Graffito - funny little curiosity on two tetradrachms of Caracalla

[Aeneas]

Dear Forum

I thought I would just share a funny little curiosity: both coins are from Antioch (Seleucis et Pieria), and although from different dies, are stylistically in my opinion very similar. I would argue that both obverse (and reverse?) dies were done by the same engraver. Funnily both coins also have a graffito to the right of the bust consisting of 4 lines, perhaps also coming from one individual. It may be just a coincidence or perhaps a hint that both coins were in the same hoard (belonging to the same individual) but I love to let my fantasy carry myself back almost 2000 years ago and imagine how it came to this!

By the way: the auction houses identified both coins as Prieur 235 but in the Prieur catalogue the coin 235 has a B at the beginning of the obverse legend. Just a variant? How would you ID the coin?

David

[Dominic T]

Pretty cool but also weird. I’ve seen many die-matches over the years but never a graffito-matches…

[Tom Mullally]

I don't see any differences between the two obverse legends. The CEB is the ending of the legend and is below the bust, B is the final letter.  They don't share the same die, but the legends are the same.

Tom

[Joe Sermarini]

Fun find.

[Curtis JJ]

Nice catch on the graffito! Once in a while I think there's a good story to be told about the graffiti on ancient coins. I came across an interesting article by Liampia (2008 AJN) when trying to research my own graffitoed Boeotian AR Stater: "NIKA, ΛEIA: Graffiti on Sicyonian and Theban Staters in a New Hoard from Boeotia / Beginning of 2000" [LINK]. That particular deposit of coins was basically a post-battle donation, like a tithe from the plunder, dedicated to Nike.

More often, the graffiti I see is something like the crosses commonly found on Byzantine gold coins, which may be there for many different reasons (e.g., blessings intended for the purchase, the money, or the ruler depicted), including that medieval European and Levantine Christians would inscribe crosses on pretty much any surfaces they could.

But finding a pattern, or repeated symbol/phrase, like the Caracalla above, seems unusual and worth paying attention to.

I don't know what could come of it, but I've found something similar with one of my Carthaginian EL Staters (Jenkins-Lewis Group V, c. 310-290 BCE). It has a pair of Deltas (or triangles or character from another alphabet/syllabary) on the reverse -- a big one above the horse, and a small one to the right. Since buying it, I've seen that same graffito on about a half dozen other examples, usually of very similar dies (i.e., triangle on reverse, usually above horse, sometimes two as on mine):

(1) Carradice & Price (1995: pl. 24) 300 (BM ex.); (2) Platt 21 April 1914, Lot 15 [Cat. LINK, INHA]; (3) Sontag 12, Lot 48 [LINK]; (4) HJB BBS 70, Lot 10 [Cat. LINK, Archive]; (5) CNG 90, Lot 372 [LINK]; (6) Ars Classica #16, 3 July 1933, Lot 942 (probably?) [Cat. LINK, HEIDI].

(7) My example = Gorny & Mosch 265 (Sammlung H.I. [Süddeutschem Privatbesitz]), Lot 668 [LINK] = Jacquier 44, 138:



For comparison, here is just one of the others (NOT my coin), ex. #3, the Sontag 12 specimen (Jenkins-Lewis Group VI, c. 310-270 BCE ?) [LINK]:



I don't know what that means, but the fact that I've found 6 or 7 casually looking makes me think there were a lot more of them, all from coins struck at more-or-less the same time (about 290 BCE), and then later circulated. Perhaps these were given to coins from a certain large one-sum payment. If I find some in any hoard reports (I haven't looked) or other archaeological context (like the article on Thebes Staters cited above), it might be possible to draw more inferences.

If they were all applied at the same time, and shortly after being struck, that might also give us information about the sequence and timing of Jenkins-Lewis Group V & VI EL Staters. (E.g., That those groups were struck at about the same time, rather than after a long interval between issues.) I haven't really read up enough to know what specific implications might be.

Or it might just remain an interesting mystery about which to speculate!

[Virgil H]

Very interesting discussion and that last post may blow my theory away. I have no basis, but have often thought that the graffiti was perhaps a mark of ownership, especially on more valuable coins. Like a brand on cattle or something. If you lose the coin or it is stolen, I have thought these marks may have helped prove ownership.

Virgil

[Curtis JJ]

Virgil, I think your theory is probably true in many cases. After my comment above, I remembered a couple of other references on this topic, both of which point toward your explanation.

I won't type them all out, but the page images are below.

David Hendin explains how the Talmud responded to the practice of inscribing one's name on a coin. It doesn't guarantee a claim of ownership in Talmudic writing, apparently, but it is acknowledged as a contemporary practice.

Even more relevant here, the catalog for NAC 72, page 115, actually directly mentions graffiti on 3rd century Syrian Provincial Tetradrachms! And cites a study by Gitler & Ponting (2003) which found about 5% of such coins had been inscribed. As the passage notes, there are various theories about the purpose of graffiti, and it may have served many different purposes. Several other pieces of published research are mentioned.

The Hendin passage is from Pages 26-7 of the 5th ed. of Guide to Biblical Coins (I haven't seen the new 6th ed., so I don't know if it's in there -- or the older ones). The NAC passage is from Auction 72, Lot 621, you can find it on ACSearch [LINK] but it's harder to follow without the paragraph breaks, so I prefer the PDF on issuu or the NAC website: https://www.arsclassicacoins.com/catalogues/auction-72/

Images are expandable to readable size (but apologies for blurriness on the Hendin!):

[Virgil H]

Very interesting, Curtis. I have the 6th edition of Hendin and the "Finders Keepers" section starts on page 5. I didn't remember it was there. It has been rewritten, but is essentially the same info with the same coin figures. I think the rewrite is better than the 5th edition, but essentially same stuff. The Talmudic reasoning is quite interesting and I can't disagree with it.

Thanks,
Virgil

[Aeneas]

I don't see any differences between the two obverse legends. The CEB is the ending of the legend and is below the bust, B is the final letter.  They don't share the same die, but the legends are the same.

Tom

Hi Tom

Thanks, I had a closer look at the Prieur catalogue and now I realized that Prieur sets the B from CEB and the beginning of the observe legend and not at the end (strange!). So these coins definitively are Prieur 235.

David