Antioch strucks of the Decius family

[berserker]

Hi All,
Recently I’ve got a rare Trajan Decius antoninianus (from German ebay), with the unusual or blundered VERITAS reverse. This type was described earlier at the Forum (The Truth, May 19, 2005).
Because this issue was struck in Antiochia ad Orontem, Syriae, I made a little research, or rather I just summarized the known datas. At the end of this I found the RIC is imperfect, so I drew up a list about Decius family strucks of Antioch, between 250-251 AD.
I signed the unidentified (or missing) coins with red colour, whose purely logically.have to be.
I don’t believe there’s no Decius ADVENTVS AVG coin, if all his member of family have.The coming of new Emperor and starting a new reign is an important  thing in every Empire. Philip I and Trebonianus Gallus has Adventus coin from Antioch, too.
There’s an evidence on Decius PANNONIAE coin (see CNG Online auction 98, September, 2004., or Trajan Decius at Wildwinds - RIC24ADD)
For Etruscus Caesar also have to be ROMAE AETERNA reverse. This is neither a rare denomination, nor Decius VBERITAS AVG reverse. I think the VERITAS legend is blundered (missing ’B’), no other Emperor used this, and the personification is as same as Uberitas coins.
Finally a few words about mint-marks. I omitted the examination of mint-marks and the variation of obverse legends, because I lack for wide bibliography. The denomination of antoninianus has mint-marks: ●, ●●, ●●●, ●●●●, IV, IIV and perhaps was another officina where not used mint-mark. I don’t believe every officina used every mint-marks, for example on Decius coins only have ●, ●● or no mint-mark. In Antioch used the points for a while (from the reign of Septimius Severus), and the eagle-reverse-tetradrachmas’ obverse have often the next mint-marks: ●, ●●, ●●●, ●●●● and reversed S. Perhaps the workshops were common.

I’m curious your opinions from my list.

Mike

[Marius]

Hi Mike,
That is a very nice summary of the Antioch coins of Decius.  I find these coins very interesting.  I have looked through all my records to see if I can add to your list.  I do know that coins exist for Decius' Antioch mint ending in AVGG in addition to the normal AVG.  I have also seen the Decius coin with AEQVITAS AVG with (...) mint mark, but I agree that mark is not at all common.
In Metcalf's article about a hoard of Gallus Antioch antoninianii he makes the statement that (I'm paraphrasing) there is some evidence that officina marks were used on both sides of coins during Decius reign.  It is an odd statement - either they were used or they weren't.  I have only seen the marks on the obverse.  Even for the first part of Gallus' reign they were only used on the obverse (for examplae all Antioch antoninianii of Hostilian AVG).  Has anyone here ever seen a reverse officina mark for Decius? 
Best regards,
Richard

[Marius]

One more thing:  officina (...) and (....) are normal for Herennius and Hostilian CAES, just not common for Decius.

[curtislclay]

ADVENTVS AVG for Decius: Lanz 128, 2006, 696.

PANNONIAE for Decius: CNG E98, 2004, 154 as you say, so the color can be changed to black.  It exists!

New type, VICTORIAE AVGG, Victory advancing r. holding wreath and palm, for Decius, Lanz 120, 2004, 500.

Such a table is a good way or predicting which coins might or should exist, but not of course which coins MUST exist: we can't be certain until a specimen turns up!

Since all of Decius' antoniniani from Antioch are rare, comparatively few of them have found their way into major collections and catalogues, and it is quite likely that new specimens will occasionally show previously unpublished types. 

If, on the other hand, all of the known types were attested in numerous specimens, that might suggest that the omissions were deliberate, i.e. that certain rev. types were intentionally only struck for certain members of the family and not for others.

[berserker]

Curtis,
Thank you for the interesting information and useful details.

Richard,
I can’t remember I’ve seen any reverse officina mark in Decius strucks, but hasn’t any other member of family, though I search a lot for them in the net. Even I’ve been several museums to see the exhibit coins and I think a lot of coins there are no exhibit in museums.
For example - according to gossips - there’s a great number of roman coins in the cellar of the Hungarian National Museum what are no making a catalogue. Nobody is employed them. Most of archeologist working in field to excavate several semetary of Gepidas, Huns, Avars and Hungarian middle age villages before the construction of new highways start.
But the next story is also peculiar to Hungary.
As you know Hadrian was the first governor of Pannonia Inferior in the begining of the 1st century. Just a few people knows there’s a palace of Hadrian near Aquincum in the island of shipyard, burying in 10m deep. (Every year’ August here is arranged the Island Festival – Sziget- with a lot of rock bands). Now instead of excavating the Hadrian palace, there want to build a large shopping center, hotels, wellness center, conference center, casinos etc.
Sorry, I digressed from Antioch strucks a little.

I think, while a lot of found coins and other ancient subjects are gathering dust in cellars, collecting the rare coins are difficult for the enthusiastic collectors and amateur numismatics.

Finally an unusual mintmark of Hostilian Caesar (Numizmatic Lanz auction 125, 28.11.2005 - item no.992)  just add your collection.

Mike

[Marius]

There have been several theories about the Roman numeral mintmarks VII and VIII (and also IV and IIV) on the antoninianii of Decius and Gallus.  Metcalf believed that there were seven officina indicated by pellets and Roman numerals, except for officina 5 which is unmarked.  In RIC Mattingly says he doesn't know, but that it may be that there are only 5 officinas, and that VI and VII are really only variations of IV and IIV.  I think that Mattingly's theory is correct - there were just five workshops (1 through 4 plus an unmarked officina).  Amongst antoninianii of Gallus I frequently encounter coins that show for example "...." (four pellets) on the obverse, and either IV or VI on the reverse.  These mixed markings are not random:  VI, IV, and "...." appear together more often than chance would dictate (see picture below for an example) , just as do IIV and "...".  Also, looking at hoard data it can be seen that either officina one and two plus the unmarked workshop out produced all the others by a large margin, or else one must combine VI with IV and IIV with "..." etc, to make the workshops share the effort.  I have a database of Antioch antoninianii that I am putting together to test this (all my coin study is slow until I finish school next year).  What I have said is my general observation but I will post my results here and on my webpage when I am done (even if my early observations are not borne out so well with the data).

[Robert_Brenchley]

Does evidence from die matches support the five officinae theory?

[Alwin]

Rome or Antioch ? What are the differences ?
Thanks

[berserker]

Compare this to your picture, and you will see.

Mike

[Marius]

Alwin,
For Decius' coins you can tell the two mints apart by style and also that often the Antioch antoninianii have officina marks below the bust.  The obverse legend at Antioch is the same as the most common obverse legend at Rome.  Your coin is Rome, which is a finer style than that of Antioch.  Your coin is a real beauty too!  Such nice fresh dies for boths sides.

Robert,
I don't think that die matches can either prove or disprove the five officina theory.  It is very difficult to do a die match study of these types of coins (Joaquin Blay's die study of the Decius Divi series was a monumental task even though it was covering a series far smaller than Gallus Antioch antoninianii).  Whenever I see a die match of a Gallus coin I save the pictures to a special file for later work, but I have only a few die matches for Antioch antoninianii - there are just so many dies (I have about 100 die matches for Gallus sestertii - there seems, unsurprisingly,  to be a much smaller die/production ratio).  The two ways to test the 'five officina theory' that I have thought of are:

1.  Using a large database of coins with readable officina marks:  arrange the coins by their marks and see if combining coins with the same suspected officina (for example all the coins with "....", "IV" and "VI") it will result in each officina (one through four, plus the unmarked) will result in a similar output volume.  A large sample is necessary to make this method accurate.

2.  Make a database of 'officina mules' (coins that show differrening officina marks on the obv. and rev.) to see if mules that combine two variations of the same suspected officina marking (such as "IV" and "VI" as on my coin above) are statistically significantly more common that mules that connect clearly different officinae.

Maybe someone can pose some other methods could be used for the test.  Antioch antoninianii for Decius and Gallus are great areas for study since there has been little concentrated effort so far.  Almost all of the documented hoard data for Gallus coins is little value since RIC and other efforts did not even distinguish between Gallus two main issues (everyone just lumps them together as one), or between the two obverse designs for the coins of Volusian.

Best regards,
Richard

[Alwin]

Thanks you very much Marius !

[Marius]

I've updated my web page to include the Antioch coins of Decius (it is the collection of a friend of mine in Germany).  It lists many new types.  I would much appreciate the help of anyone who can add information too, or if you have a picture of a type I do not show, I would be glad, with your permission, to add it to the listing.

http://sonic.net/~rbeale/mysite/


I will be adding the Decius coins of Rome at a later point.  My intention is to make my website a complete reference for Imperial coins of the reigns of Decius, Gallus, and Aemilian, and not simply a website collection.

Richard Beale

[Marius]

I just added the following Q&A to my website.  I think that there is decent evidence that Gallus struck coins for Herennia and Hostilian as Caesar after the death of Decius:

Question: RIC mentions that Gallus may have continued striking coins of Herennia after Decius' death.  Is there any evidence of this?  Answer: Normally the officina marks for Decius' coins are pellets, but in at least one rare occasion there was the Roman numeral VII on the obverse of a Hostilian CAES (PUDICITIA AVG) antoninainus.  See Numizmatic Lanz auction 125, 28.11.2005 - lot no.992.  Heinz Grodon commented to me that this may well have been a coin struck by Gallus (very early in the reign!).  To check this idea I looked at all the known types (listed in RIC plus my database of pictures) of Antioch Coins of Decius, Herennia, Herennius, and Hostilian as Caesar- what I found is that several officinas did use Roman numerals.  They are rare for Herennia and very rare for Hostilian as Caesar but apparently do not exist for Decius and Herennius.  What does  this mean?  Only Herennia and Hostilian survived Decius' and Herennius' death at the Battle of Abrittus.  The Roman numerals appear to belong to Gallus, and I think that Gallus struck a few very rare antoniniani of Hostilian Caesar at Antioch before elevating him to Augustus, but continued issuing coins for Herennia until Hostilian's death (or some other short duration).  That would explain the relative rarities of the Hostilian Caesar and Herennia coins, and the non-existence of Decius and Herennius coins with obverse officina marks in Roman numerals.

Of course anyone can prove me wrong by producing a Herennius or Hostilian coin with Roman numberal officina!  Please do that if you find one!

Regards,
Richard Marius Beale

http://sonic.net/~rbeale/mysite/

[Marius]

I'll continue my conversation with myself.  I thought of an additional way to test my theory - do any Antioch tetradrachms use Roman Numerals for officina?  I checked Prieur and found that of the 108 types he lists, one of them does use the Roman numeral IV, Prieur-562 (the others use pellets or other types of marks).  So Decius used Roman Numerals at least once.

Another problem is that the Lanz Hostilian CAES with the Roman numeral officina shown above uses the title DECIVS.  Would Gallus have struck this coin?  Admittedly it would have been for some extremely short period (weeks) between Gallus was proclaimed and when he elevated Hostilian.  The period was chaotic, so anything could happen, including the mint continuing coins for Herennia and Hostilian CAES while waiting for further word from Gallus, but my theory concerning these rare Hostilian CAES/Herennia coins with Roman numerals doesn't sound as convincing (nor is it disproved - just in the realm hypothesizing which isn't of much value).  I'll try to think of other ways to categorize these coins or test ideas about them.

Do I contradict myself?  Very well then I contradict myself.  Walt Whitman

Richard Marius Beale