- The Collaborative Numismatics Project
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. The column on the left includes the "Best of NumisWiki" menu. If you are new to collecting, start with Ancient Coin Collecting 101. All blue text is linked. Keep clicking to endlessly explore. Welcome Guest. Please login or register. The column on the left includes the "Best of NumisWiki" menu. All blue text is linked. Keep clicking to endlessly explore. If you have written a numismatic article, please add it to NumisWiki.

Resources Home
Home
New Articles
Most Popular
Recent Changes
Current Projects
Admin Discussions
Guidelines
How to

Index Of All Titles


BEST OF

Aes Grave
Aes Rude
The Age of Gallienus
Alexander Tetradrachms
Ancient Coin Collecting 101
Ancient Coin Prices 101
Ancient Coin Dates
Ancient Coin Lesson Plans
Ancient Coins & Modern Fakes
Ancient Counterfeits
Ancient Glass
Ancient Oil Lamps
Ancient Weapons
Ancient Wages and Prices
Ancient Weights and Scales
Anonymous Folles
Anonymous Follis
Anonymous Class A Folles
Antioch Officinae
Aphlaston
Armenian Numismatics Page
Brockage
Byzantine
Byzantine Denominations
A Cabinet of Greek Coins
Caesarean and Actian Eras
Campgates of Constantine
Carausius
A Case of Counterfeits
Byzantine Christian Themes
Clashed Dies
Coins of Pontius Pilate
Conditions of Manufacture
Corinth Coins and Cults
Countermarked in Late Antiquity
Danubian Celts
Damnatio Coinage
Damnatio Memoriae
Denomination
Denarii of Otho
Diameter 101
Die Alignment 101
Dictionary of Roman Coins
Doug Smith's Ancient Coins
Edict on Prices
ERIC
ERIC - Rarity Tables
Etruscan Alphabet
The Evolving Ancient Coin Market
Facing Portrait of Augustus
Fel Temp Reparatio
Fertility Pregnancy and Childbirth
Fibula
Flavian
Fourree
Friend or Foe
The Gallic Empire
Gallienus Zoo
Greek Alphabet
Greek Dates
Greek Coin Denominations
Greek Mythology Link
Greek Numismatic Dictionary
Hellenistic Names & their Meanings
Hasmoneans
Hasmonean Dynasty
Helvetica's ID Help Page
Historia Numorum
Horse Harnesses
Identifying Ancient Metal Arrowheads
Illustrated Ancient Coin Glossary
Islamic Rulers and Dynasties
Koson
Kushan Coins
People in the Bible Who Issued Coins
Imperial Mints of Philip the Arab
Later Roman Coinage
Latin Plurals
Latin Pronunciation
Library of Ancient Coinage
Life in Ancient Rome
List of Kings of Judea
Malloy Weapons
Maps of the Ancient World
Military Belts
Mint Marks
Monogram
Museum Collections Available Online
Nabataean Alphabet
Nabataean Numerals
Not in RIC
Numismatic Bulgarian
Numismatic Excellence Award
Numismatic French
Numismatic German
Numismatic Italian
Numismatic Spanish
Parthian Coins
Patina 101
Paleo-Hebrew Alphabet
Phoenician Alphabet
Pi-Style Athens Tetradrachms
Pricing and Grading Roman Coins
Reading Judean Coins
Representations of Alexander the Great
Roman Coin Attribution 101
Roman Militaria
Roman Mints
Roman Names
romancoin.info
Rome and China
Scarabs
Serdi Celts
Serrated
Siglos
The Sign that Changed the World
Silver Content of Parthian Drachms
Star of Bethlehem Coins
Statuary Coins
Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum
Syracusian Folles
Taras Drachms with Owl Left
The Temple Tax Hoard
Travels of Paul
Tribute Penny
Tribute Penny Debate Continued (2015)
Tribute Penny Debate Revisited (2006)
Tyrian Shekels
Uncleaned Ancient Coins 101
Vabalathus
Venus Cloacina
What I Like About Ancient Coins
Who was Trajan Decius
Widow's Mite

   View Menu
 

A note on the total number of officinae in the Antioch mint during Trajan Decius and Trebonianus Gallus AD 249-253

by Gert Boersema

A quick look at the respective RIC introductions to the eastern coinage of Trajan Decius and Trebonianus Gallus[1] shows that there is some uncertainty about the total number of officinae in the Antioch mint in this period. This is because the mint marks are not alltogether clear from our modern perspective. According to RIC, during the reign of Decius the Antioch mint used the following mint marks to denote its officinae:

•, ••, •••, ••••, IIV, IV

On antoniniani of Gallus we also encounter VI and VII alongside IV and IIV:

•, ••, •••, ••••, IV, VI, IIV and VII

Back in 1936, Karl Pink proposed four marked officinae at Antioch, and this view was followed by LeGentilhomme (1943). Both scholars interpreted mint marks IIV and IV as 3 and 4 respectively. RIC IV, published in 1949, follows Pink’s view on the total number of officinae, reluctantly one might think, in the introduction to Decius’ coinage – ‘at least four’ – but proposes a total number of seven officinae for Gallus – ‘the officinae seem to run from 1 to 7 ...’. But almost immediately the reader is asked if it will ‘eventually turn out that there were four officinae only...’[2]

In 1977 an important paper was published by W.E. Metcalf on a hoard of Antioch mint antoniniani of Trebonianus Gallus.[3] Metcalf takes for granted that there were 7 officinae active at Antioch, and only hints at the evidence supporting this. In the following I will try to show that the mint marks indeed most probably indicate a total of seven officinae at the Antioch mint during the reigns of Decius and Gallus.

i. IV and IIV are retrograde variants of VI and VII (six and seven)

Everything comes down to the interpretation of mint marks IIV and IV. Pink came to his total of four officinae because he read these as 3 and 4 respectively, ‘perhaps because there was no mark for the fifth officina’.[4] This would imply that mint marks VI and VII do not stand for six and seven, but are ‘irregular variants of IV and IIV (four and three)’, something that RIC finds conceivable.[5] But why use IIV and IV alongside the perfectly adequate mint marks ••• and ••••? That seems to be very unpractical and hard to understand, to say the least. Is it not much more likely that it is the other way around: IV and IIV are retrograde variants of VI and VII, six and seven?

ii. Decius’ and Gallus’ tetradrachm coinage at the Antioch mint unmistakenly shows a total number of seven officinae during their reigns

After the emperor Philip’s demise in AD 249, the number of offinae in the Antioch mint was evidently increased from 4 to 7, as is shown by the mint marks on Decius’ tetradrachms:

•, ••, •••, ••••, •••••/E, S, Z

The system of pellets that was introduced on the final issue of tetradrachms of Philip I now proved difficult to maintain, which is why officinae 6 and 7 adopted Greek numerals S and Z in stead of the unpractical mint marks •••••• and •••••••.[6] This system of mint marks ranging from • to Z was continued into the reign of Gallus.

iii. Mint mark VI was used by officina 6 during the reign of Gallus

Two of Gallus’ tetradrachm issues[7] show without question that mint mark VI was used by officina 6. Both obverse and reverse bear the officina mark, and on these coins VI on the obverse is combined with mint mark S on the reverse – Greek numeral S with certainty indicating officina 6. These systems of mint marks had to be logical and easily recognizable within the mint. It is therefore inconceivable that mint mark VI was used by officina 6 on tetradrachms, while at the same time it was used by officina 4 on antoniniani.

iv. The missing officina 5

There are no Antioch mint antoniniani of either Decius or Gallus with an officina 5 mint mark. Metcalf thought, as is stated above, that this fact could well have prompted Pink’s four officina theory. But in fact this missing officina 5 fits a total of 7 officinae perfectly. Once again, the tetradrachm coinage will shine its light on the matter.

There are Decius tetradrachms from officina 5, showing mint marks ••••• and E, but it is interesting to see that there are no known Gallus tetradrachms from officina 5. In other words, Gallus’ provincial coinage at the Antioch mint shows exactly the same structure as his imperial coinage, with a total of 7 officinae, lacking an officina 5. The best explanation for this missing officina, in my opinion, is that it is not missing at all. Officina 5 may have been minting coins that did not feature mint marks: provincial bronze coinage.[8] It could also well be the case that Gallus’ antoniniani without a mint mark were minted in officina 5.



[1] For the sake of clarity I only mention the names Decius and Gallus in this short discussion, but of course these mint marks also appear on coins of their family members – like Herennia Etruscilla, Herennius Etruscus, Hostilianus and Volusianus.

[2] K. Pink ‘Der Aufbau der römischen Münzprägung in der Kaiserzeit’ in: NZ 69 (1936) 14; P. LeGentilhomme, ‘La trouvaille de Nanterre’ in: RN 5, vol. 9 (1946) 67; RIC IV part iii p. 118, 155.

[3] W.E. Metcalf ‘The Antioch Hoard of Antoniniani and the Eastern Coinage of Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian’ in: ANS Museum Notes 22 (1977) p.71-94.

[4] Metcalf, p. 84, n.13.

[5] RIC IV, part iii, in the introduction to the eastern coinage of Gallus, p.155.

[6] Metcalf claims that there are tetradrachms that combine mint marks IV and IIV with S and Z (p.85, n.13). However, I could not find any published coins to support this statement.

[7] Prieur 666 and 667.

[8] I am indebted to Tom Vossen for this idea.