DEO SANCTO NILO - NOT Festival of Isis

[Heliodromus]

Having recently posted my new "Festival of Isis" (Navigium Isidis) aquisition, it reminds me of an ongoing auction house annoyance ... Hard to say if this is due to ignorance or "marketing" - trying to sell one thing as another to get a better price. CNG is the biggest culprit here.

What a number of auction houses are doing is cataloging one of Maximinus II's civic types - the Alexandrian "DEO SANCTO NILO" as being a Festival of Isis type, when it's entirely unrelated. One can find many examples of this on ACSearch:

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?term=festival+isis+alexandria+sancto

The actual  "festival of isis" types are distinguished by always having a "VOTA PVBLICA" reverse legend. They are issued from Rome, and never have a mintmark. Additionally most are made from orichalcum, although this may not be obvious.

In contrast, Maximinus II's civic types were issued from his mints of Antioch, Nicomedia and Alexandria, typically include a mintmark of sorts, and were made of bronze. These types are well described in Johan Van Heesch's "The Last Civic Coinages and the Religious Policy of Maximinus Daza (AD 312)" from NC 153 (1993), also available as a PDF on his academia.edu page:

https://www.academia.edu/2073684/The_last_civic_coinages_and_the_religious_policy_of_Maximinus_Daza_A_D_312_Numismatic_Chronicle_London_153_1993_p_65_76

Aside from the glaringly obvious lack of "VOTA PVBLICA" legend, and mintmark indicating the "DEO SANCTO NILO" type as being from Alexandria, one can see the coherence of these civic types from the legends.

One side of these (obverse/reverse is not consistent) typically refers to the genius of the issuing city (GENIO ANTIOCHENI, GEN CIVIT NICOM, GENIO ALEXAND), and the other side typically refers to a local god addressed as SANCTO (APOLLONI SANCTO, DEAE SANC CERERI, DEO SANCT NILO). The type that auction houses tend to misattribute is the Alexandrian one with a reverse of "DEO SANCT NILO" vs the rarer but more characteristic "GENIO ALEXAND", but given the ALE mintmark it should be obvious this is from Alexandria and not Rome, never mind that it doesn't have the "VOTA PVBLICA" reverse legend that is the hallmark of all "Festival of Isis" types!

Roma seems to flip-flop between cataloging these correctly or not (vs others like CNG who consistently fail), but did an exemplary job of getting it right here (with a super nice coin), and were rewarded with a great price.

https://www.romanumismatics.com/275-lot-1466-anonymous-a-nummus?auction_id=176&view=lot_detail

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by Heliodromus

[Celator]

I think the problem is there is no consensus on what these represent. Too many copy paste listings attributing these to persecution of Christians. While I agree these are not festival of Isis issues (particularly Antioch), I've never found any link to persecution of Christians. Apart from pagan deities, I'm not sure Antioch, Nicomedia, Alexandria and related to each other.

Edited October 30, 2023 by Celator

[Heliodromus]

8 hours ago, Celator said:

I'm not sure Antioch, Nicomedia, Alexandria and related to each other.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

All three cities issued civic types featuring their city genius (vs imperial obverse) and SANCTO deity reverse. How much more coordinated could they get?!

 

[Celator]

I'm not sure why IOVI CONSERVATORI would be included if by going inscription solely? It's true some share those attributes, but I'm not convinced the three independent mints coordinated with each other.

[Heliodromus]

> I'm not sure why IOVI CONSERVATORI would be included if by going inscription solely?

Why go by inscription only?! We should be looking at all the evidence!

The possible date range for these is very narrow - from Diocletian's coinage reform of 294 when mint-identifying mintmarks were introduced, to 312 AD when Antioch expanded from the 10 officinas (A-I) we see on these pieces to 15 (A-EI). We can rule out Julian II (who these types used to be attributed to) since he continued to use theta to mark officina 9, as had been done since 330 AD when Constantine made the change from the superstitious Delta+Epsilon we see on these Antioch types.

We don't need to struggle to attribute the anepigraphic APOLLONI SANCTO type since - looking at the totality of the evidence - we can associate it with the type with legend that has the GENIO/SANCTO hallmarks of the series.

We shouldn't be struggling to attribute the Alexandrian DEO SARAPIDI/SANCTO NILO when we compare it to the DEO SARAPIDI/GENIO ALEXAND that has the civic genius legend that identifies it as part of the series.

Never mind the GENIO <city>, SANCTO <deity> commonality across mints that clearly associates them, we also see commonality in the mintmarks with both SMA and ANT from Antioch (plus an error? retrograde AMS version of SMA), and both SM and ALE from Alexandria (plus an error? retrograde MS version of SM). The mysterious OPA mintmark from Nicomedia certainly fits the pattern of odd mintmarks too.

Civic (non-imperial obverse) types from this time period of imperial coinage are extremely rare, so given the mass of evidence tying these types from Antioch, Nicomedia and Alexandria together, it seems extremely odd to reject all the evidence and suggest these might be 3 or 4 separate issues uncoordinated across mints!

Is it conceivable that the Antioch IOVI type is unrelated to the APOLLONI SANCTO one? I suppose. Does it seem likely that this is from a separate unrelated Antioch civic issue(!), but still from this same narrow date range? No.

The only one of these types who's affinity with the rest seems questionable is the Isis+Serapis jugate one without mintmark. The SANCTO NILO legend ties it to the other SANCTO NILO one, but the jugate busts and lack of mintmark would in fact (for that ONE type) be more at home in Rome.

It's good to question things, but only when accompanied with evidence. An attribution of "Van Heesch, but the cataloger believes these to be distinct issues because ..." would be fine, "Festival of Isis [in Rome]" is not fine!

Edit: The "Christian persecution" association of these seems unproven, but that doesn't change the *attribution*. The attribution to Maximinus II seems highly likely (between 311 AD when he gained control of all the 3 mints in question, to the 312 AD terminus date based on officinae). WHY he issued them seems harder to answer, although we do of course understand some of the religious/political climate of the time.

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by Heliodromus

[Celator]

We can only date the Antioch issues (including SMA), the other 2 mints are of unknown date. I attributed both Antioch issues to the Olympics, Jupiter to 300 and Tyche to 312. Still awaiting publication however. Nicomedia is really an oddball. I'm still working on it as well as the Alexandrian issues. BTW the bottom left coin on your infografic is mine.

[DonnaML]

1 hour ago, Celator said:

We can only date the Antioch issues (including SMA), the other 2 mints are of unknown date. I attributed both Antioch issues to the Olympics, Jupiter to 300 and Tyche to 312. Still awaiting publication however. Nicomedia is really an oddball. I'm still working on it as well as the Alexandrian issues. BTW the bottom left coin on your infografic is mine.

Ah, so you're the author of that very interesting article! I cited it in my description of one of the Antioch issues:

Anonymous civic issue, reign of Maximinus II, AE quarter follis [?][Sear] or 1/12 nummus [?][McAlee p. 106], Antioch Mint (3^rd Officina), ca. 311-312 AD. Obv. Tyche (city-goddess of Antioch) wearing mural crown, seated facing on rock, holding wheat or  grain ears with right hand and, with left hand, holding a two-handled basket (filled with wheat or grain ears[?]) resting on ground to right, river god Orontes swimming below, GENIO ANTIOCHINI / Rev. Apollo standing left, pouring libation from patera held in right hand, and holding lyre in raised left hand, Γ [gamma, signifying 3^rd Officina] in right field, APOLLONI SANCTO around; in exergue, SMA [meaning Sigmata Moneta Antioch (money struck at Antioch) or Sacra Moneta Antioch]. [Not in RIC; see http://www.notinric.lechstepniewski.info/6ant_civ_4v.html.] Sear RCV IV 14927 (ill); Vagi 2954; McAlee 170(c) (ill. p. 107); Van Heesch Type 3 [Van Heesch, J. "The last civic coinages and the religious policy of Maximinus Daza (AD 312)" in Numismatic Chronicle (1993), pp. 63-75 & Pl. 11]; ERIC II, “Anonymous Religious Coinage of the Fourth Century,” pp. 1198-1199, No. 2. 16 mm., 1.35 g. [Struck either (1) to promote propaganda against Christians and aid in their persecution (and thus traditionally denominated the “Persecution issue”; or (2) as proposed by David Kalina, for use in festivals, including the Festival of Apollo at Daphne, held in conjunction with the Olympics in Antioch in 312 AD. See Kalina, David, “Anonymous Civic Coinage,” Series 1, at http://allcoinage.com/anonymous_civic.php.]

[Heliodromus]

7 hours ago, Celator said:

We can only date the Antioch issues (including SMA), the other 2 mints are of unknown date. I attributed both Antioch issues to the Olympics, Jupiter to 300 and Tyche to 312. Still awaiting publication however. Nicomedia is really an oddball. I'm still working on it as well as the Alexandrian issues. BTW the bottom left coin on your infografic is mine.

I look forward to seeing what you have to say about them!

The AVGG of the IOVI type is another clue, but seems mostly to confirm what's already obvious  - that these date to a time when there were multiple co-emperors. I'm not sure how much we can read into the lack of any CAESS type.

My best guess for the Nicomedian OPA would be a reference to Ops (+ officina A perhaps?), which would seem thematically related to Ceres.

Congrats on the jugate type - an interesting one to place!

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by Heliodromus

[Heliodromus]

There's an interesting article on the famous sanctuary of Apollo at Dafne (near Antioch), in William Smith's "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography" that may connect the two Antioch civic types of Apolloni Sancto depicting Apollo with lyre, and Iovi Conservatori depicting a seated Jupiter.

The sanctuary of Apollo apparently included huge statues of both Apollo (with lyre) and Jupiter (seated, in the style of that at Olympia), as depicted on these coins.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0064%3Aentry%3Ddaphne-geo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Zeus_at_Olympia

The depiction of a seated Jupiter here is specific to these coins (and hence seems to be a local Antioch reference to this santuary), with Maximinus II otherwise depicting a standardized standing Jupiter with spread chlamys on his coins.

The two coin types are of course separate issues (but same series?) in as much as they have different mintmarks of SMA and ANT. ANT is what Maximinus II was using on his regular bronze coinage c.312, while SMA (Sacra Moneta Antiocheni) is what might be expected when the emperor himself was present in the locale at the time of minting. The Alexandrian types include a simimilar pair of issues, one (perhaps the first, with it's GENIO ALEXAND legend) with a mintmark of SM (perhaps indicating a presence in Alexandria at the time), and another with the normal ALE.

Given that the issuing empreor, assuming it is the same one (Maximinus II), couldn't be in two places at the same time, one interpretation of these SMA and SM[ALE] mintmarks is that Maximinus had sequentially visited these issuing cities, perhaps indeed to shore up support from his "base" in the face of anti-Christian sentiment. One could speculatively tie in the Nicomedian Ceres type with OPA mintmark by suggesting that he chose to visit these cities on occasion of local festivals, so perhaps the Olympics of 312 as David suggests (can it be located to Antioch?), then conceivably the Opalia of December 19th at Cyzicus.

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Heliodromus

[DonnaML]

In the hope that @Celator (David Kalina) doesn't mind my quoting his theories on the interpretation of these types at length in a footnote -- so as not to risk misstating them by attempting to summarize them in my own words -- here is my write-up of an example I have now obtained of the second type of "anonymous civic coinage" (often referred to as "persecution coinage") issued in Antioch, to go with my Tyche/Apollo GENIO ANTIOCHINI/APOLLINI SANCTO type posted earlier in this thread:

[Description above.]

Differing interpretations aside, I hope that people take the opportunity to post their own examples of these types, as well as the similar types issued in Nicomedia and Alexandria if anyone has them.

In terms of the overall quality of my new coin, especially the obverse, this may be one of the finest examples of the type I've seen. Which is why I put in a sufficiently high pre-bid that I was pretty sure I would win the lot. Keep in mind that the coin is only 15 mm., and looks just about perfect in hand without magnification: the surface flaws evident in the enlarged photo below are much less visible in hand.

Anonymous civic issue a/k/a “Persecution issue,” time of Maximinus II (Daza) [or Diocletian, per David Kalina], AE quarter follis/nummus [Sear], 1/12 nummus (McAlee), or quinarius (Kalina), Antioch Mint (6^th Officina), ca. AD 312 (McAlee, Van Heesch), AD 311-312 (Sear), or AD 300 (Kalina). Obv. Jupiter seated left on throne, holding globe in outstretched right hand and long scepter in left, IOVI CONS – ERVATORI / Rev. Victory advancing left, holding wreath in outstretched right hand and palm branch in left, VICTOR – IA AVGG; in right field, officina mark S (for 6^th Officina); in exergue, [ANT]. 15 mm., 1.44 g., 12 h. Sear RCV IV 14932 (ill. p. 343); McAlee 171(f) (6^th Officina) (ill. p. 107) [McAlee, Richard, The Coins of Roman Antioch (2007)]; Van Heesch Type 2 [Van Heesch, J. "The last civic coinages and the religious policy of Maximinus Daza (AD 312)" in Numismatic Chronicle (1993), pp. 63-75 at p. 66 & Pl. 11.2]; David Kalina, "Anonymous Civic Coinage: Series II" (available at https://allcoinage.com/anonymous_series2.php); ERIC II, “Anonymous Religious Coinage of the Fourth Century,” pp. 1198-1199 No. 8 (ill. p. 1198) [Rasiel Suarez, ERIC II: The Encyclopedia of Roman Imperial Coinage (2010)]; [not in RIC]. Purchased from Nomos AG, Zürich, Switzerland, at Nomos Obolos Auction 30, 17 Dec. 2023, Lot 688.*

*The current majority view of the anonymous civic issues minted in the early 4^th century in Antioch (this type and the Tyche/Apollo GENIO ANTIOCHINI/APOLLINI SANCTO type ), as well as in Alexandria (Sarapis/Nilus) and Nicomedia (Ceres/Fortuna), is that they were issued by Maximinus II to promote propaganda against Christians and aid in their persecution. That view is summarized by David Sear at Sear RCV II p. 342. He categorizes these types as “Anonymous issues under Maximinus II related to the final persecution of the Christians,” explaining as follows:

[Red dot indicates that “formally” is probably a typographical error for “formerly.”]

Van Heesch’s 1993 article gives a number of reasons for dating all of the “persecution” issues specifically to AD 312. See Van Heesch pp. 72-75:

. . . .

Regarding the "persecution" aspect, Van Heesch states:

their gods, and requested that in no circumstances should Christians be allowed to live in their city. [Details of persecutions omitted.] . . . .

McAlee follows Van Heesch in dating the Antioch issues to 312, and, concerning their denomination, explains that “[a]lthough these coins appear to be ¼ nummus by weight , this does not take into account the silver content of the nummus (‘follis’). Based on an estimated silver content of 2% in the nummus, and assuming that silver was valued at 100 times the same weight of copper, the ratio is 1/12.” McAlee p. 106 n. 143.

By contrast, David Kalina has proposed an alternative view, according to which the two Antioch issues were not issued as anti-Christian propaganda, and were issued instead for use in festivals, held in conjunction with the Olympics in Antioch. Thus, he agrees that that the Tyche/Apollo GENIO ANTIOCHINI/APOLLINI SANCTO type (Kalina’s “Series 1”) was issued in AD 312, but states that the type was minted in connection with the Festival of Apollo at Daphne, held in conjunction with the Olympics in Antioch in that year (see Kalina, David, “Anonymous Civic Coinage,” Series 1, at http://allcoinage.com/anonymous_civic.php ) (footnotes omitted ) :

“The dating of series I can be extrapolated from the control marks found on the reverse on type A. Officina (workshop) 9 gives clues to the date range in which this series was minted. Only officina 9 replaces the θ (9th Greek number) with ε (5) above Δ (4). This was done due to the superstitious nature of theta being a symbol of death in Greek and Latin. ε and Δ combine to form 9 without using the the traditional symbol for 9. I was only able to find this particular vertical arrangement of the control in use at Antioch from May 310 till May 313 AD1. I did not look past the reign of Maximinus II as the mint marks after his reign do not match what is found in series I, an example would be SMANTA instead of SMA. Logically these later issues should be excluded for that reason and well as the controls that appear in different fields of the coin. Officina 9 occurs in the right field of type A which should be distinguished separately from earlier as well as later officina 9's which place the ε and Δ on opposite fields of each other. Roman coins were very specific and had particular reasons as to the placement of mint marks and controls. There is ample room on either field for a single control and therefore it is my opinion that type A's workshop 9 should be exclusive to the earlier and later versions. . . .

One of the biggest questions about these coins is why were they made? Current theories are that these were struck to promote propaganda against Christianity and to aid in their persecution. While persecutions of Christians were taking place during this period I do not believe this is the reason for the striking of series I. Staying in the range of 310 to 313 AD from the use of workshop 9, there is no evidence I can find to link series I directly to reasons of persecution. Another reason could be for the building or repair of temples in Antioch, but I could not find instances of coins minted specifically for the purpose of building temples in Roman history. That would have been done with existing currency, such as by taxation and would not have a reference to the temple being built on the coin itself. Another event common in the 4th century which I believe is responsible for the production of series I, is for the use in festivals. This is not a new phenomenon as festival of Isis coins/tokens were already being used as early as the reign of Diocletian.

If series I lacked controls and a mint mark, I believe they would already be classified as festival tokens. But why were coins minted specifically for a festival instead of using existing coinage. According to Katsari, bronze coins would be specially minted during shortages due to a sudden movement of the military or a local festival. Bronze coinage was designed to facilitate retail transactions by the use of small change in a specific area, any sudden enlargement of the local population would create an additional demand for more small change. The population of Antioch at the time was believed to be 200,000 to 300,000. The small amount of series I know which probably number less than 1,000, and certainly are less than 5,000, would easily be absorbed by a population of this size. The vast majority of these belonging to type A.

Series I has two primary designs, one being the Tyche of Antioch, and the other sacred Apollo. The obverse represents the people, city, and protector of Antioch. Tyche was the goddess of fortune and protector of the town. On type A there is a swimmer below her feet representing the river Orontes on which the town was founded. Tyche also holds wheat stalks that symbolize the city's prosperity. The reverse of all series I's are shared by a robed Apollo facing left holding a lyre and patera. It is my opinion that the obverse links Antioch to it's past by proudly displaying the Tyche of Antioch, and the reverse represents the festival of the day. Antioch had many festivals in the early 4th century, and appears to be quite the party town. But one particular festival comes to mind when representing Apollo and the need to produce extra coinage for change and commerce, and that would be the festival of Apollo at Daphne in conjunction with the Olympics of 312 AD. Daphne was a suburb of Antioch and pleasure resort/residential area for Antioch’s upper classes. It also contained the shrine of Daphne which housed a colossal cult statue of Apollo made by the artist Bryaxis in the 4th century BC. It is widely believed that this Tetradrachm from Antiochus IV shows the statue as it would have looked around 166 BC. The significance of that rare Tetradrachm is two fold. First it shows an image very similar to the reverse of series I coins, and second it has a precedence of being struck to celebrate not only the Panhellenic festival celebrated in the sanctuary of Apollo at Daphne but also coincided with the Olympics of 166 BC. Assuming the attribution to the Tetradrachm of Antiochus IV is correct, it does not take a huge leap of faith to accept that the Romans of the the early 4th century AD would replicate a coin to commemorate such an occasion. Many sources place either the original statue or a rebuilt replica in Daphne during the reign of Maximinus II, and the festival of Apollo was also celebrated at this time. According to Remijsen, Olympic games were restored under Caracalla in 212 AD, and occurred every 4 years. That would place the only Olympic event during the reign of Maximinus II as Augustus in the East as well as fit within the three year window given by workshop 9 to be 312 AD. More confirmation that the Olympics occurred during this year, is a source that names Maximinus II as Alytarch (an important official presiding over the games) in the year 312. Another source shows him to reside in Antioch during the summer of 312 as well. . . .

Conclusion

From workshop 9 control marks we can determine that series I was minted within a 3 year period following 310 AD. We can further narrow down the date to the summer of 312 AD from contemporaneous sources and a legacy that was done since the time of Antiochus IV of festivals and Olympics at Daphne. The reason Series I was minted is because it was at a time when a surplus of bronze coinage was needed during a well-known festival in conjunction with the Olympics. Further, die links show all series I are closely linked and minted relatively close in time to each other, with 3 types coming from only one die each.”

However, with respect to the Jupiter/Victory IOVI CONSERVATORI/VICTORIA AVGG type (Kalina’s “Series II”), Kalina argues instead – based largely on the placement of the Delta and Epsilon (adding up to 9) in the left and right reverse fields to indicate the 9^th Officina, rather than in the same field -- that the type was issued a dozen years earlier, in conjunction with the Olympics held in Antioch in AD 300 in the presence of Diocletian. See https://allcoinage.com/anonymous_series2.php :

“Similar to series I control marks, series II also contains the same ε Δ combination for workshop 9, but in a different position. Instead of being in the right field, those two control marks are on opposite fields from each other. I believe that series II workshop 9 should be dated differently from series I and should be placed earlier during the reign of Diocletian. ε and Δ in opposite fields were used on bronze coins in Antioch as early as 299 AD by the tetrarchy through 310 AD and was picked up again later in the 320's. Solely off this information as well as the the mint mark which is later discussed, series II must be minted from 299 to 310 AD. [Omitting repetition of comments re reason for mintage of bronze coins rather than tokens, and re population of Antioch.] The small amount of series II which probably number less than 2,000, would easily be absorbed by a population of this size.

Series II has two primary designs, one being Jupiter and the other Victory.  To put into context these images within the time frame of 299 to 310 AD, we must analyze what connection they have to the tetrarchy. . . . Diocletian and Maximian became the representatives of Jupiter and Hercules during this period. Libations and sacrifices were made to the genii of the emperors and all the legitimacy of the tetrarchs stemmed from this divine birthright rather than any fictional hereditary claim. This can be seen on many coins of Diocletian. Through the sanctification of their authority, Diocletian and Maximianus elevated themselves beyond the reach of most potential military usurpers and ushered in a new age of imperial ideology. . . .

The reverse portrays Jupiter, which ties in nicely with Diocletian. But there still needs to be a festival large enough to accommodate the minting of series II. According to Remijsen, Olympic games were restored under Caracalla in 212 AD, and occurred every 4 years. Three Olympics occurred between 299 and 310 AD, being 300, 304, and 308 AD. In order to make the connection to Jupiter and Diocletian we need to determine when Diocletian was in Antioch to preside over the Olympics. 308 can be eliminated because it was past his abdication. In 304 he would have been in the Danube frontier and later in Nicomedia. He would also not be in adequate physical condition to be Alytarch after he contracted an illness, which would require sleeping outdoors. This only leaves 300 as the possible date and sources name Diocletian as Alytarch (an important official presiding over the games) for that year. Jupiter which is the Roman representation of Zeus is also closely related to Olympic games. Prior to Diocletian, the Olympics in Antioch were in decay and possibly even moved to another city after being celebrated there for hundreds of years. He renewed the games at Antioch and consecrated them to Zeus, making it a religious renewal. In Daphne, he built a new stadium and temple of Zeus for the games. Daphne was a suburb of Antioch and pleasure resort/residential area for Antioch’s upper classes.

The reverse of series II shows a Victory or Greek Nike, which is also closely tied to Zeus and the Olympics. The inscription AVGG refers to the joint rule of the Augusti Diocletian and Maximianus and is common from coins of this period.

Conclusion

From workshop 9 control marks we can determine that series II was minted within a 11 year period following 299 AD. We can further narrow down the date to the summer of 300 AD from contemporaneous sources and a strong connection of Diocletian to Jupiter and festivals in conjunction with the Olympics at Daphne. The reason Series II was minted is because it was at a time when a surplus of bronze coinage was needed during a well known festival in conjunction with the Olympics.”

In short, Kalina’s AD 300 theory would place the minting of this type not under Maximinus II but under the reign of Diocletian, who was, of course, associated specifically with Jupiter. However, the theory appears to rest primarily on the assertion that the mere placement of the Delta and Epsilon for Officina 9 across the reverse fields for the Jupiter/Victory type (Series II), rather than one above the other in the reverse right field as on the Tyche/Apollo type (Series I), proves that Series II was minted in AD 300 rather than in 312. I am somewhat skeptical that this single factor suffices to negate all the evidence adduced by Van Heesch for the AD 312 date – as well as for all the different types having been minted at approximately the same time given, inter alia, their very similar weights (see Van Heesch at p. 88), rather than one type having been minted a dozen years earlier. Indeed, at p. 69 n. 18 of his 1993 article, Van Heesch specifically rejected the idea that the differing placement of the Delta and Epsilon to indicate Officina 9 on the reverses of the two types proves that they were minted at different times:

 

However, I have no particular opinion on whether the “persecution of Christians” interpretation or the “festival types minted for the Antioch Olympics” interpretation of these issues – or some combination of the two – is the correct one. Note that David Kalina has not yet published his interpretations of the Alexandria and Nicomedia issues of the anonymous civic coinage generally attributed to the time of Maximinus II, or explained those types in light of his interpretation of the Antioch issues. 

Edited January 16 by DonnaML

[DonnaML]

Just to follow up and make sure I've covered all the bases, does anyone -- @Heliodromus? -- know of any other relatively recent articles on the dating and interpretation of the Antioch anonymous civic issues in addition to Van Heesch 1993 and the David Kalina articles? Has anyone accepted the Kalina theory that the Jupiter/Victory IOVI CONSERVATORI type was actually minted under Diocletian, or is Van Heesch's dating scheme still generally considered authoritative? That aside, I did find an interesting section on these coins on @Valentinian's website, at http://augustuscoins.com/ed/MaximinusII/ , listing all the different types with illustrations, and explaining exactly why they were omitted from RIC:

"A short series of anonymous coins with pagan themes was struck under Maximinus II. The coins are not in RIC. They should be in volume VI with coins of Maximinus II, but in 1973 when volume VI was published, this series of pagan types was thought to belong under Julian II, the Apostate, whose coins would eventually be in volume VIII. However, by 1981 when volume VIII was published Johan van Heesch had convincingly demonstrated (in 1975) they belonged under Maximinus II, so they were omitted from RIC VIII and it was too late to put them in volume VI where they belonged." 

[Heliodromus]

1 hour ago, DonnaML said:

Has anyone accepted the Kalina theory that the Jupiter/Victory IOVI CONSERVATORI type was actually minted under Diocletian, or is Van Heesch's dating scheme still generally considered authoritative?

As I already mentioned, I personally find David's argument for the IOVI type to be compelling, but since it hasn't yet been published it's probably expecting too much to see any reaction papers or commentary. No doubt many auction houses will continue to call it a "Christian persecution" type if that generates better prices, just as they they refer to the Alexandrian type this thread discusses as a Festival of Isis [in Rome] type!

In Van Heesch's paper his core argument for defining his "persecution group" was "I do not think that the coherence of this group of coins can be doubted" (p.67), but the IOVI type certainly presents plenty of doubt since all it has in common with the others is being a civic type rather than an imperial (obverse) one, and it's DIocletian/Olympic connection seems too strong to be dismissed. The "coherence" argument really only applies to the civic genius types: GENIO ANTIOCHENI (incl. anepigraphic variant), GENIO CIVIT NICOM and GENIO ALEXAND.

I have to wonder what else Van Heesch may have over-aggressively included in his "coherent" group? I'm not convinced that all (or perhaps even any?) of the Alexandrian SANCTO NILO types (Van Heesch 6a, 6b, 7, 8 ) belong with Daia's civic genius types.

Certainly one can't just look at a DEO [SANCTO] SARAPIDI legend, and in effect say "That's distinctive! Clearly it's a Festival of Isis type, or(!) a Van Heesch Christian persecution type". The last coin on @Valentinian's page is another case in point, despite the similar legend (DEO SANCT SERAPIDI) it's all but certain that it's really just a post-reform radiate, and is related to another unlisted group of Alexandrian PRRs which have the same long CAESAR/AVGVSTVS legends.

 

[Celator]

On 1/15/2024 at 1:59 PM, DonnaML said:

However, the theory appears to rest primarily on the assertion that the mere placement of the Delta and Epsilon for Officina 9 across the reverse fields for the Jupiter/Victory type (Series II), rather than one above the other in the reverse right field as on the Tyche/Apollo type (Series I), proves that Series II was minted in AD 300 rather than in 312.

Time sure flies, a few years since I wrote about that. My considerations for the year 300 were based on 3 factors. The orientation of the officina, Diocletian's ideology, and the need for such a coin to be struck. Based on the orientation, I surmised a possible date range of 299 to 310 to match other coins with that orientation. Being Diocletian's reign was also during this period and his affinity with Jupiter, as witnessed on other coins with his name, made another connection. Thirdly the Olympics occurred 3 times during those years with 300 the only one he attended while emperor. Could 312 be the year "series II" were minted? Possibly of course, but my approach was to eliminate possibilities with evidence at hand. I spent about a year reading about that period and examining as many examples as I could find before coming to a conclusion. All of which can be found in the footnotes. 

[Heliodromus]

 

On 1/15/2024 at 3:59 PM, DonnaML said:

In short, Kalina’s AD 300 theory would place the minting of this type not under Maximinus II but under the reign of Diocletian, who was, of course, associated specifically with Jupiter. However, the theory appears to rest primarily on the assertion that the mere placement of the Delta and Epsilon for Officina 9 across the reverse fields for the Jupiter/Victory type (Series II), rather than one above the other in the reverse right field as on the Tyche/Apollo type (Series I), proves that Series II was minted in AD 300 rather than in 312.

I'm a little surprised by David's response, since my take on his argument was that the connection to Diocletian's Olympics came first, and the date followed that, rather than apparently vice versa.

In any case, all one can say about the officina numbers and marking is that they limit the date to c.299-312 AD. At the start of Diocletian's reform in 294 Antioch had used 7 officinas, then c.299-300 (still under Diocletian) expanded to the 10 we see on these IOVI & APOLLONI Antioch types, then c.312-313 (under Daia) expanded to 15.

For officina 9, the preference of how to mark it (delta + epsilon placement) doesn't seem to have changed from Diocletian to Daia, and seems to have been a matter of aesthetics and use of space - working around the reverse design and field marks. The preference seems to have been to put the D+E in separate fields when space permitted, and only stack them as E-over-D if forced to do so by layout consideration.

So, for example, under Diocletian we have an issue with K-V field marks that still left roughly equal space in both fields, so we still have D+E in separate fields

Under Daia the mint was still happy to keep doing the same when space permitted, so for example c.308-309 AD we have:

What may have misled Van Heesch and David into thinking that the mint changed to prefer E-over-D is that after Daia's coinage reform of c.310 AD his new reverse type designs, and the use of crescent followed by star in-field issue marks, meant that there was no room for this preferred separate field placement, so we have examples like this with the same-field stacked placement:

However, in the following issue (or follow-on sub-issue) the star issue was moved from field to exergue thereby making space for the preferred D-E placement:

So, the separate field placement of D+E on the IOVI type does not give us any dating clue - this is what we'd expect under Daia (at any date) just the same as under Diocletian.

The E-over-D same-field placement on the APOLLONI type is *slightly* odd.

This really isn't forced by the available space/aesthetics, other than a weak argument that Apollo's lyre is held slightly higher than his patera. In this case one could argue that this is more likely the result of mint workers that had grown accustomed to this stacked placement - perhaps suggesting a 310-312 date (but hardly conclusive).

On 1/15/2024 at 3:59 PM, DonnaML said:

I am somewhat skeptical that this single factor suffices to negate all the evidence adduced by Van Heesch for the AD 312 date – as well as for all the different types having been minted at approximately the same time given, inter alia, their very similar weights (see Van Heesch at p. 88), rather than one type having been minted a dozen years earlier.

Well, as noted above, the IOVI D-E placement says nothing at all about the date, so the argument for the IOVI dating has to come from elsewhere ...

But first, let's review the totality of Van Heesh's 312 AD dating support, following his point numbering (starting on p.69).

1) Mintmarks and officina letters

As already noted, the use of 10 officinas does indicate a date range of 299-312. In his footnote 18 Van Heesh rejects his previous (1975) argument for separate dates for the IOVI and APOLLONI types based on the D+E placements. Per above I'd say there's a weak suggestion that APOLLONI dates later than IOVI.

Van Heesch says that SMA, unlike ANT, wasn't used as a regular bronze mintmark, but is in fact mistaken. A recently sold unlisted post-reform laureate for Galerius as caesar (hence issued by Diocletian) does have an SMA mintmark:

Size was listed as 18mm and weight 1.25g. The size, if accurate, is a bit odd - larger than PRLs from other mints, and also larger than the APOLLONI type - doesn't appear to be same issue/denomination.

2) Die axis

Van Heesch notes an interesting pattern of changing die axis statistical distribution by date, with the IOVI and APOLLONI civic types both having the same distribution (30% 6 o'clock, 70% 12 o'clock) that best match transitional periods of 308 and 312 AD, and NOT the time period under Diocletian when 6 o'clock was the majority. Certainly noteworthy, but seems hard to know how to interpret this. How might coin size play into work practices and die axis distribution ? Why did it change between 308 and 312 ?

3) Hoard evidence

Van Heesch mentions both Antioch civic types, IOVI and APOLLONI, being found as part of a Turkish hoard, otherwise consisting of coins from a date range of 310-326 AD. The lack of other coins from before 310 AD might suggest a terminus post quem issue date for both civic types of >= 310 AD. Van Heesch also mentions a Syrian hoard of 451 nummi from before 311 AD that did NOT include any of these small civic types.

Hoard evidence is extremely useful, but the mixture of denominations being considered seems to complicate matters. Per Gresham's law ("Good money drive out bad"), would we really expect to find small base metal fractions hoarded together with larger billion denominations (most of whose value derives from their small silver content) ? Why do we sometimes find just a few earlier radiates as part of large nummi hoards ? The Turkish hoard was apparently notably odd in containing a high number of mis-strikes. I'd like to read the reports, but haven't been able to find them online.

4) Bust style

Van Heesch notes that the bust style of Antioch Tyche seems closer to that of imperial busts c. 312 AD vs 308 AD, and I'd agree. Certainly not at all like Antioch c.300. I'd say there's also a notable style difference between the anepigraph Van Heesh 5 and 4, with the latter style appearing later.

Of course this is only of relevance to the APOLLONI SANCTO type, and has no relevance to the IOVI type which may be from a different date.

5 Dioceses and their emperors

Since Van Heesch's types include coins from Nicomedia, Antioch and Alexandria, and even civic coins must have been approved by the emperor, he argues that we should expect these to be from a date when these three mints were all under control of a single emperor, so he favors 312 AD (after Galerius's death in 311 AD) when they were all under control of Daia, vs 308 AD (the only other date he considers) when Nicomedia was still under control of Galerius. This seems a weak argument given that we do see close coordination between Galerius and Daia up until 310 AD, and of course all three mints had previously been under control of Diocletian.

Van Heesh's group dating

Van Heesch asserts up front that all of the civic types under consideration form a coherent group, and therefore can/should be dated together. Some of them certainly appear related across mints, the civic genius ones in particular (even if the GENIO ALEXAND is a smaller denomination), but there are plenty of inconsistencies too, and obviously multiple issues involved (multiple mintmarks at Antioch, Alexandria, issues with/without officina letters at Alexandria).

The Antioch IOVI type, despite sharing some aspects with the APOLLONI (die axis, inclusion in the mis-strike hoard), differs in a number of ways. Even the module size, while similar to the APOLLONI, isn't quite the same, as Van Heesch's Table 1 also attests. It tends to be both smaller as well as lighter than the APOLLONI. The IOVI CONSERVATORI instead of more pointed SANCTO [DEO] seems a bit "off brand", but the real oddity is the VICTORIA AVGG reverse. Why an imperial reference (and why AVGG not AVGGG) rather than something city specific ?

The alternate IOVI CONSERVATORI interpretation & dating

So, even if the Antioch IOVI type potentially isn't part of the "persecution" group, it's still a city commemorative of sorts (no imperial obverse) so the design has to be interpreted as a local one, and if you were a resident of Antioch c.300-312AD then presumably it'd be pretty obvious that this type referred to the temple to Olympic Zeus located at the Antioch Olympic venue, and sanctuary to Apollo, at Daphne. This would then be a depiction of temple's statue of Zeus - a copy of the seated Zeus at Olympia. The Victory reverse then makes sense since this would also be an Olympic reference (or riff) to the victories of the athletes/emperors. The type therefore isn't a reference to a local god, or local pagan beliefs, but rather to an event - the Olympics.

But, why issue a type referring to the local Olympic games and victories - seems a bit random, until you realize that Diocletian had restored this temple to Zeus, had presided over the games in 300 AD in role of Olypmic Alytarch (and presumably sponsor), and had authorized gifts for all the victors. The focus on Zeus rather than some more direct reference to the games, would be Diocletian touting his own munificence in restoring the temple. The source for this connection to Diocletian in 300 AD is the byzantine chronicler John Malalas whose work has been written about by Sophi Remijsen, with thanks to David Kalina for making the connection to this coin type.

In this interpretation the dating for the coin, 300 AD, comes from the event it is commemorating, rather than being triangulated from details of the coin itself.

It's perhaps worth noting that there were also Olympic games held at the other "persecution coin" cities of Nicomedia and Alexandria, although they (together with the Antioch APOLLONI type) presumably were issued later by Daia (esp. given Tyche bust style). There is also another Diocletian reference of sorts there in the Nicomedian (GEN CIVIT NICOM) DEA SANC CERERI reference to and depiction of Ceres, since Diocletian had been sacrificing to a cult statue of Ceres at Nicomedia c.303 AD when a Christian soldier Zeo laughed at him for doing so  .. that was the end of Zeno, and start of St. Zeno.

Maybe me calling this theory compelling is too strong - I'm not 100% convinced - but it does seem to explain the type better (esp. VICTORIA AVGG reverse) better than just being a civic pagan/persecution type, and I don't think the 312 AD dating evidence, as it applies to this type, is water tight.

 

[DonnaML]

Thanks for the great analysis, @Heliodromus. I hope there's some way you can make it better-known, in an article or otherwise, so the issue can continue to be discussed among experts on an informed basis. 

Edited January 20 by DonnaML

[Greekcoin21]

Thank you everyone very interesting posts, 

[Celator]

I apologize for not writing sooner, I don't have as much time to spend on this forum as I used to. Regarding the control marks if symbols were used, such as a star, I excluded it as a possibility post 310, to follow a pattern of the mint. I can re examine these controls to see if there is more to gleam there. I had to choose a cut off date somewhere. If a future hoard is found, that may give a more precise date, but that is only part of the mystery. For me the purpose of these needed more investigation. I will make a concerted effort to publish in '24. At which time other authors will be able to give criticism or confirmation of my theories.