Classical Numismatics Discussion Members' Gallery
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register.

Members' Gallery Home | Member Collections | Last Added | Last Comments | Most Viewed | Top Rated | My Favorities | Search Galleries
Home > Members' Coin Collection Galleries > Tracy Aiello

Sextus Pompey


Sextus_Pompey_Scylla_Large.jpg

2 files, last one added on Mar 06, 2019

Vabalathus and Aurelian


A_and_V_Antioch_8th_Wksp.jpeg

8 files, last one added on Mar 07, 2019

Severina


Severina_Concordiae_Militvm_Large.jpg

1 files, last one added on Apr 20, 2019

 

3 albums on 1 page(s)

Last additions - Tracy Aiello's Gallery
Severina_Concordiae_Militvm_Large.jpg
Ulpia Severina - A Coin of an Interregnum?1 viewsUlpia Severina, Augusta (274 AD), wife of Aurelian
Obv: SEVERINA AVG; Bust of Severina, diademed, draped, on a lunar crescent, facing right.
Rev: CONCORDIAE MILITVM; Concordia standing left, facing left, flanked by two standards, one in each hand, VI in left field, XXI in exergue.
Denomination: billion antoninianus; Mint: Antioch; Officina: 6th; Issue: 6; Date: early 275 to September 275 AD; Weight: 3.77g; Diameter: 23.3mm; Die axis: 180º; References, for example: RIC V v.1 20; MER - RIC 3198.

Notes:

Is this a coin of an interregnum?
That there was an interregnum, in the literal meaning of the word, between the murder of Aurelian and the Senatorial appointment of Tacitus as emperor is undisputed. What is disputed, however, is the length of the interregnum as well as its meaningfulness, i.e. for whatever period of interregnum that did exist, did Severina or the Senate actually rule the empire and thereby make decisions that engendered consequences and/or directed actions? This coin type (although not the only coin type) has played a part in the interregnum story. In Aurelian and the Third Century (London and New York: Routledge, 1999) Alaric Watson dedicates seven and a half pages (pp. 109 - 116) to discussing the interregnum, where he vociferously argues that there was no meaningful interregnum. As part of this discussion he references, on p. 115, this particular coin type and in footnote 66 he cites a number of sources that assign this type in the name of Severina to the period after Aurelian’s death. For example:
Percy Webb in RIC, vol. V, part 1 (1927), pp. 4, 35, and 253 does not take a stance on the possible length of the interregnum, but on p. 253 he states that if the interregnum lasted eight months, then the mints certainly could not have been closed and so “...it is necessary to find coins representing their output.”1 This coin type, dedicated to Concordia and in the name of Severina alone, might represent that output. In “The Imperial Recovery” (chapter nine of The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. XII, The Imperial Crisis and Recovery AD 193 - 324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939) Harold Mattingly acknowledges that although the length of the interregnum is in debate “... the coinage shows clearly that for some considerable period government was carried on in the name of the Empress Severina for the the dead Aurelian.” (p. 310). In all officina for several mints the coinage of Severina, such as the “Concordia Militum” type “...bear witness to the conditions of the interregnum.” (p. 310). In “The Reform of Aurelian” (Revue Numismatique, 6th series, vol. 7, 1965: 225 - 235) R. A. G. Carson mentions on pp. 233 and 234 that Severina’s Concordia Militum type is for Severina alone, and that as such it was minted after the death of Aurelian (p. 233). Carson is not concerned with the question of an interregnum, but his placement of this coin type for Severina alone after Aurelian’s death allows this coin type to be taken as evidence of an interregnum. Eugen Cizek in L’Empereur Aurélien Et Son Temps (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1994) also refers to this coin type (not by specific legend, but by reference to “concord with the soldiers”) when discussing the interregnum. He notes that other scholars assign this coinage to the interregnum, a position that he appears to adopt. In Repostiglio della Venèra Nuovo Catalogo Illustrato Aureliano II/I (Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider, 1995) Sylviane Estiot also assigns this coin type to the period after Aurelian’s death.2

But what of the coin here, this coin actually attributed to the 6th officina, mint of Antioch, 6th issue? Estiot attributes this coin not to an interregnal period between Aurelian and Tacitus, when Severina might have ruled in her own right. Rather, on p. 90 of “Aureliana” (Revue Numismatique, 6th series, vo. 150, 1995: 50 - 94) Estiot attributes this coin, because of exact parallelisms to Aurelian’s coinage at Antioch at this time, to a period of joint coinage between Aurelian and Severina.3

Footnotes:

1He actually allows for the possibility of coinage even if the interregnum was short. See footnote 1, p. 253.
2I assume this to be the case. Although I have no reason to doubt Watson’s citation I was unable to verify it because I am unable to obtain a copy of this book by Estiot.
3Also see Estiot, Monnaies de L’Empire romain XII.1: D’Aurelian à Florien (270 - 276 apres J.-C.). Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France, 2004, pp. 28 (table 1) and 122.

Photo credits: Forum Ancient Coins
Tracy AielloApr 20, 2019
A_and_V_Antioch_8th_Wksp.jpeg
Vabalathus and Aurelian Antioch 8th Officina14 viewsVabalathus: 270 - 272 AD; Aurelian: 270 - 275 AD
Julius Aurelius Septimius Vabalathus Athenodorus (Wahb Allat), son of Septimius Odaenathus and Septimia Zenobia. Palmyrene Empire.
Obv: VABALATHVS V C R IM D R1; Bust of Vabalathus, draped and curiassed, facing right.
Rev: IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG; Bust of Aurelian, radiate and curiassed, facing right, from the rear, H in exergue.
Denomination: billion antoninianus; Mint: Antioch; Officina: 8th; Issue: 1st; Date: Nov. 270 - Mar. 272; Weight: 3.96g; Diameter: 21mm; Die axis: 180º; References, for example: RIC V v.1 381 correc; MER - RIC 3113; SRCV III 11718

Notes:

1VABALATHVS V[IR] C[LARISSIMUS] R[EX] IM[PERATOR] D[UX] R[OMANORUM]. See for example, Bland (2011), pp. 135, 141 and Estiot (2004, v1), p. 118, esp. note 462. Although David S. Potter in The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 180 - 395. New York: Routledge, 2004, page 267 and footnote 24 postulates V[IR] C[ONSULARIS] for the mint at Antioch I would certainly side with Bland and Estiot.

Which side of this coin is the obverse and which side is the reverse?
Percy Webb in RIC, vol. V, part 1 (1927) puts great weight on the titulature of Aurelian and mentions that mint marks on the obverse of coins were not unknown at Antioch. He considers the coin to have been struck as a sign of vassalage instead of having been struck as an insult. Webb states that Aurelian’s bust is on the obverse of the coin (p. 260). Anne Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet, Vol. IV Valerian I to Allectus, pp. cxix and 142 also considers Aurelian’s bust to be on the obverse of the coin, but does not state an explicit reason for her position. Harold Mattingly, “The Palmyrene Princes and the Mints of Antioch and Alexandria” (1936), holds that the mint mark is the determining factor, and therefore believes that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 113). David Sear RCV III, p. 442 follows the reasoning of Mattingly and although David Vagi, Coinage and History of the Roman Empire, Volume One: History, agrees that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 403) he does not explicitly state his reason for believing so. Sylviane Estiot, Monnaies de L’Empire romain XII.1: D’Aurelian à Florien (270 - 276 apres J.-C.) [2004], states that the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian clearly indicates that his portrait is on the reverse of the coin (p. 118). Roger Bland, “The Coinage of Vabalathus and Zenobia from Antioch and Alexandria” (2011), follow suit. When discussing this issue from Antioch he states that the officina mark is always placed on the reverse of coins. He notes that the placement of the officina mark sent a signal that Aurelian was “...being accorded a lower status than Vabalathus, although he was given his correct titles of Imperator and Augustus, and he wore a radiate crown, also traditionally associated with the senior Augustus” (p. 142 - 3). Alaric Watson argues in Aurelian and the Third Century (1999), pp. 67 - 9 that Queen Zenobia’s assertion of Palmyrene independence from Rome took place gradually. Bland believes that the placement of the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian on this coin was just another step in that assertion of independence.

Photo credits: Aegean Numismatics
Tracy AielloMar 07, 2019
A_and_V_Antioch_7th_Wksp_Large.jpg
Vabalathus and Aurelian Antioch 7th Officina10 viewsVabalathus: 270 - 272 AD; Aurelian: 270 - 275 AD
Julius Aurelius Septimius Vabalathus Athenodorus (Wahb Allat), son of Septimius Odaenathus and Septimia Zenobia. Palmyrene Empire.
Obv: VABALATHVS V C R IM D R1; Bust of Vabalathus, laureate, diademed, draped and curiassed, facing right, seen from behind.
Rev: IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG; Bust of Aurelian, radiate and curiassed, facing right, from the front, Z in exergue.
Denomination: billion antoninianus; Mint: Antioch; Officina: 7th; Issue: 1st; Date: Nov. 270 - Mar. 272; Weight: 4.137g; Diameter: 20.3mm; Die axis: 0º; References, for example: RIC V v.1 381 correc; MER - RIC 3110; SRCV III 11718

Notes:

1VABALATHVS V[IR] C[LARISSIMUS] R[EX] IM[PERATOR] D[UX] R[OMANORUM]. See for example, Bland (2011), pp. 135, 141 and Estiot (2004, v1), p. 118, esp. note 462. Although David S. Potter in The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 180 - 395. New York: Routledge, 2004, page 267 and footnote 24 postulates V[IR] C[ONSULARIS] for the mint at Antioch I would certainly side with Bland and Estiot.

Which side of this coin is the obverse and which side is the reverse?
Percy Webb in RIC, vol. V, part 1 (1927) puts great weight on the titulature of Aurelian and mentions that mint marks on the obverse of coins were not unknown at Antioch. He considers the coin to have been struck as a sign of vassalage instead of having been struck as an insult. Webb states that Aurelian’s bust is on the obverse of the coin (p. 260). Anne Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet, Vol. IV Valerian I to Allectus, pp. cxix and 142 also considers Aurelian’s bust to be on the obverse of the coin, but does not state an explicit reason for her position. Harold Mattingly, “The Palmyrene Princes and the Mints of Antioch and Alexandria” (1936), holds that the mint mark is the determining factor, and therefore believes that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 113). David Sear RCV III, p. 442 follows the reasoning of Mattingly and although David Vagi, Coinage and History of the Roman Empire, Volume One: History, agrees that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 403) he does not explicitly state his reason for believing so. Sylviane Estiot, Monnaies de L’Empire romain XII.1: D’Aurelian à Florien (270 - 276 apres J.-C.) [2004], states that the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian clearly indicates that his portrait is on the reverse of the coin (p. 118). Roger Bland, “The Coinage of Vabalathus and Zenobia from Antioch and Alexandria” (2011), follow suit. When discussing this issue from Antioch he states that the officina mark is always placed on the reverse of coins. He notes that the placement of the officina mark sent a signal that Aurelian was “...being accorded a lower status than Vabalathus, although he was given his correct titles of Imperator and Augustus, and he wore a radiate crown, also traditionally associated with the senior Augustus” (p. 142 - 3). Alaric Watson argues in Aurelian and the Third Century (1999), pp. 67 - 9 that Queen Zenobia’s assertion of Palmyrene independence from Rome took place gradually. Bland believes that the placement of the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian on this coin was just another step in that assertion of independence.

Photo credits: Forum Ancient Coins
Tracy AielloMar 07, 2019
A_and_V_Antioch_6th_Wksp_Large.jpg
Vabalathus and Aurelian Antioch 6th Officina10 viewsVabalathus: 270 - 272 AD; Aurelian: 270 - 275 AD
Julius Aurelius Septimius Vabalathus Athenodorus (Wahb Allat), son of Septimius Odaenathus and Septimia Zenobia. Palmyrene Empire.
Obv: VABALATHVS V C R IM D R1; Bust of Vabalathus, laureate, diademed, draped and curiassed, facing right, seen from behind.
Rev: IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG; Bust of Aurelian, radiate and curiassed, facing right, from the front, S in exergue.
Denomination: billion antoninianus; Mint: Antioch; Officina: 6th; Issue: 1st; Date: Nov. 270 - Mar. 272; Weight: 2.812g; Diameter: 21.3mm; Die axis: 150º; References, for example: RIC V v.1 381 correc; MER - RIC 3108; SRCV III 11718

Notes:

1VABALATHVS V[IR] C[LARISSIMUS] R[EX] IM[PERATOR] D[UX] R[OMANORUM]. See for example, Bland (2011), pp. 135, 141 and Estiot (2004, v1), p. 118, esp. note 462. Although David S. Potter in The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 180 - 395. New York: Routledge, 2004, page 267 and footnote 24 postulates V[IR] C[ONSULARIS] for the mint at Antioch I would certainly side with Bland and Estiot.

Which side of this coin is the obverse and which side is the reverse?
Percy Webb in RIC, vol. V, part 1 (1927) puts great weight on the titulature of Aurelian and mentions that mint marks on the obverse of coins were not unknown at Antioch. He considers the coin to have been struck as a sign of vassalage instead of having been struck as an insult. Webb states that Aurelian’s bust is on the obverse of the coin (p. 260). Anne Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet, Vol. IV Valerian I to Allectus, pp. cxix and 142 also considers Aurelian’s bust to be on the obverse of the coin, but does not state an explicit reason for her position. Harold Mattingly, “The Palmyrene Princes and the Mints of Antioch and Alexandria” (1936), holds that the mint mark is the determining factor, and therefore believes that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p.0113). David Sear RCV III, p. 442 follows the reasoning of Mattingly and although David Vagi, Coinage and History of the Roman Empire, Volume One: History, agrees that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 403) he does not explicitly state his reason for believing so. Sylviane Estiot, Monnaies de L’Empire romain XII.1: D’Aurelian à Florien (270 - 276 apres J.-C.) [2004], states that the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian clearly indicates that his portrait is on the reverse of the coin (p. 118). Roger Bland, “The Coinage of Vabalathus and Zenobia from Antioch and Alexandria” (2011), follow suit. When discussing this issue from Antioch he states that the officina mark is always placed on the reverse of coins. He notes that the placement of the officina mark sent a signal that Aurelian was “...being accorded a lower status than Vabalathus, although he was given his correct titles of Imperator and Augustus, and he wore a radiate crown, also traditionally associated with the senior Augustus” (p. 142 - 3). Alaric Watson argues in Aurelian and the Third Century (1999), pp. 67 - 9 that Queen Zenobia’s assertion of Palmyrene independence from Rome took place gradually. Bland believes that the placement of the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian on this coin was just another step in that assertion of independence.

Photo credits: Forum Ancient Coins
Tracy AielloMar 07, 2019
A_and_V_Antioch_5th_WKshp_Large.jpg
Vabalathus and Aurelian Antioch 5th Officina7 viewsVabalathus: 270 - 272 AD; Aurelian: 270 - 275 AD
Julius Aurelius Septimius Vabalathus Athenodorus (Wahb Allat), son of Septimius Odaenathus and Septimia Zenobia. Palmyrene Empire.
Obv: VABALATHVS V C R IM D R1; Bust of Vabalathus, laureate, diademed, draped and curiassed, facing right, seen from behind.
Rev: IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG; Bust of Aurelian, radiate and curiassed, facing right, from the front, ϵ in exergue.
Denomination: billion antoninianus; Mint: Antioch; Officina: 5th; Issue: 1st; Date: Nov. 270 - Mar. 272; Weight: 3.262; Diameter: 20.3mm; Die axis: 315º; References, for example: RIC V v.1 381 correc; MER - RIC 3107; SRCV III 11718

Notes:

1VABALATHVS V[IR] C[LARISSIMUS] R[EX] IM[PERATOR] D[UX] R[OMANORUM]. See for example, Bland (2011), pp. 135, 141 and Estiot (2004, v1), p. 118, esp. note 462. Although David S. Potter in The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 180 - 395. New York: Routledge, 2004, page 267 and footnote 24 postulates V[IR] C[ONSULARIS] for the mint at
Antioch I would certainly side with Bland and Estiot.

Which side of this coin is the obverse and which side is the reverse?
Percy Webb in RIC, vol. V, part 1 (1927) puts great weight on the titulature of Aurelian and mentions that mint marks on the obverse of coins were not unknown at Antioch. He considers the coin to have been struck as a sign of vassalage instead of having been struck as an insult. Webb states that Aurelian’s bust is on the obverse of the coin (p. 260). Anne Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet, Vol. IV Valerian I to Allectus, pp. cxix and 142 also considers Aurelian’s bust to be on the obverse of the coin, but does not state an explicit reason for her position. Harold Mattingly, “The Palmyrene Princes and the Mints of Antioch and Alexandria” (1936), holds that the mint mark is the determining factor, and therefore believes that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 113). David Sear RCV III, p. 442 follows the reasoning of Mattingly and although David Vagi, Coinage and History of the Roman Empire, Volume One: History, agrees that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 403) he does not explicitly state his reason for believing so. Sylviane Estiot, Monnaies de L’Empire romain XII.1: D’Aurelian à Florien (270 - 276 apres J.-C.) [2004], states that the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian clearly indicates that his portrait is on the reverse of the coin (p. 118). Roger Bland, “The Coinage of Vabalathus and Zenobia from Antioch and Alexandria” (2011), follow suit. When discussing this issue from Antioch he states that the officina mark is always placed on the reverse of coins. He notes that the placement of the officina mark sent a signal that Aurelian was “...being accorded a lower status than Vabalathus, although he was given his correct titles of Imperator and Augustus, and he wore a radiate crown, also traditionally associated with the senior Augustus” (p. 142 - 3). Alaric Watson argues in Aurelian and the Third Century (1999), pp. 67 - 9 that Queen Zenobia’s assertion of Palmyrene independence from Rome took place gradually. Bland believes that the placement of the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian on this coin was just another step in that assertion of independence.

Photo credits: Forum Ancient Coins
Tracy AielloMar 07, 2019
A_and__V_Antioch_4th_Wkshp_Large.jpg
Vabalathus and Aurelian Antioch 4th Officina5 viewsVabalathus: 270 - 272 AD; Aurelian: 270 - 275 AD
Julius Aurelius Septimius Vabalathus Athenodorus (Wahb Allat), son of Septimius Odaenathus and Septimia Zenobia. Palmyrene Empire.
Obv: VABALATHVS V C R IM D R1; Bust of Vabalathus, laureate, diademed, draped and curiassed, facing right, seen from behind.
Rev: IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG; Bust of Aurelian, radiate and curiassed, facing right, from the front, Δ in exergue.
Denomination: billion antoninianus; Mint: Antioch; Officina: 4th; Issue: 1st; Date: Nov. 270 - Mar. 272; Weight: 3.563g; Diameter: 21.8mm; Die axis: 180º; References, for example: RIC V v.1 381 correc; MER - RIC 3106; SRCV III 11718

Notes:

1VABALATHVS V[IR] C[LARISSIMUS] R[EX] IM[PERATOR] D[UX] R[OMANORUM]. See for example, Bland (2011), pp. 135, 141 and Estiot (2004, v1), p. 118, esp. note 462. Although David S. Potter in The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 180 - 395. New York: Routledge, 2004, page 267 and footnote 24 postulates V[IR] C[ONSULARIS] for the mint at Antioch I would certainly side with Bland and Estiot.

Which side of this coin is the obverse and which side is the reverse?
Percy Webb in RIC, vol. V, part 1 (1927) puts great weight on the titulature of Aurelian and mentions that mint marks on the obverse of coins were not unknown at Antioch. He considers the coin to have been struck as a sign of vassalage instead of having been struck as an insult. Webb states that Aurelian’s bust is on the obverse of the coin (p. 260). Anne Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet, Vol. IV Valerian I to Allectus, pp. cxix and 142 also considers Aurelian’s bust to be on the obverse of the coin, but does not state an explicit reason for her position. Harold Mattingly, “The Palmyrene Princes and the Mints of Antioch and Alexandria” (1936), holds that the mint mark is the determining factor, and therefore believes that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 113). David Sear RCV III, p. 442 follows the reasoning of Mattingly and although David Vagi, Coinage and History of the Roman Empire, Volume One: History, agrees that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 403) he does not explicitly state his reason for believing so. Sylviane Estiot, Monnaies de L’Empire romain XII.1: D’Aurelian à Florien (270 - 276 apres J.-C.) [2004], states that the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian clearly indicates that his portrait is on the reverse of the coin (p. 118). Roger Bland, “The Coinage of Vabalathus and Zenobia from Antioch and Alexandria” (2011), follow suit. When discussing this issue from Antioch he states that the officina mark is always placed on the reverse of coins. He notes that the placement of the officina mark sent a signal that Aurelian was “...being accorded a lower status than Vabalathus, although he was given his correct titles of Imperator and Augustus, and he wore a radiate crown, also traditionally associated with the senior Augustus” (p. 142 - 3). Alaric Watson argues in Aurelian and the Third Century (1999), pp. 67 - 9 that Queen Zenobia’s assertion of Palmyrene independence from Rome took place gradually. Bland believes that the placement of the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian on this coin was just another step in that assertion of independence.

Photo credits: Forum Ancient Coins
Tracy AielloMar 07, 2019
A_and_V_Antioch_3rd_Wkshp_Large.jpg
Vabalathus and Aurelian Antioch 3rd Officina10 viewsVabalathus: 270 - 272 AD; Aurelian: 270 - 275 AD
Julius Aurelius Septimius Vabalathus Athenodorus (Wahb Allat), son of Septimius Odaenathus and Septimia Zenobia. Palmyrene Empire.
Obv: VABALATHVS V C R IM D R1; Bust of Vabalathus, laureate, diademed, draped and curiassed, facing right, seen from behind.
Rev: IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG; Bust of Aurelian, radiate and curiassed, facing right, from the front, Γ in exergue.
Denomination: billion antoninianus; Mint: Antioch; Officina: 3rd; Issue: 1st; Date: Nov. 270 - Mar. 272; Weight: 3.146g; Diameter: 21.2mm; Die axis: 180º; References, for example: RIC V v.1 381 correc; MER - RIC 3105; SRCV III 11718

Notes:

1VABALATHVS V[IR] C[LARISSIMUS] R[EX] IM[PERATOR] D[UX] R[OMANORUM]. See for example, Bland (2011), pp. 135, 141 and ESTIOT (2004, v1), p. 118, esp. note 462. Although David S. Potter in The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 180 - 395. New York: Routledge, 2004, page 267 and footnote 24 postulates V[IR] C[ONSULARIS] for the mint at Antioch I would certainly side with Bland and Estiot.

Which side of this coin is the obverse and which side is the reverse?
Percy Webb in RIC, vol. V, part 1 (1927) puts great weight on the titulature of Aurelian and mentions that mint marks on the obverse of coins were not unknown at Antioch. He considers the coin to have been struck as a sign of vassalage instead of having been struck as an insult. Webb states that Aurelian’s bust is on the obverse of the coin (p. 260). Anne Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet, Vol. IV Valerian I to Allectus, pp. cxix and 142 also considers Aurelian’s bust to be on the obverse of the coin, but does not state an explicit reason for her position. Harold Mattingly, “The Palmyrene Princes and the Mints of Antioch and Alexandria” (1936), holds that the mint mark is the determining factor, and therefore believes that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 113). David Sear RCV III, p. 442 follows the reasoning of Mattingly and although David Vagi, Coinage and History of the Roman Empire, Volume One: History, agrees that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 403) he does not explicitly state his reason for believing so. Sylviane Estiot, Monnaies de L’Empire romain XII.1: D’Aurelian à Florien (270 - 276 apres J.-C.) [2004], states that the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian clearly indicates that his portrait is on the reverse of the coin (p. 118). Roger Bland, “The Coinage of Vabalathus and Zenobia from Antioch and Alexandria” (2011), follow suit. When discussing this issue from Antioch he states that the officina mark is always placed on the reverse of coins. He notes that the placement of the officina mark sent a signal that Aurelian was “...being accorded a lower status than Vabalathus, although he was given his correct titles of Imperator and Augustus, and he wore a radiate crown, also traditionally associated with the senior Augustus” (p. 142 - 3). Alaric Watson argues in Aurelian and the Third Century (1999), pp. 67 - 9 that Queen Zenobia’s assertion of Palmyrene independence from Rome took place gradually. Bland believes that the placement of the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian on this coin was just another step in that assertion of independence.

Photo credits: Forum Ancient Coins
Tracy AielloMar 07, 2019
A_and_V_Antioch_2nd_Wkshp_Large.jpg
Vabalathus and Aurelian Antioch 2nd Officina 7 viewsVabalathus: 270 - 272 AD; Aurelian: 270 - 275 AD
Julius Aurelius Septimius Vabalathus Athenodorus (Wahb Allat), son of Septimius Odaenathus and Septimia Zenobia. Palmyrene Empire.
Obv: VABALATHVS V C R IM D R1; Bust of Vabalathus, laureate, diademed, draped and curiassed, facing right, seen from behind.
Rev: IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG; Bust of Aurelian, radiate and curiassed, facing right, from the front, B in exergue.
Denomination: billion antoninianus; Mint: Antioch; Officina: 2nd; Issue: 1st; Date: Nov. 270 - Mar. 272; Weight: 3.855g; Diameter: 20.5mm; Die axis: 180º; References, for example: RIC V v.1 381 correc; MER - RIC 3103; SRCV III 11718

Notes:

1VABALATHVS V[IR] C[LARISSIMUS] R[EX] IM[PERATOR] D[UX] R[OMANORUM]. See for example, Bland (2011), pp. 135, 141 and Estiot (2004, v1), p. 118, esp. note 462. Although David S. Potter in The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 180 - 395. New York: Routledge, 2004, page 267 and footnote 24 postulates V[IR] C[ONSULARIS] for the mint at Antioch I would certainly side with Bland and Estiot.

Which side of this coin is the obverse and which side is the reverse?
Percy Webb in RIC, vol. V, part 1 (1927) puts great weight on the titulature of Aurelian and mentions that mint marks on the obverse of coins were not unknown at Antioch. He considers the coin to have been struck as a sign of vassalage instead of having been struck as an insult. Webb states that Aurelian’s bust is on the obverse of the coin (p. 260). Anne Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet, Vol. IV Valerian I to Allectus, pp. cxix and 142 also considers Aurelian’s bust to be on the obverse of the coin, but does not state an explicit reason for her position. Harold Mattingly, “The Palmyrene Princes and the Mints of Antioch and Alexandria” (1936), holds that the mint mark is the determining factor, and therefore believes that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 113). David Sear RCV III, p. 442 follows the reasoning of Mattingly and although David Vagi, Coinage and History of the Roman Empire, Volume One: History, agrees that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 403) he does not explicitly state his reason for believing so. Sylviane Estiot, Monnaies de L’Empire romain XII.1: D’Aurelian à Florien (270 - 276 apres J.-C.) [2004], states that the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian clearly indicates that his portrait is on the reverse of the coin (p. 118). Roger Bland, “The Coinage of Vabalathus and Zenobia from Antioch and Alexandria” (2011), follow suit. When discussing this issue from Antioch he states that the officina mark is always placed on the reverse of coins. He notes that the placement of the officina mark sent a signal that Aurelian was “...being accorded a lower status than Vabalathus, although he was given his correct titles of Imperator and Augustus, and he wore a radiate crown, also traditionally associated with the senior Augustus” (p. 142 - 3). Alaric Watson argues in Aurelian and the Third Century (1999), pp. 67 - 9 that Queen Zenobia’s assertion of Palmyrene independence from Rome took place gradually. Bland believes that the placement of the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian on this coin was just another step in that assertion of independence.

Photo credits: Forum Ancient Coins
Tracy AielloMar 07, 2019
A_and_V_Antioch_1st_Wkshp_Large.jpg
Vabalathus and Aurelian Antioch 1st Officina8 viewsVabalathus: 270 - 272 AD; Aurelian: 270 - 275 AD
Julius Aurelius Septimius Vabalathus Athenodorus (Wahb Allat), son of Septimius Odaenathus and Septimia Zenobia. Palmyrene Empire.
Obv: VABALATHVS V C R IM D R1; Bust of Vabalathus, laureate, diademed, draped and curiassed, facing right.
Rev: IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG; Bust of Aurelian, radiate and curiassed, facing right, from the front, A in exergue.
Denomination: billion antoninianus; Mint: Antioch; Officina: 1st; Issue: 1st; Date: Nov. 270 - Mar. 272; Weight: 2.73g; Diameter: 20.5mm; Die axis: 0º; References, for example: RIC V v.1 381 correc; MER - RIC 3102; SRCV III 11718

Notes:

1VABALATHVS V[IR] C[LARISSIMUS] R[EX] IM[PERATOR] D[UX] R[OMANORUM]. See for example, Bland (2011), pp. 135, 141 and Estiot (2004, v1), p. 118, esp. note 462. Although David S. Potter in The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 180 - 395. New York: Routledge, 2004, page 267 and footnote 24 postulates V[IR] C[ONSULARIS] for the mint at Antioch I would certainly side with Bland and Estiot.

Which side of this coin is the obverse and which side is the reverse?
Percy Webb in RIC, vol. V, part 1 (1927) puts great weight on the titulature of Aurelian and mentions that mint marks on the obverse of coins were not unknown at Antioch. He considers the coin to have been struck as a sign of vassalage instead of having been struck as an insult. Webb states that Aurelian’s bust is on the obverse of the coin (p. 260). Anne Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet, Vol. IV Valerian I to Allectus, pp. cxix and 142 also considers Aurelian’s bust to be on the obverse of the coin, but does not state an explicit reason for her position. Harold Mattingly, “The Palmyrene Princes and the Mints of Antioch and Alexandria” (1936), holds that the mint mark is the determining factor, and therefore believes that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p.113). David Sear RCV III, p. 442 follows the reasoning of Mattingly and although David Vagi, Coinage and History of the Roman Empire, Volume One: History, agrees that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 403) he does not explicitly state his reason for believing so. Sylviane Estiot, Monnaies de L’Empire romain XII.1: D’Aurelian à Florien (270 - 276 apres J.-C.) [2004], states that the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian clearly indicates that his portrait is on the reverse of the coin (p.118). Roger Bland, “The Coinage of Vabalathus and Zenobia from Antioch and Alexandria” (2011), follow suit. When discussing this issue from Antioch he states that the officina mark is always placed on the reverse of coins. He notes that the placement of the officina mark sent a signal that Aurelian was “...being accorded a lower status than Vabalathus, although he was given his correct titles of Imperator and Augustus, and he wore a radiate crown, also traditionally associated with the senior Augustus” (p. 142 - 3). Alaric Watson argues in Aurelian and the Third Century (1999), pp. 67 - 9 that Queen Zenobia’s assertion of Palmyrene independence from Rome took place gradually. Bland believes that the placement of the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian on this coin was just another step in that assertion of independence.

Photo credits: Forum Ancient Coins
Tracy AielloMar 06, 2019
Sextus_Pompey_Scylla_Large.jpg
Sextus Pompey -- Pharos and Scylla Larger Picture29 viewsPhoto Credits: Forum Ancient Coins2 commentsTracy AielloMar 06, 2019
Sextus_Pompey_Scylla.jpg
Sextus Pompey -- Pharos and Scylla48 viewsSextus Pompey, Imperator and Prefect of the Fleet
[Youngest Son of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great)]
Obv: MAG⦁PIVS⦁IMP⦁ITER; Pharos of Messana, Neptune on top standing r. with r. hand on a trident and l. hand on a rudder, resting l. foot on prow. Galley sailing l., aquila atop a tripod placed in prow and a scepter tied with a fillet in stern. Border of dots.
Rev: PRAEF⦁ORAE⦁MARIT⦁ET⦁CLAS⦁S⦁C [AEs and MAR ligatured]; Scylla attacking l. wielding a rudder in both hands, the torso of a nude woman with two fishtails and the foreparts of three dogs as the lower body. Border of dots.
Denomination: silver denarius; Mint: Sicily, uncertain location1; Date: summer 42 - summer 39 BC2; Weight: 3.566g; Diameter: 19.8mm; Die axis: 225º; References, for example: BMCRR v. II Sicily 20 variant3, Sydenham 1349 variant3; Crawford RRC 511/4d; Sear CRI 335b.

Notes:

Obverse legend: MAG[NUS]⦁PIVS⦁IMP[ERATOR]⦁ITER[UM]
Reverse legend: PRAEF[ECTUS]⦁ORAE⦁MARIT[IMAE]⦁ET⦁CLAS[SIS]⦁S[ENATUS]⦁C[ONSULTO]

1Grueber BMCRR v. II Sicily, p.557 and Sear CRI, p. 203 suggest Messana as a possible mint location. DeRose Evans (1987), p. 124 hesitatingly suggests Mitylene (on the island of Lesbos).

2This is the date range suggested by Estiot 2006, p. 145, as she recommends going back to Crawford’s proposal of 42 - 40 BC. Crawford RRC, p. 521 suggests the period in 42 BC after Sextus Pompey defeated Q. Salvidienus Rufus. Grueber BMCRR v. II Sicily, p.556 proposes 38 - 36 BC. Sydenham, p.211 follows Grueber. DeRose Evans (1987), p. 129 submits 35 BC.

3Grueber BMCRR v. II Sicily 20 and Sydenham 1349 list MAR (ligatured) I but the coin here is clearly MAR (ligatured) IT. Neither Grueber nor Sydenham record MAR (ligatured) IT as part of this reverse legend for this coin type. Crawford and Sear do.

Photo credits: Forum Ancient Coins

Sources

Crawford, Michael H. Roman Republican Coinage v. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001 reprint with the 1982 corrections.
DeRose Evans, Jane. "The Sicilian Coinage of Sextus Pompeius (Crawford 511)" in Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society), vol. 32 (1987): 97 - 157.
Estiot, Sylviane. “Sex. Pompée, La Sicile et La Monnaie: Problèmes de Datation.” Dans Aere Perennivs, en hommage á Hubert Zehnacker, édité par Jacqueline Champeaux et Martine Chassignet. Paris: L’Université Paris - Sorbonne, 2006.
Grueber, H. A. Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum v. II. London: 1910.
Sear, David R. The History and Coinage of the Roman Imperators 49 - 27 BC. London: Spink, 1998.
Sydenham, Edward A. The Coinage of the Roman Republic. New York: Arno Press, 1975.
7 commentsTracy AielloMar 06, 2019
 

Random files - Tracy Aiello's Gallery
A_and_V_Antioch_3rd_Wkshp_Large.jpg
Vabalathus and Aurelian Antioch 3rd Officina10 viewsVabalathus: 270 - 272 AD; Aurelian: 270 - 275 AD
Julius Aurelius Septimius Vabalathus Athenodorus (Wahb Allat), son of Septimius Odaenathus and Septimia Zenobia. Palmyrene Empire.
Obv: VABALATHVS V C R IM D R1; Bust of Vabalathus, laureate, diademed, draped and curiassed, facing right, seen from behind.
Rev: IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG; Bust of Aurelian, radiate and curiassed, facing right, from the front, Γ in exergue.
Denomination: billion antoninianus; Mint: Antioch; Officina: 3rd; Issue: 1st; Date: Nov. 270 - Mar. 272; Weight: 3.146g; Diameter: 21.2mm; Die axis: 180º; References, for example: RIC V v.1 381 correc; MER - RIC 3105; SRCV III 11718

Notes:

1VABALATHVS V[IR] C[LARISSIMUS] R[EX] IM[PERATOR] D[UX] R[OMANORUM]. See for example, Bland (2011), pp. 135, 141 and ESTIOT (2004, v1), p. 118, esp. note 462. Although David S. Potter in The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 180 - 395. New York: Routledge, 2004, page 267 and footnote 24 postulates V[IR] C[ONSULARIS] for the mint at Antioch I would certainly side with Bland and Estiot.

Which side of this coin is the obverse and which side is the reverse?
Percy Webb in RIC, vol. V, part 1 (1927) puts great weight on the titulature of Aurelian and mentions that mint marks on the obverse of coins were not unknown at Antioch. He considers the coin to have been struck as a sign of vassalage instead of having been struck as an insult. Webb states that Aurelian’s bust is on the obverse of the coin (p. 260). Anne Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet, Vol. IV Valerian I to Allectus, pp. cxix and 142 also considers Aurelian’s bust to be on the obverse of the coin, but does not state an explicit reason for her position. Harold Mattingly, “The Palmyrene Princes and the Mints of Antioch and Alexandria” (1936), holds that the mint mark is the determining factor, and therefore believes that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 113). David Sear RCV III, p. 442 follows the reasoning of Mattingly and although David Vagi, Coinage and History of the Roman Empire, Volume One: History, agrees that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 403) he does not explicitly state his reason for believing so. Sylviane Estiot, Monnaies de L’Empire romain XII.1: D’Aurelian à Florien (270 - 276 apres J.-C.) [2004], states that the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian clearly indicates that his portrait is on the reverse of the coin (p. 118). Roger Bland, “The Coinage of Vabalathus and Zenobia from Antioch and Alexandria” (2011), follow suit. When discussing this issue from Antioch he states that the officina mark is always placed on the reverse of coins. He notes that the placement of the officina mark sent a signal that Aurelian was “...being accorded a lower status than Vabalathus, although he was given his correct titles of Imperator and Augustus, and he wore a radiate crown, also traditionally associated with the senior Augustus” (p. 142 - 3). Alaric Watson argues in Aurelian and the Third Century (1999), pp. 67 - 9 that Queen Zenobia’s assertion of Palmyrene independence from Rome took place gradually. Bland believes that the placement of the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian on this coin was just another step in that assertion of independence.

Photo credits: Forum Ancient Coins
Tracy Aiello
Severina_Concordiae_Militvm_Large.jpg
Ulpia Severina - A Coin of an Interregnum?1 viewsUlpia Severina, Augusta (274 AD), wife of Aurelian
Obv: SEVERINA AVG; Bust of Severina, diademed, draped, on a lunar crescent, facing right.
Rev: CONCORDIAE MILITVM; Concordia standing left, facing left, flanked by two standards, one in each hand, VI in left field, XXI in exergue.
Denomination: billion antoninianus; Mint: Antioch; Officina: 6th; Issue: 6; Date: early 275 to September 275 AD; Weight: 3.77g; Diameter: 23.3mm; Die axis: 180º; References, for example: RIC V v.1 20; MER - RIC 3198.

Notes:

Is this a coin of an interregnum?
That there was an interregnum, in the literal meaning of the word, between the murder of Aurelian and the Senatorial appointment of Tacitus as emperor is undisputed. What is disputed, however, is the length of the interregnum as well as its meaningfulness, i.e. for whatever period of interregnum that did exist, did Severina or the Senate actually rule the empire and thereby make decisions that engendered consequences and/or directed actions? This coin type (although not the only coin type) has played a part in the interregnum story. In Aurelian and the Third Century (London and New York: Routledge, 1999) Alaric Watson dedicates seven and a half pages (pp. 109 - 116) to discussing the interregnum, where he vociferously argues that there was no meaningful interregnum. As part of this discussion he references, on p. 115, this particular coin type and in footnote 66 he cites a number of sources that assign this type in the name of Severina to the period after Aurelian’s death. For example:
Percy Webb in RIC, vol. V, part 1 (1927), pp. 4, 35, and 253 does not take a stance on the possible length of the interregnum, but on p. 253 he states that if the interregnum lasted eight months, then the mints certainly could not have been closed and so “...it is necessary to find coins representing their output.”1 This coin type, dedicated to Concordia and in the name of Severina alone, might represent that output. In “The Imperial Recovery” (chapter nine of The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. XII, The Imperial Crisis and Recovery AD 193 - 324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939) Harold Mattingly acknowledges that although the length of the interregnum is in debate “... the coinage shows clearly that for some considerable period government was carried on in the name of the Empress Severina for the the dead Aurelian.” (p. 310). In all officina for several mints the coinage of Severina, such as the “Concordia Militum” type “...bear witness to the conditions of the interregnum.” (p. 310). In “The Reform of Aurelian” (Revue Numismatique, 6th series, vol. 7, 1965: 225 - 235) R. A. G. Carson mentions on pp. 233 and 234 that Severina’s Concordia Militum type is for Severina alone, and that as such it was minted after the death of Aurelian (p. 233). Carson is not concerned with the question of an interregnum, but his placement of this coin type for Severina alone after Aurelian’s death allows this coin type to be taken as evidence of an interregnum. Eugen Cizek in L’Empereur Aurélien Et Son Temps (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1994) also refers to this coin type (not by specific legend, but by reference to “concord with the soldiers”) when discussing the interregnum. He notes that other scholars assign this coinage to the interregnum, a position that he appears to adopt. In Repostiglio della Venèra Nuovo Catalogo Illustrato Aureliano II/I (Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider, 1995) Sylviane Estiot also assigns this coin type to the period after Aurelian’s death.2

But what of the coin here, this coin actually attributed to the 6th officina, mint of Antioch, 6th issue? Estiot attributes this coin not to an interregnal period between Aurelian and Tacitus, when Severina might have ruled in her own right. Rather, on p. 90 of “Aureliana” (Revue Numismatique, 6th series, vo. 150, 1995: 50 - 94) Estiot attributes this coin, because of exact parallelisms to Aurelian’s coinage at Antioch at this time, to a period of joint coinage between Aurelian and Severina.3

Footnotes:

1He actually allows for the possibility of coinage even if the interregnum was short. See footnote 1, p. 253.
2I assume this to be the case. Although I have no reason to doubt Watson’s citation I was unable to verify it because I am unable to obtain a copy of this book by Estiot.
3Also see Estiot, Monnaies de L’Empire romain XII.1: D’Aurelian à Florien (270 - 276 apres J.-C.). Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France, 2004, pp. 28 (table 1) and 122.

Photo credits: Forum Ancient Coins
Tracy Aiello
A_and_V_Antioch_7th_Wksp_Large.jpg
Vabalathus and Aurelian Antioch 7th Officina10 viewsVabalathus: 270 - 272 AD; Aurelian: 270 - 275 AD
Julius Aurelius Septimius Vabalathus Athenodorus (Wahb Allat), son of Septimius Odaenathus and Septimia Zenobia. Palmyrene Empire.
Obv: VABALATHVS V C R IM D R1; Bust of Vabalathus, laureate, diademed, draped and curiassed, facing right, seen from behind.
Rev: IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG; Bust of Aurelian, radiate and curiassed, facing right, from the front, Z in exergue.
Denomination: billion antoninianus; Mint: Antioch; Officina: 7th; Issue: 1st; Date: Nov. 270 - Mar. 272; Weight: 4.137g; Diameter: 20.3mm; Die axis: 0º; References, for example: RIC V v.1 381 correc; MER - RIC 3110; SRCV III 11718

Notes:

1VABALATHVS V[IR] C[LARISSIMUS] R[EX] IM[PERATOR] D[UX] R[OMANORUM]. See for example, Bland (2011), pp. 135, 141 and Estiot (2004, v1), p. 118, esp. note 462. Although David S. Potter in The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 180 - 395. New York: Routledge, 2004, page 267 and footnote 24 postulates V[IR] C[ONSULARIS] for the mint at Antioch I would certainly side with Bland and Estiot.

Which side of this coin is the obverse and which side is the reverse?
Percy Webb in RIC, vol. V, part 1 (1927) puts great weight on the titulature of Aurelian and mentions that mint marks on the obverse of coins were not unknown at Antioch. He considers the coin to have been struck as a sign of vassalage instead of having been struck as an insult. Webb states that Aurelian’s bust is on the obverse of the coin (p. 260). Anne Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet, Vol. IV Valerian I to Allectus, pp. cxix and 142 also considers Aurelian’s bust to be on the obverse of the coin, but does not state an explicit reason for her position. Harold Mattingly, “The Palmyrene Princes and the Mints of Antioch and Alexandria” (1936), holds that the mint mark is the determining factor, and therefore believes that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 113). David Sear RCV III, p. 442 follows the reasoning of Mattingly and although David Vagi, Coinage and History of the Roman Empire, Volume One: History, agrees that Aurelian’s bust is on the reverse of the coin (p. 403) he does not explicitly state his reason for believing so. Sylviane Estiot, Monnaies de L’Empire romain XII.1: D’Aurelian à Florien (270 - 276 apres J.-C.) [2004], states that the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian clearly indicates that his portrait is on the reverse of the coin (p. 118). Roger Bland, “The Coinage of Vabalathus and Zenobia from Antioch and Alexandria” (2011), follow suit. When discussing this issue from Antioch he states that the officina mark is always placed on the reverse of coins. He notes that the placement of the officina mark sent a signal that Aurelian was “...being accorded a lower status than Vabalathus, although he was given his correct titles of Imperator and Augustus, and he wore a radiate crown, also traditionally associated with the senior Augustus” (p. 142 - 3). Alaric Watson argues in Aurelian and the Third Century (1999), pp. 67 - 9 that Queen Zenobia’s assertion of Palmyrene independence from Rome took place gradually. Bland believes that the placement of the officina mark under the bust of Aurelian on this coin was just another step in that assertion of independence.

Photo credits: Forum Ancient Coins
Tracy Aiello
Sextus_Pompey_Scylla_Large.jpg
Sextus Pompey -- Pharos and Scylla Larger Picture29 viewsPhoto Credits: Forum Ancient Coins2 commentsTracy Aiello