Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: PM = Persicvs Maximvs?  (Read 3436 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jochen

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12278
  • Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat.
PM = Persicvs Maximvs?
« on: September 23, 2005, 09:36:32 am »
Here I have a nice PAX FVNDATA CVM PERSIS antoninian of Philipp I from Antiochia, RIC 69. The obv. is IMP CM IVL PHILIPPVS PF AVG PM. Now I have read that the abbreviation here stands for PERSICVS MAXIMVS (and not for Pontifex Maximus). Is this explanation correct?

Any opinion highly appreciated.

Best regards

Offline Pscipio

  • Tribunus Plebis 2009
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 3756
  • Si vis pacem, cole iustitiam
Re: PM = Persicvs Maximvs?
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2005, 09:56:48 am »
I guess it is, at least I've found that explanation in auctions from both CNG and Gorny&Mosch.

Lars
Leu Numismatik
www.leunumismatik.com

Offline Jochen

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12278
  • Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat.
Re: PM = Persicvs Maximvs?
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2005, 09:59:59 am »
Yes, Lars, these are my sources of information too. But are they correct?

Best regards

Offline slokind

  • Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6654
  • Art is an experimental science
    • An Art Historian's Numismatics Studies
Re: PM = Persicvs Maximvs?
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2005, 04:22:31 pm »
That is one of the most memorable (specific, non-generic) portraits that I have seen on a coin.  Congratulations.  Pat L.

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: PM = Persicvs Maximvs?
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2005, 04:59:53 pm »
       The grounds for this interpretation are:
(1) The prominence given to P M by its inclusion in the obv. legend, particularly in the sub-issue where it is separated from the rest of the legend and placed right side up below the bust.  The last time P M meaning Pontifex Maximus had been included in the obv. legend was, I think, under Marcus Aurelius.
(2) One of the rev. types of the issue is the only one of Philip's reign that specifically commemorates his settlement with the Persians:  PAX FVNDATA CVM PERSIS.
(3) The early date of this titulature with P M is confirmed by its appearance on coins of Viminacium of Philip's first year, AN V, and on what appear to be his earliest coins at Antioch in Pisidia.
(4) Inscriptions confirm that Philip indeed assumed a victory title for his Parthian settlement early in his reign, but dropped it later: three milestones calling Philip Parthicus Maximus, and a dedication calling him Persicus Maximus.
For illustrations and references see Pink, Antioch or Viminacium?, Num. Chron. 1935.
Curtis Clay

Offline Jochen

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12278
  • Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat.
Re: PM = Persicvs Maximvs?
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2005, 05:22:50 pm »
Thanks, Pat, for your congrats!

Dear Curtis, thank you very much for these profound informations. I have a last question: I wonder why the date of this type should be AD 247! At this time the treaty between Philipp and Shapur was 3 years old and Philipp had big problems with the Carpi attacking Moesia. I think it would be more probable if this issue was struck 244 or 245?

Best regards

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: PM = Persicvs Maximvs?
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2005, 05:39:48 pm »
Jochen,
     The date of this issue is unquestionably 244, as we can tell from its inclusion of coins for Philip I and Otacilia Severa, but none for Philip II , who was apparently not made Caesar until about the summer of 244.  This issue, then, was apparently already finished by summer 244, a couple of months after Philip's accession in c. Feb. 244.
     Who gave you the false date of 247?
Regards,
Curtis
Curtis Clay

Offline Jochen

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12278
  • Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat.
Re: PM = Persicvs Maximvs?
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2005, 12:07:45 pm »
Sorry, it was the description of the seller!

Best regards

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity