|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Professor Jones of Minnesota, a specialist in the official chronology of the late empire, and he writes me that Valerian's epigraphical dating is in general perfectly correct and he agrees with me that Alföldi is in error in setting aside the plain meaning of the inscriptions on the coins. Valerian's reverse, therefore, belongs between December 10 and 31, 253, and if the reverse of Gallienus was struck at the same time it is his date, not his father's which is in error.13 Moreover, it cannot be proven that these reverses come first in the series. Alföldi points to the, fact that the portrait on the obverse is large, but, without considering the validity of that criterion for chronology, it may be pointed out that the head is no larger than that associated with PACATORI ORBIS (Pl. V, 8) or with PIETATI AVG (Pl. V, 17), indeed, not so large. The theory that there was no coinage in Antioch until January 1, 254, is thus without foundation. In the first emission are included two obverse legends for Valerian: IMPCPLICVALERIANVS AVG and IMPCPLICVALERIANVSPFAVG. Of these the second is rightly taken by Alföldi to be the later. There is no change in Gallienus' title, but it is evident that the coinage of Gallienus lasted through the emission and did not stop at the time of Valerian's change of obverse inscription. There is no way of proving how long this emission lasted. It is reasonable to suppose that it continued until the beginning of the second emission and the change of obverse inscription may have occurred at the beginning of 255, but this is pure conjecture. We cannot be sure that the two emissions were not separated by an interval. The second emission is clearly distinguished from the first by a different obverse inscription and different reverses. It includes coins of Valerian Jr. and then Saloninus as Caesars. It lasted, therefore, until 257 or the beginning of 258. Alföldi suggests that it began before the elevation of Valerian Jr. to the rank of Caesar, which he dates in the middle of 256. At Alexandria the coins of Valerian Jr. do not appear until 257, but the mint of Antioch followed its own course. We can only say for certain that the emission must have begun by 257 and may have begun considerably earlier. I think that Alföldís insistence on an early date is somewhat affected by his desire to prove that Dura was besieged in 255, but, as we shall see, that year is now excluded by evidence which he did not have. The second Syrian mint issued a coinage whose obverse inscriptions parallel those of the first emissions of Antioch, but which is distinguished by style and an entirely different set of reverses. Alföldi believes that its operations begin with a gold piece14 inscribed PMTRPIII COSIIIPP, which he assigns to New Year's 255. It is certainly between January 1 and December 3 1 of that year. At the same time, it cannot be proved that this is the first coin of the series, which may have begun at any time after Valerian's accession. As to the location of the second mint, Alföldi presents interesting and ingenious arguments to prove that it was Samosata. On the basis of the information he |
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Created by the Digital
Documentation Center at AUB
in collaboration with Høgskolen i
Østfold, Norway. 990202 MB - Email: hseeden@aub.edu.lb |