If the coin bears neither the image or name of the ruler ...

[Olybrius-coins]

Hi all

I'm curious about your thoughts on this one:
If a coin bears neither the image nor the name of a ruler, how can we attribute the coin to a specific ruler?

I'm thinking, for example, of the coinage of Aureolus, minted entirely in the name of Postumus. I have a collection of the heads of most of the emperors, but I have refused to include an "Aureolus coin" because there are none bearing his name or image. The coins attributed to his rule are not, in my humble opinion, "real" Aureolus coins.

Also - coins of Pontius Pilate. These coins don't have his name nor image. How can we even say they are his? I've heard that Pilate himself designed his coins - how can we know that? I've heard there really is only a small amount of evidence (besides the bible) to even support his existence. I'm not aware of any historical sources that claim he designed the coins. The coins could equally be attributed to Tiberius, since they really do bear Tiberius' name.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thomas

[Aarmale]

I can comment on the coins attributed to Pontius Pilate.

Pilate was the governor of Judaea, as attested to by the New Testament, Josephus, Philo, an inscription from Caesarea (!) and possibly other literary sources too.  Josephus' works give, either directly or indirectly, our current understanding of the chronology of the governors. 

The coins attributed to Pilate, along with the rest of the coins attributed to governors, were clearly, based on the inscription, struck under a Roman authority.  According to the denomination and distribution pattern, these coins were Judaean.  Caesarea — the seat of the governors — is usually assumed to be the mint, but this is conjectural. 

The coins of the governors can be confidently dated in terms of the common era using Tiberius' regnal years.  The attribution of coins to Pilate is a consequence of the chronology of the governors outlined by Josephus. 

Josephus is not always correct — especially in regards to chronology.  Because of this, one must make the attribution of the gubernatorial prutot to specific governors hesitantly.  In fact, is the principle of the INR not to attribute the gubernatorial prutot to any single prefect or procurator (see the editors note in INR 2).

[Sap]

If a coin bears neither the image nor the name of a ruler, how can we attribute the coin to a specific ruler?

The short answer, to this more generalized form of the question, is "though history and archaeology".

"Pontius Pilate coins" are a good example of attribution via history - as mentioned above, the coins themselves are dated by regnal year of the emperor, and we have the historical record of Josephus that can correlate this Imperial chronology with the list of Governors.

Other kinds of coins require an archaeological point of view - carefully analysing and studying hoard evidence to try to determine when and where certain coin types were minted. For example, if a series of coin hoards from a small region in Italy, all of which can be datable via scientifically provable methodology to AD 268, all contain a certain distinctive type of coin in far greater proportion than hoards from other times and places, then it can reasonably be concluded that those particular coins were struck in that place in Italy in AD 268. If historical records can prove that "emperor Aureolus" happened to have ruled in that exact time and place as well, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that those odd coins were issued under his authority, even if they do not bear his name.

How well all this can be considered "proof" depends on how good both the historical and archaeological evidence is. In the case of "the coins of Aureolus", that proof seems to be adequate enough.