[Previous][Contents][Next]

Philip; XIX, Elagabalus; XXI, Commodus; XXII, Gordian. We cannot assume a capture of Dura for every date offered by a hoard. But it is certainly striking that six should give evidence of having been buried in 253, as against five (counting Hoard V and the coins with the corpses) buried in 255-6 when we know the town was taken.

III. The Last Coins from Dura

In the Fourth and Fifth volumes of Berytus, Andreas Alföldi made a notable contribution to the numismatic history of the third century, A.D., with his two articles, "Die Hauptereignisse der Jahre :253-261 n. Chr. im Orient in Spiegel der Münzprägung," and "Die römische Münzprägung und 'die historischen Ereignisse im Osten zwischen 260 und 270 n. Chr."¹² The work is not finished, for the north Syrian hoard called to his attention by Professor Ingholt, which was the basis of his investigation, is still to be published in full. Much has been accomplished, however, and scholars have reason to be particularly grateful to him and the editor for the abundance of illustration, so seldom available for late Roman numismatics but so important in questions of attributions based on style. Alföldi cites and uses the articles of his predecessors, Voetter, Laffranchi and Mattingly, but his own material is so much greater that their essays may be considered superseded. It is now established beyond doubt that there were two Syrian mints coining simultaneously, Antioch and another, which he locates at Samosata. We are here concerned with only that part of the evidence which comes before the fall of Dura, but, before discussing the excavation coins, there are certain general observations to be made.

Alföldís dates sometimes have a precision which the evidence does not quite support. An example is his argument that the coinage of Antioch under Valerian begins with January 1, 254. He makes two assumptions: (i) that in each series the portrait on the obverse is large on the early issues, small on the later, and (2) that, when coins are dated and there is a discrepancy between the year of the tribunicia potestas and the consulship, the former is correct. Now there are dated reverses for both Valerian and Gallienus in the first series from Antioch. Both have the inscription PMTRPIICOSPP. (Pl. V, 1-2, Pl. VI, 17 - all references are to the article in Berytus, TV). For Valerian TRPII extends from December 10, 253, to December 9, 254; COST from October to December 3 1, 253, while for Gallienus TRPII extends, like his father's, from December 10, 253, to December 9, 254; but COSI from January 1, 254, to December 31, 254. The prima facie testimony of the inscriptions, therefore, would date Valerian's coin December 10 to 31, 253, Gallienus' coin January 1 to December 9, 254. But Alföldi holds that they were both struck on January 3, 254, in connection with the annual vows for the emperor offered yearly on that day. This involves the theory that the moneyers of Antioch were mistaken as to Valerian's consulship, though not as to that of Gallienus. But this seems to me an altogether arbitrary proceeding. I have referred the question to

[Previous][Contents][Next]

990202 MB - Email: hseeden@aub.edu.lb