I have a question sparked by the Alexandrian
tetradrachm from the
Dattari collection (now my coll.):
Gordian III (238-244) Billon Tetradrachm (23mm., 12.35g, 12h). Egypt, Alexandria, 243-4 CE.
Obverse: Α Κ Μ ΑΝΤ Γ-ΟΡΔΙΑΝΟϹ ƐΥ. Laureate, draped & cuirassed bust r.
Reverse: Bust of Helios facing r., radiate & draped. L-Z (Regnal Year 7).
Published: Dattari [1901] 4731 (this coin cited, corr. legend); Dattari-Savio [1999, 2007] pl. 252, 4731 (this coin illustrated); RPC VII.2 3874 (this coin illustrated online); See also: Vogt II [1924] Alexandrinischen p. 140 (this coin cited); Klose & Overbeck [1989] Ägypten zur Römerzeit p. 36, No. 97 (this coin cited); SNG Hunterian [2008] p. CCCVIII (this coin cited).
Further Refs: Milne 3466; BMC Alexandria 1859; Emmett 3407; K&G 72.137; Feuardent [1869] v2, p. 210, 2743;
See especially: CNA XVIII [3 Dec 1991], Lot 443 = Col. J. Curtis [1990] #1265 (same obv. die & only other published specimen w/ same legend break); on the significance of obv. legend breaks, see Milne [1918] “The Shops of the Roman Mint of Alexandria” (JSTOR 370158).
Provenance: Ex-Naville Numismatics (London) Auction 60 (27 September 2020), #308; ex Giovanni Dattari (1858-1923) collection, before 1901.
I noticed something interesting about this specimen as soon as began researching it:
The Legend Break.
The
obverse legend break is between the G and the O in the emperor’s name (Γ – ΟΡΔΙΑΝΟϹ), but on almost all other specimens of this
type, it
comes between GO and R (ΓΟ – ΡΔΙΑΝΟϹ). (The G-O
obverse break does appear with other reverses, but only one other example for
Helios of Year 7.)
A typical specimen (NOT mine):
Oxford HCR30944 = Milne 3466 [LINK]
Legend breaks aren’t usually the most meaningful variants. But, in this case, they may be.
In 1918, J.G.
Milne wrote an article about “The Shops of the
Roman Mint of
Alexandria” (
The Journal of Roman Studies 8: 154-178)
[LINK]. One of
his hypotheses was that, for certain emperors (including
Gordian III), the different workshops identified their coins with different
obverse legend breaks (among other variations).
In fact, he specifically mentioned
Gordian III’s
legend breaks for Year 7, G-O vs. GO-R:
Page 166-8: “… the legend is broken in most cases at the points -Γ OPΔ- or - Γ0 PΔ-, rarely -ΓOP Δ-… These facts suggest that the variation in the break of the legend was intended to serve […as marks of differentiation which would serve to classify the coins under shops].”
My question:
Was this topic ever followed up in later research? Has anyone ever come across this theory?To be honest, aside from the
Nomes, I don’t remember reading about different Alexandrian workshops. But, if it’s a plausible hypothesis, I think I see a fairly straightforward way to test the theory, using
Gordian III’s Year 7 Tetradrachms.
ADDITIONAL NOTES:The only other such specimen I’ve found is the specimen from the
Col.
James Curtis Collection (#1265). It was not pictured in
his books or articles, but appears in
CNA Auction XVIII (3
Dec 1991), Lot 443. Notably,
Curtis did indicate the different
legend breaks (calling this one
var. “C”).
Col. James Curtis Collection 1265, cited in Curtis (1969, 1990). Illustrated in CNA XVIII, 443 [LINK]
Interestingly,
Dattari himself seems to have gotten the
legend break wrong in
his 1901
catalog! (Describing it as ΓΟ – ΡΔΙΑΝΟϹ.)
Examples of this
obverse legend break (including this
obverse die) appear paired with other
reverse types. Hint: The fact that it appears paired with other reverses is what makes
Milne’s (1918) hypothesis eminently testable
(NOT mine):
RPC VII.2, 3877. Nike advancing left. Berlin 18275506, Löbb. [LINK]
Additional Gordian III Year 7 Tetradrachms: [LINK]