|
|||
|
|
|||
|
operations of the Antiochene mint were suspended for the rest of Valerian's rule. Contemporaneously with the Antiochene mint a new mint was issuing coins for Valerian from about A.D. 255. Alföldi locates this mint at Samosata, the important Roman military center. This mint gradually became the chief mint of Valerian (minting of gold was reserved for this mint) and continued to emit coins after the capture of Valerian first in the name of Gallienus, then of Macrianus and finally of Gallienus again. Basing his conclusions on the evidence of coins as interpreted by him, Alföldi gives a new reconstruction of events of the mid-third century. For the suspension of the mint of Antioch in A.D. 258/9 Alföldi can find no other explanation than a capture of Antioch by Shapuhr in this year, a capture which according to him succeeded that of A.D. 253 (Zosimus and Orac. Sib. XIII) and preceded that of A.D. 260. He finds support for his contention in the dates assigned to the capture of Antioch by Malalas and Syncellus. Their account of the invasion by Syria and the capture of Antioch he refers accordingly to his second invasion and capture. If Malalas really described Alföldi's second invasion of Syria and capture of Antioch, it is strange not to find in his account any mention of or allusion to the first one. The impression produced by the description of Malalas is that he knew of no such previous invasion and capture. Not a word is said about the previous destruction of the city and the reconstruction of it by Valerian. Not a hint is given of the role played by Mareades in the first capture of Antioch, a role apparently well known to the author of Orac. Sib. XIII and to the SHA. To every unprejudiced historian the tenor of Malalas' narrative suggests that what he describes after Domninus's account was the first invasion of Syria and the first capture of Antioch. But what about the complete suspension of coinage in Antioch by Valerian in A.D. 258/9? It does not necessarily mean in my opinion the capture of Antioch. Valerian may have suspended the work of his Antiochene mint in order to concentrate the production of coins in one place, and he naturally wished to have his mint as near as possible to his military quarters and well protected by his military force. One must not forget that he needed almost all the output of his mint for paying his soldiers and for covering the cost of his military activity. His second mint was apparently better suited for this purpose. Where it was located we do not know, but not at Samosata. This is shown by the inscription of Shapuhr. Alföldi has shown that the second mint of Valerian continued its operations without interruption after the capture of Valerian for Gallienus and later for Macrianus and for Gallienus again. Now Shapuhr in his inscription says that Samosata was the first city taken by him after the capture of Valerian. He certainly did not invent this statement. 59 Another argument against Alföldi's second capture of Antioch in A.D. 258/9 may be derived from the inscription of Shapuhr. Shapuhr in his account speaks of two inva- |
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Created by the Digital
Documentation Center at AUB
in collaboration with Al
Mashriq of Høgskolen i
Østfold, Norway. 990201MB - Email: hseeden@aub.edu.lb |