyarge,ndof ausinghe pper alf o belost ntheencirclingaurelwreath thus roducinghe effect escribedyDr.Rogerssa(>ribbonedalm



21/51


d Bronzeßmall ize,circa18(?)mm.,weight ).Head ofArtemisto r., ANTIOXEÍ1NJTHZ ļMH-bow and quiver at TPOTTOAEÍ1Z. Apollo,shoulder. naked,tanding oi., eft rm

resting on column,holdsarrow n right.

BeforeOct.1st,47b.c.1. Tetradrachm a). In 1.field,ÄB.

Paris,No. 1549 1.xxvii.15),grammes 5-40;Glasgow(Hunterian oll.),No.4, grammes5-98,Pl. VI. 1; London,No.5, grammes15-75 Hirsch, RhousopoulosSale,May1905,No.4478,grammes 5-91.

Dated V= Oct.1st, 7 Sept.30th,46b.c.2. Tetradrachm a). In 1.field,Xj'In

exergue,.

RegioMuseo diTorino,No.4836,grammes 5-02.3. Bronze6). Filletborder. In 1.field, ar of corn.In exergue, .

NewellColl.(countermarked,eadof Apollo),grammes13-80.4. Bronze6).Dotted order. In 1.field, sis head-dress.

Beneath hrone,A.In exergue, .

NewellColl.,grammes 0*15,LVI. 2 ; London,No.26(Pl.xviii.11)andNo.27(countermarked,ead ofApollo).5. Bronze6).Dottedborder. In 1. field, alm-branch.In exergue,".

GlasgowHunterianColl.),No.26,grammes 1-92 andNo.27,grammes -91.6. Bronzec). In exergue,T.

Mionnet,No.40; Vienna(Eckhel,vol. 3, p. 271). Aspecimenin the writer's collection, s well as one inLondonNo.40),probably elongs here,but

unfortunatelythedate s off he fian. H 2



22/51

88 E. T. NEWELL.

7. Bronzed). In exergue, .Mionnet,No.41. Thewriterhas not seen a specimen

of hisvariety, utwouldsuggestts nsertion ere, rovidedMionneťsdescriptione correct.

DatedA = Oct.1st,46 Sept.30th,45b.c'8. Tetradrachm a). In 1.field, ££.

In exergue,A.NewellColl.,grammes 5-15, l. VI. 3; GlasgowHun-terianColl.),No.13,grammes 4-25 Rev.E.RogersNum.Chron., th Ser.,vol.xii,PI.xi. 7),grammes4-97 Hirsch,Rhousopoulosale, May1905,No.4479,grammes 5-38;London,No.8, grammes 4-47.9. Bronze b). In 1.field, sis head-dress.In exergue,A.

NewellColl.,grammes 2-35 another countermarked,HeadofApollo),grammes1-17 GlasgowHunterian oll.),No.28,grammes11-08;

anothercountermarked,

ead ofApollo),No. 29, grammes9-85 Yale UniversityColl.,grammes 3-44.10.Bronzec). In exergue,A.

NewellColl.,grammes -79.

On the 5th of the Ides of Sextilis,48b.c.,wasfoughtthe decisive and, for Pompey, disastrous battle ofPharsalia. Accompaniedby the most devoted of his

followers,ompeyfledhurriedly astwards, nd eluding,by the narrowest of margins, the pursuing ships, hefinally eachedEgypt only to be taken prisoner,killed,and his head deliveredto Caesaron the latter s arrival.The months hat followedfoundCaesarthoroughly n-volvedin Egyptian affairs and even actuallybesiegedin the royal palaceat Alexandria. It was not until theearly summerof 47 b. o. that conditions became settledenoughfor him to depart for Asia Minor. He stoppedover a fewdays in Antioch (Caesar,Bell.Alex., lxvi),



23/51

PRE-IMPERIALCOINAGE OFROMANANTIOCH. 89

whichwere spent n the reorganizationof the province.John Malaias,the Byzantine monk and antiquary ofhis native Antioch,states that on the 20thArtemision,or about May20th,of that year the city was given itsfreedom by Julius Caesar in a solemndecree whoseopeningwords ran as follows 'Ev 'AvrioyjiiafjprjTpo-7t6'€LUpa Kai a


24/51

90 E. T. NEWELL.

The seconddenominationlias for its obverse typea similar Zeushead, while the reverse is held by thestanding Tyche of Antioch. She is depicted holdingin her left arm the cornucopiae symbolicnot onlyof the fertility of Syria, but also of the city's ownprosperity due to the wealth of Asia which now

passedthrough her markets andin her right hand thetiller symbolic of Antioch's water-borne commercewhich dispensedthis wealth to all the markets of theworld.

The third and smallestdenominationgivesuè repre-sentations of the other great patron divinities ofAntioch Apollo,whosefamousshrine layjust outsidethe walls in the grove of Daphne, and Artemis hissister. Because of lack of room the inscription onboth the smaller denominations (c and d) is abbre-viated to the first three words of the inscription ondenomination 6. In the exergues of all three de-nominations is found the date T, which is year 3of the Caesarian or so-called Antiocheneera, thatis between Oct.1st of 47 b.c. and Sept. 30th of 46 b.c.In the followingyear coinsof the two largest denomi-nations were again struck,bearing the same types and

inscriptions but having A or year 4 of the aboveerain their exergues.Running parallelwith this bronzecoinagewe find

alsowhat we have seenmust be a reissueof the silvertetradrachms f the Seleucidking Philip Philadelphus.We possessspecimensbearing the two dates T and Aas on the bronze issues and therefore to be datedbetween the first day of October,47 b.c.,and the lastday of September, 45 b.c. These interesting pieceshave been discussed atsufficient ength in the intro-duction.



25/51


Closelysimilar to the two tetradrachmsdated T andA is another [Pl. VI. l] which,however,bears no datein the exergueand instead of the monogramfa has themonogramÄand,alongsideof t, the letter B. Becauseof its close similarity this tetradrachm cannot well beseparatedfrom Nos.2 and 8. It is probable,therefore,

that it served to introducethe series in question. Themonogramand letter may be best explained as beingcomposedof the letters AY for AYtopo/iovnd B,thewhole an abbreviation, perhaps, for the expression"year 2 of autonomy"- or some,such formula. Inother words, this variety was issued in the secondCaesarianyear between the arrival of Julius Caesarin Antiochand Oct.1st of 47 b.c. when the third yearcommenced. In the immediately succeedingissuethefuller monogramÄT is given and the date numeral isrelegatedto the exergue.

In lookingat these tetradrachms loselywe becomeaware of an additional piece of evidencepointing totheir late date. One of the commonestmonograms,appearing usuallybeneath the throne, on the Antio-chene issues of the later Seleucid kings is Thedie-cutter of the present series reproduces this

monogram from his modela true coin of

PhilipPhiladelphus- without, perhaps, quite understandingit. For, instead of placing it squarely between thethrone egs as onhis model,he has made it too largeand has placed it too far to the left, thus completelycrowdingout the left-hand hrone leg, and sometimeseventhe drawn-backright foot of Zeus. In this waythe monogram,though faithfully ntroduced into thelater copy, is made to do duty for three things at

once: a monogram,a throne leg, and a god's foot



26/51

D2 E. T. NEWELL.

This curious misapprehensionon the part of the die-cutter of No.1 is repeated on all the tetradrachms ofthe series and serves to show in what a stereotypedfashionthey wereproduced. Such aproceedingwouldbe quite inexplicableif the coins really belonged tothe reign of the king whosenames and types theybear. Onlylate copyists, abouringunder a misappre-hension, would be capable not only of committingsuch a blunder but of blindly reproducing it on allsucceedingissues.

PERIODII.Issues ofthe years42 to 89 b.c.

A.Denominations.a. Tetradrachm.

Exactlysimilarto pre- Exactlysimilar o precedingcedingssue. issue.In 1.field, .

Beneaththrone, -b. Bronze(largest ize,25 to 29mm.,grammes irca14-80to 16).

Laureatehead of Zeus ANTIOXEÍ1N|THZ MH-to r. Circleofdots. TPO I-TTOAEÍ2ZKAI 1AYTÒNOMOY. ZeusNikephorosnthroned o 1.Thunderbolt bove. In 1.field, |£. The wholeen-circledby laurelwreath.

DatedH = Oct.1st,42 Sept.80th,41 b.c.11. Tetradrachm a). In exergue,H.

NewellColl., grammes15-45,

Pl. VI.4;* another,grammes 5-41.



27/51

PRE-IMPERIALCOINAGE OF ROMANANTIOCH.93

12.Bronze6). In exergue,H.London,No.29, No.30, Pl. VI. 5; No.31; Glasgow

(HunterianColl.),No. 30, grammes15-10; NewellColl.,grammes 4*98 another, rammes15-72 YaleUniversityColl.,grammes 602; C.S. Bernent oll.,grammes 4-36.

The assassination ofJulius Caesar occurredon theIdes of March,44 b.c. By the early summer of 42 b.c.Brutus,Cassius,and their friendswere forcedto retireeastwardsbefore the growing powerof Octavian andAntony. Cassiuswent directlyto Syria,as Dio Cassiuscarefully nforms s,because it excelled asa strageticalpositionand in point of moneyand troops'andfurther-more 'because its people were acquainted with himand friendly s a result of his campaignwith Crassus .Cassius succeeded in

completely winningover the

peopleand the legionsstationedthere, nd, on sendinga dispatch to the Senate concerning the situation inSyria,was confirmedby them in the governorshipofthat province. Towardsthe end of the summerhe leftwith the reorganized army to rejoin Brutus in AsiaMinor. His lieutenant, Q. Labienus, was sent on amission to Orodes,the Parthian king, to secure hisaid against the coalition. Before Labienushad quitesucceededin this quest the news of Philippi (Oct.42 B.c.) and the deaths of both Brutus and Cassiusreached him. For the moment, therefore, he bidedhis time. Antony, n the meanwhile,crossedover toAsia Minorto settle the affairs of the East. In duecoursehe arrived in Syria,where he appointed Saxato the governorship, nd thence proceededto Egypt(summerof 41 b.c).

It is to the winter following Philippi and thesummer of 41 b.c., the period of the reorganization



28/51

94 E. T. NEWELL.

under Antony, that we must assign tlie next issue ofcoin at the mint of Antioch. The last issue we haveseen had come to an end by Sept. 30th of 45 b.c.Between that time and Oct. 1st of 42,at the earliest,we have no evidence of any municipal coins havingbeen struck in the Syrian metropolis.12Now a new

issue, consisting of the silver tetrad achm as beforeand a large denomination (larger, in fact, than thepreviouslarge one of years T and A) in bronze,againappears both varieties dated in the eighth (H) yearof the Caesarian era, or between Oct. 1st, 42, andSept. 30th, 41 b.c. There is little to observe of parti-cular interest in this issue except, perhaps, that theonly titles the city of Antioch now boasts are thoseof ilMetropolis and " Autonomous The other two»namely,"Sacred"and"Inviolate",havebeenomitted-whether because of changed conditions due to thebattle of Philippi and the subsequent reorganizationof the province under Antony, or simply becauseofthe otherwise overcrowdedappearanceand consequentillegibility of the inscription, would be difficult ndprobablyfutile at this time to decide.

12LaffranchiroposesBiv*t. di Num., xx, 917»p.246ff.)to assignoAntiocliertain urei nddenarii f Cassius or he

year42B.c.,coinswhichprevious ritersGrúeber, ahrfeldt,andothers)referredoassignoAsiaMinor.Thenew ttributionwouldnnowiseonflictith he oin ssueshich e re tudying,both ecausehey ppearedn theprecedingpring ndsummer,andbecausehey repurelymilitaryn characternd struck ormilitaryurposes.Ourcoins repurelymunicipaln character,and truck or ocalcirculation.



29/51


30/51

96 E. T. NEWELL.

went on, however,and reports of Antony's entangle-ments in Egypt commencedto come through, he feltthe opportunity for action had arrived. He soonpersuaded Orodesto order an attack on the Syrianprovince. AccordinglyPacorus,the heir to the Par-thian throne,with Labienusashis general,commenced

the invasion. It did not take Labienus long to winover the -Syrian legions who had previously beentroops of Cassius,and after Philippi had been incor-porated by Antony into his own legionsand stationedin Syriabecausethey wereacquaintedwith the country.Antony's general was overcomein pitched battle andfled to Antioch. Apamea surrendered to Labienus,and her examplewas soon followedby Antioch,who,on finding herself abandonedby Saxa,made all hasteto come to terms (Dio,xxv, 3 and 4). Pacorus andLabienussoonhad made themselvesmasters of a largepart of Cilicia,all of Syria, and all of Phoenicia exceptthe strongholdof Tyre.

It was not until the summer of 39 b.c.that Antonyundertook any serious attempt to regain his lostprovinces. He then sent Yentidius,his general,withan army into Cilicia. Labienuswas defeated and

perished shortly afterwards. Yentidius then forcedthe passesof the Amanus andinvadedSyria. Pacorusalso fell in pitched battle and the Parthian forceswere completely cleared out of the lands they hadrecentlyoccupied.

The Antiocheneissues of the Caesarianyear 9 seemto fall entirely within this period of the Parthianinvasion. Asyet no tetradrachmshave been recorded,but we have, on the other hand, an interesting issueofmunicipalbronze coins of whichonly one denomina-?



31/51


32/51

96 E. T. NEWELL.

coinageto the Caesarian rather than to the Pompeianor the Actian eras. The surprising re-introductionof the long-discontinuedSeleucidsystemof reckoningmust be directly attributed to the Parthian invasionand the consequentinfluence f Parthian custom,whichcontinuedto employthe Seleucid erato the very end

of the Arsaciddynasty. It is also interesting to notethe fact (to which Dr. Macdonaldin his Catalogue ofthe Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection vol.iii,p. 145,has alreadycalled attention) that the Seleucidsystemof reckoningalso makesa sudden and equallyephemeral appearance this very year (BOC)in themunicipal issues of Apamea. It was Apamea thatfirst fell to Labienus and Pacorus early in 40 b.c.The closeconnexionbetweenthe appearanceof theseisolated Seleucid datesand the Parthian invasion ofthat year seems, therefore, ery evident.

The absence of the title ' Autonomous" on theseAntiocheneissues with Seleuciddate may or may notbe of significance. It is indeedvery curious that thisimportant and jealously prized title should suddenlybe omitted from the city's coinage. Would UpasKaiá(Tv'ovquite compensatefor the loss of avrovófiov?

The Parthian régime may have been quite willingto decree this important city and the centre of theirnewly acquired dominions in the west " Sacred andInviolate but hardly cared to weakentheir uncertainholdby allowingit absolute autonomy.

As we have seen, no tetradrachms of this periodhave as yet turned up. Possibly the aurei anddenarii whichLabienusstruck supposedlyat Antioch)by virtue of his self-assumedofficeof imperator andthe powers that accompaniedit, filled all needs for



33/51

PRE-IMPERIALCOINAGEOFROMANANTIOCH.99

coin of higher denominationthan the bronze issues.Besides,a city deprivedof autonomy(to judge by theinscriptions found on the BOCissue) would hardlyhave the right to strike silvercoinsof her own,

PERIOD III.Issuesfor the years89 to 37b.c.

Denominations.a. Tetradrachm.

Exactlysimilar to the Exactlysimilarto the pre-previousssueofyear8 viousssueofyear8.(H). In 1.field, t".Beneath hrone, -

b. Bronze middle ize,18 to20mm.,grammes to 6-5).Laureatehead of Zeus ANTIOXEÍ1N] MHTPO-to r. Circleof dots. TTOAEflZ| AYTONO-MOY. Tripodfromwhichrise hree ranchesf aurel.

c. Bronze smallsize,16to 17mm.,grammes -20to 3-80).Head of Tyche to r. ANTIOXEÍ1N| MHTPO-Circleof dots. TĪOAEilZ ļ AYTO NO-MOY. Poppy flankedbytwoearsofcorn on either

side of poppy, bunch ofgrapes.DatedAl = Oct.1st,39 Sept.30th,38b.c.

15.Bronze6). In field .,Cornucopiae,In exergue,AGlasgow(HunterianColl.), No. 32, grammes4-95

London,No.36,Pl. VI. 8.16. Bronzec). In field eneath,Al.

Glasgow(HunterianColl.), No. 34, grammes3-27,

Pl. VI. 9 ; another,No. 35, grammes3-82.



34/51

100 E. T. NEWELL.

DatedBI= Oct.1st,38 Sept.30th,37 b.c.17. Tetradrachm. In exergue, l.

NewellColl.,grammes5-42, l. VI. 10 YaleUniversityColl. (same obverse and reversedies as my specimen),grammes 4-78.18. Bronzeb). To left and right of type,

Cornucopiae.In exergue, l.

Glasgow HunterianColl.),No.33,grammes -70 YaleUniversity oll.,grammes-57.19. Bronzeb). In field .,WingedCaduceus.In exergue,

NewellColl.,grammes-44.

After the expulsion of the Parthian invader, theprovince of Syria seems to have enjoyeda few yearsof

comparativequiet.Instead of the large denominations in bronze thatpredominated n the previousissues,the present seriesconsistsonly of the two smaller denominations. Thetypes chosenare again very Antiochenein character,those on the larger coin being in honour of the twoleading divinities of the city, Zeus andApollo; thoseon the smaller in honour- f the Tychè of Antioch,whilethe corn ears,the poppy,andthe grapessymbolizethe rich fertility f the surroundingdistrict.The style, fabric, owrelief, nd general appearanceof these coins place them unmistakably n the periodwhosecoinageswe are studying. This point must beemphasized because to this period have also beenassigned an entirely different eries bearing the fol-lowing dates, IA (Mionnet46), IT (Mionnet 51),andIA (Mionnet53 and London(inscriptionAl),No.32).13

18imilar oins,with si andzi, have beenpublishedyMionnetNos.4andS.21). Asthey re seeminglyasedonly



35/51


These three varieties have for types, obverse,head ofZeus,reverse,ZeusNikephorosenthronedto 1. accom-panied by the inscription, ANTIOXEflN| THZ |MHTPOTTOAEÍ1Z.Their generally thick dumpyfabric, their types,and their inscriptionsall associatethem more closelywith the earlier municipal issues

of Antiochwhich bear the Seleucid datesAKZto SAZ(B M. Cat. Nos.12to 24)than with the present issuesdated by the Caesarianera. ^Furthermore,t is to benoted that n their dates the decimalcipher isgenerallyplacedfirst while in the Caesarianseriesit is generally(there are a few rare exceptionsto this order only inthe year 10) placed last. Throughoutour series thereverse type of the seated Zeus is always encircledby a laurelwreath,which ornament s not found eitheron the AKZ-SAZ series or on the three coins men-tioned above. For these reasons the writer wouldprefer orecognizein thesepiecesan issue ofAntioch,as metropolisof Syria, for the years 55to 50 b.c. thedatesbeing basedon the Pompeian era. Onlyin thisway can we explain the style of these three pieces,their early fabric, heir types, and their dates. For ifwe should assumethat their dates were to be reckoned

accordingto the Caesarian era, then their issue musthave taken place between the years 39 and 35 b,c.This,however,would result in an inextricable confu-sionof style,dates,weights,and, aboveall, types andinscriptions with our Nos. 15, 16, 18, and 19. Asthe latter pieces seem to be correctly ocated by styleand inscription, the earlier date of the other piecesseems therefore ssured.

onSestini,

ndhavenot incebeen ecordednreally rustworthyworks,he ccuracyf heir eadingsopeno doubt.NUMISM.HICON.,OL.IX,ERIESV. J



36/51

102 E. T. NEWELL.

PERIOD IV.Issuesof the years31 to 27b.c.

A. First Issue.Denominations.

a. Bronze large ize,22to 25mm.,grammes 0 to 14).Laureate head ofZeus ANTIOXEÍ2N|THZ |MH-to r. Circleofdots. TPOTTOAEflZ.ZeusNi-

kephorosenthronedto 1.Thunderboltbove. In frontofZeus,Cornucopiae. Thewholeencircledby laurelwreath.

Ö.Bronze middle ize,circa20mm.,grammes -60).Laureate headof Zeus ANTIOXEÍ1N1THZ| MH-to r. Circleofdots. TPOTTOAEÍ1Z. Tychestanding o 1. holds tillerin right nd cornucopiaenleft. hunderboltbove.The

whole encircledby laurelwreath.

Dated01 = Oct.1st,31,toearly n 30b.c.20. Bronze(a). In exergue, 1.

London,No.34, PL VII. 1 another,No. 35(counter-marked, ead of

Apollo)GlasgowHunterian

oll.),No.

37,grammes 1-02 another,No 38(countermarked,ead ofApollo),grammes 1-96 another,No.b9,grammes 2-15NewellColl.,grammes 3-98 another, rammes 0-97.21. Bronzea). In exergue,O.

London,No. 33; another,No. 35(countermarked,eadof Apollo) Glasgow(HunterianColl.),No.36, grammes11-89 NewellColl.,grammes10-24; another counter-marked, ead ofApollo),grammes1 90 another, rammes11-72, l. VII. 2 ; YaleUniversity oll.,grammes 0-72.22. Bronzeò). In exergue,O.

C.S.Bernent oll.,grammes-62,Pl. VU 3;



37/51

PRE-IMPERIALCOINAGEOF ROMANANTIOCH.10ä

By thé great battle of Actium (Sept.2nd, 31 ö.c.)the future rule of the entire Roman world becamedefinitely ssuredto Octavian. The monthsfollowingthe victory the young Gaesarspent in the East con-solidating his powerand pacifyingthe countriesnowcomeunder his direct supervision.

It is certainly to this period that the above coinsbelong. The date they bear showstheir issueto havetaken place after Oct.1st, 31 b.c., and therefore afterthe battle of Âctium. With the types we are wellacquainted. There has been little change since thepreviousissue ofthese denominations, xcept that thetitle given to Antioch on the present pieces is onlythat of Metropolis.Was the positionof Antioch underthe new régime at first not quite assured enough toallowher the title of autonomy?

It is noticeablethat uponthe majority of the extantspecimens of the larger denomination of this issuethere is found counterstamped small bust of Apollowith laurel wreath and quiver. Under the followingcoins the reasons for this counterstamp will bediscussed.

A. Second issue.Denominations.

a. Tetradrachm.Exactlysimilar to the Exactlysimilar to the issueissueofPeriod II. of Period III exceptthatthe throne eg has alwaysthe form Ķ.

In 1.field,ĀTBeneath hrone, -

i 2



38/51

104 E. T. NEWELL.

b. Bronzelarg©izereduced,0mm.,grammesirca to8).Laureatehead of Zeus ANTIOXEÍ1N| MHTPO-r. as onprecedingssue. TTOAEÍ1Xļ AYTONO-Circleof dots. MOY. Zeus enthronedo

1. as on preceding ssue.Throneleg has henceforththe form

In 1field,

ar of Corn.Thewholeencircledy aurelwreath.

Dated 01= sometimepreviousoSept.30th,30b.c.23. Tetradrachm a). In exergue,Ol.

London,No.6,grammes4-89 Paris,No.1541,grammes15-05 LeakeColl.,grammes4-21 NewellColl.,grammes14-99,PI. VII. 4; C. S. Bernentoll.,grammes 5-58.24. Bronze6). In exergue, 1.

NewellColl., grammes-15,

Pl. VII. 5.

Before the close of the nineteenth CaesarianyearAntiochhad regainedher formerly rivileged positionand once morewasallowedthe title of "Autonomous",as both the inscription f No. 24and the merepresenceof a silvercoinagewouldshow.

An interesting feature, f the tetradrachms and ofthe bronzebelongingto the second issue ofyear 19 is

the changedformof the throne leg. Henceforth t isalwaysto have the form Ķ instead of the previousfAs far as the tetradrachms are concerned this detailproves itself very useful. For it enables us to dis-tinguish the coins (which are struck on so small aplanchetthat the date in the exergueis often missing)struck after this date from the preceding issues.Furthermore, he fact that this sudden change in theform of the throne leg takes placeon "both he silvertetradrachm and the bronze of reduced weight both



39/51

PRE-IMPERIALCOINAGEOFROMANANTIOCH. 105

bearing the Caesarian date 01- proves, beyond allreasonabledoubt, that these curious tetradrachms ofrevived Seleucid type must belong to the periodassignedto them in this article.

The continuanceof the same types on the bronzepiecesof this issue,while they are reducedin sizeand

weight,may accountfor tìie appearanceof the Apollocounterstampon so many of the large bronze piecesof preceding issues. Particularly common is thiscounterstamp on the Nos. 20and 21 which we haveassigned to the first part of the year 19. As in thelast issue of this year, as well as in the issues of thetwo succeedingyears,the weight of the bronze piecehas been materially reduced but the types retained

(exceptin the

inscriptionnot

easily distinguishedbya rapid or superficial lance); the Apollocounterstampmay well have been impressedon all the earlier andheaviercoinsof this denomination still in circulationto equalizetheir current value with the newlyissuedbut lighter pieces. The reason for the choiceof theApollo head is obviously attributable to the pre-dominating nfluencethis divinityenjoyedat Antioch.Furthermore, as the counterstampingseemsto have

been done not earlier than the commencement of30 B.c.,the suggestionlies to hand that the choiceofthis particular god may also have been somewhatinfluencedby a recent important event, the battle ofActium. It is well known that Apollowasespeciallyfavouredby Octavian,particularly after Actium, thehappyoutcomeof which was attributed byhim directlyto the goodwillof ActianApollo.



40/51

106 E. T. NEWELL.

B,DatedK= Oct.1st,30- Sept,30th,29b.c.

25. Tetradrachm a). In exergue,K.Paris,No.1542,grammes 445.

26. Bronze 6). In 1.field,Cornucopiae.In exergue,K.YaleUniversity oll.,grammes -82,Pl. VII. 6.

27. Bronze6). In 1.field, sis head-dress.In exergue, .

YaleUniversity oll.,grammes -50.28. Bronze 6). In 1.field,WingedCaduceus.In exergue,K.

Yale University oll.,grammes7*85;RegioMuseodiTorino,No.4951(symbol ncertain), rammes -90.

DatedAK= Oct.1st,29 Sept. 30th,28b.c.29. Tetradrachm a). In exergue,AK.

London(acquired1909), grammes14-93 NewellColl.(the dateon this specimenmight lso readAK), grammes14-92; Amer. Numis.Soc., grammes14*54. Thereissaid to exista variety f this piecewith the monograminsteadof ÂT, and the date KA in the exergue Mionnet,No.913 Paris, No.1543). A cast of a similarspecimenin the Rev.Dr. Rogers'scollection,erykindlyforwardedby the owner,provesthe supposeddate KA to bereallyKf?. Thisvariety hereforeallsoutfrom he dated eries,althoughts styleprovesthe coin to havebeenstruck inAntioch?)t aboutthe sameperiod s our Nos. 1 and2.80. Bronze&). Ini. field,WingedCadugeus.In exergue,AK.

NewellColl.,grammes -62.31. Bronzeò). In 1.field, ar of Corn,In exergue,AK.

GlasgowHunterian oll.),No.49,grammes-49PI.lxxi.34),Pl. VII. 7.



41/51

PRE-IMPERIALCOINAGE OF ROMANANTIOCH. 107

DatedBK= Oct.1st,28 Sept.30th,27 b.c.32. Tetradrachm a). In exergue, K.

Paris,No.1544,grammes 5-00 H. E. DrowneColl.

With Octavian firmly established in power andevery possible rival finally eliminated, the disturbed

conditions of the civil wars came to an end andthe Roman world entered upon a period of peaceand prosperity. No centre of civilization could haveprospered more by this happy state of affairs thanAntioch. This is perhaps,to a certain extent, reflectedby her coinage,which from the nineteenth Caesarianyear commencesto appearin a moreorderly and con-tinued sequencethan at any previoustime during thecivil wars,

Sig. Laffranchi has recently, n the RivistaItalianadi Numismatica(vol.xxx, 1917,247ff.), ttributed tothe mint at Antioch a large series of Roman aureiand denarii of Cassius,Labienus, and Mark Antonycovering the period 42 to 30 b.c. If his conclusionsprove well founded and are generally accepted, itwould in no wise affect the dating or attribution ofour municipalsilver and bronze coins,as the Roman

pieceswith their Latin inscriptions were not struckprimarily for use by the local population, but forRoman governmental purposesand for the pay ofthe legions actually stationed here or being raisedhere. This certainly eaves our bronze coinsentirelyout of consideration. With regard to the silver tetra-drachms it is interesting to see that every knowndate, with the exceptionof Bl,falls in years to whichSig. Laffranchiwas unableto assignany of the purelyRoman issues. Thus the series of lacunae in our line



42/51

108 E. T. NEWELL.

of tetradrachm dates is largely accountedfor. Withthe coming of Octavian no more Roman coins, fora period of ten years, are assignable to Antioch,butinstead the tetradrachms ommence toappearyearly.

PERIODV.Issuesof the

years26 to 20 b.c.

Denominations.


43/51


DatedEK= Oct.1st,25 Sept.30th,24 b.c.34. Bronze &). On 1. and r. oftype, -K.

GlasgowHunterian oll.),No.40,grammes-34 London.No.37 NewellColl.,grammes-59,Pl. VII. 8.35. Bronzed). In field eneath, K.

GlasgowHunterianColl.),No.43,grammes -95.

DatedSK= Oct.1st,24 Sept.30,23 b.c.30. Tetradrachm a). In exergue, K.

Key.E. Rogers'sColl.,grammes 4-87, l. VII. 9.

DatedZK= Oct.1st,23- Sept. 30th,22b.c.37. Tetradrachm a). In 1. field, beneath mono-

gram, ellet.In exergue, K.Newell

Coll.,grammes4-45.

38. Bronze&). On1.andr. oftype, -K.GlasgowHunterian oll.),No.41,grammes-31 No.42,

grammes-25PI.lxxi.33) London,Nos.38 and39;NewellColl.,grammes-38,PI. VII. IO; EegioMuseo diTorino,No.4952,grammes -94.39. Bronzed). In field eneath, K.

GlasgowHunterian oll.),No.44,grammes-53.40. Bronzec). In exergue, K.

GlasgowHunterian oll.),No.

45,grammes-28 No.

46,grammes -41 PI. lxxi.33),Pl. VII. 11.

DatedHK= Oct.1st,22 Sept.30th,21b.c.41. Tetradrachm a). In exergue,HK.

NewellColl.,grammes 4-68.

DatedOK= Oct.1st,21 Sept. 30th,20b.c.42. Tetradrachm a). In exergue, K.

HarvardUniversity

oll. NewellColl.,grammes 3-95,Pl. VII. 12; Leake,grammes 3-83.



44/51

HQ E. T. NEWELL.

As in the history of Antioch itself at this time thereis little of specialnote to remarkconcerning ts coinage.The coinage of posthumousPhilip tetradrachms con-tinues with little interruption; suchgapsas exist (FKand EK)will probablybe filled by future finds. Thecoinage of the large bronze denominationhas ceased

entirely, but, on the other hand, in both the years 25and 27 a middle and a small denomination is oncemore coined. During the course of the year 27 thereappears a second issue of the middle denominationwith the obverse type changed from a bust of Tycheto a Zeushead,the reversetype ofthe tripod remainingthe same.

With the tetradrachm dated 0K the issue of thesecuriousand interesting coinscomestemporarily o anend. The year commencingin the autumn of 20 b.c.seesthe issue ofa newvariety f tetradrachm Pl.VII.b]bearing on the obverse the familiar and handsomefeatures of Augustus,in the placeof those of the long-dead Philip. The inscription reads ZEBAZTOYH

IB, which has naturally been taken toindicate that the coin was struck n the twelfth con-sulateof Augustus(7-6b.c.).14Ofthe word YTTATOY

only the first two letters (in monogram)nowremain.Thenumeral IB,however/cannot ossiblybe consideredas goingwith the wordYTTATOY,as it is placedside-waysbeneaththe chin ofAugustusinsteadof alongsidethat word,where there would have been ample room.It is evident that if IB doesnot indicate the twelfthconsulshipof Augustusit can only ndicate the twelfthyear of the Actian era, which ran from the autumn

14Pick,Zeitschr..Num., iv,p.310 Num.Chron.,thSeries,vol.xii,p. 147.



45/51

PRE-IMPERIALCOINAGEOF ROMANANTIOCH.Ill

of* 0 to the autumn of 19 b.c.15 In other words,this t¡etradrachmmmediatelyfollows the posthumousPhilip tetradrachm of the twenty-ninth Caesarianyear. The very close connexionin time betweentheir respective issues is finally proved by a com-parisonof the reversesof the two piecesin question.The Zeus figure on both is extraordinarily alike, somuchso,in fact, hat onemight almostsupposethemtohave beencut bythe sameengraver. Thenowabsurdlyanachronistic legend BAZIAEÍ1ZIAAAEA4>OYis replaced by the moretimely KAIZAPOZ 0EOY YIOY, the well-knowntitles of Augustus. The application of the numeralIB to the Actian era, instead of consideringthem asbelongingto the word YTTATOY,results n placing thedate of this AugustantetradrachmbetweenSeptemberof the year 20 b.c. and Septemberof 19b.c. Imme-diately, his brings the coin in closestconjunctionwithAugustus'ssecond visit to Syria. Havingreturned toRome after rranging the affairs fAsia,in consequenceof his great victory at Actium,Augustusremainedinthe West until the year 22b.c., when,as we learn fromDio (liv. 6. 1), he "went to Sicily in order to settle

affairs n that island and elsewhereas far as Syria".In the following year he crossed over into Greece(liv. 7.4),and " in the spring of the year when MarcusApuleiusand Publius Silius were consuls(20b.c.) hewent into Asia and settled everything there and in

15ThisSig.Laffranchividentlymplieswhen,n the courseofhisarticlementionedbove,he saysof this particularoin(p.255),appartenente,erosimilmentell' anno21a.C.'' He

seèffis,owever,ohavemademistake f one

yearn

reckohinghisdates.



46/51

112 E. T. NEWELL.

Bithynia". Thus he couldhardly have reachedSyria(liv.7.6)until towards the autumn of that year. As ourAugustantetradrachmwasnot struck until Septemberof 20 b.c., at the earliest,we may logically and pre-sumably attribute its appearance,and the importantchange of types it embodies,to the emperor'svisit to

Antioch and the desireof the city to complimenthimby placinghis portrait on her coinageon that occasion.We are also led to infer, from further onsiderationof this coinage,that on the occasionof the emperor'svisit to Antioch the Actian systemof reckoningdateswas adopted in his honour and the Caesariansystem,at least temporarily, uspended.

Beforeleavingthe new assignmentof the M seriesof Philip tetradrachms to the consideration of hisoldercolleaguesabroad,the writer would draw atten-tion to an observationthat may now be made theentire material of this period, at present available,being placed beforeus that the known specimensofour tetradrachms seemto fall only in the years and atthe timeswhenthe municipalbronzeissuesofAntiochbear the title "Autonomous". Wheneverthis title isomitted no tetradrachms of that period are known.

To be sure, future finds may make it necessarytomodifythis observation,but for the present it wouldseem to hold good. The obvious inference lies tohand that only when the city legally bore the titleof "Autonomous" did she possessthe time-honouredright of autonomy the right to issuesilvermoney.

Circumstanceshad indeed dictated the writer'sintention of closing this article with the Augustancoin just described,thus leaving untouched the onlyremaininggap in the Antiochenesilvercoinagewhich



47/51


apparentlyexists betweenthe years 20/19and 7/6b.c.To this period of time it has hitherto been impossibleto assign any coins. While actually engaged inreading the final proof there was brought to thewriter another and important specimen of what maybe termed the posthumousPhilip series. This new

coin is exactly similar in all details to the onesdescribed aboveunder Nos.41 and 42, except that inthis case the exergual date clearly reads TA. Thistetradrachm therefore howsthat the Augustan piecewasevidentlymore in the nature of a commemorativeissue,probablyonly struck during the emperor'svisitto Antioch, and that after his departure the oldSeleucidtype was oncemorerevived. The unexpectedappearance of the TA specimen leads one to inferthat other tetradrachmswith late dates mayeventuallyturn up to assist infilling the above-mentioned acuna.These,includingthe new date TA (= the 33rdCaesar-year, or 17/16 b.c.). will then represent the finalportionof the pre-imperialcoinageof RomanAntioch.They were supersededin 7/6b. c. by the well-knowntetradrachms of Augustus bearing the reverse typeof the seated Tyche of Antioch. At this time that

great city becamea truly imperial mint and one ofthe most important in the Roman Empire. Hence-forth her silver issues alwaysbear an imperial portrait,while her bronze issues no longer display the proudtitle "Autonomous".

E. T. Newell.



48/51


49/51

PRE-IMPERIALÇOINAÇE QF ROMANANTlOCH.

NUM.HRON. ER. V.VOL.IX. L.VI



50/51


51/51

PRE IMPERIALCOINAGEOF ROMANANTIOCH

NUM,HRON.ER.V.VOL.IX. L.VII

Documents

The pre-imperial coinage of Roman Antioch / [E.T. Newell]