[Previous][Contents][Next]

In publishing the First Dura Hoard I remarked on the great difference in style between what I took to be the latest tetradrachms of Trebonianus Gallus and the series which had preceded them.¹ The difference consists not only of the introduction of a new reverse, but also of an inferior portrait of the emperor (Pl. VIII, 1-2). 1 did not then realize that a similar difference was to be found in the Antoniniani of Gallus as well, though I illustrated two abnormal pieces (Hoard 1, Pl. XV, 686 and 688). Restudy of all the Antoniniani from Dura has brought to light a small number of specimens of superior workmanship on which the bust has a cuirass, but no paludamentum (Pl. VIII 3-5). The contrast is evident from the illustration of three coins of the usual style with the same reverse types (Pl. VIII, 6-8). But the portrait is certainly not that of the mint of Rome (Pl. VIII, 9) nor is the obverse legend the same; while the mint of Viminacium has still another obverse inscription.² Moreover, the officina marks characteristic of the mint of Antioch appear on these Dura coins. Yet if all the Dura coins, of both the better and the worse style, were struck at Antioch we must assume that for some reason the original diesinkers who worked for Gallus were replaced toward the end of his reign by very inferior workmen who changed the obverse type of the Antoniniani and the reverse type of the tetradrachms and continued to make a large number of the latter, and a greatly increased number of the former. But the general and natural explanation of difference of style and type is difference of mint, and that, I believe, is the explanation here. The numismatic probability is fortified by the historical probability, for the capture of Antioch in 253 discussed by Rostovtzeff (above, pp. 41 ff.) would furnish an obvious occasion for the transference of the mint to a safer place. What that place might be is suggested by the rare tetradrachms of Sulpicius Antoninus, whose close relation with those of Gallus is certainly no matter of accident.

This obscure dynast is dated and placed exactly by a bronze coin which he struck at Emisa (Homs - I use the form invariably found on the coins) in 565 Sel = 253/4 A.D.³ To him are also attributed a number of gold coins and a few base silver tetra

[Previous][Contents][Next]

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