Coinage in Late Hellenistic and Roman Syria

University of Warwick institutional repository: http://go.warwick.ac.
uk/wrap
A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick
http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap/57324
This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright.

Please scroll down to view the document itself.
Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to
cite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page.
COINAGE IN LATE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN SYRIA:
THE ORONTES VALLEY
(1 CENTURY BC - 3RD CENTURY AD)
ST
by
Jack Antoine Nurpetlian
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Classics and Ancient History
University of Warwick, Department of Classics and Ancient History

February 2013
CONTENTS
CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................II
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................... XIII
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1
A. NUMISMATIC BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 3
B. GEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND................................................................................................................. 5
C. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 6
1. Apamea (Qalat al-Mudiq) ........................................................................................................... 6
2. Larissa (Shayzar) ....................................................................................................................... 10
3. Epiphanea (Hama) .................................................................................................................... 10
4. Raphanea (Rafniyeh)................................................................................................................. 11
5. Arethusa (ar-Rastan) ................................................................................................................. 13
6. Emesa (Homs) ........................................................................................................................... 13
7. Laodicea ad Libanum (Tell Nebi Mend)..................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER II: CATALOGUE ................................................................................................................ 18
A. APAMEA ........................................................................................................................................... 20
1. Civic issues................................................................................................................................. 20
a. Group 1................................................................................................................................................. 20
b. Group 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 26
c. Group 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 36
2. Augustus ................................................................................................................................... 41
3. Tiberius ...................................................................................................................................... 43
4. Claudius ..................................................................................................................................... 45
B. LARISSA ............................................................................................................................................ 47
1. Civic issues................................................................................................................................. 47
C. EPIPHANEA ........................................................................................................................................ 48
D. RAPHANEA ........................................................................................................................................ 49
1. Elagabalus ................................................................................................................................. 49
E. ARETHUSA ......................................................................................................................................... 54
F. EMESA .............................................................................................................................................. 55
1. Antoninus Pius........................................................................................................................... 55
2. Caracalla ................................................................................................................................... 61
3. Macrinus ................................................................................................................................... 75
4. Elagabalus ................................................................................................................................. 83
5. Uranius Antoninus..................................................................................................................... 91
G. LAODICEA AD LIBANUM ....................................................................................................................... 99
1. Septimius Severus ..................................................................................................................... 99
2. Caracalla ................................................................................................................................. 102
3. Macrinus ................................................................................................................................. 104
4. Elagabalus ............................................................................................................................... 105
CHAPTER III: PRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 106
A. APAMEA ......................................................................................................................................... 106
1. Civic issues............................................................................................................................... 111
a. Group 1 (Cat. nos. 1-4) ....................................................................................................................... 115
b. Group 2 (Cat. nos. 5-8) ....................................................................................................................... 116
c. Group 3 (Cat. nos. 9-12) ..................................................................................................................... 117
2. Augustus (Cat. nos. 13-14) ..................................................................................................... 118
3. Tiberius (Cat. nos. 15-16) ....................................................................................................... 118
ii
4. Claudius (Cat. nos. 17-19) ....................................................................................................... 119
B. LARISSA (CAT. NOS. 20-21) ............................................................................................................... 126
C. EPIPHANEA ...................................................................................................................................... 127
D. RAPHANEA (CAT. NOS. 22-24) ........................................................................................................... 128
E. ARETHUSA ....................................................................................................................................... 130
F. EMESA ............................................................................................................................................ 131
1. Antoninus Pius (Cat. nos. 26-28) ............................................................................................. 131
2. Septimius Severus (misattributed denarii) .............................................................................. 134
3. Caracalla (Cat. nos. 29-36) ...................................................................................................... 136
4. Macrinus (Cat. nos. 37-40) ...................................................................................................... 138
5. Elagabalus (Cat. nos. 41-48) ................................................................................................... 139
6. Uranius Antoninus (Cat. nos. 49-58) ....................................................................................... 140
G. LAODICEA AD LIBANUM ..................................................................................................................... 144
1. Septimius Severus (Cat. nos. 59-62) ........................................................................................ 144
3. Macrinus (Cat. no. 65) ............................................................................................................. 145
4. Elagabalus (Cat. no. 66) .......................................................................................................... 146
CHAPTER IV: CIRCULATION........................................................................................................... 147
A. SITE FINDS AND HOARDS .................................................................................................................... 148
1. Significance and problems ...................................................................................................... 148
a. Interpretation of the data .................................................................................................................. 148
b. Biases in interpretation ...................................................................................................................... 151
c. Lack of systematic documentation ..................................................................................................... 153
d. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 154
2. The data .................................................................................................................................. 155
a. Finds from the Orontes Valley ............................................................................................................ 155
b. Finds from beyond the Orontes Valley............................................................................................... 173
B. COUNTERMARKS AND OVERSTRIKES ...................................................................................................... 180
1. Significance and limitations .................................................................................................... 180
2. The data .................................................................................................................................. 181
C. CIRCULATION PATTERNS ..................................................................................................................... 182
1. Significance and interpretations ............................................................................................. 182
2. Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 185
a. Local circulation.................................................................................................................................. 185
b. Regional circulation ............................................................................................................................ 189
CHAPTER V: METROLOGY AND DENOMINATIONS ........................................................................ 192
A. APAMEA ......................................................................................................................................... 194
1. Civic issues............................................................................................................................... 195
a. Group 1 (Cat. nos. 1-4) ....................................................................................................................... 195
b. Group 2 (Cat. nos. 5-8) ....................................................................................................................... 197
c. Group 3 (Cat. nos. 9-12)...................................................................................................................... 199
2. Coins with imperial portraits ................................................................................................... 199
B. LARISSA (CAT. NOS. 20-21) ............................................................................................................... 201
C. RAPHANEA (CAT. NOS. 22-24) ........................................................................................................... 202
D. EMESA ........................................................................................................................................... 203
1. Silver........................................................................................................................................ 203
a. Caracalla and Macrinus (Cat. nos. 29-30, 37-38) ................................................................................ 204
b. Uranius Antoninus (Cat. nos. 49-56) .................................................................................................. 205
2. Bronze ..................................................................................................................................... 205
a. Antoninus Pius (Cat. nos. 26-28) ........................................................................................................ 205
b. Caracalla (Cat. nos. 31-36).................................................................................................................. 206
c. Macrinus (Cat. nos. 39-40) .................................................................................................................. 208
d. Elagabalus (Cat. nos. 41-48) ............................................................................................................... 209
e. Uranius Antoninus (Cat. nos. 57-58) .................................................................................................. 211
E. LAODICEA AD LIBANUM ...................................................................................................................... 212
1. Septimius Severus (Cat. nos. 59-62) ........................................................................................ 212
iii
3. Macrinus (Cat. no. 65) ............................................................................................................. 213
4. Elagabalus (Cat. no. 66) .......................................................................................................... 214
F. ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................................... 214
1. Northern Orontes Valley ......................................................................................................... 215
2. Southern Orontes Valley ......................................................................................................... 218
CHAPTER VI: TYPES AND LEGENDS ............................................................................................... 222
A. APAMEA ......................................................................................................................................... 222
1. Types ....................................................................................................................................... 223
a. Civic issues .......................................................................................................................................... 223
b. Coins with imperial portraits .............................................................................................................. 232
c. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 233
2. Legends ................................................................................................................................... 234
3. Field marks .............................................................................................................................. 236
B. LARISSA .......................................................................................................................................... 239
1. Types (Cat. nos. 20-21) ............................................................................................................ 239
2. Legends and field marks ......................................................................................................... 240
C. RAPHANEA ...................................................................................................................................... 240
1. Types (Cat. nos. 22-25) ............................................................................................................ 241
2. Legends ................................................................................................................................... 243
D. EMESA ........................................................................................................................................... 245
1. Types ....................................................................................................................................... 251
a. Antoninus Pius (Cat. nos. 26-28) ........................................................................................................ 251
c. Macrinus (Cat. nos. 39-40) .................................................................................................................. 258
d. Elagabalus (Cat. nos. 41-48) .............................................................................................................. 259
e. Uranius Antoninus (Cat. nos. 57-58).................................................................................................. 263
2. Legends ................................................................................................................................... 264
E. LAODICEA AD LIBANUM ...................................................................................................................... 267
1. Types ....................................................................................................................................... 270
a. Septimius Severus (Cat. nos. 59-62) ................................................................................................... 270
c. Macrinus and Elagabalus (Cat. nos. 65-66) ......................................................................................... 272
2. Legends ................................................................................................................................... 272
CHAPTER VII: DIE STUDIES ............................................................................................................ 274
A. OUTPUT ......................................................................................................................................... 274
B. DIE STUDIES ..................................................................................................................................... 277
1. Apamea ................................................................................................................................... 279
a. Augustus ............................................................................................................................................. 279
b. Tiberius ............................................................................................................................................... 282
c. Claudius .............................................................................................................................................. 283
2. Larissa ..................................................................................................................................... 284
a. Zeus/throne ........................................................................................................................................ 285
b. Tyche/horse ....................................................................................................................................... 285
3. Raphanea ................................................................................................................................ 287
4. Emesa ...................................................................................................................................... 301
a. Antoninus Pius .................................................................................................................................... 301
b. Elagabalus .......................................................................................................................................... 313
c. Tetradrachms...................................................................................................................................... 315
5. Laodicea ad Libanum .............................................................................................................. 326
a. Septimius Severus .............................................................................................................................. 326
b. Caracalla ............................................................................................................................................. 331
c. Macrinus ............................................................................................................................................. 334
d. Elagabalus .......................................................................................................................................... 335
C. DIE AXES ......................................................................................................................................... 336
D. LETTERING STYLES............................................................................................................................. 338
E. IMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 339
CHAPTER VIII: CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 340
iv
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................. 347
KEY TO PLATES ............................................................................................................................. 361
PLATES ......................................................................................................................................... 364
v
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1: Map of the Syro-Phoenician territories with the ancient cities of the
Orontes Valley in the centre. ........................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Bronze coin of Seleucus I attributed to Apamea (CNG-Triton V.537,

7.33 gr, 19 mm). .......................................................................................... 107
Figure 3: Bronze coin of Alexander Balas minted in Apamea depicting Zeus

standing on the reverse (CNG-729310, 6.84 gr, 20 mm). ......................... 108
Figure 4: Bronze coin of Apamea minted during the reign of Alexander Balas
(BNF-925a, 4.01 gr, 16.5 mm). ................................................................... 108
Figure 5: Silver drachm of Tigranes the Great (4.06 gr, 20 mm, CNG-58.746). ...... 133
Figure 6: Coin of Apamea of the Dionysus/thyrsus type countermarked with a

Tyche head (Vienna-GR 32469, AE 8.2 gr, 21.4 mm). ............................... 181
Figure 7: Coin of the Domna/altar type minted in Emesa having an ‘X’ cut on
the reverse (BNF-Y28045 989a, AE 4.95 gr, 24 mm)................................. 207
Figure 8: The wreath type of Elagabalus minted in Emesa (above, PC1, AE

12.64 gr, 26.5 mm) and the temple façade type (below, BMC Syria
17, AE 10.84 gr, 25 mm) share an obverse die and are issues of the
same denomination. ..................................................................................... 210
Figure 9: Prize-crown type of Elagabalus minted in Emesa having three cuts

on the reverse (Aeqvitas, no inventory number, AE 22 mm). ..................... 211
Figure 10: Bronze coin erroneously attributed to Apamea in Syria depicting a

female bust and a seated Zeus (Lindgren I, 2038, 7.74 gr, 22.5 mm) ......... 232
Figure 11: Bronze coin of Elagabalus minted in Tyre showing the emblems of
Legio III Gallica on the reverse (CNG Inc.). ............................................... 242
Figure 12: Tetradrachm of Alexander the Great countermarked with the

radiate bust of a sun god (Homs Museum, Inventory no. 1179). ................ 247
Figure 13: Bronze coin of Antoninus Pius minted in Emesa showing the baetyl
with a star (BMC Syria 6, 11.55 gr, 23.5 mm)............................................ 252
Figure 14: Coin of Antoninus Pius from Emesa with an unusual feature on top
of the baetyl (BNF-979, AE 8.95 gr, 22.5 mm). .......................................... 253
Figure 15: Denarius of Elagabalus depicting the sacred baetyl on a quadriga

(CNG-72.1593, 3.00 gr)............................................................................... 262
Figure 16: Above: bronze coin of Septimius Severus minted in Antioch in

Pisidia depicting the god Mên (CNG-136.151, 28.10 gr, 35 mm). ............. 267
vi
Figure 17: Coins of Laodicea ad Libanum depicting the bust of Julia Domna.
Note the difference in hairstyles. ................................................................. 272
Figure 18: Bronze coin of Caracalla minted in Laodicea ad Libanum depicting

Mên holding a sceptre in his left hand (CNG-246.231, 8.35 gr, 23
mm). ............................................................................................................. 272
Figure 19: Bronze coin of Elagabalus minted in Laodicea ad Libanum

depicting the god Mên with a horse and holding a torch (CNG-
57.879, 16.38 gr, 27 mm). ........................................................................... 273
Figure 20: Coin of Antoninus Pius minted in Emesa (above, Ashmolean-Jesus

College, AE 7.08 gr, 22.5 mm) with the bust of the sun god on the
reverse as well as the field mark ‘Γ’, which was re-cut as a ‘Z’
(below, BMC Syria 8, AE 10.74 gr, 23 mm). .............................................. 304
Figure 21: Tetradrachm of Caracalla from the mint of Emesa with a ‘double
crescent’ symbol on the reverse (BNF-1989.341, 13.21 gr, 26.30 mm) ..... 319
Figure 22: Tetradrachm with the portrait of Julia Domna minted in Emesa with
the symbol ‘H’ on both sides of the eagle’s head (private collection,
metrology not available). ............................................................................. 321
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Civic issues of Apamea tabulated according to types, dates and

inscription varieties. Entries in bold in the first column denote dates
when the mint was active. ............................................................................ 114
Table 2: List of coins excavated from Apamea dating to the period AD 27 -

253. .............................................................................................................. 157
Table 3: List of coins included in Callu’s appendix relevant to the time period
under study................................................................................................... 157
Table 4: List of bronze coins excavated from Hama covering the period
relevant to this study. ................................................................................... 160
Table 5: List of coins collected from Raphanea relevant to the time period
under study................................................................................................... 161
Table 6: List of coins in the Homs Museum of Syria tabulated according to the
reliability of the provenance. ....................................................................... 167
Table 7: List of coins from the pre-Roman period collected from Tell Nebi
Mend. ........................................................................................................... 170
Table 8: List of coins from Tell Nebi Mend deposited in the Homs museum........... 170
Table 9: List of bronze coins from various mints excavated at Hama and
grouped into separate periods. ..................................................................... 187
Table 10: Number of bronze coins represented at Apamea grouped into

separate time periods. Note that the pre-Augustan coins are not
included in the publication by Callu. ........................................................... 187
Table 11: List of bronze coins minted in the Orontes Valley found from sites
in the Levant. ............................................................................................... 190
Table 12: List of cities where hoards containing Emesene tetradrachms have
been found. .................................................................................................. 191
Table 13: Average weights and sizes of civic coins of Apamea belonging to
Group 1. ....................................................................................................... 196
Table 14: Metrology of coins of Group 2 minted in Apamea.................................... 197
Table 15: Metrology of coins of Group 2a dated with a Pompeian era. .................... 198
Table 16: Metrology of the coins of Apamea bearing an Antonine date. .................. 198
Table 17: Metrology of coins of Apamea belonging to Group 3. .............................. 199
viii
Table 18: Metrological table of Apamene coins bearing the portrait of
Augustus. ..................................................................................................... 200
Table 19: Metrology of coins of Tiberius minted in Apamea. .................................. 200
Table 20: Metrological data for the coins of Claudius minted in Apamea. ............... 200
Table 21: Metrology of the coins of Larissa. ............................................................. 202
Table 22: Metrology of the coins of Raphanea depicting a genius on the

reverse. ......................................................................................................... 202
Table 23: Metrology of the two denominations minted in Raphanea. ....................... 203
Table 24: Metrology of tetradrachms issued in Emesa during the reigns of

Caracalla and Macrinus. .............................................................................. 204
Table 25: Metrological list of the coins of Antoninus Pius minted in Emesa. .......... 206
Table 26: Metrology of the coins of Caracalla minted in Emesa. ............................. 207
Table 27: Metrology of the coins of Macrinus minted in Emesa. ............................. 209
Table 28: Metrology of coins of Elagabalus minted in Emesa. ................................. 209
Table 29: Metrology of bronze coins of Uranius Antoninus. .................................... 211
Table 30: Metrology of coins minted in the reign of Septimius Severus at

Laodicea ad Libanum. ................................................................................. 212
Table 31: Metrology of coins of Caracalla minted in Laodicea ad Libanum. ........... 213
Table 32: Metrology of the single type minted under Macrinus at Laodicea ad
Libanum. ...................................................................................................... 214
Table 33: Metrology of the Mên type minted under Elagabalus in Laodicea ad
Libanum. ...................................................................................................... 214
Table 34: Chart illustrating the various weight standards and denominations
used at Apamea. Numbers in parentheses denote the number of
denominations known for each group or ruler. ............................................ 215
Table 35: Chart comparing the denominations used at Apamea and Antioch.
Numbers in parentheses denote the number of denominations known
for each time period. .................................................................................... 218
Table 36: Chart depicting the various bronze denominations used in the mints
of the southern Orontes Valley. Numbers in parentheses denote the
number of denominations known for each emperor. ................................... 219
Table 37: The various denominations used in the cities of the southern Orontes
Valley under Elagabalus. ............................................................................. 219
ix
Table 38: Chart comparing the denominations at Antioch and Heliopolis with
those of the southern Orontes Valley........................................................... 221
Table 39: Table listing all known field marks on Apamene bronze coins................. 237
Table 40: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Augustus minted in
Apamea. ....................................................................................................... 282
Table 41: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Tiberius minted in
Apamea. ....................................................................................................... 283
Table 42: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Claudius minted in
Apamea. ....................................................................................................... 284
Table 43: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Larissa. .......................... 287
Table 44: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Raphanea. ..................... 301
Table 45: List providing number of specimens and number of obverse and
reverse dies for each batch group minted in Emesa under Antoninus
Pius. ............................................................................................................. 303
Table 46: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Antoninus Pius
minted in Emesa. ......................................................................................... 313
Table 47: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Elagabalus with
bilingual inscriptions minted in Emesa........................................................ 314
Table 48: List of obverse and reverse dies for the issues of Septimius Severus
minted in Laodicea ad Libanum. ................................................................. 330
Table 49: List of obverse and reverse dies for the issues of Caracalla minted in
Table 50: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Macrinus minted in
Table 51: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Elagabalus minted
in Laodicea ad Libanum. ............................................................................. 336
x
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am very grateful to Dr. Kevin Butcher for advising me on my thesis. I would

like to especially thank him for his encouragement of my interest in numismatics,
without which I would not have found the motivation to pursue a higher education.
I have much gratitude for all the museum directors and their staff, for
facilitating access to the collections, and to all the researchers in the field, for
providing me with the data from excavations in the region. A special thanks goes to
all the private collectors for showing me their material, and for the insightful
discussions I had with them.
My sincere thank you to all the staff of the Department of Classics and
Ancient History and all my classmates for making my time in Warwick pleasant.
Last but not least, my deepest gratitude goes to my family for their unrelenting
support.
xi
ABSTRACT
The thesis studies the coins minted by the cities in the Orontes Valley of
Syria during the late Hellenistic and Roman periods: Apamea, Larissa, Raphanea,
Emesa and Laodicea ad Libanum. All the various aspects of these coinages are
presented and comparisons are drawn between the results hereby obtained with those
from the surrounding region.
The research was conducted by recording as many specimens as possible

from public and private collections, in addition to published material and those
available online. The thesis starts with an introduction to the geography and history of
the region followed by a catalogue, which is presented at the beginning of the thesis to
introduce the structure of the coinages. This is followed by discussions on production,
circulation, metrology, denominations and iconography in detail. Die studies were
also conducted to complement the arguments presented in each of the chapters. Plates
illustrating the best preserved specimen of each type and their variants are placed at
the end.
The discussions of these coinages, based on the compiled data and the
proposed structure, have shown that not only were the coinages of each of the cities of
the Orontes Valley distinct from those of neighboring regions, they are also different
from one another. No compatibility was found between the denominations and
currency systems, nor was there any conclusive evidence for the coins of one city
circulating in the territory of another.
The mints of northern Syria have been previously studied, in addition to

several mints of the Phoenician territories to the south; however, regarding the mints
of the Orontes Valley, a gap has remained in the study of Roman provincial coins, as
none of the mints under discussion have been published and discussed in full. It is
hoped that this research will fill that gap and complement the study of Roman
provincial coins in general, and that of Roman Syria in particular.
xii
ABBREVIATIONS
Reference works and periodicals
AJN American Journal of Numismatics
ANSMN American Numismatic Society Museum Notes
Baldus Baldus, H. R. 1971. Uranius Antoninus, Münzprägung und

Geschichte. Bonn.
Bellinger Bellinger, A. R. 1940. The Syrian Tetradrachms of Caracalla

and Macrinus. New York.
BMC Alexandria Poole, R. S. 1892. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British
Museum: Alexandria and the Nomes. London.
BMC Arabia Hill, G. F. 1922. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British
Museum: Arabia, Mesopotamia and Persia. London.
BMC Lycia Hill, G. F. 1897. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British
Museum: Lycia, Pamphylia and Pisidia. London.
BMC Lydia Head, B. V. 1901. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British
Museum: Lydia. London.
BMC Palestine Hill, G. F. and Poole, R. S. 1914. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins
in the British Museum: Palestine. London.
BMC Parthia Wroth, W. 1903. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British
Museum: Parthia. London.
BMC Phoenicia Hill, G. F. 1910. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British
Museum: Phoenicia. London.
BMC Kings Gardner, P. 1878. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British
Museum: the Seleucid Kings of Syria. London.
BMC Syria Wroth, W. 1899. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British
Museum: Galatia, Cappadocia and Syria. London.
BMC Thessaly Gardner, P. and Poole, R. S. 1883. A Catalogue of the Greek

Coins in the British Museum: Thessaly to Aetolia. London.
BMC Thrace Head, B. V., Poole, R. S. and Gardner, P. 1877. A Catalogue of

the Greek Coins in the British Museum: The Tauric Chersonese,
Samartia, Dacia, Moesia, Thrace, etc. London.
BMC Troas Wroth, W. 1894. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British
Museum: Troas, Aeolis and Lesbos. London.
xiii
BMCRE V Mattingly, H. 1950. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British
Museum. Vol. V, Pertinax to Elagabalus. London.
CRE Sutherland, C. H. V. and Kraay, C. M. 1975. Catalogue of Coins

of the Roman Empire in the Ashmolean Museum, Part I:
Augustus (c. 31 B.C. - A.D. 14). Oxford.
CRS Butcher, K. E. T. 2004. Coinage in Roman Syria: Northern Syria,

64 BC - AD 253. London.
CSE Houghton, A. 1983. Coins of the Seleucid Empire from the

Collection of Arthur Houghton. New York.
Falghera Martini, R. 1992. Monetazione provinciale romana II. Collezione

Winsemann Falghera. Milano.
GIC Howgego, C. J. 2005. Greek Imperial Countermarks: Studies in

the Provincial Coinage of the Roman Empire. London.
IGCH Thompson, M., Mørkholm, O. and Kraay, C. M. (eds.). 1973. An

Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. New York.
IGLS Jalabert, L. and Mouterde, R. 1955-1959. Inscriptions Grecques

et Latines de la Syrie. Paris (vols. IV and V).
ILS Dessau, H. 1892-1916. Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. Berlin.
JRS The Journal of Roman Studies
LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. 1981-1999.

Zürich, München, Düsseldorf.
Lindgren I Lindgren, H. C. and Kovacs, F. L. 1985. Ancient Bronze Coins of

Asia Minor and the Levant from the Lindgren Collection.
California.
Lindgren III Lindgren, H. C. 1993. Ancient Greek Bronze Coins from the
Lindgren Collection. Pennsylvania.
Mabbott Schulman, H. M. F. 1969. The Thomas Ollive Mabbott

Collection. Part One, Coins of the Greek World. New York.
NC The Numismatic Chronicle
Neuchâtel Spoerri, M. 1996. Monnaies provinciales de l'Orient romain:

collections du Cabinet de numismatique, Musée d'art et d'histoire
Neuchâtel. Lausanne.
Prieur Prieur, M. and Prieur, K. 2000. The Syro-Phoenician

Tetradrachms and their Fractions. London.
xiv
RIC Mattingly, H. and Sydenham, E. A. 1936. The Roman Imperial
Coinage. Vol. IV, Pertinax to Uranius Antoninus. London.
RN Revue Numismatique
RPC Burnett, A., Amandry, M., and Ripollès, P. P. 1992. Roman

Provincial Coinage. London (Vols. I and II with Supplements).
RSN Revue Suisse de Numismatique
SAN Journal for the Society of Ancient Numismatists
SC I Houghton, A. and Lorber, C. 2002. Seleucid Coins, a

Comprehensive Catalogue. Part I: Seleucus I through Antiochus
III. New York.
SC II Houghton, A., Lorber, C. and Hoover, O. 2008. Seleucid Coins, a

Comprehensive Catalogue. Part II: Seleucus IV through
Antiochus XIII. New York.
SNG Braunschweig Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum

Braunschweig, Katalog der griechischen Münzen, vol. VII.
Braunschweig, 1998.
SNG Copenhagen Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Denmark: The Royal Collection

of Coins and Medals. Danish National Museum. Cyprus-
Cappadocia, vol. VII. New Jersey, 1982.
SNG Copenhagen Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Denmark: The Royal Collection

of Coins and Medals. Danish National Museum. Supplement.
Acquisitions 1942-1996. Copenhagen, 2002.
SNG Fitzwilliam Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Great Britain, Vol. IV: Leake
and General Collections of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Part VIII,
Syria-Nabathaea. London, 1971.
SNG Glasgow Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Great Britain, Vol. XII: The
Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow. Part II: Roman
Provincial Coins: Cyprus-Egypt. Oxford, 2004.
SNG Leipzig Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Germany: Sammlung der

Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, Vol. 1, Autonome Griechische
Münzen. Munich, 1993.
SNG Levante Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Switzerland: The Collection of

Edoardo Levante, Cilicia. Bern, 1986.
SNG Munich Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Germany: Staatliche

Münzsammlung München, Vol. 28, Syria. Munich, 2001.
xv
SNG Poland Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Poland: The Archaeological
and Ethnographical Museum in Lódź, Vol. I, Part 4: Galatia-
Zeugitana. Kraków, 1998.
SNG Righetti Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Switzerland: Münzen der

Antike, Katalog der Sammlung Jean-Pierre Righetti im
Bernischen Historischen Museum. Stuttgart, 1993.
SNG Antiquaries Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Great Britain, Vol. XIII. The
Collection of the Society of Antiquaries, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Oxford, 2005.
SNG Sweden Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Sweden: Sammlung Eric von

Post, I.2. Stockholm, 1995.
WSM Newell, E. T. 1977. The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints

from Seleucus I to Antiochus III. New York.
Museums and collections
ANS American Numismatic Society, New York
Ashmolean Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, The Heberden Coin Room
Athens Numismatic Museum, Athens
AUB American University of Beirut, the Archaeological Museum
Belgium Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, Cabinet des Médailles
Berlin Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Bode Museum, Münzkabinett
Bern Bernisches Historisches Museum, Münzkabinett
BM British Museum, Department of Coins and Medals
BNF Bibliothèque nationale de France, Cabinet des Médailles
Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Fitzwilliam Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, Dept. of Coins and Medals
Harvard Harvard Art Museums, Massachusetts
Homs Homs Archaeological Museum, Syria
Missouri University of Missouri, Museum of Art and Archaeology
Netherlands Geldmuseum, Utrecht, Netherlands
Smithsonian Smithsonian Institute, National Numismatic Collection

xvi
Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna
Yale Yale University Art Gallery, Coins and Medals
PC private collection (followed by relevant number)
Coin dealers and databases
acsearch online search engine: www.acsearch.info
Aeqvitas online search engine: www.aeqvitas.com
Beast Coins online search engine: www.beastcoins.com
Bowers Bowers and Merena Auctions
CNG Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.
Coin Archives online search engine: www.coinarchives.com
eBay online auctions: www.ebay.com
Elsen Jean Elsen & ses Fils s.a., Belgium
Forum Forvm Ancient Coins: www.forumancientcoins.com
G&M Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung GmbH, Munich
Helios Helios Numismatik Auctions
Hirsch Gerhard Hirsch Nachfolger, Munich
M&M Münzen & Medaillen GmbH, Germany
MA Münzauktion GmbH, Germany
RPC online http://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk
Tantalus online coin registry: www.tantaluscoins.com
VCoins online coin shops: www.vcoins.com
Wildwinds online search engine: www.wildwinds.com
xvii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In recent years there has been a growing interest in the Roman Near East.
The study of the coinage produced in Roman Syria has progressed due to this interest;
however, it has not yet been researched in full. Kevin Butcher’s Coinage in Roman
Syria1 was the first step in the study of this coinage, but due to the vastness of the
subject, it was limited to northern Syria. This study aims to continue and complement
the work started in CRS by studying the civic coinages produced in the Orontes
Valley of Syria. Thus, the thesis will concentrate on five mints: Apamea, Larissa,
Raphanea, Emesa and Laodicea ad Libanum (see map: Figure 1). The study will not
include the coins of Antioch on the Orontes, as these have been sufficiently covered
in CRS and McAlee’s monograph.2 Other cities in the Valley will also be discussed,
namely Epiphanea and Arethusa, although these cities did not issue coins at all.
Therefore, where mention of the coinages of the ‘Orontes Valley’ is made in this
thesis, it is a reference to the coins produced in Apamea, Larissa, Raphanea, Emesa
and Laodicea ad Libanum only (thus, excluding Antioch). It should be emphasised
that the cities of the Orontes Valley did not comprise a single or unified cultural or
social entity; it is merely a geographical convenience that these cities are studied
together.
1
Coinage in Roman Syria: Northern Syria, 64 BC-AD 253 (London, 2004). Hereafter CRS.
2
McAlee 2007.
1
Figure 1: Map of the Syro-Phoenician territories with the ancient cities of the Orontes Valley in the
centre.
2
The study focuses mostly on the first three centuries of Roman rule in the
region, commencing with the annexation of Syria by the Roman Empire in 64 BC,3
and spanning until AD 253, when the silver tetradrachms and the Greek style
provincial bronzes ceased to be produced in Syria.4
The core of the work is formed by a catalogue of the coins issued by the
cities mentioned above. The study examines in detail various aspects of these coins,
such as denomination, metrology, types and legends. However, the study is not
limited to this data list, as coinages of neighbouring regions are also considered,
notably when discussing circulation patterns and any parallels in production. As these
coins cannot be studied in isolation, the research attempts to determine the interaction
and relation between Syrian coinage and that of other regions. Thus, the study on the
whole should be considered an insight, through coins, into the economical, political,
cultural and religious history of the region during the Roman period, both on a local
and regional scale.
A. Numismatic background
During the Hellenistic period the coinage of Syria was regal, but in the reign
of Antiochus IV a ‘municipal’ coinage was also introduced. As the Seleucid Empire
gradually disintegrated, the cities acquired more autonomy, an aspect which was also
reflected in their coinages. These conditions were inherited by the Romans, who do
not seem to have desired to change the prevailing currency system in Syria and the
3
In effect, the first civic issues of Apamea predate the arrival of the Romans and therefore the study
begins in 77/76 BC.
4
The final issues covered in this study are the coins of Uranius Antoninus dating to the year AD
253/254.
3
region.5 This aspect is most noticeable in the silver coinage, where the tetradrachm
continued to be the dominant silver denomination, with no apparent attempt by the
Romans to introduce the denarius. In fact, during the second half of the first century
BC, the Roman governors of Syria continued issuing tetradrachms in Antioch using
the portrait of the former Seleucid king Philip Philadelphus.6 Augustus’ portrait first
appeared on tetradrachms of Antioch starting in 5 BC.7
Regarding bronze coins, it is also apparent that the cities continued to mint
using prevailing local denominations, without any significant attempt to follow the
Roman base-metal denominations. In the Roman East we find more variety of
denominations for the bronze coinage compared to the relatively standardised
denominations used in Rome. Concerning the local coinages of Syria, those of
Antioch were the most dominant, with the Antiochene SC coins having a wide area of
circulation. Other mints such as Laodicea ad Mare, Seleucia and Apamea were also
active, but not quite on the scale of Antioch. Cities such as Beroea, Cyrrhus, Paltus,
Emesa, Raphanea and Laodicea ad Libanum were late to mint coins, whereas in the
case of certain cities such as Apamea, minting was stopped in the first century AD
and never resumed afterwards. Civic coins ceased to be issued in Syria during the
joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus.8
5
Augé 2003.
6
CRS, 51-54. See also Hoover 2004a for a discussion of an anomalous series of posthumous Philip
tetradrachms issued by Antioch immediately after receiving autonomy by Pompey in 64 BC.
7
CRS, 58.
8
For further details on the subject of coinage in Roman Syria see Bellinger 1951, Augé 1989 and
Burnett 2002.
4
B. Geographical background
The Orontes Valley is the northern extension of the Great Rift Valley, which
extends from Syria to Mozambique. The Valley is separated from the Mediterranean
Sea by the Jebel Ansariyeh (Bargylus) mountain range, peaking at more than 1,500 m.
To the east lie the vast plains of the Syrian steppe, stretching to the Euphrates River.
The Orontes River9 flows through the Valley and is 571 km long.10 Its source is
located near Baalbek in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon. The river flows northward
through a marshy area in Syria known as the Ghab, situated between the Jebel
Ansariyeh and Jebel Zawiye mountain ranges (Figure 1). Further north it enters
Turkey and curves westward towards the Mediterranean Sea, reaching its estuary just
south of Suweidieh, near the ancient site of Seleucia Pieria.
With an annual precipitation of 400-800 mm, in addition to numerous springs
and tributaries, the Orontes Valley is one of the most fertile regions in the Levant.
Settled since Palaeolithic times, it was one of the first regions in the Near East to be
cultivated. The Valley has been a major route connecting various regions of the Near
East. Through the Amuq plain the valley leads north to Cilicia and east to
Mesopotamia. Southward, it becomes the Bekaa Valley, which leads to Palestine. It is
connected with the coast through the Homs Gap, which passes through the Ansariyeh
and Lebanon mountain ranges.11
9
Known by the name of Nahr el-Assi, which means ‘the rebel’ since it flows in a northerly direction
for most of its length, whereas others flow south.
10
For a thorough study of the Orontes River see Weulersse 1940.
11
For the geography of Syria see Wirth 1971.
5
C. Historical background
A thorough history of Syria is beyond the scope of this study, but a brief
history of each city is provided below, using both archaeological data and epigraphic
sources. Regarding the archaeological evidence, Apamea is the best preserved and
also the most well-published among the sites in the Orontes Valley. Epiphanea,
modern-day Hama, follows Apamea in terms of the quantity of publications, which
mostly concentrate on the Bronze and Iron Ages. Laodicea ad Libanum has
undergone limited and intermittent excavations, and these, too, have mostly focused
on the pre-Hellenistic period.12 The campaigns at Emesa are relatively recent and
focus on the Islamic remains. Raphanea and Larissa were excavated most recently,
and therefore more time is needed to compose an understanding of the archaeological
remains at both sites. Arethusa has not yet been excavated.
1. Apamea (Qalat al-Mudiq)
It is widely believed that Seleucus I founded Apamea and named it after his
Persian wife Apama sometime between 301-299 BC.13 However, it is more probable
that it was first founded by Antigonus I in 315-313 BC and called Pella by its
Macedonian settlers.14 In either case, Apamea seems to have been a refoundation of a
previously existing Persian settlement, named Pharnake.15
Apamea was founded along with Antioch, Laodicea and Seleucia to form the
Tetrapolis of Syria. It was the seat of the Apamene Satrapy, one of the four satrapies
12
A publication is currently in process by Peter Parr.
13
Strabo 16.2.4; Appian Syr. 57. For the foundation date see Cohen 2006, 95 and Grainger 1990, 49.
14
Strabo 16.2.10; Malalas 8.203; Diodorus 21.20. It is probable that Antigonus established the city as a
garrison fort and settled it with Macedonian soldiers.
15
Malalas 8.203. See also Balty and Balty 1977, 109-110 and Balty 2003.
6
of Seleucid Syria.16 It was the army headquarters and arsenal of the Seleucids, serving
as the stable for 30,000 mares, 500 war elephants and 300 stallions.17 Situated on a
peninsula created by the winding Orontes River,18 the foundation of Apamea seems to
have been a tactical move rather than an economic one.19 It served as a bottleneck,
protecting the Seleucid seat of power in Antioch against threats through the Valley
from the Ptolemaic south, due to its strategic location between a marshy depression in
the west, the Ghab, and the Jebel Zawiye mountain range and the desert steppe to the
east. Strabo states that a number of cities around Apamea fell under its sphere of
influence, among them Larissa, Arethusa, Seleukobelos, Megara, Kasiana and
Apollonia.20
History
From the history of Apamea we know that Demetrius Poliorcetes was held
prisoner in the garrison by Seleucus I from 285 BC until his death in 283, and that the
city was a refuge for Tryphon during his battles with Demetrius II between 142 and
138 BC.21 The citadel was later razed by Pompey the Great.22 From 46 to 44 BC, Q.
Caecilius Bassus, a follower of Pompey, held the city against the Caesareans with the
help of the neighbouring tribes, including the Emesenoi and Ituraeans.23 Similarly, L.
Decidius Saxa held the city against Quintus Labienus in 41-40 BC. During the reign
of Claudius, the city was given the title Claudia Apamaea, and in the third century
16
Jones 1971, 241-242.
17
Strabo 16.2.10.
18
Hence the epithet Cherronesos given by Strabo (16.2.10).
19
Grainger 1990, 79, 81.
20
16.2.10.
21
Unless otherwise stated the historical facts in what follows are taken from Cohen 2006, 94-101.
22
Josephus, JA, 14.3.2.
23
Strabo 16.2.10.
7
AD it was in Apamea that Macrinus proclaimed his son Diadumenian as emperor. In
the 250s AD Apamea fell during Shapur’s invasion of Syria. Apamea became the
capital of Syria Secunda in c. AD 400 and in the fifth and sixth centuries it boasted
numerous churches. The city then fell to the Islamic conquests in AD 63824 and was
abandoned in the twelfth century due to two earthquakes. Later, a fortress was built by
Nur ad-Din on the acropolis in the first half of the thirteenth century. Today, only the
citadel is inhabited and is known by the name of Qalat al-Mudiq.
In a census conducted in AD 6, Apamea’s citizen population was calculated
to be 117,000,25 which could amount to an impressive half a million inhabitants if all
those not included in the census (the non-citizens) are taken into account.26 Apamea
was also famous for its neo-Platonic school, which started in the second half of the
second century AD. Apamea was the quarters of the Legio II Parthica in the third
century AD, aiding Caracalla, Severus Alexander and Gordian III in their eastern
campaigns.27 Throughout its history, the city suffered several earthquakes, most
notably in the years 115, 526, 528, 1157 and 1170 of our era.
Excavations
Excavations in Apamea were first conducted between 1930 and 1938 by a
Belgian team.28 After an interruption of a few years and some intermittent campaigns,
excavations there were resumed in the 1960s. Archaeological work on the site has
revealed Palaeolithic, Neolithic and Chalcolithic activity. The Bronze Age is well
attested at the site, but less known is the Iron Age. The Hellenistic settlement is
24
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, s.v. ‘Apamea’, p. 147.
25
ILS 2683.
26
Balty 1988, 96; Balty and Balty 1977, 117-118.
27
Balty 1988, 97-104; Millar 1993, 146.
28
Mayance 1939.
8
believed to have encompassed an area of 230 hectares.29 Of the Roman period there
still remains a monumental colonnaded street measuring nearly 2 km long and 37 m
wide on the north-south axis.30 The construction of the colonnaded street, one of the
longest and most impressive in the Classical world, was started during the reign of
Trajan, following the earthquake which struck the region in AD 115, and continued
throughout the second century AD. Also among the architecture at Apamea, a theatre
measuring 139m in diametre, the largest in Roman Syria, stands immediately south of
the citadel and dates to the joint reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. Other
structures at the site include a nymphaeum, an agora measuring 45 by 150m and
several churches. The main temple (presumably) of Zeus Belos stands in the middle
of the city next to the agora.31 This sanctuary was destroyed in AD 384/385 by
Bishop Marcellus.32 Although nothing remains of the temple today, we know from
ancient sources that there an oracle of Zeus Belos was consulted by Septimius
Severus33 and Macrinus.34 A Tychaion is also situated facing the temple of Zeus
Belos.35
In 2002, a Belgian team recommenced excavation work at the site
concentrating on the agora and the north-eastern quarter of the Graeco-Roman
settlement.36 Preliminary results have revealed a number of baths and an aqueduct
constructed in the reign of Claudius is attested by an inscription.
29
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, s.v. ‘Apamea’, p. 146.
30
For what follows regarding the architectural remains see Balty 1969 and 1981.
31
Balty 1972, 23. There is no evidence that the temple is dedicated to Zeus (see Millar 1993, 263).
32
Theodoret, Hist. eccl. 5.21.
33
Dio 79.8.
34
Dio 79.40.
35
Balty 1988, 95 and 1972, 24.
36
Viviers and Vokaer 2007.
9
2. Larissa (Shayzar)
Appian states that Larissa was founded by Seleucus I,37 although this may
not necessarily be the case. Grainger proposes a foundation by Alexander the Great,
whereas Cohen implies a foundation by one of the successors of Seleucus I, possibly
Antiochus I.38 It was probably intended as a military base, as it is located on a high
rocky promontory.39 Larissa was settled by colonists from the Larissa in Thessaly and
was famous for horse breeding and formed part of the Seleucid cavalry.40 Larissa fell
under Apamea’s sphere of influence,41 but later a war broke out between the two. The
precise date of the battle is unknown, but it most likely took place in the mid second
century BC, during the conflict between Demetrius II and Tryphon.42 In Medieval
times Larissa was known as Shayzar,43 which is thought to be a derivation of its
original name Sinzara44 or Zinzar.45
3. Epiphanea (Hama)
Epiphanea in ancient times was known as Hamath, which was destroyed by
the Assyrians in 720 BC and was only partially and intermittently settled until the
advent of the Hellenistic period.46 It is widely believed that Antiochus IV Epiphanes,
who granted autonomy to a number of cities in the region, gave the city its Hellenistic
37
Appian Syr. 57.
38
Grainger 1990, 39-40; Cohen 2006, 117.
39
Grainger 1990, 106.
40
Diodorus 33.4-5. Grainger (1990, 39) states that it was settled by Alexander’s regiment of Thessalian
cavalry.
41
Strabo 16.2.10.
42
Cohen 2006, 117.
43
Jones 1971, 231.
44
Steph. Byz. Ethnicorum, s.v. ‘Larisai’.
45
As mentioned in the Amarna Letters which date to the fourteenth century BC.
46
Grainger 1990, 20.
10
name of Epiphanea.47 The name of the city later reverted to its original name and is
now known as Hama.
Excavations were conducted there by a Danish team in the 1930s revealing
Palaeolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age remains.48 Excavations have shown
a proliferation of dwellings and streets during the Hellenistic period and, based on
archaeological finds,49 it can be surmised that a substantial occupation of the site
began during the mid second century BC, implying that the site was indeed a
refoundation by Antiochus IV. Occupation of the site continued during the Roman
period, but it is poorly represented in the archaeological evidence, with only traces of
a third century AD temple existing where the Great Mosque stands today. After a
brief occupation during the Byzantine period, the city fell to the Islamic conquests in
AD 636. The site was occupied until AD 1401 when it was destroyed by the invading
Mongols.
4. Raphanea (Rafniyeh)
Raphanea, one of the sites of the Roman East that has only recently been
explored,50 was first identified with the modern town of Rafniyeh by Dussaud.51
Raphanea is generally assumed to be a Hellenistic foundation,52 although there is no
clear evidence yet to support this. An archaeological tell and a ‘pre-Hellenistic’
structure can be found in the vicinity of the site, but to date there is no evidence
47
Josephus, JA, 1.6.2; Grainger 1990, 138. Mørkholm (1966, 117) finds the connection doubtful.
48
Ingholt, 1957-1990.
49
For what follows see Ploug 1985, 13-15, 39-46.
50
With surveys being conducted there starting in 2005. For details see Gschwind et al. 2009,
information from which is used in what follows.
51
Dussaud 1927, 95-103.
52
Grainger 1990, 131.
11
showing that Raphanea was a continuation of a pre-existing settlement.53
Additionally, the lack of any significant surface finds dating to the Hellenistic period
excludes the probability that it was a considerable settlement of that period. The
campaigns conducted in and around the site have so far identified several structures
dating only broadly to the Classical period. These include residential areas,
necropoleis, a bath, quarries and cisterns, in addition to several column drums,
capitals, bases and remnants of a pediment.54
Regarding ancient sources, Raphanea is first mentioned in the context of the
Jewish wars, where reference is made to it being a legionary base for Legio XII
Fulminata. It later became the base for Legio VI Ferrata and III Gallica.55 In the
Severan period, Raphanea was part of Syria Phoenice. It was in this city that
Elagabalus was proclaimed emperor by the army in AD 218,56 implying that
Raphanea was still a legionary camp in the early third century AD. In the Res Gestae
Divi Saporis,57 Raphanea is included in the list of cities conquered by the Sassanians
in AD 253. Based on the above facts, it seems very likely that Raphanea as a city
developed in the Roman period as a consequence of the encampment of the army
there.58 The city remained occupied until the Medieval period.
53
Gschwind et al. 2009, 243-244, 276.
54
Gschwind (2009, 272) states that “several ornate architectural fragments, found in different parts of
the study area, show that monumental buildings existed at Raphaneae during the middle Empire”.
55
Josephus, BJ, 7.1.3; Ptolemy, Geography, 5.14.12 and also 5.15.16. For the chronology of the
legions stationed in Raphanea see Gschwind et al. 2009, 276-78. Gschwind proposes that Legio VI
Ferrata could have been based there as early as the Augustan period and Legio III Gallica by AD 71.
56
Dio 79.31; Herodian 5.3.11.
57
Huyse, 1999.
58
Gschwind et al. 2009, 275; Jones 1971, 267.
12
5. Arethusa (ar-Rastan)
It is likely that Arethusa was founded in the early Hellenistic period as a
military fortress due to its strategic location.59 Although Appian states that Arethusa
was founded by Seleucus I,60 it is more likely that it was refounded on a previously
existing local settlement having the name Arastan, ‘Arethusa’ being a Hellenized
form for the name.61 Historical evidence indicates that Arethusa fell under the sphere
of influence of the Emesenoi tribe and that it was probably their seat of power rather
than Emesa (see below).62 It is unclear when this happened precisely, but we know
that during the revolt of Q. Caecilius Bassus in 46-44 BC, it was controlled by
Samsigeramus, a phylarch of that tribe.63 We also hear of a Samsigeramus who paid
tribute to Pompey in 63 BC and therefore continued to reign over his domain, which
included Arethusa.64 In the 20s BC Arethusa was annexed to the province of Syria.65
Archaeological work has not yet been conducted at the site.
6. Emesa (Homs)
History
Although we find mention of Emesa being a Seleucid colony,66 there is not
yet epigraphic or archaeological evidence for such a foundation.67 It is more likely
59
Grainger 1990, 106.
60
Appian Syr. 57.
61
Cohen 2006, 102.
62
Kropp 2010, 214.
63
Strabo 16.2.10-11.
64
Cic. Att. 16.2.
65
Kropp 2010. See also Butcher 2003, 110. For the use of the Actian era in Arethusa, see IGLS V, no.
2085.
66
IGLS V, no. 107.
67
Kropp 2010; Millar 1993, 302; Butcher 2003, 91-92; Jones 1971, 262; Abdulkarim 2001, 51. Cohen
(2006) does not include Emesa in his study of Hellenistic settlements.
13
that the general region was under the influence of the Emesenoi tribe led by a
sequence of chieftains (phylarchoi) having the name Samsigeramus and Iamblichus.
This tribe seems to have taken control of the region as a result of the disintegration of
the Seleucid Empire in the early first century BC,68 for we know that Arethusa was
the stronghold of the Emesenoi in the mid first century BC.69 It should be noted that
Strabo does not mention a city with the name Emesa but rather a tribe of the
Emesenoi. It is also significant that Pliny, in his Historia Naturalis, written in the
Flavian period, does not include Emesa in the list of cities of Syria, but includes the
Emesenoi in his list of tribes.70 Taking these into account, it cannot be determined
exactly when Emesa was established as a city, but it is probable that Emesa first came
into existence as a city during the first century BC, most probably after the battle of
Actium, and that the city was named after the local tribe and not vice-versa.71 Not
much is known of the history of Emesa during the early Roman period, but it is
assumed to have been annexed by Rome during the Flavian period.72 The local
dynasty is last mentioned in AD 72 when it supplied Vespasian with troops for the
campaign against Commagene.73
Emesa came to prominence in the late second century AD when Septimius
Severus married Julia Domna, the daughter of the high priest of the city. It was also
during the Severan period that it became the capital of Syria Phoenice and was
granted the status of colony by Caracalla.74 During the Sassanian invasion in AD 253,
68
Shahîd 1984, 4. See Sullivan 1977 for the history of the dynasty and the prominent role they played
as client kings of Rome.
69
Strabo 16.2.10-11.
70
HN 5.81.
71
Retsö 2003, 408-409; Kropp 2010.
72
Kropp 2010, 216; Millar 1993, 84; Shahîd 1984, 18-19.
73
Josephus, BJ, 7.7.1. See also Millar 1993, 300-305 for the history of Emesa.
74
Ulpian, Digest 50.15.1.4.
14
Emesa is not listed among the cities conquered by Shapur. Malalas records a local by
the name of Samsigeramus, who mustered forces in Emesa and repelled the Persian
forces.75 We know from coins that Uranius Antoninus ruled in Emesa during this time
period and although it is uncertain if this emperor is the Samsigeramus mentioned by
Malalas, he is the most probable candidate.76 It was also at Emesa that Aurelian
defeated the Palmyrene forces led by Zenobia.77 In the fourth century AD Emesa fell
into decline, perhaps due to the fading of Palmyra and the trade route between the two
cities.78 In the Ayyubid period a citadel was built on the tell of Homs, which was used
through Ottoman times but destroyed in the mid nineteenth century. During the
French mandate the tell was partly levelled and used as a military base for French
soldiers. Today only remnants of the Islamic fortifications remain.
Excavations
Excavations on the tell were conducted during the French mandate, the
results of which are unpublished. During the 1970s a Syrian team continued
excavations there, but this too remains unpublished. Work was resumed by a joint
Syrian and British team in 1994, concentrating on the Islamic fortifications of the
citadel.79 The results show that the tell was occupied at least from the third
millennium BC. Archaeological evidence from the Hellenistic period is lacking and
the Roman period is scantily represented. This is mostly due to the fact that the
Roman city is buried under the modern city of Homs, coupled with the fact that
excavations on the tell have not yet reached Roman levels. A necropolis was located
75
Malalas Chronicle 12. 296-297. See also the XIIIth Sibylline Oracle, 150-154.
76
See Potter 1990, 323-328, for a detailed analysis.
77
Zosimus 1.25-27.
78
Millar 1993, 301 (quoting Libanius).
79
King 2002.
15
to the west of the city, including a pyramid-roofed mausoleum dedicated to a certain
Samsigeramus and dated to AD 78/79.80 This monument was destroyed in 1911 by
modern construction work. The remainder of the necropolis was excavated in 1936
and it too was later overbuilt with modern structures. The grave goods collected from
the tombs date to the first century BC and first century AD.81
To date, the remains of the great temple of the Emesene sun-god, where the
black stone of Elagabal was worshiped,82 have not been unearthed. Scholars are
divided in placing the location of the temple either where the Nuri Mosque stands
today or on the archaeological tell of Homs.83 It has also been suggested that the
temple never stood in Emesa, but that it was the same as the great temple of Jupiter in
Baalbek,84 though this seems improbable (see discussion in Types and Legends
chapter).
7. Laodicea ad Libanum (Tell Nebi Mend)
History
It is uncertain by whom this city was founded, but it is likely to have been
Seleucus I, since it is stated that he founded five cities and called them Laodicea in
honor of his mother.85 The city is the site of ancient Qadesh where the great battle
between the Egyptians and Hittites was fought in the early thirteenth century BC. The
80
Watzinger 1923. The inscriptions on the monument do not mention the title of king. For an
illustration of the tomb see King 2002, 44, Fig. 6.
81
Seyrig 1952 and 1953.
82
Herodian 5.3.5.
83
Ball 2000, 37-47; King 2002, 44-45; Chad 1972, 123; The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in
the Near East, s.v. ‘Emesa’, p. 89.
84
Ball 2000, 39-42. See Young 2003 for a rebuttal of Ball’s hypothesis.
85
Appian Syr. 57; Grainger (1990, 139-140) finds this attribution “very unlikely” due to the small size
of the site.
16
archaeological tell is located at a fork between the Orontes River and its tributary, the
Mukadiyeh. The two rivers seem to have been connected by an artificial canal situated
south of the tell, thus protecting the site from all sides, though the date for this ditch
remains uncertain.86 In the Classical period it was known as Laodicea ad Libanum87
and Laodicea Skabiosa,88 but in the early Islamic period it was once again known as
Kadis.89 Today the site is known by the name Tell Nebi Mend.
Excavations
Tell Nebi Mend was excavated in the early 1920s by the French.90
Excavation work was renewed by the British in 1975.91 Results thus far have revealed
occupation during the Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, and the Graeco-Roman and
Byzantine periods. The Persian period is hardly represented at the site; it seems more
likely that the settlement was abandoned before then.92 The Hellenistic period is
represented by some remains of domestic architecture on the tell and a ‘fortification
wall’, possibly dating to this period, found in the north-eastern part of the mound. The
Roman settlement is located at the southern foot of the ancient tell, but because that
area has only been partially excavated, the Roman period is poorly represented in the
archaeological record. The city seems to have been abandoned before the Islamic
invasions and not resettled until modern times.93
86
Parr 1983, 101 and 1990-1991, 81. On the Egyptian reliefs of the 19th Dynasty battle the site is also
depicted surrounded by water.
87
Pliny NH 5.82; Strabo 16.2.18.
88
Ptolemy 5.14.16. The name has negative connotations of scabbiness or of being diseased, perhaps an
indication of malarial conditions in the river valley.
89
Jones 1971, 231.
90
Pézard 1922 and 1931.
91
Parr 1983 and 1990-1991.
92
Grainger 1990, 139.
93
Parr 1990-1991, 81; Real Encyclopadie, s.v. ‘Laodikeia’, 718-720.
17
CHAPTER II
CATALOGUE
To date, no complete coin catalogue for the cities of the Orontes Valley
exists. BMC Syria, although it has not outlived its usefulness, is a hundred years old
now and much has been added to our knowledge since. With the exception of
Apamea, covered in RPC I, none of the mints under study have yet been discussed in
detail. Hence, the following pages may be considered a systematic treatment and a
complete corpus of these coinages.
Commentary on the coin types is avoided in the catalogue, as this will be
thoroughly discussed in the relevant sections to follow. Regarding the legends, the
most common varieties are listed; special cases or blundered legends are discussed in
the main text. The cities are listed in geographical order from north to south, and the
coins in chronological order followed by their denominational structure.
An attempt was made to document as many coins as possible from both
public and private collections, as well as printed material and online sources. The
collections visited in person were that of the Ashmolean Museum, the AUB Museum,
the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, the British
Museum, the Fitzwilliam Museum, Tübingen University, and the Homs Museum. The
institutions from which the data was acquired by correspondence or online were the
American Numismatic Society, the Athens Numismatic Museum, the Bernisches
Historisches Museum, the Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, the Geldmuseum Utrecht,
the Harvard Art Museums, the Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna, the Museum of Art
and Archaeology Missouri, the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, the Smithsonian
Institute and the Yale University Art Gallery. Published material was mostly acquired
18
from SNGs, in addition to various catalogues. The data was also complemented by
studying site finds and hoards from published and unpublished material from the
region. Online auction databases were helpful for acquiring more recent material. Six
private collections were also documented. Only rarely was access not granted by
certain dealers or collectors. A few public collections were not seen due to protracted
delays by the administration in granting access to the material.
In total, 1366 coins were documented: Apamea 461, Larissa 21, Raphanea
108, Emesa 694 and Laodicea ad Libanum 82. No coins were added to the database
after June 2012. Weights (in grams) and sizes (in millimeters) are listed according to
how they are provided in publications, thus some are listed to the tenths and others the
hundredths. Where known, the date of each issue is listed in the inventory following
each catalogue entry; the chronology of issues lacking dates is discussed in the
Production chapter. An image of the best preserved coin of each type is depicted in
the plates at the end and is marked with a star (*) in the inventory list under each type.
19
A. Apamea
1. Civic issues
a. Group 1
No. 1) Zeus/elephant (BMC Syria, 3)
Denomination: AE, large
Obverse: Laureate head of Zeus right. Dotted border.
Reverse: Elephant right. Above and below ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ. In field various Greek letters/dates.
Inventory Weight Size Axis Date Field Marks

1 PC2 8.54 23 12 ςΛΣ=236=77/76 BC indistinct
2 BMC Syria 3 7.61 21.5 12 ΖΛΣ=237=76/75 BC ΣΕ
3 SNG Munich-793 7.16 - 1 ΖΛΣ=237=76/75 BC indistinct
4 MA-Münzhandlung Ritter 28945 - - - ΖΛΣ=237=76/75 BC worn
5 Vienna-GR 21653 9.02 21.1 12 ΖΛΣ=237=76/75 BC ΣE
6 BNF-927 8.23 21 12 ΖΛΣ=237=76/75 BC uncertain
7 BNF-927b 8.97 23.5 12 ΖΛΣ=237=76/75 BC indistinct
8 PC3 8.17 21.75 - ΖΛΣ=237=76/75 BC ΣE
20
9 Ashmolean-Christ Church 2056 6.86 21.5 11 ΖΛΣ?=237=76/75 BC none
10 BNF-928 7.38 21.5 12 ΜΣ=240=73/72 BC AN
11* CNG-729552 8.63 22 - BΜΣ=242=71/70 BC ∆I
12 Berlin-C.R.Fox 1873 8.01 23.5 12 BΜΣ=242=71/70 BC ∆I
13 BNF-929 7.65 21.5 12 BΜΣ=242=71/70 BC indistinct
14 ANS-1944.100.66123 7.78 21 12 BΜΣ=242=71/70 BC ∆I
15 BMC Syria 5 7.74 21 1 ΓΜΣ=243=70/69 BC MNA (NA ligatured)
16 Berlin-Imhoof Blumer 1900 8.58 21 1 ΓΜΣ=243=70/69 BC MNA
17 SNG Munich-792 8.51 - 1 ΓΜΣ=243=70/69 BC worn
18 Wildwinds-27.62307 8.1 21 - ΓΜΣ=243=70/69 BC MNA
19 Vienna-GR 21654 9.69 21.1 12 ΓΜΣ=243=70/69 BC MNA
20 ANS-1971.193.36 9.37 20 12 ΓΜΣ=243=70/69 BC MH
21 Berlin-v. Rauch 7.28 20 1 EΜΣ=245=68/67 BC MNA
22 Berlin-Graf Prokesch-Osten 7 21 1 EΜΣ=245=68/67 BC MA
23 CNG-228.135 8.62 21 12 Z=7=60/59 BC (Z retrograde) ∆I
24 PC3 8.15 22 - Z=7=60/59 BC ∆I
25 eBay - - - Z=7=60/59 BC worn
26 SNG Leipzig-1316 8.54 20.5 12 Z=7=60/59 BC MH
27 PC4 6.7 21 - Z=7=60/59 BC worn
28 Forum-11603 7.36 21.4 12 Z=7=60/59 BC ∆I?
29 ANS-1944.100.66125 8.24 20 12 Z=7=60/59 BC M(?)
30 ANS-1947.97.536 7.65 19 12 Z=7=60/59 BC worn
31 ANS-1961.154.61 8.67 20 12 Z=7=60/59 BC ∆I
32 Yale-2001.87.11102 8.15 20.2 12 Z?=7=60/59 BC off flan
33 SNG Fitzwilliam-5948 7.96 21.2 1 H=8=59/58 BC KA?
34 Fitzwilliam-no number 8.24 21.2 12 H=8=59/58 BC indistinct
35 Fitzwilliam-no number 6.37 21.1 1 H=8=59/58 BC M(?)
36 BMC Syria 14 8.68 21.5 1 H=8=59/58 BC KA
37 PC1 8.29 22 1 H=8=59/58 BC MH
21
38 eBay 7.3 22 - H=8=59/58 BC uncertain
39 Berlin-M: V 224, 577, 5049 6.49 21.5 12 H=8=59/58 BC (?)A
40 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 7.66 22.5 1 H=8=59/58 BC MH(?)
41 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 7.83 21.5 1 H=8=59/58 BC KA
42 BNF-Louis de Clercq 281 8.28 22 12 H=8=59/58 BC MH
43 BNF-930 8.29 21.5 12 H=8=59/58 BC KA
44 BNF-931 8.27 21.5 1 H=8=59/58 BC MH
45 BNF-932 7.86 23.5 12 H=8=59/58 BC KA
46 PC2 9.14 21.4 12 H=8=59/58 BC MH
47 PC2 7.52 20.6 12 H=8=59/58 BC KA
48 eBay - 22 - H=8=59/58 BC MH
49 VCoins-Holyland Numismatics 5167 8.76 23.5 H=8=59/58 BC KA
50 Lindgren I-2036 7.16 21.5 - H=8=59/58 BC off flan
51 c/m BAS on elephant 7.6 22 - H=8=59/58 BC worn
52 SNG Munich-794 7.81 - 12 H=8=59/58 BC KA
53 SNG Poland-62 7.11 - - H=8=59/58 BC worn
54 PC4 7 22 - H=8=59/58 BC A?
55 Belgium-463 8.22 21 - H=8=59/58 BC worn
56 Forum-GB38866 8.24 22.5 12 H=8=59/58 BC worn
57 Forum-16389 6.9 21.2 12 H=8=59/58 BC uncertain
58 Forum-GB38711 5.22 19.5 12 H=8=59/58 BC off flan
59 Tantalus-37994 7.57 22 - H=8=59/58 BC MH
60 Wildwinds-eBay 1246216504 8.99 22 - H=8=59/58 BC KA?
61 AUB-198 7.5 21 1 H=8=59/58 BC ∆I?
62 Netherlands-7873 7.3 21.4 11 H=8=59/58 BC worn
63 Bern-G 1858 8.55 20.9 12 H=8=59/58 BC KA
64 Vienna-GR 21652 8.14 22.5 12 H=8=59/58 BC MH
65 Vienna-GR 35692 7.42 21.4 1 H=8=59/58 BC KA
66 ANS-1940.77.158 7.55 21 12 H=8=59/58 BC worn
22
67 ANS-1944.100.66126 8.23 22 1 H=8=59/58 BC M(?)
68 ANS-1944.100.66127 8.17 20 12 H=8=59/58 BC worn
69 ANS-1948.19.2033 7.92 21 12 H=8=59/58 BC worn
70 Harvard-1980.85.194 9.1 - - H=8=59/58 BC worn
71 Yale-2001.87.11103 9.11 20.1 1 H=8=59/58 BC KA?
72 Athens-Empedoklis Collection - - - H=8=59/58 BC worn
73 Tübingen 6.81 22.7 12 H=8=59/58 BC KA
74 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 8.07 21 12 I(?)(?) KA
75 PC2 7.19 20 12 I(?)(?) worn
76 BM-R. P. Knight p. 169 no. 5 8.6 20.5 1 indistinct indistinct
77 PC1 7.18 21 12 worn worn
78 Tantalus-31764 7.5 23 - worn worn
79 ANS-1944.100.66124 6.45 22 12 worn worn
80 Yale-2001.87.11104 7.09 21.6 1 worn worn
81 Fitzwilliam-CM 2388.1977 9.04 20 12 worn worn
No. 2) Tyche/Nike (SNG Fitzwilliam, 5949)
Denomination: AE, medium
Obverse: Turreted and veiled bust of Tyche right. Dotted border.
Reverse: Nike advancing left holding wreath and palm. To right and left downwards ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ, in field
various Greek letters/dates.
23
1 SNG Fitzwilliam-5949 8.08 23 12 ΖΛΣ=237=76/75 BC (date engraved twice) none
2 Netherlands-2584 8.25 21.9 11 ΖΛΣ=237=76/75 BC worn
3 PC2 6.47 19 12 ΓΜΣ=243=70/69 or EΜΣ=245=68/67 BC worn
4 PC1 6.3 17 11 ςI=16=51/50 BC none
5 PC1 5.02 17 12 ςI=16=51/50 BC AN
6 BNF-960a 5.9 18 11 ςI=16=51/50 BC AN
7 BNF-961 6.17 18 11 ςI=16=51/50 BC AN
8 PC3 5.05 17.35 - ςI=16=51/50 BC off flan
9 Lindgren I-2034 5.12 16 - ςI=16=51/50 BC AN?
10 SNG Munich-803 4.38 - 11 ςI=16=51/50 BC AN
11 SNG Munich-804 6.76 - 12 ςI=16=51/50 BC AN
12 SNG Munich-805 5.18 - 11 ςI=16=51/50 BC AN?
13* Wildwinds-27.62309 5.73 17 - ςI=16=51/50 BC AN
14 ANS-1967.274.2 6.17 17 10 ςI=16=51/50 BC off flan
15 ANS-1967.274.3 5.5 17 10 ςI=16=51/50 BC off flan
16 Yale-1938.6000.1304 4.48 17.2 11 ςI=16=51/50 BC off flan
17 Yale-2001.87.11105 5.19 18.7 10 ςI=16=51/50 BC AN
18 Ashmolean-Bouchier 1930 4.63 18 10 ςI?=16=51/50 BC off flan
19 Ashmolean-Christ Church 2060 6.04 18 11 ςI?=16=51/50 BC worn
20 BNF-960 5.11 20 12 uncertain worn
21 PC2 6.78 20.1 12 worn AN?
22 SNG Braunschweig-1368 5.14 17 12 worn worn
24
No. 3) Demeter/corn ear (BMC Syria, 4)
Denomination: AE, small 1
Obverse: Draped and veiled bust of Demeter right wearing corn wreath. Dotted border.
Reverse: Corn ear with two sprouting buds. To right and left downwards ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ, in field various
Greek letters/dates.

1 BMC Syria 4 4.15 17 11 ΘΛ(Σ)=239=74/73 BC ΣΕ
2* Wildwinds-27.62306 5.03 18 - ΘΛΣ=239=74/73 BC ΣΕ?
3 PC3 3.45 15.9 - BMΣ?=242=71/70 BC indistinct
4 Ashmolean-Bouchier 1930 3.66 15.5 12 BΜΣ=242=71/70 BC none
5 Berlin-66/1885 4.31 16 12 BΜΣ=242=71/70 BC KA? in exergue
6 BNF-941 4.21 16.5 12 ΓMΣ=243=70/69 BC AN in outer left field
7 Ashmolean-Milne 1923 4.16 17 12 H=8=59/58 BC MN or MH in outer left field
8 PC1 3.24 17 12 H=8=59/58 BC none
9 BNF-965b 3.18 17.5 12 H=8=59/58 BC KA? in outer left field
10 BNF-1973.218 3.24 17 12 H=8=59/58 BC MH and (?) in outer left field
11 Lindgren I-2030 3.35 17 - H=8=59/58 BC worn
12 MA-Münzhandlung Ritter 29279 - - - H?=8=59/58 BC uncertain
13 SNG Munich-810 2.75 - 12 worn worn
14 Forum-13132 3.84 17.5 12 worn worn
25
No. 4) Dionysus/Grapes (Lindgren III, 1175)
Obverse: Bust of Dionysus right wearing ivy wreath. Dotted border.
Reverse: Bunch of grapes. To right and left downwards ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ, in field various Greek letters/dates.

1* Lindgren III-1175 2.29 14 - ΖΛΣ=237=76/75 BC ΣΓ?
2 PC4 - - - ΘΛΣ=239=74/73 BC ΣΓ
3 SNG Winterthur-5155 2.84 14 12 ΘΛΣ=239=74/73 BC ΣΡ or ΣΕ
4 PC4 2.7 15 - ΘΛΣ=239=74/73 BC worn
5 Lindgren I-2035 1.66 13.5 - ΘΛΣ?=239=74/73 BC Σ(?)
6 MA-M&M 5583 2.5 - - BΜΣ?=242=71/70 BC worn
7 ANS-1961.154.56 2.05 13 12 BΜΣ?=242=71/70 BC uncertain
8 VCoins-Ancient Imports 19222 2.1 15.37 - indistinct indistinct
b. Group 2
No. 5) Dionysus/thyrsus (RPC I, 4347-4352)
26
Reverse: Thyrsus tied with ribbon. To right and left downwards ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ, in field various Greek
letters/dates.

1 BMC Syria 9 9.61 22 12 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC AN
2 PC1 9.25 21.5 1 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC worn
3 Berlin-no ticket (c/m Tyche head) 7.81 22.5 1 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC EI?
4 BNF-945 8.52 22 2 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC off flan
5 BNF-945a 9.33 21.5 12 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC MH or MA
6 Vienna-GR 21660 8.69 22.2 12 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC off flan
7 Berlin-v.Rauch (c/m Tyche head) 8.42 23 11 ΓΠΣ?=283=30/29 BC worn
8 BNF-Y23879.241 10.07 23 1 ΓΠΣ?=283=30/29 BC AN
9 PC1 8.47 21 1 ∆ΠΣ=284=29/28 BC N(?)
10 Berlin-Fox 1873 8.66 21 12 ∆ΠΣ=284=29/28 BC off flan
11 PC5 8.9 23 1 ∆ΠΣ=284=29/28 BC off flan
12 Ashmolean-CRE 1465 9.89 22 1 EΠΣ=285=28/27 BC none
13 Berlin-Fox 1873 9.79 21 1 EΠΣ=285=28/27 BC none
14 SNG Glasgow-3140 10.05 22.5 12 EΠΣ=285=28/27 BC AN
15 Belgium-893 8.38 21 - EΠΣ=285=28/27 BC MH
16* MA-Münzhandlung Ritter 29280 8.93 - - EΠΣ=285=28/27 BC AN
17 ANS-1944.100.66118 10.98 21 12 EΠΣ=285=28/27 BC off flan
18 Forum-10940 8.51 21.8 12 EΠΣ?=285=28/27 BC worn
19 Fitzwilliam-Leake 9429 9.2 22.2 12 Β9Σ=292=21/20 BC EI
20 Ashmolean-CRE 1467 8.46 22 12 Β9Σ=292=21/20 BC EI
21 PC1 8.46 23 1 Β9Σ=292=21/20 BC Θ and E
22 Berlin 8.45 23 11 Β9Σ=292=21/20 BC NOY
23 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 9.66 23.5 12 Β9Σ=292=21/20 BC NOY
24 BNF-945b 7.96 22.5 11 Β9Σ=292=21/20 BC indistinct
27
25 CNG-214.208 11.33 21 1 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC ∆I
26 CNG-255.127 9.05 20 12 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC XP
27 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 8.61 20.5 12 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC P
28 BNF-945d 8.56 23.5 1 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC EI
29 BNF-952 9.22 21.5 1 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC NOY
30 SNG Glasgow-3141 8.81 24 12 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC EI
31 SNG Winterthur-5156 7.79 22.2 1 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC uncertain
32 Berlin-Fox 1873 9.36 23 1 E9Σ=295=18/17 BC NOY
33 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 8.63 23.5 12 E9Σ=295=18/17 BC Θ and E
34 BNF-945c (c/m Tyche head) 9.88 21 1 E9Σ=295=18/17 BC worn
35 SNG Glasgow-3142 8.74 22 12 E9Σ=295=18/17 BC EI
36 SNG Glasgow-3143 (c/m Tyche head) 8.01 23 12 E9Σ=295=18/17 BC EI
37 ANS-1944.100.66119 10.22 19 12 E9Σ=295=18/17 BC NOY
38 Fitzwilliam-Leake 2397 6.1 20.5 1 ∆(?)(?) off flan
39 Ashmolean-CRE 1471A (c/m Tyche head) 8.17 23.5 12 uncertain worn
40 eBay 8.61 22 - uncertain uncertain
41 Lindgren III-1176 (c/m Tyche head) 9.49 23 - uncertain worn
42 PC2 8.6 24.7 12 worn worn
43 PC2 8.3 21.6 12 worn worn
44 eBay - 25 - worn worn
45 Vcoins-909012603 8.3 23 - worn EI
46 SNG Munich-809 7.64 - 12 worn worn
47 SNG Righetti-2072 6.14 20.2 12 worn worn
48 SNG Righetti-2073 6.63 20.2 12 worn worn
49 eBay - 20 - worn worn
50 Forum-12156 9.28 22.9 12 worn worn
51 Vienna-GR 32469 (c/m Tyche head) 8.2 21.4 12 worn worn
52 ANS-1944.100.66117 10.19 22 1 worn worn
53 Harvard-1980.85.196 5.94 - - worn worn
28
54 Harvard-1980.85.197 (c/m Tyche head) 9.24 - - worn worn
No. 6) Athena/Nike (RPC I, 4333-4346)
Obverse: Helmeted bust of Athena right. Dotted border.
Reverse: Nike advancing left holding wreath and palm. To right and left downwards ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ or
ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ, in field various Greek letters/dates.
Inventory Weight Size Axis Date Field Marks Legend variety

1 BMC Syria 15 8.23 22 1 ∆Κ=24 PE=43/42 BC AN ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
2 Ashmolean-Christ Church 2059 11.53 22 11 ∆Κ=24 PE=43/42 BC none ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
3 PC1 8.01 22 11 ∆Κ=24 PE=43/42 BC AN ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
4 eBay - - - ∆Κ=24 PE=43/42 BC EI? in exergue uncertain
5 Berlin-Knobelsdorf 8.95 22 1 ∆Κ=24 PE=43/42 BC EI in exergue ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
6 BNF-963 7.87 21 12 ∆Κ=24 PE=43/42 BC AN? ΑΣΥΛΟΥ?
7 PC3 10.16 21.45 - ∆Κ=24 PE=43/42 BC AN ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
8 SNG Glasgow-3128 9.27 21 12 ∆Κ=24 PE=43/42 BC AN ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
9 MA-Sesam-58206.100 - 22 - ∆Κ=24 PE=43/42 BC none? ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
10 SNG Munich-798 8.92 - 12 ∆Κ?=24 PE=43/42 BC uncertain uncertain
11 BMC Syria 6 8.48 22 12 ΒOΣ=272=41/40 BC none ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
12 Berlin-Fox 1873 8.98 20.5 12 ΒOΣ=272=41/40 BC off flan off flan
13 BNF-933 6.7 22 12 ΒOΣ=272=41/40 BC MH ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
14 BNF-Luynes 3457 8.05 20.5 12 ΒOΣ=272=41/40 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
15 PC2 6.79 21 12 ΒOΣ=272=41/40 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
29
16 SNG Glasgow-3129 7.35 20 12 ΒOΣ=272=41/40 BC AN ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
17 SNG Munich-799 7.6 - 12 ΒOΣ=272=41/40 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
18 ANS-1998.18.147 8.81 20 1 ΒOΣ=272=41/40 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
19* CNG-162074 7.74 21 12 B=2=40/39 BC off flan ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
20 BNF-932b (traces of undertype(?) on obverse) 6.7 21.5 12 B=2=40/39 BC MH ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
21 BNF-932d 8.36 21.5 1 B=2=40/39 BC EI in exergue ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
22 PC3 6.47 21.05 - B=2=40/39 BC off flan ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
23 acsearch-Lanz 125.486 7.76 21 12 B=2=40/39 BC off flan ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
24 PC5 8 21.5 12 B=2=40/39 BC MH ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
25 Ashmolean-Milne 1923 6.82 20.5 12 B=2=40/39 BC none ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
26 PC1 7.1 20.5 12 Γ=3=39/38 BC EI ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
27 BNF-935 7.23 22 1 Γ=3=39/38 BC EI? in exergue ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
28 BM-R. P. Knight p. 169 no. 3 6.66 21 12 EOΣ=275=38/37 BC indistinct ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ?
29 PC1 6.91 21 1 EOΣ=275=38/37 BC AN ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
30 CNG-223.219 7.41 20 12 EOΣ=275=38/37 BC M and ? ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
31 BNF-Y28342.2 8.32 21 12 EOΣ=275=38/37 BC EI in exergue ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
32 BNF-932c 8.85 21.5 1 EOΣ=275=38/37 BC MH ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
33 BNF-936 8.36 21.5 11 EOΣ=275=38/37 BC off flan ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
34 PC3 6.55 20.5 - EOΣ=275=38/37 BC MH ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
35 VCoins-Sphinx 845FG8 6.88 20 - EOΣ=275=38/37 BC MH ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
36 SNG Copenhagen-298 7.15 20 12 EOΣ=275=38/37 BC AN? ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
37 SNG Glasgow-3130 6.92 19.5 12 EOΣ=275=38/37 BC AN ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
38 eBay 8 20 - EOΣ=275=38/37 BC worn worn
39 Netherlands-7874 7.68 21.5 12 EOΣ=275=38/37 BC off flan ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
40 Vienna-GR 21655 7.59 20.5 12 EOΣ=275=38/37 BC off flan ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
41 ANS-1944.100.66112 6.77 20 12 EOΣ=275=38/37 BC MH ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
42 BNF-938 6.96 20 12 ςOΣ=276=37/36 BC AN? ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
43 BMC Syria 7 7.42 20 1 ςOΣ=276=37/36 BC indistinct ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
44 PC1 7.43 21 12 ςOΣ=276=37/36 BC MH ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
30
45 BNF-938a 7.12 20 12 ςOΣ=276=37/36 BC off flan ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
46 PC2 6.68 20.6 12 ςOΣ=276=37/36 BC worn worn
47 SNG Glasgow-3131 6.01 19 12 ςOΣ=276=37/36 BC off flan ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
48 Lindgren I-2031 7.71 20.5 - ςOΣ=276=37/36 BC off flan ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
49 Wildwinds-1211654584 6.74 21 - ςOΣ=276=37/36 BC AN ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
50 MA-Münzhandlung Ritter 29240 8.27 - - ςOΣ=276=37/36 BC off flan ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
51 PC2 7.4 22 12 ςOΣ?=276=37/36 BC off flan ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
52 PC1 7.92 21.5 12 ZOΣ=277=36/35 BC MH ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
53 Ashmolean-Christ Church 2057 7.13 21.5 1 ΒΠΣ=282=31/30 BC H in exergue ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
54 BNF-1952.12 7.69 20.5 12 ΒΠΣ=282=31/30 BC indistinct ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
55 BNF-932a 5.9 20.5 1 ΒΠΣ=282=31/30 BC EI in exergue ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
56 BNF-940 6.94 20.5 12 ΒΠΣ=282=31/30 BC indistinct ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
57 SNG Glasgow-3132 6.3 21 12 ΒΠΣ=282=31/30 BC worn ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
58 SNG Munich-795 6.38 - 12 ΒΠΣ=282=31/30 BC worn ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
59 Belgium-461 7.18 20 - ΒΠΣ=282=31/30 BC worn ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ?
60 ANS-1944.100.66113 - - - ΒΠΣ=282=31/30 BC AN ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
61 Fitzwilliam-Leake 9428 7.75 20.8 1 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC indistinct ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
62 BMC Syria 8 7.23 19 12 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC none ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
63 Ashmolean-CRE 1464 6.55 19.5 12 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC off flan ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
64 PC2 9.26 22 12 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC MH ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
65 PC2 6.52 19.8 12 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC off flan off flan
66 PC2 8.01 19.9 12 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
67 SNG Munich-796 6.68 - 11 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC worn ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
68 Belgium-462 (possible forgery) 7.31 21 - ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC off flan ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
69 Forum-GB41472 6.66 20.4 12 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC off flan worn
70 AUB-203 9 13 1 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC off flan ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
71 Vienna-GR 21656 7.06 20.1 12 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC AN ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
72 BNF-943 7.56 19.5 1 ΓΠΣ?=283=30/29 BC off flan off flan
73 SNG Munich-797 6.58 - 12 ΓΠΣ?=283=30/29 BC worn ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
31
74 ANS-1971.193.33 5.49 20 12 ΓΠΣ?=283=30/29 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ?
75 BNF-932f 7.27 19.5 12 ςΠΣ=286=27/26 BC indistinct off flan
76 BNF-947 7.27 21.5 12 ςΠΣ=286=27/26 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
77 SNG Copenhagen-299 7.32 18.5 12 ςΠΣ=286=27/26 BC AN? ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
78 SNG Glasgow-3133 6.87 19 12 ςΠΣ=286=27/26 BC worn ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
79 Vienna-GR 21657 7.77 19.7 12 ςΠΣ=286=27/26 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
80 BNF-948 6.17 20.5 12 ZΠΣ=287=26/25 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
81 SNG Glasgow-3134 7.93 20 12 ZΠΣ=287=26/25 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
82 SNG Righetti-2070 7.47 20.1 12 ZΠΣ=287=26/25 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ?
83 Vienna-GR 21658 7.68 20.4 12 ZΠΣ=287=26/25 BC off flan worn
84 BNF-949 7.53 21 12 B9Σ=292=21/20 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
85 SNG Glasgow-3135 6.42 19.5 12 B9Σ=292=21/20 BC NOY ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
86 SNG Fitzwilliam-5950 6.57 21 12 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC ∆Ι ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
87 Ashmolean-CRE 1468 5.77 20.5 1 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC ∆Ι? ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
88 CNG-214.207 7.52 20 12 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC N O (or Θ) ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
89 BNF-Y23879.242 7.42 21 12 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC ∆Ι ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
90 BNF-951 (countermark on obverse) 7.31 22 12 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC ∆Ι? ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
91 SNG Glasgow-3136 7.18 20 12 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC XP? ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
92 SNG Glasgow-3137 (fragment) 6.06 21 12 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
93 SNG Munich-801 7.17 - 12 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC worn worn
94 SNG Winterthur-5157 7.79 22.2 1 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC worn off flan
95 PC4 5.8 21 - Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
96 PC4 8.4 19 - Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
97 PC5 8.4 21 1 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
98 AUB-199 7.45 21 12 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
99 Netherlands-RE## 7.53 2.6 12 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC off flan off flan
100 ANS-1944.100.66114 8.18 22 1 Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
101 AUB-204 7.3 19 1 Γ9Σ?=293=20/19 BC worn ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
102 BMC Syria 10 6.35 20.5 12 E9Σ=295=18/17 BC none ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
32
103 Berlin-Imhoof Blumer 1900 7.74 22.5 12 E9Σ=295=18/17 BC none ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
104 Berlin-Fox 1873 6.11 19 12 E9Σ=295=18/17 BC none off flan
105 SNG Glasgow-3138 6.56 20 12 E9Σ=295=18/17 BC XP ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
106 SNG Glasgow-3139 7.91 21 12 E9Σ=295=18/17 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
107 SNG Munich-802 7.03 - 12 E9Σ=295=18/17 BC NOY ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
108 ANS-1961.154.57 8.53 20 12 E9Σ=295=18/17 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
109 AUB-200 7.23 21 12 E9Σ?=295=18/17 BC off flan off flan
110 PC1 6.76 21.5 12 indistinct AN? indistinct
111 Ashmolean-Griffith 1921 6.52 20.5 1 indistinct worn ΑΣΥΛΟΥ?
112 Belgium-894 8.08 22 - uncertain worn ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
113 Tantalus-32623 7.4 20 - uncertain worn worn
114 PC2 7.9 20.6 1 uncertain off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
115 Fitzwilliam-Leake 1227 7.65 21 1 worn worn ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
116 PC2 7.62 20 12 worn off flan off flan
117 PC2 6.87 21.6 12 worn MH ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
118 PC2 5.34 21.4 12 worn off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
119 eBay 6.9 21 - worn indistinct ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
120 eBay 7.4 19 - worn worn worn
121 SNG Munich-800 6.85 - 12 worn worn worn
122 SNG Antiquaries-775 6.79 22 - worn worn worn
123 PC4 8.8 22.5 - worn worn worn
124 PC4 8.1 20 - worn worn worn
125 PC5 6.6 22 11 worn worn indistinct
126 Tantalus-24974 7.09 20 - worn worn worn
127 Harvard-1980.85.195 7.23 - - worn worn worn
33
No. 7) Demeter/three corn ears (RPC I, 4355-4360)
Obverse: Bust of Demeter right wearing corn wreath. Dotted border.
Reverse: Three corn ears. To right and left downwards ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ or ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ
ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ, in field various Greek letters/dates.

1 BNF-937 5.48 19.5 1 EOΣ=275=38/37 BC off flan ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
2 SNG Copenhagen-297 6.29 16.5 12 EOΣ=275=38/37 BC AN in exergue ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
3 MA-M&M 4715 6.57 - - EOΣ=275=38/37 BC ςI ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
4 PC1 6.44 19 1 ZOΣ=277=36/35 BC AN? in exergue ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
5 BNF-932e 7.24 18 1 BΠΣ=282=31/30 BC AN in exergue ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
6 Ashmolean-Godwyn Bodleian 1108 6.36 19.5 12 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC AN? in exergue ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
7 Berlin-C.R.Fox 1973 5.17 19 1 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC uncertain ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
8 PC3 6.14 19.1 - ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
9* CNG-750609 7.16 20 12 B9Σ=292=21/20 BC ∆Ι ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
10 CNG-262.143 5.04 19 11 B9Σ=292=21/20 BC ∆Ι ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
11 ANS-1944.100.66122 5.27 19 11 B9Σ=292=21/20 BC indistinct ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
12 BM-1978.6.9.2 6.43 19 1 worn worn worn
13 VCoins-Zurqieh 8714 9.19 22 - worn worn worn
14 ANS-1961.154.60 7.31 20 12 worn worn ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
15 Harvard-1980.85.198 6.52 - - worn worn worn
34
No. 8) Tyche/Athena standing (RPC I, 4361-4369)
Reverse: Athena standing left holding Nike in right hand and spear in left; at feet shield. To right and left downwards ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ
ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ or ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ, in field various Greek letters/dates.

1 Ashmolean-Christ Church 2054 9.19 22.5 11 ΓΚ=23=44/43 BC AN in exergue ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
2 PC1 8.11 20.5 12 ΓΚ=23=44/43 BC AI? ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
3 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 7.76 22 12 ΓΚ=23=44/43 BC EI ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
4 BNF-Y23879, 240 8.97 22 11 ΓΚ=23=44/43 BC MH ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
5 BNF-962a 8.82 22 11 ΓΚ=23=44/43 BC EI ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
6 PC2 7.52 21.65 12 ΓΚ=23=44/43 BC AN ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
7 PC4 8.3 21.5 - ΓΚ=23=44/43 BC EI? ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
8 ANS-1948.19.2030 7.21 23 12 ΓΚ=23=44/43 BC EI ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
9 BNF-934 4.53 19 12 ςOΣ=276=37/36 BC ΑΝ? ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
10 BNF-939 4.74 19.5 12 ZOΣ=277=36/35 BC EI ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
11 PC2 5.03 17.6 12 ZOΣ=277=36/35 BC worn ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
12 VCoins-Sphinx 727FG8 4.5 17 - ZOΣ=277=36/35 BC MH ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
13 Lindgren I-2033 5.13 19 - ZOΣ=277=36/35 BC AN ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
14 Tantalus-5471 4 18 - ZOΣ=277=36/35 BC worn worn
15 AUB-202 5.84 17 12 ZOΣ=277=36/35 BC worn worn
16 AUB-201 4.65 17 12 ZOΣ=277=36/35 BC AN worn
17 ANS-1971.193.34 5.35 17 12 ZOΣ=277=36/35 BC MH ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
18 BNF-942 4.56 17 12 BΠΣ=282=31/30 BC MH? ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
35
19* Wildwinds-27.62310 4.77 17 - BΠΣ=282=31/30 BC AN ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
20 BNF-944 4.74 18 12 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
21 ANS-1961.154.58 5.13 18 12 ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC EI ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
22 PC1 5.53 18 12 ςΠΣ=286=27/26 BC MH ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
23 SNG Glasgow-3147 4.61 16.5 12 ςΠΣ=286=27/26 BC AN ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
24 Ashmolean-Godwyn Bodleian 1110 4.45 17.5 1 ςΠΣ=286=27/26 BC AN? in exergue ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
25 BM-1980.6.21.7 4.26 17 11 Β9Σ?=292=21/20 BC ? ?
26 BNF-950 4.93 17 11 Β9Σ=292=21/20 BC none ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
27 acsearch-CGB 25.113 4.81 17 12 Β9Σ=292=21/20 BC EI ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
28 PC2 4.52 17.6 12 E9Σ=295=18/17 BC off flan off flan
29 SNG Glasgow-3148 4.28 17 12 E9Σ=295=18/17 BC QE ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
30 PC1 5.1 18 1 uncertain AN ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
31 PC1 9.53 22 11 worn worn worn
32 BNF-962 7.6 21.5 11 worn off flan ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
33 SNG Munich-806 7.21 - 11 worn worn worn
34 Forum-GB48999 4.31 16.4 12 worn worn worn
35 Vienna-GR 21659 8.23 21.4 11 worn worn worn
c. Group 3
No. 9) Dionysus/thyrsus (RPC I, 4353)
Obverse: Bust of Dionysus right wearing ivy wreath. At times ligatured ME behind head. Dotted border.
36
Reverse: Thyrsus tied with ribbon. To right and left downwards ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ, in field various Greek
letters/dates.

1 BMC Syria 12 6.79 19 1 ∆T=304=9/8 BC none
2 BMC Syria 13 7.83 20 1 ∆T=304=9/8 BC MA
3 Ashmolean-CRE 1471 6.87 21.5 12 ∆T=304=9/8 BC off flan
4 CNG-214.209 (ligatured ME behind head) 7.28 20 12 ∆T=304=9/8 BC M(?)
5 Berlin-28321 7.97 19 1 ∆T=304=9/8 BC NOY
6 Berlin-Fox 1873 7.53 22 12 ∆T=304=9/8 BC MA
7 BNF-945e 6.83 20.5 2 ∆T=304=9/8 BC NOY
8 BNF-956 7.54 21.5 12 ∆T=304=9/8 BC MA
9 BNF-957 6.52 21.5 1 ∆T=304=9/8 BC worn
10 PC2 6.54 20.6 12 ∆T=304=9/8 BC off flan
11 PC2 6.33 21 12 ∆T=304=9/8 BC off flan
12 PC3 (ligatured ME) 7.47 22.1 - ∆T=304=9/8 BC off flan
13 PC3 6.52 21.6 - ∆T=304=9/8 BC off flan
14 SNG Copenhagen-301 7.15 20 12 ∆T=304=9/8 BC MA
15 SNG Glasgow-3144 6.78 20.5 12 ∆T=304=9/8 BC MA
16 Lindgren I-2032 6.08 19.5 - ∆T=304=9/8 BC worn
17 SNG Munich-807 6.4 - 2 ∆T=304=9/8 BC worn
18 SNG Munich-808 6.06 - 2 ∆T=304=9/8 BC worn
19 SNG Righetti-2071 5.73 22.8 1 ∆T=304=9/8 BC off flan
20 SNG Antiquaries-776 5.95 21 - ∆T=304=9/8 BC worn
21 Belgium-895 (ligatured ME) 7.64 19 - ∆T=304=9/8 BC off flan
22 Forum-9640 (ligatured ME) 6.83 20 12 ∆T=304=9/8 BC off flan
23 Wildwinds-Sear 5870 - 22 - ∆T=304=9/8 BC NOY
24 AUB-205 8 21 12 ∆T=304=9/8 BC MA
37
25 AUB-206 6.91 19 1 ∆T=304=9/8 BC worn
26 Netherlands-7875 6.67 20.5 12 ∆T=304=9/8 BC NOY
27* MA-Münzhandlung Ritter 29374 (ligatured ME) 7.51 - - ∆T=304=9/8 BC off flan
28 MA-Münzhandlung Ritter 33056 (ligatured ME) 6.83 - - ∆T=304=9/8 BC worn
29 Vienna-GR 21661 (ligatured ME) 6.29 20.9 12 ∆T=304=9/8 BC MA
30 ANS-1944.100.66120 (ligatured ME) 7.03 19 2 ∆T=304=9/8 BC off flan
31 ANS-1944.100.66121 (ligatured ME) 7.19 20 12 ∆T=304=9/8 BC off flan
32 ANS-1961.154.59 7.05 20 12 ∆T=304=9/8 BC off flan
33 ANS-1971.193.35 (ligatured ME) 4.89 18 12 ∆T=304=9/8 BC MA
34 Athens-6134ε (ligatured ME) - - - ∆T=304=9/8 BC off flan
35 PC1 5.96 21 12 ∆T?=304=9/8 BC MA?
36 BNF-946 8.75 23 1 ∆T?=304=9/8 BC off flan
37 PC2 7.86 20.2 12 ∆T?=304=9/8 BC NOY
38 BM-R. P. Knight p. 169, no. 2 (ligatured ME) 6.59 20 12 worn worn
No. 10) Dionysus/Demeter (RPC I, 4370)
38
Reverse: Demeter standing left holding long torch. To right and left downwards ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ1 ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ, in field

1 Ashmolean-Laud Bodleian 1109 6.43 20.5 12 T?=300=13/12 BC AN in exergue
2 PC2 7.53 22.5 12 T?=300=13/12 BC nothing in exergue
3 BNF-958 6.87 20.5 12 HT=308=5/4 BC exergue off flan
4 BNF-958a 6.88 20.5 12 HT=308=5/4 BC exergue off flan
5 SNG Copenhagen-302 8.57 19.5 12 HT=308=5/4 BC ME?
6 Lindgren III-1177 7.48 20.5 - HT=308=5/4 BC uncertain
7 AUB-207 7.22 19 12 HT=308=5/4 BC exergue off flan
8 AUB-208 7 12? 12 HT=308=5/4 BC MA?
9* MA-M&M 5584 6.88 - - HT=308=5/4 BC ME
10 ANS-1944.100.66115 8.09 22 12 HT=308=5/4 BC ME
11 ANS-1948.19.2031 8.49 20 12 HT=308=5/4 BC worn
12 Vienna-GR 21662 5.45 22.1 12 HT?=308=5/4 BC worn
13 PC2 6.14 21.5 12 worn exergue off flan
14 Tantalus-32379 7.2 21 - worn worn
No. 11) Dionysus/cornucopia (RPC I, 4354)
1
At times spelt ΑΠΑΜΕWΝ.
39
Obverse: Bust of Dionysus right wearing ivy wreath.
Reverse: Cornucopia. To right and left downwards ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ, in field various Greek letters/dates.

1 BMC Syria 11 8.31 21 1 ΓΤ=303=10/9 BC MA
2 Ashmolean-Godwyn, Bodleian 1107 7.34 22.5 1 ΓΤ=303=10/9 BC MA?
3 PC1 (c/m Tyche head on obverse) 7.17 22.5 1 ΓΤ=303=10/9 BC T?
4 Berlin-Imhoof Blumer 1900 3.99 20.5 12 ΓΤ=303=10/9 BC worn
5 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 7.1 21 1 ΓΤ=303=10/9 BC ∆I
6 BNF-954 7.06 22.5 1 ΓΤ=303=10/9 BC MA
7 BNF-955 7.59 22 12 ΓΤ=303=10/9 BC A
8* BNF-Luynes 3458 8.45 22 12 ΓΤ=303=10/9 BC ∆I
9 PC2 5.76 20 12 ΓΤ=303=10/9 BC MA
10 PC3 5.77 21.55 - ΓΤ=303=10/9 BC MA
11 SNG Braunschweig-1369 5.66 25 12 ΓΤ=303=10/9 BC MA
12 SNG Copenhagen-300 6.68 20 12 ΓΤ=303=10/9 BC MA
13 SNG Glasgow-3145 8.44 20 12 ΓΤ=303=10/9 BC ∆I
14 SNG Glasgow-3146 7.73 21.5 12 ΓΤ=303=10/9 BC ∆I
15 Lindgren III-1175b 7.34 - - ΓΤ=303=10/9 BC MA
16 ANS-1948.19.2032 7.12 21 12 ΓΤ=303=10/9 BC ∆I?
17 PC2 7.09 20 12 ΓΤ?=303=10/9 BC worn
No. 12) Zeus/Tyche seated (RPC I, 4371)
Denomination: AE, small
Obverse: Laureate bust of Zeus right. Dotted border.
40
Reverse: Tyche seated left holding corn ears(?).
To right and left downwards ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ, in field various Greek letters/dates.

1 BNF-959 5.08 17 1 HT=308=5/4 BC ME in exergue
2* Vcoins-Incitatus Coins 6 17 - uncertain AN? in exergue
3 PC6 5.5 19 12 HT=308=5/4 BC Mς or MΣ in exergue
2. Augustus
No. 13) Augustus/Nike (RPC I, 4372)
Obverse: Laureate bust right. Dotted border.
Reverse: Nike advancing left holding wreath and palm. To right and left downwards ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ, in field

1 CNG-78.1449 9.84 22 12 HK?=28=4/3 BC worn
2 PC1 10.15 24 12 HK=28=4/3 BC worn
3* SNG Glasgow-3150 (fragmented) 10.49 - 12 HK=28=4/3 BC ∆H in exergue
41
No. 14) Augustus/Tyche (RPC I, 4373)
Obverse: Laureate bust right. Dotted border.
Reverse: Turreted and veiled bust of Tyche right. To right and left downwards ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ, in field various Greek
letters/dates.

1 Ashmolean-Martin 1975 7.09 21 12 HK=28=4/3 BC ∆H in exergue
2 Berlin-Imhoof Blumer 1900 8.29 21 1 HK=28=4/3 BC
3 Berlin-Cassel 1925 6.34 21 12 HK=28=4/3 BC
4* BNF-1968.115 6.91 21.5 12 HK=28=4/3 BC
5 PC2 6.89 21.2 12 HK=28=4/3 BC AH? below Tyche's bust
6 SNG Glasgow-3151 7.02 - 12 HK=28=4/3 BC ∆H?
7 Lindgren I-2039 6.41 21 - HK?=28=4/3 BC
8 PC1 7.35 19.5 1 HK?=28=4/3 BC
9 PC2 7.95 21.9 12 HK?=28=4/3 BC
10 PC1 7.08 20.5 1 worn
11 PC1 (c/m Tyche head on obv.) 5.82 21 12 worn
12 CNG-181.241 6.43 20 12 worn
42
3. Tiberius
No. 15a) Tiberius/Nike left (RPC I, 4374)
Obverse: Bare bust right.
Reverse: Nike standing left holding wreath and palm. To right and left downwards ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ, in field

1* BM-1986.4.34.16 10.21 23.5 12 ςKT=326=14/15 AD none
2 PC1 8.83 21.5 12 ςKT=326=14/15 AD none
No. 15b) Tiberius/Nike right (RPC I, 4375)
Obverse: Bare bust right. Dotted border.
Reverse: Nike advancing right holding wreath and palm. To left and right upwards ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ, in field
43
Inventory Weight Size Die Axis Date Field Marks
1 BNF-964 9.28 25 1 ςKT=326=14/15 AD none
2 SNG Glasgow-3152 10.38 - 12 ςKT=326=14/15 AD none
3* Belgium-896 10.63 23 - ςKT=326=14/15 AD none
No. 16) Tyche/Athena advancing (Lindgren III, 1178)
Reverse: Athena advancing left holding shield and spear. To right and left downwards ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ, in
field various Greek letters/dates.

1 SNG Glasgow-3149 7.59 21 12 ςKT=326=14/15 AD off flan
2* Lindgren III-1178 7.68 21.5 - ςKT=326=14/15 AD none
3 AUB-209 8.95 22 12 ςKT=326=14/15 AD none
4 PC1 (c/m Tyche head on obv.) 6.42 - - worn worn
44
4. Claudius
No. 17) Claudius/seated Tyche (RPC I, 4377)
Denomination: AR, tetradrachm
Obverse: Laureate bust right. Around clockwise ΚΛΑΥ∆ΙΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΣ. Fillet border.
Reverse: Tyche seated left holding corn ears in outstretched right hand and sceptre in left; at side shield engraved with scorpion; at feet
river god swimming left. Around clockwise ΚΛΑΥ∆ΙΕWΝ ΑΠΑΜΕWΝ, in field EΛ and ET B. Dotted border.

1* BNF-1973.1.352 13.69 26.5 1 ET B EΛ
2 Imhoof-Blumer 1913, p. 108, no. 292a 15 - - - -
No. 18) Zeus/Nike (RPC I, 4377)
Reverse: Nike advancing left holding wreath and palm. To right and left downwards ΚΛΑΥ∆ΙΕWΝ ΑΠΑΜΕWΝ, in left field ETO A.
Dotted border.
45
1 BNF-965a 5.56 19 12 ETO A none
2* Wildwinds-27.62350 5.37 18 - ETO A none
3 AUB-210 5.45 17 1 ETO A none
No. 19) Zeus/seated Tyche (RPC I, 4378)
Denomination: AE, small (?)
Reverse: Tyche seated left holding corn ears; at side shield; at feet river god swimming left. Clockwise around ΚΛΑΥ∆ΙΕWΝ
ΑΠΑΜΕWΝ, in left field ETO B. Dotted border.

1 Berlin-286.1911 6.35 18.5 12 ETO B none
2* BNF-965 6.11 19 1 ETO B none
3 SNG Glasgow-3153 6.1 - 12 ETO B none
4 Netherlands-GR 1949.68 7.28 20.6 1 ETO B none
46
B. Larissa
1. Civic issues
No. 20) Zeus/throne (BMC Syria, 1)
Obverse: Laureate head of Zeus right. Dotted border.
Reverse: Throne. To right and left downwards ΛΑΡΙΣΑΙΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ, in centre monogram 1 over M, in exergue ZKΣ.

1 Ashmolean-Godwyn Bodleian 1117 8.78 19 11 ZKΣ=227=86/85 BC monogram 1 over M
2 PC1 8.26 20.5 12 ZKΣ=227=86/85 BC monogram 1 over M
3 BM-1872.07.09.333 - 17.5 11 ZKΣ=227=86/85 BC monogram 1 over M
4 CNG-Triton V.530 5.89 19 - ZKΣ=227=86/85 BC monogram 1 over M
5* CNG-201.130 9.77 20 11 ZKΣ=227=86/85 BC monogram 1 over M
6 CNG-203.186 6.99 19 12 ZKΣ=227=86/85 BC monogram 1 over M
7 PC3 7.17 20.8 - ZKΣ=227=86/85 BC monogram 1 over M
8 SNG Braunschweig-1386 6.88 19 12 ZKΣ=227=86/85 BC monogram 1 over M
9 Lindgren I-2109 7.18 20 - ZKΣ=227=86/85 BC monogram 1 over M
10 CNG-57.869 7.65 21 - ZKΣ=227=86/85 BC monogram 1 over M
11 Smithsonian 8.49 - 6 ZKΣ=227=86/85 BC monogram 1 over M
12 SNG Munich-953 7.64 - 11 indistinct monogram 1 over M
47
13 BNF-1288 6.7 20 12 off flan monogram 1 over M
14 MA-Münzhandlung Ritter 29384 7.8 - - off flan monogram 1 over M
15 PC1 8.02 22 12 worn monogram 1 over M
16 PC5 6.7 19 12 worn worn
No. 21) Tyche/horse (BNF, 1289)
Reverse: Horse prancing left. Above and below ΛΑΡΙΣΑΙΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ, above horse monogram 1 and M, below date ZKΣ.

1* Elsen-Dec. 2007, 860 3.59 16 - ZKΣ=227=86/85 BC monogram 1 over M
2 BNF-1289 3.15 17 12 ZKΣ=227=86/85 BC monogram 1 over M
3 PC2 3.32 15.9 12 ZKΣ=227=86/85 BC monogram 1 over M
4 Vienna-GR 21792 4.28 15.5 12 ZKΣ=227=86/85 BC monogram 1 over M
5 PC2 4.04 16.6 12 worn monogram 1 over M
C. Epiphanea
No coins have been minted in Epiphanea of Syria.
48
D. Raphanea
1. Elagabalus
No. 22) Elagabalus/seated genius (BMC Syria, 7)
Obverse: Radiate or laureate bust right, at times draped. Around clockwise AVT K M AVP ANTΩΝEΙΝΟC.
Reverse: Genius seated left holding patera in right hand and flanked by two eagles; at feet bull; in right field cornucopia. Around
clockwise ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ.
Inventory Weight Size Axis Date Legend variety

1 BMC Syria 1 (erroneously listed under Caracalla) 10.63 24 12? - ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
2 BM-1975.4.11.175 6.9 23 6? - ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
3 Vcoins-Kovacs 4538 10.47 23 - - ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
4 BNF-1301 9.45 24 1 - ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
5 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1747 9.08 23.5 6 - ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
6 acsearch-CGB 115623 8.07 22 12 - ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
7* Aeqvitas - 23 - - ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
8 Homs-94 - 23 - - worn
49
No. 23) Elagabalus/standing genius (BMC Syria, 6)
Obverse: Radiate or laureate bust right, at times draped. Around clockwise AVT K M A ANTΩΝΙΝΟC; AVT K M AVP
ANTΩΝΙΝΟC; AVT K M A ANTΩΝEΙΝΟC; AV K ANTΩΝΙΝΟC.
Reverse: Genius standing left holding patera in right hand and flanked by two eagles; at feet bull; in right field cornucopia. Around
clockwise ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ; ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ, at times date in exergue.

1 BMC Syria 2 (erroneously listed under Caracalla) 6.98 24 6? ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ
2 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 6.47 22.5 7 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ
3 BNF-1299 6.02 24 12 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ
4 BNF-1300 9.08 22.5 1 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ
5 PC2 6.01 23.2 6 indistinct date ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ
6 Lindgren I-2115 9.2 24 - symbol in exergue ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ
7 acsearch-M&M 14.684 9.44 - - ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ
8 Forum-17555 9.59 23.7 12 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ
9 ANS-1944.100.66531 8.4 22 6 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ
10 ANS-1961.154.104 6.83 22 6 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ
11 Yale-2001.87.12452 6.49 23 6 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ
12 BNF-1302 7.47 21.5 12 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ?
13 BNF-1303 8.31 24 7 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ?
14 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 8.4 22.5 12 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
15 Berlin-Imhoof Blumer 1900 6.75 22.5 12 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
16 Berlin-86/1871 5.61 24 1 ΒΛΦ=532=220/221 AD ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
50
17 BNF-1301a 9.47 22.5 6 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
18 BNF-1301b 10.09 26 1 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
19 PC2 7.48 23 12 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
20 PC2 7.82 24.05 12 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
21 PC2 7 23.4 12 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
22 PC2 7.74 22.4 12 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
23 PC2 6.82 22.35 12 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
24 PC2 6.88 22.65 12 ΒΛΦ=532=220/221 AD ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
25* PC3 8.66 23.45 - ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
26 SNG Glasgow-3175 8.94 24 12 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
27 Lindgren I-2116 9.84 24.5 - ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
28 SNG Munich-959 8.23 - 6 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
31 SNG Righetti-2129 (erroneously listed under Caracalla) 8.4 23.2 11 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
32 PC5 7.9 24 6 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
33 acsearch-M&M 14.683 7.71 - - ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
34 acsearch-M&M 20.751 8.3 25 - ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
35 Forum-13195 6.71 23 6 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
36 ANS-1944.100.66530 6.33 22 6 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
37 ANS-1944.100.66532 9.67 24 12 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
38 ANS-1948.19.2089 7.44 22 6 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
39 Smithsonian 5.49 - 12 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
40 PC1 5.75 23 11 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ?
41 BNF-Y23879.237 7.14 24 7 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤ (sic)
42 acsearch-M&M 20.750 (erroneously listed under Caracalla) 9.17 23 - indistinct
43 acsearch-Künker 97.1696 11.17 - - indistinct
44 acsearch-Rauch 786 (2007) 6.57 - - indistinct
45 Vienna-GR 21806 9.92 23.5 6 indistinct
51
46 Vienna-GR 29310 11.68 22.9 6 indistinct
47 PC2 8.08 22.3 5 off flan
48 SNG Copenhagen-385 8.1 22 6 off flan
49 PC5 7.5 24 1 off flan
50 PC5 8.8 24 12 ΒΛΦ=532=220/221 AD off flan
51 Aeqvitas 10.62 26 - ΒΛΦ=532=220/221 AD off flan
52 Aeqvitas - 23 - off flan
53 BMC Syria 3 7.48 23.5 12 uncertain
54 PC1 7.97 22 6 uncertain
55 PC1 6.75 24 1 ΒΛΦ=532=220/221 AD uncertain
56 PC1 11.21 23 1 ΒΛΦ=532=220/221 AD uncertain
57 PC2 9.21 23.5 6 indistinct date uncertain
58 PC2 5.02 21.55 6 uncertain
59 PC2 9.29 23.1 12 uncertain
60 PC2 7.92 24.4 6 uncertain
61 PC2 5.81 23.4 6 uncertain
62 PC3 9.5 22.55 - uncertain
63 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 6.25 22 1 worn
64 Berlin-28323 8.4 22 6 worn
65 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1748 8.7 23.5 1 worn
66 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1749 6.66 22 5 worn
67 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1750 6.7 22 6 worn
68 VCoins-Connors bg256 - 20 - worn
69 SNG Munich-960 6.16 - 6 worn
70 SNG Righetti-2130 (erroneously listed under Caracalla) 7.96 23.2 11 worn
71 PC5 6.8 26 6 worn
72 Tantalus-7883 6.95 22 6 worn
73 Vienna-GR 21805 5.89 23.2 11 worn
74 Harvard-1980.85.215 7.73 - - worn
52
No. 24) Severus Alexander/standing genius (BMC Syria, 4)
Obverse: Draped bust of Severus Alexander right, head bare. Around clockwise M AVP AΛΕΞΑΝ∆POC.
Reverse: Genius standing left holding patera in right hand and flanked by two eagles; at feet bull; in right field cornucopia. Around
clockwise ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ; ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ, at times date in exergue.

1 eBay - 23 - ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ
2 PC2 6.19 23.45 12 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ
3 PC2 8.62 24.2 6 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ
4* BMC Syria 4 7.06 23 12? ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
5 BNF-1305 9.03 22.5 5 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
6 BNF-1304 6.85 24 12 indistinct date ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
7 PC2 5.98 23.2 6 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
8 AUB-242 8.44 23 12 ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ
9 PC1 7.08 22.5 1 indistinct
10 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 7.47 23 6 indistinct
11 BNF-1303a 7.26 23 6 possible letter below obverse bust indistinct
12 PC1 5.77 24.5 12 off flan
13 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1751 7.08 23 6 off flan
15 PC1 9.86 23.5 12 uncertain
16 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1752 8.57 24 6 uncertain
53
17 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1752a 5.32 22.5 6 uncertain
18 PC2 6.9 24.02 12 uncertain
19 PC2 6.18 22.1 6 uncertain
20 Lindgren III-1210 6.35 24.5 - symbol in exergue uncertain
21 acsearch-M&M 14.685 13.47 - - uncertain
22 BNF-Y23879.238 9.07 22.5 6 worn
23 PC2 10.96 24.75 6 worn
24 ANS-1944.100.66533 7.18 24 6 worn
No. 25) Elagabalus/bull (NC 2011, 78)
Obverse: Radiate bust right. Around clockwise …ANTΩΝΙΝΟ….
Reverse: Humped bull right. Around clockwise ΡΕΦΑ…Ν.
Inventory Weight Size Axis Date Legend

1* NC 2011, 78 2.5 14 12 - ΡΕΦΑ…Ν
E. Arethusa
No coins have been minted in Arethusa.
54
F. Emesa
1. Antoninus Pius
No. 26a) Perched eagle right (BMC Syria, 1-4, 6-7)2
Obverse: Laureate bust right, at times draped. Around clockwise AVT KAI TI AIΛ Α∆ΡΙΑΝ ΑΝΤΩΝΕΙΝΟC CEB EVCE.
Reverse: Eagle standing right on ovoid stone; head turned left with wreath in beak. Around clockwise EMICHNWN,3 in right field: A;
B; Γ; ∆; E; ς; Z.
Inventory Weight Size Axis Field Mark

1 BMC Syria 1 9.14 21.5 12 A
2 PC1 7.92 23 12 A
3 Berlin-12620 8.14 22.5 12 A
4 BNF-976 8.78 24 12 A
5 BNF-977 9.74 23.5 12 A
6 PC3 11.45 24.45 - A
2
See also the RPC IV online database for Emesene issues of this emperor (http://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk).
3
Very rarely spelt EMICHNΩN.
55
7 SNG Copenhagen-307 10.39 20.5 11 A
8 SNG Glasgow-3154 13.29 24 12 A
9 Lindgren I-2040 9.73 25 - A
10 AUB-223 8.95 22 11 A
11 ANS-1961.154.67 8.52 21 5 A
12 Homs-1328 - 23.5 12 A
13 Smithsonian 7.75 - 12 A
14 PC1 (star and crescent on stone) 8.86 21.5 12 B
15 PC1 8.33 23 12 B
16 PC1 - 22 12 B
17 CNG-185.227 9.67 24 12 B
18 PC5 10.3 22.5 12 B
19 Berlin-C. R. Fox 1873(star and crescent on stone) 11.24 23.5 11 B
20 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 8.1 24 12 B
21 Berlin-5136 11.21 24.5 11 B
22* BNF-Vogue 251 10.66 22.5 11 B
23 PC3 9.04 24.3 - B
24 Vcoins-Sayles & Lavender 15924 8.01 22 12 B
25 SNG Glasgow-3155 8.79 22 12 B
26 SNG Antiquaries-777 8.83 23 12 B
27 Winterthur-G 5158 9.37 22.9 12 B
28 acsearch-CNG 57.863 11.82 25 - B
29 Aeqvitas - 23 - B
30 wildwinds-eBay 3934618118 10.86 23 - B
31 ANS-1944.100.66174 10.88 25 12 B
32 Vienna-GR 21664 9.58 23.2 11 B
33 Vienna-GR 21665 (forgery?) 8.78 22.5 11 B
34 Yale-1938.6000.1275 0.89 24 12 B
35 BMC Syria 2 12.36 23.5 12 Γ
56
36 BMC Syria 3 6.66 22.5 12 Γ
37 BMC Syria 4 10.6 23.5 12 Γ
38 Ashmolean-Christ Church 2060 8.04 23.5 12 Γ
39 Berlin-C. R. Fox 1873 9.28 24 11 Γ
40 BNF-978 9.36 22.5 1 Γ
41 BNF-979 (unusual feature on top of stone) 8.95 22.5 12 Γ
42 SNG Copenhagen-309 9.89 22.5 12 Γ
43 Vienna-GR 21666 7.57 23.2 12 Γ
44 Harvard-1980.85.199 8.34 - - Γ
45 Ashmolean-Douce 7.98 22.5 12 ∆
46 CNG-213.317 9.69 23 6 ∆
47 CNG-191.101 10.63 - 12 ∆
48 BNF-1520 9.2 21.5 12 ∆
49 BNF-980 9.19 23 12 ∆
50 BNF-Y23879.243 10.06 24 1 ∆
51 PC3 9.35 23.65 - ∆
52 Vcoins-Sayles & Lavender 16137 10.08 22 12 ∆
53 SNG Glasgow-3156 10.13 22 12 ∆
54 SNG Glasgow-3157 8.99 22 6 ∆
55 SNG Righetti-2076 9.02 22.1 12 ∆
56 wildwinds-vauctions 62725 8.5 23 - ∆
57 AUB-225 10.14 21 1 ∆
58 Falghera-964 8.78 22 1 ∆
59 Yale-2004.6.3674 9.84 22 12 ∆
60 BMC Syria 6 (star on stone) 11.55 23.5 12 E
61 BMC Syria 7 10.28 22 12 E
62 PC1 8.42 23 12 E
63 CNG-72.1244 10.65 23 12 E
64 CNG-112.158 9.53 21 - E
57
65 Berlin-Imhoof Blumer 1900 10.47 22.5 11 E
66 BNF-981 7.73 22 12 E
67 BNF-982 11.03 23 12 E
68 SNG Glasgow-3158 10.04 22.5 12 E
69 SNG Munich-811 9.51 - 12 E
70 Falghera-965 8.47 22.5 11 E
71 ANS-1944.100.66175 9.73 24 12 E
72 Homs-2116 7.2 - - E
73 Yale-2009.110.33 10.49 24.2 11 E
74 BNF-983 10.48 22.5 6 ς
75 SNG Munich-812 10.04 - 12 ς
76 AUB-224 9.73 22 12 ς
77 tantalus-27667 9.6 22 - ς?
78 CNG-203.389 9.58 24 6 Z
79 wildwinds-eBay 205778600 - 22 - worn
No. 26b) Perched eagle left (BMC Syria, 5)
Obverse: Laureate bust right. Around clockwise AVT KAI TI AIΛ Α∆ΡΙΑΝ ΑΝΤΩΝΕΙΝΟC CEB EVCE.
Reverse: Eagle standing left on ovoid stone; head turned left with wreath in beak. Around clockwise EMICHNWN, in left field: Γ.

1* BMC Syria 5 11.79 23 12 Γ
2 BNF-1521 8.44 23 5 worn
58
No. 27) Sun god (BMC Syria, 8)
Obverse: Laureate bust right, at times draped. Around clockwise AVTOKPATO KAI TI AIΛ Α∆ΡΙΑΝ ΑΝΤΩΝΕΙΝ…
Reverse: Radiate bust of sun god right. Around clockwise EMICHNWN; EMICHNΩN, in field: A; B; Γ.

1 BNF-973 8.72 24 6 A
2 BM-1980.6.21.5 8.39 23.5 12 B
3 BNF-974 7.83 22 12 B
4 PC3 9.74 22.5 - B
5 SNG Copenhagen-308 9.79 21 12 B
6 Wildwinds-64783 11.8 24 - B
7 SNG Glasgow-3159 9.79 22 6 B?
8* ANS-1974.276.10 9.04 22 12 B?
9 Ashmolean-Jesus College 7.08 22.5 4 Γ
10 BNF-975 9.01 23.5 12 Γ
11 BMC Syria 8 10.74 23 11 Z (Γ converted to Z)
12 Lindgren I-2041 8.98 21 - unidentifiable
13 Tantalus-30634 9.7 23 7 unidentifiable
No. 28a) Tyche seated front (Lindgren I, 2042)
Obverse: Laureate bust right, at times draped. Around clockwise AVT KAI TI AIΛ Α∆Ρ ΑΝΤΩΝΕΙΝΟC CEB EY.
59
Reverse: Tyche seated facing; at feet river god swimming right.
Around clockwise EMICHNWN, in field E.

1* Berlin-C. R. Fox 1873 10.73 24.5 12 E
2 CNG-250.464 - 23 - E
3 PC3 8.33 22 - E?
4 Lindgren I-2042 10.35 23 - uncertain
5 SNG Munich-813 7.74 - 2 uncertain
No. 28b) Tyche seated right (BNF-Y28359.1960)
Obverse: Laureate bust right. Around clockwise …
Reverse: Tyche seated right holding stalks of wheat; at feet river god swimming right. Around clockwise …M…NWN.

1* BNF-Y28359 1960 10.23 21.5 12 -
No. 28c) Tyche seated left (Berlin-Löbbecke 1906)
Obverse: Laureate bust right. Around clockwise AVT KAI TI…A…
60
Reverse: Tyche seated left holding stalks of wheat; at feet river god swimming left. Around clockwise EMI…N…N, in right field below
Tyche: ∆.

1* Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 9.02 22 12 ∆
2. Caracalla
No. 29) Caracalla (Bellinger, 184-198)
Obverse: Laureate bust right. Around clockwise ΑΥΤ Κ Μ ΑΝΤΩΝΕΙΝΟC CΕΒ; ΑΥΤ Κ Μ Α ΑΝΤΩΝΕΙΝΟC CΕΒ.4 Dotted border.
Reverse: Eagle standing facing with spread wings; head turned left with wreath in beak; between legs radiate and draped bust of sun
god left.5 Around clockwise ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞΟΥCΙΑC YΠΑ ΤΟ ∆; ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞΟΥCΙΑC YΠΑ Τ ∆; ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞ YΠΑΤΟC
4
The Ω is at times inscribed ω.
5
A single specimen depicts the bust of the sun god facing (BMC Syria, 10).
61
ΤΟ ∆; ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞ YΠΑΤΟC Τ ∆; ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞ YΠΑΤΟ Τ ∆, in field A;6 H; o; pellet (single or double); crescent (left,
right or upward); and at times no symbol. Dotted border.

1 BM-1853.10.6.10 11.6 25.5 7 TO ∆ A
2 BM-1897.1.4.2 11.66 28.5 12 TO ∆ A
3 BM-BMC Syria 8 11.68 24.5 1 TO ∆ o
4 BM-BMC Syria 10 (sun god facing forward) 11.69 24.5 12 worn worn
5 Ashmolean-Walker 11.48 29.5 12 TO ∆ crescent up
6 Ashmolean-Amedioz 1897 11.59 25.5 12 off flan crescent up
7 Ashmolean-Amedioz 11.71 25 1 TO ∆ A
8 Ashmolean-Bodlean 13.45 25 6 TO ∆ crescent up
9 Ashmolean-Bodlean 12.45 24.5 12 off flan o
10 CNG-210.129 13.72 26 1 TO ∆ crescent up
11 CNG-94.118 13.36 25 - TO ∆ crescent up
12 CNG-67.1143 9.44 - - TO ∆ no field mark
13 CNG-Triton XI.511 13.1 - 6 TO ∆ H
14 CNG-205.310 12.34 24 12 TO ∆ H
15 CNG-194.160 14.44 26 1 TO ∆ A
16 CNG-146.152 11.38 26 - TO ∆ A
17* CNG-Triton V.1766 13.99 - - TO ∆ o
18 CNG-232.142 10.78 25 12 TO ∆ crescent up
19 CNG-240.333 13.11 26 12 TO ∆ o
6
At times engraved as Λ or ∆.
62
20 CNG-240.332 13.54 26 12 TO ∆ o
21 CNG- 85.643 14.36 27 12 TO ∆ A
22 CNG-238.272 13.14 25 12 TO ∆ H
23 Berlin-11628 12.83 25.5 12 TO ∆ H
24 BNF-Y19566 13.74 25.9 11 TO ∆ pellet behind head and below wreath
25 BNF-Y19567 14.09 26.9 1 TO ∆ A
26 BNF-1989.341 13.21 26.3 12 TO ∆ -
27 BNF-Y19564 11.75 25.2 6 T∆ o
28 BNF-Y19565 13.34 28.6 1 TO ∆ crescent up
29 BNF-990 15.39 25.8 7 TO ∆ A
30 BNF-Y19562 11.48 27.3 1 TO ∆ crescent right
31 BNF-Y19561 12.57 26.3 1 TO ∆ crescent up
32 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1906 13.43 26 1 TOC ΠΠ A
33 PC3 11.92 29.3 - TO ∆ (?) A
34 SNG Glasgow-3163 12.4 26 6 TO ∆ o (?)
35 SNG Glasgow-3164 13.9 24.5 6 TO ∆ H
36 SNG Righetti-2080 11.73 26.4 12 TO ∆ H
37 SNG Righetti-2081 14.17 25.5 12 TO ∆ H
38 Neuchâtel-73 12.85 24.9 12 TO ∆ uncertain
39 SNG Sweden-634 13.6 26 12 TO ∆ H
40 acsearch-Auctiones AG 29.812 15.13 - - TO ∆ H
41 acsearch-CGB 173709 12.73 24 1 TO ∆ o
42 acsearch-CGB 173692 13.49 25 12 TO ∆ A
43 acsearch-CGB 173697 13.01 27 12 TO ∆ no field mark
44 acsearch-CGB 173703 12.91 25 12 TO ∆ H
45 acsearch-CGB 173704 13.95 25 1 TO ∆ H
46 acsearch-Lanz 132.425 - 25 - off flan A
47 acsearch-CGB 173710 13.01 26 6 worn worn
63
48 acsearch-CGB 173714 13.5 24 1 TO ∆ crescent behind eagle
49 acsearch-CGB 173718 12.88 24 12 TO ∆ pellet behind head and below wreath
50 acsearch-CGB 173719 10 25 12 worn double crescent?
51 acsearch-Künker 97.1629 13.51 - - TO ∆ o
52 Forum-10736 14.85 25.9 12 TO ∆ o
53 Forum-32990 10.84 24.5 12 worn worn
54 Wildwinds-HJB ancient coins 13.24 - - TO ∆ A
55 Netherlands-7724 11.31 27.4 1 TO ∆ o
56 Boston-1998.525 13.16 27.5 7 TO ∆ A
57 Yale-2005.6.54 13.37 25 6 TO ∆ crescent up
58 Yale-2009.110.131 14.58 25.7 12 TO ∆ H
59 Yale-1938.6000.1011 11.24 25.5 12 TO ∆ crescent up
60 Yale-1938.6000.1012 15.02 25 12 TO ∆ see note
61 Yale-1938.6000.1013 10.97 25.5 12 off flan crescent left
62 Yale-1938.6000.1024 10.78 25.5 6 worn o
63 Yale-2001.87.11108 10.66 25.3 1 off flan A
No. 30) Julia Domna (Bellinger, 178-183)
Obverse: Draped bust right. Around clockwise ΙΟΥΛΙΑ ΑΥΓΟΥCΤΑ. Dotted border.
god left. Around clockwise ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞΟΥCΙΑC, in field A; Γ; H; o; crescent (left or upward). Dotted border.
64
1 BM-1853.10-6-1 14.31 26 11 o
2 Ashmolean-Walker 14.15 26 12 o
3 CNG-216.362 12.3 27 5 o
4 CNG-82.861 12.27 - 11 o
5 CNG-210.128 13.77 26 11 o
6 CNG-60.1368 11.63 - - o
7 CNG-81.816 13.66 - 12 o
8 CNG-79.650 11.93 - 1 TO ∆ A
9 CNG-137.111 13.13 25 - A
10* CNG-60.1367 11.98 - - o
11 Berlin-Loebbecke 1906 15.98 27 12 no symbol
12 Berlin-Imhoof Blumer 1900 11.67 25.5 12 H
13 Berlin-Loebbecke 1906 13.39 27 6 o
14 Berlin-11779 (pierced) 11.84 27.5 11 o
15 BNF-984 11.21 26.3 11 o
16 BNF-Y19566 13.21 25.1 11 H
17 BNF-Y19567 13.2 26.9 1 A
18 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1907 12.64 21.5 6 H
19 SNG Copenhagen-311 12.65 26 12 H
20 SNG Righetti-2078 13.56 27 11 o
21 acsearch-Spink 6026.182 - - - o
22 acsearch-CGB 173702 13.26 24 6 H
23 acsearch-CGB 173708 12.61 25 11 o
24 Forum 17601 11 25.2 12 unusual symbol
25 acsearch-Künker 94.1990 10.1 - - o
26 acsearch-Numismatica Ars Classica 2048 14.7 26 - crescent
27 Bern-G 2815 12.17 26.2 12 H
65
28 Boston-1971.391 14.8 29 6 Γ
29 Yale-2001.87.2812 12.87 26.5 11 o
No. 31) Temple façade (BMC Syria, 15)
Obverse: Laureate and draped bust right. Around clockwise AVT K M AVP AΝΤΩΝEΙΝΟC CEB.
Reverse: Hexastyle temple façade with ovoid stone in centre placed between religious standards; in front of stone eagle standing facing
with wreath in beak; at times crescent, circle or square in pediment. Around clockwise EMICΩΝ KΟΛΩΝ; EMICΩΝ
KΟΛΩΝI; EMECΩΝ KΟΛΩΝ, in exergue or in field left and right: ΖΚΦ; HΚΦ.
Inventory Weight Size Axis Date Symbol on temple

1* BMC Syria 15 25.22 30.5 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD rectangle in pediment
2 Ashmolean-Christ Church 2060B 22.43 30.5 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD crescent in pediment
3 CNG-73.739 21.99 29 1 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD circle in pediment
4 CNG-79.651 22.86 30 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD nothing in pediment
5 BNF-Y23879.246 21.13 29 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD circle in pediment
6 BNF-992 22.4 31 1 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD crescent in pediment
7 SNG Glasgow-3165 25.22 29.5 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD square in pediment
8 Homs-922 22.1 31 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD crescent in pediment
9 Ashmolean-Bouchier 1930 21.89 30.5 12 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD crescent in pediment
10 PC1 21.45 29.5 1 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD -
11 CNG-205.311 21.22 28 1 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD crescent in pediment
12 CNG-235.365 25.35 30 11 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD crescent in pediment
66
13 CNG-244.345 20.87 28 12 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD -
14 Berlin-Imhoof Blumer 1900 21.53 30.5 12 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD crescent in pediment
15 BNF-Y23879.247 24.91 31.5 1 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD crescent in pediment
16 PC3 20.79 28.9 - HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD -
17 Beast Coins 18.13 32 - HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD crescent in pediment
18 ANS-1944.100.66184 23.15 29 12 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD crescent in pediment
19 ANS-1944.100.66185 24.72 29 12 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD crescent in pediment
20 ANS-1948.19.2040 22.59 29 12 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD worn
21 ANS-1961.154.68 21.98 28 12 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD -
22 Bern-G 1952 27.52 29.5 12 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD -
23 Vienna-GR 21669 21.68 30.9 1 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD crescent in pediment
24 acsearch-Baldwin's 59-60.761 29.69 30 - HΚΦ?=528=216/217 AD crescent in pediment
25 BM-1946.10.4.624 29.91 29.5 12 uncertain -
26 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1522 24.23 29 12 off flan crescent in pediment
27 SNG Munich-817 20.34 - 12 off flan square in pediment
28 acsearch-Gemini VI.638 21.36 29 - off flan square in pediment
29 Aeqvitas - 30 - off flan crescent in pediment
30 Yale-2009.110.132 21.35 29.6 12 off flan square in pediment
31 PC1 21.75 29 12 worn square in pediment
32 BNF-1002 25.51 29 12 worn square in pediment
33 acsearch-Elsen 94.852 19.87 - - worn worn
34 Forum-9080 21.9 31.1 12 worn square in pediment
35 Aeqvitas - 28 - worn square in pediment
36 ANS-1944.100.66186 (pierced) 22.45 28 12 worn square in pediment
37 ANS-1944.100.66187 20.85 29 12 worn crescent in pediment
38 Vienna-GR 21668 (pierced) 21.17 29.9 12 worn crescent in pediment
39 Vienna-GR 21670 19.45 28.6 1 worn crescent in pediment
40 Homs-717 - 29.5 6 worn worn
41 Yale-2001.87.11109 18.83 29 12 worn crescent in pediment
67
No. 32a) Temple right (BM-1946.10.4.624)
Reverse: Temple seen from front and side. Around clockwise EMICΩΝ KΟΛΩΝΙΑC; EMECΩΝ KΟΛΩΝΙΑC, in exergue: ΖΚΦ;
HΚΦ.
Inventory Weight Size Axis Date

1 BMC Syria 16 16.54 32 11 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
2 Ashmolean-Bouchier 1930 17.48 31 1 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
3 PC1 21.64 29.5 1 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
4 CNG-115.299 23.13 30 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
5* CNG-73.740 22.3 30 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
6 CNG-150730 23.13 30 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
7 BNF-991 22.9 29.5 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
8 Vcoins-T. Cederlind RI1493 24.16 29 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
9 BNF-Y28045, 990a 21.63 29 1 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
10 Mabbott-2565 - - - HΚΦ?=528=216/217 AD
11 acsearch-M&M 11.150 22.78 - - worn
No. 32b) Temple left (SNG Munich, 818-819)
68
Reverse: Temple seen from front and side. Around clockwise EMICΩΝ KΟΛΩΝΙΑC; EMECΩΝ KΟΛΩΝΙΑC, in exergue: ΖΚΦ;
HΚΦ.

1 CNG-168.171 25.01 30 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
2* SNG Munich-818 22.77 - 1 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
3 Yale-1938.6000.1701 24.88 32.1 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
4 SNG Munich-819 19.94 - 7 worn
No. 33) Julia Domna/altar (BMC Syria, 9-12)
Obverse: Draped bust right of Julia Domna. Around clockwise IOVΛIA ∆OMNA; IOVΛIA ∆OMNA AVΓ; IOVΛIA ∆OMNA CEB;
IOVΛIA ∆OMNA AVΓOY.
Reverse: Altar with two rows of statues in niches. At times the altar is lighted.7 Around clockwise EMICΩΝ KΟΛΩΝ; EMICΩΝ
KΟΛΩΝΙ; EMICΩΝ KΟΛΩΝΙΑC, in exergue: ΖΚΦ; HΚΦ.
7
At times a crescent is also placed next to the flame.
69
Inventory Weight Size Axis Date Notes
1 BMC Syria 9 13.44 27 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
2 BMC Syria 10 12.58 24 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
3 BMC Syria 11 15.15 27 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
4 CNG-213.318 10.33 24 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
5 CNG-115.298 15.66 25 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
6 CNG-75.842 15.2 25 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
7 CNG-181.248 12.47 25 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
8 CNG-191.102 13.46 25 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
9 CNG-243.269 10.49 30 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
10 Berlin-C.R.Fox 1873 11.99 25 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
11 Berlin-Imhoof Blumer 1900 15.64 27 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
12 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 10.72 24 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
13 Berlin-Knobelsdorf 9.44 24 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
14 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 13.67 25.5 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
15 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1528 13.01 25 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
16 BNF-986 11.4 24 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD double arches on top of altar instead of flames
17 BNF-Y23879.244 13.93 25.5 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
18* BNF-Y23879.245 14 24.5 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
19 BNF-987 7.33 26 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
20 BNF-988 14.48 25 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
21 SNG Braunschweig-1370 13.75 24 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
22 SNG Glasgow-3160 14.57 25 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
23 SNG Glasgow-3161 11.1 24.5 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD double arches on top of altar instead of flames
24 SNG Glasgow-3162 10.77 23.5 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
25 Lindgren I-2043 10.36 26 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD upside-down M in legend
26 SNG Munich-814 10.97 - 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
27 Winterthur-G 5159 12.18 25.3 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
28 acsearch-M&M 20.626 8.72 25 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD obverse entirely blank
70
29 Aeqvitas - 24 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
30 Falghera-1629 13.47 25 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
31 ANS-1944.100.66178 10.73 24 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
32 ANS-1944.100.66179 11.01 24 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
33 ANS-1948.19.2039 11.92 24 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD date engraved retrograde
34 Yale-2001.87.11111 16.12 26.7 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
35 Missouri-91.309 13.2 24 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
36 Mabbott-2564 - - - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
37 BNF-Y28045, 989a 4.95 24 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD cut marks on reverse
38 SNG Fitzwilliam -5951 13.42 24.5 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
39 SNG Fitzwilliam-5951 14.22 24.5 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
40 Forum-RP45906 11.9 25 6 ΖΚΦ?=527=215/216 AD
41 CNG-64.723 13.04 25 - HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
42 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1527 12.31 26 12 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
43 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1529 11.51 24 1 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
44 BNF-989 10.24 24 11 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
45 PC3 15.42 25.05 - HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
46 SNG Munich-815 13.32 - 1 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
47 SNG Righetti-2079 9.33 24.2 11 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
48 acsearch-M&M 11.151 13.33 - - HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
49 Beast Coins 12.81 26 - HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
50 AUB-228 6.86 24 12 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD cut marks on reverse
51 BMC Syria 12 15.45 26 12 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
52 eBay 7.2 25 - indistinct cut marks on reverse
53 PC3 8.94 24.3 - indistinct cut marks on reverse
54 Ashmolean-Malcolm Clark 1892 11.92 24.5 1 off flan
55 CNG-265.272 10.35 23 6 off flan
56 VCoins-S&L 15915 6.31 24 6 off flan
57 Yale-1938.6000.1302 14.18 27 12 off flan crescent on altar next to flame
71
58 Yale-1938.6000.1303 5.75 24.1 6 off flan
59 CNG-182.152 10.53 24 - off flan
60 VCoins-Forum RP45906 11.89 25 6 uncertain
62 acsearch-Stack's 306 (Apr. 2010) 13.3 24 - worn
63 wildwinds-vauctions 61309 7.5 24 - worn
64 Bern-G 1860 10.01 22.8 12 worn
65 Yale-1938.6000.1301 12.34 25.8 12 worn
66 Vienna-GR 21667 10.49 26.1 12 Worn cut marks on reverse
No. 34) Caracalla/Julia Domna (ANS-1944.100.66180)
Obverse: Laureate bust right of Caracalla, at times draped. Around clockwise AVT K ANTΩΝΙΝΟC CEB; AVT K M AVP
ANTΩΝΙΝΟC CEB.
Reverse: Draped bust of Julia Domna right. Around clockwise IOVΛIA ∆OMNA; IOVΛIA ∆OMNA AVΓ; …AVΓOY, in field left
and right: HΚΦ.

1 CNG-191.104 10.1 20 1 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
2* acsearch-M&M 20.628 10.12 24 - HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
3 Wildwinds-64785 10.62 23 - HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
4 Hirsch-158.474 - 23 12? HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
5 ANS-1944.100.66180 11.15 22 1 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
72
6 acsearch-Forum 9623 10.11 23 12 HΚΦ?=528=216/217 AD
7 Tantalus-14582 8 20 - HΚΦ?=528=216/217 AD
No. 35) Perched eagle (BMC Syria, 13)
Obverse: Radiate or laureate bust right. Around clockwise AVT K M AVP AΝΤΩΝΙΝΟC CEB; AVT K AΝΤΩΝΙΝΟC CEB.
Reverse: Eagle standing left on ovoid stone; head turned left with wreath in beak.8 Around clockwise EMECΩΝ KΟΛΟΝΙΑC;
EMICΩΝ KΟΛΟΝΙΑC, in field left and right: ΖΚΦ; ΗΚΦ.

1 BMC Syria 13 8.74 21.5 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
2 PC1 8.78 21.5 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
3 CNG-170.180 7.94 22 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
4 CNG-213.319 7.17 22 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
5 CNG-191.103 8.29 20 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
6* CNG-271.350 5.97 18 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
7 Berlin-Imhoof Bloomer 1900 7.77 22.5 8 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
8 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1523 7.23 21.5 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
9 BNF-Y28455, 104 7.56 21.5 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
10 BNF-996 8.57 22.5 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
8
Two specimens depict the eagle perched with wings open (ANS-1944.100.66183 and BNF-996).
73
11 PC3 10.33 21.8 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
12 SNG Copenhagen-310 8.72 20.5 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
13 Lindgren I-2044 7.9 21 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
14 Lindgren III-1180 10.02 22 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
15 SNG Munich-820 7.99 - 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
16 acsearch-M&M 20.627 6.98 22 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
17 acsearch-M&M 14.665 8.87 - - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
18 PC5 6 19 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
19 Aeqvitas - 22 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
20 wildwinds-WCNC 8 20.8 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
21 PC1 7.15 21 1 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
22 BNF-997 8.3 20.5 12 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
23 SNG Braunschweig-1371 9.23 21 12 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
24 SNG Glasgow-3166 7.11 21 12 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD
26 ANS-1944.100.66183 10.14 22 7 worn
27 Yale-2001.87.11107 6.15 20 12 worn
No. 36a) Tyche seated front (BMC Syria, 14)
Obverse: Radiate bust right. Around clockwise AVT K M AVP AΝΤΩΝΙΝΟC CEB.
Reverse: Tyche seated facing on throne; at feet river god swimming front. Around clockwise EMICΩΝ KΟΛΟΝΙΑC, in field left and
right: ΖΚΦ.
74
1 BMC Syria 14 6.7 21 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
2 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1524 8.26 23.5 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
3 BNF-1008 6.71 21 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
4 Lindgren III-1179 7.8 21 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
5* Wildwinds-64784 7.82 21 - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
6 AUB-227 8.56 20 6 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
No. 36b) Tyche seated left (BNF-994)
Obverse: Laureate bust right. Around clockwise AVT K AΝΤΩΝΙΝΟC CEB.
Reverse: Tyche seated left; at feet river god swimming. Around clockwise EMICΩΝ KΟΛΟΝΙΑC, in field left and right: ΖΚΦ.

1 BNF-994 8.2 22 12 ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
2* acsearch-M&M 14.666 8.07 - - ΖΚΦ=527=215/216 AD
3. Macrinus
No. 37) Macrinus (Bellinger, 199-210)
75
Obverse: Laureate bust right, at time draped.9 Around clockwise ΑΥΤ Κ Μ ΟΠ CΕ ΜΑΚΡΙΝΟC CΕΒ;
ΑΥΤ Κ Μ ΟΠ CΕ ΜΑΚΡΙΝΟC CΕ. Dotted border.
god left. Around clockwise ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞ YΠΑΤΟC Π; ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞ YΠΑΤΟC Π Π;10 ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞ YΠΑΤΟC ΤΟ Β,11 in
field A;12 H; o; crescent (left, upward); and at times no symbol. Dotted border.

1 BM-1909.7.12.4 13.86 25.5 6 H
2 BM-1922.6.2 12.45 25 1 H
3 BM-1913.5.16.1 10.93 26 1 o
4 Ashmolean-Walker 13.05 26.5 1 o
5 Ashmolean-Godwyn 10.51 24.5 11 H
6 Ashmolean-Keble College 12.99 24 11 A
7 PC1 12.3 26 12 A
8 PC1 12.47 25.5 6 H
9 CNG-115.300 12.73 25 - H
10 CNG-69.1214 12.52 - 12 o
11 CNG-81.817 13.54 - 12 no field mark
9
In rare cases the head faces left (Prieur 1006).
10
The ΠΠ is ligatured.
11
Prieur 1017a.
12
At times engraved as Λ or ∆.
76
12 CNG-Triton XI.512 15.92 - 12 crescent up
13 CNG-156.133 14.21 28 - H
14 CNG-81.66 12.95 24 - H
15 CNG-219.370 15.92 27 2 crescent left
16 CNG-197.78 13.73 23 12 o
17 CNG-205.312 12.17 26 12 o
18 CNG-194.163 13.76 27 6 H
19 CNG-194.162 13.21 25 1 uncertain
20 CNG-194161 13.6 24 6 no field mark
21 CNG-182.155 12.87 25 - o
22 CNG-182.154 11.27 24 - H
23 CNG-182.153 11.06 25 - no field mark
24 CNG-170.181 12.58 23 - ∆
25 CNG-139.202 13.49 26 - o
26 CNG-145.218 10.48 23 - no field mark
27 CNG-147.108 13.3 27 - crescent left
28 CNG-139.201 13.59 25 - no field mark
29 CNG-94.120 14.46 25 - H
30 CNG-94.119 12.38 26 - no field mark
31 CNG-225.288 12.15 24 1 ∆
32 CNG-238.273 10.48 25 6 A
33 CNG-240.334 11.73 23 12 A
34 CNG-240.335 11.45 25 12 A
35 CNG-248.300 13.51 - 12 o
36 CNG-254.205 10.5 24 12 o
37 CNG-238.275 11.94 24 12 H
38* CNG-238.274 12.83 25 12 no field mark
39 Bowers-13250.8122 14.58 - - H
77
40 eBay 13.51 - - no field mark
41 Berlin-Lobbecke 1906 12.42 25.5 6 A
42 Berlin-1170.1931 13.89 25.5 12 H
43 Berlin-v. Rauch 12.19 25 2 crescent left
44 Berlin-Lobbecke 1906 13.23 26 12 o
45 Berlin-Imhoof Blumer 1928 13.79 26 6 H
46 BNF-Y19579 11.84 25.6 12 o
47 BNF-Y19576 12.72 29.5 2 crescent left
48 BNF-Y19577 13.6 25.9 6 H
49 BNF-Y19578 13.08 26.3 6 no field mark
50 BNF-Y19580 11.97 25.6 12 o
51 BNF-Y19581 11.3 24.9 12 A
52 BNF-Y19582 13.33 25.6 1 o
53 BNF-Y19583 14.61 25.6 1 o
55 BNF-Y19585 12.82 25.5 1 o
56 BNF-Y19586 13.45 26.5 1 crescent
58 BNF-Y19588 13.17 25.8 6 A
59 BNF-Y19590 14.25 26 12 A
60 BNF-Y19569 11.21 24.8 6 A
61 BNF-Y19570 11.72 26 12 o
62 BNF-1007 11.46 27.3 7 A
63 BNF-Y19572 11.88 26.6 12 o
64 BNF-Y19571 11.95 26 1 A
66 BNF-Y19574 11.31 24.9 12 o
78
68 BNF-Y19589 13.11 24 12 H
69 BNF-Chandon de Brialles 1908 12.89 26.5 6 o
70 eBay 12.4 26 - H
71 eBay 12.4 24 - o
72 eBay 13.41 16 - no field mark
73 VCoins-Sayles and Lavender 13160 10.68 23 12 o
74 VCoins-Amphora V12055 14.58 26 - H
75 SNG Copenhagen-312 11.2 23 12 H
76 SNG Glasgow-3167 11.83 25.5 12 o
77 SNG Munich-62 12.09 - 5 A
78 SNG Munich-63 12.43 - 1 no field mark (?)
79 SNG Righetti-2082 12.451 25.6 11 A
80 SNG Righetti-2083 14.03 25.9 11 B
81 SNG Righetti-2084 11.87 26 11 o
82 SNG Righetti-2085 13.16 26.3 1 no field mark
83 SNG Righetti-2086 13.75 24.9 1 no field mark
84 acsearch-CGB 173693 11.07 24 1 worn
85 acsearch-CGB 173694 9.65 25 12 A
86 acsearch-CGB 173695 10.52 22 6 A
87 acsearch-CGB 173696 11.33 26 7 A
88 acsearch-CGB 173698 13.38 25 6 no symbol
92 acsearch-CGB 173705 14.02 26 6 H
93 acsearch-CGB 173706 13.14 25 12 H
94 acsearch-CGB 173707 14.16 27 12 H
79
95 acsearch-CGB 173711 11.1 23 12 o
96 acsearch-CGB 173712 11.96 26 12 o
97 acsearch-CGB 173713 12.81 25 12 crescent up
98 acsearch-CGB 173715 11.42 24 7 crescent left
99 acsearch-Hess 307.1399 12.72 24 - A
100 acsearch-Elsen 103.499 12.44 - - o
101 acsearch-Heidelberger 50.112 12.76 - - o
102 acsearch-Heritage 3000.50077 14.41 26 12 no symbol
103 acsearch-Ponterio 151.8122 14.58 - - H
104 acsearch-Künker 67.862 12.27 - - o (?)
105 acsearch-Künker 71.1103 13.24 - - A
106 acsearch-Künker 115.643 13.77 - - o
107 acsearch-Künker 124.9317 14.31 - - no symbol
108 Forum-8009 12.73 24.7 12 o
109 Forum-278 12.4 28 12 H
110 Forum-9032 (forgery?) 12.8 24.5 2 crescent up
111 Beast Coins-1 - - - H
112 Beast Coins-2 - - - o
113 wildwinds-ORC99209 12.43 - - A
114 wildwinds-no reference 13.6 - - A
115 Netherlands-7737 12.55 29.1 12 o
116 Netherlands-7738 12.69 26.3 5 H
117 Boston-63.1622 13.44 25 12 A
118 Boston-1973.190 14.45 27.5 12 ?
119 Boston-1974.517 13.22 26.5 12 A
120 Yale-1938.6000.60 10.64 25.5 6 indistinct
121 Yale-1938.6000.61 14.08 26 6 A
80
122 Yale-1938.6000.63 14.02 24.5 12 H?
123 Yale-1938.6000.64 13.03 25 2 crescent left
124 Yale-1938.6000.66 13.77 25 12 crescent up
125 Yale-1938.6000.67 12.17 26 6 o
126 Yale-1938.6000.68 9.37 25 12 none?
127 Yale-1938.6000.69 13.59 25 4 none?
128 Yale-2005.6.26 11.38 26 6 A?
No. 38) Diadumenian (Prieur 967-968, 994, 1019-1020)
Obverse: Laureate and draped bust right. Around clockwise ΜΑ ΟΠ ΑΝΤWΝΕΙΝΟC K; ΜΑΡ ΟΠ ΑΝΤWΝΕΙΝΟC K;
ΜΑΡ ΟΠ ΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟC K. Dotted border.
god left. Around clockwise ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞ YΠΑΤΟC, in field A; H; crescent (left). Dotted border.

1 BM-1973.1.12.1 10.57 26.5 12 A
2* CNG-139.203 14.39 27 - crescent left
3 CNG-223.361 11.94 25 1 crescent left
4 BNF-1985.44 11.6 25.2 1 crescent left
5 SNG Righetti-2088 11.68 25.9 12 H
6 Winterthur-G 6786 12.16 27.6 6 uncertain
81
7 acsearch-CGB 173716 13.81 24 6 worn
8 acsearch-CGB 173717 13.81 24 6 crescent left
No. 39) Temple façade (SNG Righetti, 2087)
Obverse: Laureate and draped bust right. Around clockwise AVT K M OΠ CE MAKPEINOC CEB.
with wreath in beak. Around clockwise EMICΩΝ KΟΛΩΝ…, in exergue: HΚΦ.
Inventory Weight Size Axis Date Symbol on temple

1 BNF-Y23879.248 24.85 30 6 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD indistinct shape in pediment
2 BNF-Y25048.1012a 20.42 30.5 7 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD indistinct shape in pediment
3 SNG Righetti-2087 26.17 30.6 1 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD -
4* Yale-2009.110.152 24.98 30.2 1 HΚΦ=528=216/217 AD crescent in pediment
5 Netherlands-GR 1978.385 23.05 28.9 1 off flan crescent in pediment
6 CNG-239.366 20.39 30 12 worn crescent in pediment
No. 40) Temple right (CNG-79.652)
Obverse: Laureate and draped bust right. Around clockwise AYT K M OΠ CE MAKPINOC CEB.
82
Reverse: Temple seen from front and side. Crescent in right field. Around clockwise EMICΩΝ KΟΛΩΝCΙΑC (sic), in exergue: HΚΦ.

1* CNG-79.652 26.08 29 6 HΚΦ?=528=216/217 AD blundered reverse legend
4. Elagabalus
Obverse: Laureate bust right. Around clockwise AVT K M AVP ANTWNEΙΝΟC; AVT K M AVP ANTΩNNEΙΝΟC.
Reverse: Hexastyle temple façade with ovoid stone in centre placed between religious standards; in front of stone eagle standing facing;
at times square in pediment. Around clockwise…KΟΛ…., in exergue: ΦΛ?

1 BMC Syria 17 10.84 25 7 ΦΛ? retrograde reverse inscription
2 BNF-1004 11.49 23 1 ΦΛ?
3 BNF-1000 10.5 23 7 (?)Λ
4 Lindgren I-2045 13 25 - worn
5 acsearch-M&M 20.629 7.27 20 - off flan
6* CNG-262.241 13.73 24 12 uncertain letters retrograde reverse inscription
83
No. 42) Wreath (private collection)
Obverse: Laureate bust right. Around clockwise AVT K M AVP ANTWNEΙΝΟC.13
Reverse: Inscription ΗΙΛΑ (sic) flanked by two laurel branches, all placed within wreath. Around clockwise ΛO…ΜΗΤΡ…

1* PC1 12.64 26.5 12 retrograde N in obverse legend
No. 43) Prize-crown (BMC Syria, 21)
Obverse: Radiate bust right. Around clockwise AVT K M A AΝΤΩΝΙΝΟC; IM C M ANTONINVS; IM C M A ANTONINVS.
Reverse: Prize-crown between two laurel branches. Around clockwise MHTPO EMIC; MHTPK EMICΩΝ; MHTPOKΟΛ EMICΩΝ;
MHTPOKΟ EMI…; MHTPOK EMICΩΝ, above and below crown ΗΛΙΑ ΠVΘIA,14 at times in field or in exergue letter E.
Inventory Weight Size Axis Date Field Mark Obv/Rev legend Notes
1 CNG-195.179 8.45 23 12 E? Greek/Greek
2 Berlin-Imhoof Blumer 1900 9.38 24 12 E Greek/Greek incomplete reverse legend
13
The reading is based on a die link with temple façade type.
14
On some specimens: above and below crown ΠVΘIA ΗΛΙΑ, also: below crown ΗΛΙΑ ΠVΘIA.
84
3 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 8.23 22.5 6 none Greek/Greek
4 acsearch-M&M 14.667 8.72 - - E (retrograde) Greek/Greek
5 Tantalus-6664 8.6 22 - E Greek/Greek
6 ANS-1961.164.2 8.92 24 11 E (retrograde) Greek/Greek
7 ANS-1971.193.11 7.76 22 12 E Greek/Greek
8 Vienna-GR 21672 4.711 23.6 1 E Greek/Greek
9 Yale-2004.6.3628 7.23 23 12 E Greek/Greek
10 SNG Glasgow-3168 9.7 22.5 12 - Greek/Greek retrograde N
11 SNG Glasgow-3169 8.46 21.5 6 - Greek/Greek ΠVΘIA above; ΗΛΙΑ below
12 Falghera-1800 7.41 23 2 E Greek/Greek?
13 BMC Syria 21 9.63 23.5 12 uncertain Latin/Greek
14 PC1 6.92 23.5 11 E? Latin/Greek crown not flanked by branches
15* CNG-174.151 6.36 23 - E Latin/Greek
16 CNG-191.105 7.64 20 12 E Latin/Greek reverse legend retrograde
17 PC5 6.3 21 7 none Latin/Greek
18 BNF-993 7.84 23 12 worn Latin/Greek
19 BNF-1001 9.29 24 6 E? Latin/Greek
20 VCoins-Sayles & Lavender 15967 5.97 21 12 indistinct Latin/Greek
21 SNG Glasgow-3170 7.59 21.5 6 E Latin/Greek
22 SNG Glasgow-3171 7.03 22 12 E (retrograde) Latin/Greek
23 Lindgren I-2047 7.07 23 - E Latin/Greek
24 acsearch-M&M 20.633 6.15 23 - E Latin/Greek
25 acsearch-M&M 20.630 6.07 22 - off flan Latin/Greek
26 eBay 3.9 23 - worn Latin/Greek
27 Aeqvitas - 22 - E Latin/Greek
28 Aeqvitas - 22 - none Latin/Greek blundered legend; cut marks on reverse
29 Wildwinds-VAuctions 30563 - 22 - none Latin/Greek
30 Vienna-GR 21671 7.261 24.2 12 worn Latin/Greek
31 acsearch-M&M 20.631 7.44 23 - E and E in field Latin/Greek?
85
32 Lindgren I-2048 5.9 18 - worn off flan possible overstrike
33 PC1 6.88 21.5 7 uncertain uncertain
34 SNG Braunschweig-1372 9.71 20.5 6 indistinct uncertain
35 SNG Munich-822 7.84 - 7 uncertain uncertain
39 SNG Righetti -2091 3.37 21.1 11 E uncertain
40 eBay 5.9 22 - none uncertain blundered inscription
41 AUB-229 7.16 23 12 worn uncertain
42 Mabbott-2566 - - - uncertain uncertain
43 CNG-195.178 8.6 22 12 worn worn
44 Berlin-no reference 7.16 21.5 6 worn worn
45 BNF-1526A 6.2 20 12 worn worn
46 BNF-995 6.29 21.5 6 none worn
47 BNF-1003 7.79 23.5 1 indistinct worn
48 VCoins-Time Machine 910080309 7.7 22 - worn worn
49 SNG Righetti -2090 8.69 23.3 6 worn worn
50 AUB-230 8 21 1 worn worn
51 ANS-1944.100.66209 5.69 25 12 off flan worn
No. 44) Tyche seated left (Lindgren I, 2049)
Obverse: Radiate bust right. Around clockwise IM C M A ANTONINVS; IM C M A ANTONINOS.
86
Reverse: Tyche seated left; at feet river god swimming left. Around clockwise MHTPO EMICΩΝ; MHTPOKΟΛ EM…, in field letter
E.
Inventory Weight Size Axis Date Field Mark Obv/Rev legend

1 PC1 6.7 22 1 E Latin/Greek
2 BNF-Y23879.250 9.61 27 7 E Latin/Greek
3* Lindgren I-2049 8.14 24 - E Latin/Greek
4 ANS-1944.100.51967 6.96 21 12 - Latin/Greek?
No. 45) Altar (Lindgren III, 1182)
Obverse: Laureate bust right. Around clockwise AVT K M A…
Reverse: Altar with two rows of statues in niches. Around clockwise MH…EMI…, possible date in exergue.
Inventory Weight Size Axis Date Field Mark

1 Lindgren III-1182 5.53 18.5 - traces of a date in exergue none
2* Aeqvitas - 20 - none
No. 46) Eagle standing facing (BMC Syria, 18-19)
Obverse: Laureate or radiate bust right. Around clockwise AVT K AΝΤΩΝΙΝΟC; AVT K M AΝΤΩΝΙΝΟC.
87
Reverse: Eagle standing facing with open wings, head turned left with wreath in beak. Around clockwise MHTPOKΟΛ EMICΩΝ;
MHTPOK EMICΩΝ, in field or between legs E.
Inventory Weight Size Axis Date Field Mark Notes

1 BMC Syria 18 6.2 20 6 E
2 BMC Syria 19 5.56 19.5 7 ?
3 Ashmolean-Bouchier 1930 5.42 18.5 1 indistinguishable blundered legends
4 Ashmolean-Bodleian 5.62 18 6 E
5 PC1 4.23 20 6 E
6 PC1 6.74 19 6 E?
7 PC1 9.15 21 6 E
8 PC1 4.71 17 12 E
9* PC1 5.37? 17.5 12 E (retrograde)
10 CNG-203.390 2.98 17 8 worn
11 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 4.53 18 12 worn
12 BNF-Luynes de Briailles 1526 3.44 17 12 none
13 BNF-Y23879.249 3.66 17.5 7 none
14 BNF-998 3.72 18 1 E
15 BNF-999 3.81 17 12 E in exergue
16 VCoins-S&L 16548 4.74 18 12 E
17 VCoins-S&L 16549 3.2 18 6 E
18 VCoins-S&L 16550 5.08 16 6 worn
19 VCoins-S&L 16551 5.12 18 7 worn
20 SNG Glasgow-3173 5.48 17 2 E
21 Lindgren I-2046 4.54 19.5 - E (retrograde) blundered legend
23 SNG Righetti -2089 5.61 19.8 6 E?
24 Aeqvitas - 19 - E retrograde
88
25 Tantalus-25709 5.06 18 - E
26 Tantalus-25708 3.36 17 - E
27 Wildwinds-1242236736 4.21 17 - worn crude inscriptions
28 Wildwinds-1289949567 4.57 20 - E retrograde
29 ANS-1944.100.66207 5.23 19 6 E in exergue retrograde N in legend
30 ANS-1944.100.66208 4.79 19 7 E
31 eBay - 17 - E
No. 47a) Perched eagle facing (SNG Glasgow, 3172)
Obverse: Laureate bust right. Around clockwise AVT K M A AΝΤ…
Reverse: Eagle standing facing on ovoid stone; head turned left with wreath in beak. Around clockwise …KΟΛ EMI…,15 at times in
exergue ΛΦ.

1 SNG Glasgow-3172 4.57 18 12 ΛΦ=530=218/219 AD retrograde N
2* PC1 2.42 19 7 Λ? (traces of possible date) blundered legend
3 Wildwinds-2202676742 5.27 19.5 - exergue off flan
15
Often blundered legend.
89
No. 47b) Perched eagle left (BMC Syria, 20)
Obverse: Laureate bust right. Around clockwise …M…ΟC.
Reverse: Eagle standing left on ovoid stone; head turned right with wreath in beak. Around clockwise MKΟΛ EMI…
Inventory Weight Size Axis

1* BMC Syria 20 4.04 17.5 12
No. 48) Sun god (Lindgren III, 1181)
Obverse: Laureate or radiate bust right. Around clockwise AVT K M AΝΤΩΝΙΝΟC.
Reverse: Radiate bust of sun god right. Around clockwise MHTPOK EMICΩΝ; MHTKΟΛ EMICΩΝ.

1 CNG-138.170 2.56 15 -
2 CNG-253.268 2.46 13 6
3* Helios-5.1122 3.44 - -
4 BNF-1005 6.74 19 12
5 BNF-1006 3.48 15 6
6 Lindgren III-1181 3.15 18 -
7 acsearch-M&M 20.632 3.98 16 -
8 Wildwinds-1242236400 3.15 17 -
90
9 ANS-2002.21.1 3.44 17 12
10 MA-Arminius 135 3.12 15 -
11 MA-M&M5374 4.02 - -
5. Uranius Antoninus
No. 49) Eagle standing facing (Baldus, 1-26)
Denomination: AR, tetradrachm (pre-reform)16
Obverse: Laureate or radiate draped bust right or left. Around clockwise ΑΥΤΟΚ CΟΥΛΠ ΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟC CΕΒ;
ΑΥΤΟΚ CΟΥΛΠ ΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟC; ΑΥΤΟΚ Κ CΟΥΛΠ ΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟC CΕΒ. Dotted border.
Reverse: Eagle standing facing with spread wings; head turned left or right with wreath in beak. Around clockwise ∆ΗΜΑΡX
ΕΞΟΥCΙΑC; ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞΟΥCΙΑC YΠΑ ΤΟ Β, in field SC, in exergue EMICA.17 Dotted border.
Inventory Weight Size Axis Date Field Marks obv. portrait

1 BM-1860.3-27-210 12.92 27.5 12 none in field S C, in exergue EMICA facing right
2 BM-1897.4-5-12 12.91 26 12 worn in field S C, in exergue EMICA facing right
16
The aurei and denarii of Uranius Antoninus are not included herein; for a study of these see Baldus 1971, 1977, 1983 and 1990. See also RIC IV, 205-206.
17
For the full range of inscription varieties and the position of the field marks see Baldus 1971, p. 24-25, 47-48.
91
3 BM-1861.11-1-9 10.46 24 6 off flan in exergue S C (?) facing right
4 PC1 11.46 26 6 uncertain in exergue S C facing right
5 CNG-82.862 12.03 - 12 B in exergue S C facing right
6 CNG-76.3139 11.32 - 12 indistinct in field S C, in exergue EMICA facing right
7 CNG-233.289 10.93 26 6 none in exergue S C facing right
8 CNG-60.1369 12.76 - - none in field S C, in exergue EMICA facing right
9 CNG-116.168 10.3 26 12 worn in field S C, in exergue EMICA facing right
10 CNG-82.39 12.35 25 - B (?) in exergue S C facing right
11* CNG-87.882 11.83 26 6 B BSC facing right
12 G&M-1704 11.1 - - B in field S C, nothing in exergue facing right
13 BNF-1008.1 10.48 26.5 6 uncertain in exergue S C facing right
14 BNF-1008.2 12.95 24 6 uncertain exergue off flan facing right
15 BNF-1008.4 10.34 26 12 B in field S C, nothing in exergue facing right
16 BNF-1011 10.12 26.5 6 worn worn facing right
17 BNF-1973.1.369 9.65 25 6 uncertain uncertain facing right
18 BNF-1973.1.370 12.22 26.5 12 nothing in field S C, nothing in exergue facing right
19 BNF-Chandon de Brialles 1532 11.51 26 6 - in field S C, in exergue EMICA facing right
20 SNG Copenhagen-313 10.35 24 6 off flan between legs S C, in exergue EMICA facing right
21 SNG Righetti-2092 11.56 24.9 6 B in field S C, nothing in exergue facing right
22 acsearch-Lanz 149.515 12.38 - - nothing in field S C, in exergue EMICA facing right
23 acsearch-Künker 136.1192 10.67 - - nothing in field S C, in exergue EMICA facing right
24 acsearch-UBS Gold & Numismatics 78.1872 10.99 - - nothing between legs S C, in exergue EMICA facing right
25 acsearch-Lanz 100.332 10.21 26 - indistinct in exergue S C facing right
26 acsearch-Numismatica Ars Classica 38.160 12.28 26 - nothing between legs S C, in exergue EMICA facing right
27 wildwinds-Antioch Associates 49.47 - - - indistinct in field S C, in exergue EMICA facing right
28 wildwinds-eBay 211130173 7.52 - - indistinct in field S C, in exergue EMICA facing right
29 wildwinds-eBay 272772918 10.55 - - indistinct nothing in field, in exergue EMICA facing right
92
30 Bern-G 1861 10.79 26 12 worn worn facing right
31 BNF-1008c 11.6 26 12 worn in field: S C. Exergue is off flan facing right, supported by eagle
32 BNF-1010 9.25 26 12 uncertain in field S C, exergue off flan facing left
33 BNF-1987/246 11.69 25 12 none in field S C, in exergue EMICA facing left holding spear
34 Fitzwilliam-CM 47.1994 10.25 26 6 worn worn facing left hand raised
35 CNG-64.724 11.68 - - none in field S C, in exergue EMICA facing left hand raised
36 BNF-1009 11.21 24.5 6 none in field S C, in exergue EMICA facing left hand raised
37 acsearch-CGB ID337479 11.71 23 12 none nothing in field, exergue off flan facing left hand raised
No. 50) Radiate deity (Prieur, 1062)
Denomination: AR, tetradrachm (post-reform)
Obverse: Laureate and draped bust right. Around clockwise ΑΥΤΟ Κ CΟΥΛΠ ΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟC CE. Dotted border.
Reverse: Radiate bust of deity right supported on crescent.
Around clockwise ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞΟΥCΙΑC. Dotted border.

1* BM-1975.9-30-1 (reverse double struck) 8.4 30 6 YΠ AB none
No. 51) Fortuna standing (Prieur, 1063-1070)
93
Obverse: Radiate and draped bust right. Around clockwise ΑΥΤΟ Κ CΟΥΛΠ ΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟC CΕΒ; ΑΥΤΟ Κ CΟΥΛ CEOYHPOC
ΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟC CΕΒ. Dotted border.
Reverse: Fortuna standing left holding rudder and cornucopia. Around clockwise ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞΟΥCΙΑC YΠ Β; ∆ΗΜΑΡX
ΕΞΟΥCΙΑC YΠΑ Β, in field SC.18 Dotted border.

1 BM-1940.6-5-11 9.32 26.5 5 none none
2 CNG-Triton VIII.791 8.29 - 5 off flan SC
3 BNF-1973.1.455 8.26 25.5 6 YΠ B SC
4 SNG Copenhagen-Supp. 1188 9.26 28 11 YΠ B SC
6 SNG Munich-106 8.04 - 5 YΠ B SC
7 acsearch-Numismatica Ars Classica 29.622 7.82 24 - YΠ B SC
8 acsearch-Künker 100.75 8.3 - - off flan SC
9* acsearch-Numismatica Ars Classica 42.168 7.91 28 - off flan SC
No. 52) Victory (Prieur, 1071)
18
A variety lacks the field mark SC (Prieur 1068).
94
Obverse: Radiate and draped bust right. Around clockwise ΑΥΤΟ Κ CΟΥΛΠ ΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟC CEB. Dotted border.
Reverse: Victory standing left holding wreath and palm branch. Around clockwise ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞΟΥCΙΑC YΠΑ Β, in field SC. Dotted
border.

1* Baldus 1975, Plate 45, no. 4 8.97 - - YΠ B SC
No. 53) Moneta standing (Prieur, 1072-1077)
Obverse: Radiate and draped bust right. Around clockwise ΑΥΤΟ Κ CΟΥ CEOYHPOC ΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟC C;
ΑΥΤΟ Κ CΟΥΛ CEOYHPOC ΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟC CE. Dotted border.
Reverse: Moneta standing left holding scales and cornucopia. Around clockwise ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞΟΥCΙΑC YΠΑ Β, in field SC. Dotted
border.

1 BM-1972.2-13-2 7.85 25 12 YΠ B SC
2 CNG-82.860 9.17 - 12 off flan SC
3* BNF-1973.1.457 8.07 27.5 1 YΠ A SC
4 acsearch-Forum 28906 7.92 28.1 12 YΠ B SC
5 acsearch-Hess 307.1685 7.96 25 - YΠ B SC
95
6 Boston-1971.387 8.27 25.5 11 YΠ B SC
No. 54) Fortuna seated (Prieur, 1078-1080)
Obverse: Radiate and draped bust right. Around clockwise ΑΥΤΟ Κ CΟΥΛΠ ΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟC CΕ; ΑΥΤΟ Κ CΟΥΛ CEOYHPOC
ΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟC. Dotted border.
Reverse: Fortuna seated left holding rudder and cornucopia. Around clockwise ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞΟΥCΙΑC YΠ Β, in field SC. Dotted
border.

1* BNF-1973.1.456 8.25 27 6 YΠ B SC
3 BM-1972.2-13-1 8.69 27.5 12 YΠ B SC
No. 55) Minerva seated (Prieur, 1081)
Obverse: Radiate and draped bust right. Around clockwise ΑΥΤΟ Κ CΟΥ CEOYHPOC ΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟC. Dotted border.
Reverse: Minerva seated left with spear and shield. Around clockwise ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞΟΥCΙΑC YΠ Β, in field SC. Dotted border.
96
1* SNG Copenhagen-Supp. 1191 8.51 28 12 YΠ B SC
No. 56) Dromedary (Prieur, 1082-1086)
Obverse: Radiate and draped bust right. Around clockwise ΑΥΤΟ Κ CΟΥ CEOYHPOC ΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟC CE;
ΑΥΤΟ Κ CΟΥΛ CEOYHPOC ΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟC CE. Dotted border.
Reverse: Dromedary right with saddle and reins. Around clockwise ∆ΗΜΑΡX ΕΞΟΥCΙΑC YΠ Β, in field SC. Dotted border.

1 BM-1972.2-13-3 8.33 28 12 YΠ B SC
2* BNF-1973.1.454 8.29 27 12 YΠ B SC
3 SNG Copenhagen-Supp. 1192 8.72 26.5 12 worn SC
4 SNG Munich-107 7.84 - 12 YΠ B SC
5 acsearch-Numismatica Ars Classica 39.157 8.42 25 - YΠ B SC
6 Boston-1973.292 8.96 26.5 12 YΠ B SC
Obverse: Laureate and draped bust right. Around clockwise AVTO K COVΛΠ ΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟC CΕ.
97
with wreath in beak; crescent in pediment. Around clockwise EMICWΝ KΟΛΩΝ, in exergue EΞΦ.

1* CNG-Triton V.1767 21.42 32 - EΞΦ=565=253/254 AD
2 CNG-Triton IX.1561 29.34 30 12 EΞΦ=565=253/254 AD
3 CNG-85.644 26.47 33 12 EΞΦ=565=253/254 AD
4 BNF-Y23879.251 28.72 31 6 EΞΦ=565=253/254 AD
5 acsearch-M&M 20.634 23.03 32 - EΞΦ=565=253/254 AD
6 AUB-232 28.44 32 12 EΞΦ=565=253/254 AD
7 Harvard 26.96 32.5 12 EΞΦ=565=253/254 AD
8 BNF-1012 23.12 32 12 EΞΦ?=565=253/254 AD
9 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1530 21.55 31.5 6 indistinct
10 BMC Syria 24 28.52 31.5 12 worn
11 CNG-76.3140 17.94 32 12 worn
12 SNG Copenhagen Supp-1193 25.55 32 12 worn
13 SNG Glasgow-3174 25.34 30.5 6 worn
14 acsearch-NY Sale IX.143 22.8 35 - worn
15 AUB-231 14.69 31 12 worn
No. 58) Temple left (BM-1946.10.4.625)
Obverse: Laureate and draped bust right. Around clockwise AVTO K COVΛΠ ΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟC CΕ.
Reverse: Temple seen from front and side. Around clockwise EMICΩΝ KΟΛΩ…, in exergue EΞΦ.
98
1* BM-1946.10.4.625 20.09 32 7 EΞΦ=565=253/254 AD
2 BNF-Y28359.20 23.1 32 6 EΞΦ=565=253/254 AD
3 Berlin-5434 26.88 34.5 12 EΞΦ?=565=253/254 AD
4 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1531 18.43 31 6 EΞΦ?=565=253/254 AD
G. Laodicea ad Libanum
1. Septimius Severus
No. 59) Septimius Severus/Mên (SNG Glasgow, 3445)
Obverse: Laureate and draped bust right. Around clockwise AVT K Λ CΕΠTIMIOC…
Reverse: Mên standing in front of horse holding reign in right and sceptre in left. Around clockwise [ΛΑΟ∆ΙΚ] ΠΡΟC ΛΙΒΑΝW, in
exergue ΜΗΝ.

1 BM-1909.5-4.55 12.06 28 12?
2 PC1 11.83 28.5 12
3 BNF-201 11.89 28 11
99
4 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1739 7.98 26 12
5 BNF-200 10.45 27 11
6 SNG Braunschweig-1400 7.96 23 12
7 SNG Glasgow-3445 11.72 28.5 1
8* acsearch-M&M 20.698 11.8 27 -
9 ANS-1944.100.83968 16.24 30 12
No. 60) Caracalla/Seated Tyche (Lindgren III, 1286-1287)
Obverse: Laureate or radiate bust right, at times draped. Around clockwise M AYP CE ANTWΝΙΝΟC CEB.
Reverse: Tyche seated left being crowned by Nike from behind; at feet two swimming river gods. Around clockwise TVXH
ΛΑΟ…ΠΡΟC ΛΙΒΑ…; TVXH ΛΑΟ∆ΙΚ ΠΡΟC ΛΙΒΑΝ…; ΛΑΟ∆ ΠΡΟC ΛΙΒΑ…; …Ο∆ΙΚIA ΠΡΟC ΛΙΒ…

1 BM-1977.3.4.7 9.86 25 12
2 PC1 6.75 26 12
3 PC1 8.64 27.5 6
4 PC1 7.2 23.5 7
5 Helios-3.738 7.58 - -
8 PC3 8.7 22.7 -
9 PC3 5.8 24.05 -
10 PC3 6.9 24.1 -
100
11 Lindgren III-1286 7.55 26 -
12 Lindgren III-1287 7.68 26 -
13 Lindgren III-1289 6.1 23 -
14 SNG Munich-1046 9.87 - 6
15 SNG Righetti-2171 8.36 25.9 12
16 acsearch-M&M 20.701 6.85 23 -
17* Forum-9258 8.39 23.6 6
18 Forum-8735 6.05 23.7 12
19 Wildwinds-726758 9.87 24 -
20 Wildwinds-7119 7.05 25 -
21 ANS-1944.100.83973 7.84 21 6
22 ANS-1944.100.83975 7.1 23 6
23 ANS-1948.19.2519 8.12 24 1
24 Harvard-1980.85.230 7.1 - -
No. 61) Julia Domna/Tyche (Lindgren I, 2174)
Obverse: Draped bust right of Julia Domna with bun behind head. Around clockwise IΟYΛIA AYΓOYCTA.
Reverse: Turreted and veiled bust of Tyche right. Around clockwise …ΠΡΟC ΛΙΒΑΝ…

1* CNG-194.193 5.54 21 12
2 CNG-181.308 7.57 24 1
3 Lindgren I-2174 5.37 20 -
4 Wildwinds-7603 6.96 23 -
101
No. 62) Geta/Tyche (BNF-Y28464)
Obverse: Draped bust of Geta right, head bare. Around clockwise ΓΕΤΑ ΚΑΙCΑΡΙ.
Reverse: Turreted and veiled bust of Tyche right. Around clockwise …∆IK ΠΡΟC…; ΤΥXΗ ΛΑΟ∆ ΠΡΟC ΛΙΒΑΝ.

1 Berlin-325/1909 5.43 21.5 12
2* BNF-Y28464 6.68 22 12
3 PC3 4.1 20.25 -
4 AUB-1617 6.9 22 6
2. Caracalla
No. 63) Caracalla/Mên (SNG Copenhagen, 445)
Obverse: Laureate bust right, at times draped. Around clockwise AV…ANTWΝΙΝ…; ΜΑCΕΟVΑΝΤΟ…ΝΟΓ (sic).
102
Reverse: Mên standing in front of horse holding reign in right and at times sceptre in left. Around clockwise ΛΑΟ∆ΙΚ ΠΡΟC
ΛΙΒΑΝW, in exergue ΜΗΝ.
Inventory Weight Size Axis Notes

1 BM-1929.8.22.1 7.89 24 6?
2 Ashmolean-Bouchier 1930 8.55 22.5 1
3 CNG-213.322 7.97 24 12
4 CNG-191.121 12 24 12
5 CNG-194.194 8.76 23 1
6 CNG-246.231 8.35 23 12
7 Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 8.63 23.5 12
8 BNF-202 9.41 25 1
9 BNF-203 10.88 26.5 7
10 BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1740 10.48 23.5 1
12 PC3 11.1 26 -
13 PC3 8 23 -
14* VCoins-Jencek N1248 10.56 25 -
15 SNG Copenhagen-445 8.4 22 12
16 Lindgren III-1288 8.33 26 -
17 M&M 20.699 9.79 26 -
18 M&M 20.700 9.97 23 -
19 Wildwinds-7602 8.34 25 -
20 AUB-1618 9.5 24 6
21 AUB-1619 8.62 23 1
22 ANS-1944.100.83969 9.24 24 1
23 Missouri-83.62 7.4 24 12
24 wildwinds-John Noory 2003 7.72 23 - blundered legends; erroneously attributed to Severus Alexander
103
No. 64) Julia Domna/Tyche (ANS-1944.100.83654)
Obverse: Draped bust right of Julia Domna with no bun behind head. Around clockwise IΟYΛIA AYΓOYCTA.
Reverse: Turreted and veiled bust of Tyche right. Around clockwise ΤΥXΗ ΛΑΟ∆ΙΚ ΠΡΟC ΛΙΒΑ…; ΛΑΟ∆ΙΚ ΠΡΟC ΛΙΒΑΝ…

1* CNG-162.267 5.97 21 -
2 ANS-1944.100.83654 4.61 22.5 6
3 Winterthur-G 6563 4.09 19.1 7 hairstyle indistinguishable
3. Macrinus
No. 65) Macrinus/Mên (Lindgren I, 2175-2176)
Obverse: Laureate and draped bust right. Around clockwise AYT KAI MAK…
Reverse: Mên standing in front of horse holding reign in right and torch in left. Around clockwise …ΡΟC ΛΙΒΑΝW.
104
1 PC1 20.91 30 6
2* Berlin-Morel 5/1908 15.14 28.5 6
3 BNF-no number on ticket 16.97 30.5 6
4 Lindgren I-2175 19.7 29.5 -
5 Lindgren I-2176 20.77 28.5 -
6 Yale-2001.87.5775 19.6 30 6
4. Elagabalus
No. 66) Elagabalus/Mên (Lindgren III, 1290)
Obverse: Laureate and draped bust right. Around clockwise M AV ANTWΝΙΝΟC…
Reverse: Mên standing in front of horse holding reign in right and torch in left. Around clockwise ΛΑΟ∆ΙΚ ΠΡΟC…ΙΒΑΝO.

1 PC1 10.6 23.5 1
2 BNF-204 15 26 1
3 PC3 15.3 28.3 -
4 PC3 20.3 26.85 -
5 PC3 17.1 25.2 -
6 Lindgren I-2177 15.17 27.5 - erroneously attributed to Trebonianus Gallus
7* Lindgren III-1290 16.38 28 -
105
CHAPTER III
PRODUCTION
The production of coins in the Orontes Valley is effectively divided into two
chronological groups, although it is treated here under a single section. The first is
represented by Apamea and, to a lesser extent, Larissa. Apamea initiated a civic
coinage in the first quarter of the first century BC and ceased to mint by the mid first
century AD, whereas Larissa minted in 86/85 BC only. The second group is
represented by the remaining cities to the south which minted in the second and third
centuries AD, with most of the output taking place in the Severan period.
The production of silver coins in the Orontes Valley is very limited
compared to the output of bronze. For this reason, the silver issues (tetradrachms) will
not be discussed in a separate section, but rather within the framework of the relevant
mints and emperors. Where possible, parallels will be drawn between the production
of coins in the Orontes Valley and neighbouring cities.
A. Apamea
Of the cities in this study, it was Apamea solely which minted a royal
coinage of the Seleucids.1 These issues were sporadic and bore the name of the ruling
monarch, with no civic issues attested to this early period. This aspect of the coinage
in the region is not surprising when considering that there was no tradition of coinage
in the Orontes Valley prior to the campaigns of Alexander the Great.
1
WSM, 86-180; CSE I, 1-32.
106
Apamea seems to have been a mint for the Seleucids from the outset, but it
never achieved the prominence of Antioch. Newell tentatively attributed a bronze
issue of Seleucus I to Apamea based on the style, fabric and iconography of the coins,
which depict an elephant on the obverse and the head of a horse on the reverse (Figure
2).3 Newell also attributed to this mint a series of tetradrachms, and to a lesser extent
drachms and bronzes, issued by the Seleucid kings throughout the third century BC.4
These attributions however remain unconfirmed
and are doubted by recent scholarship.5
Nevertheless, due to the lack of a better
classification, Newell’s attributions are still

Figure 2: Bronze coin of Seleucus I
6 attributed to Apamea (CNG-Triton
generally maintained. V.537, 7.33 gr, 19 mm).2
Seleucid issues which can be attributed to Apamea with certainty belong to
the reign of Antiochus IV and Alexander Balas based on the inscription ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ
on the reverse. These ‘semi-autonomous’ (also referred to in the literature as ‘quasi-
autonomous’ or ‘municipal’) coins of Apamea were minted contemporaneously with
issues of eighteen other cities in the region –including Antioch, Seleucia and
Laodicea– which would imply some sort of a centralised scheme by Antiochus IV.7
The bronze issues of Antiochus IV at Apamea were minted in two
denominations (see Metrology and Denominations chapter). Both denominations have
the portrait of the King on the obverse. The larger denomination depicts Zeus seated
2
Note: coin images in the text are not to scale, but those in the plates at the end are.
3
WSM, no. 1128; SC I, no. 35.
4
WSM, 155-180, Plates XXXIII-XXXVIII.
5
See the discussions in CSE I p. 29 and SC II p. 74. See also the review by Mørkholm in WSM p. i-vi
(1977 edition), who prefers a reattribution to Antioch for some of the issues.
6
Houghton despite his doubts prefers to follow Newell’s attributions in general (CSE I, 29-31; CSE II,
57, 79-80, 97-98; SC I, 25, 405; SC II, 74).
7
See Mørkholm 1966, 124-130, for the relevant discussion and a list of these cities.
107
on the reverse and the smaller Zeus standing. Both issues have identical inscriptions
reading ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΩΙ ΑΞΙΩΙ.
The issues of Alexander Balas at Apamea were also minted in two
denominations, but unlike those of Antiochus IV, the bronzes of this king are dated by
the Seleucid era ΓΞΡ = 163 = 150/149 BC.8 As no other date has yet come to light, it
seems that these coins were issued in that year alone. The larger denomination has the
portrait of the monarch on the obverse and
depicts Zeus standing holding a Corinthian
helmet and long sceptre on the reverse (Figure
3).9 The ethnic of the city ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ is Figure 3: Bronze coin of Alexander
Balas minted in Apamea depicting Zeus
standing on the reverse (CNG-729310,
inscribed on the reverse. The smaller 6.84 gr, 20 mm).
denomination is unlike all of the above mentioned issues of the Seleucids at Apamea,
since the king’s portrait is not present. This denomination depicts the turreted head of
Tyche on the obverse and a marching warrior on
the reverse (Figure 4).10 These are inscribed with
the same date ΓΞΡ as those of the larger
denomination and like it bear the ethnic

Figure 4: Bronze coin of Apamea
ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ on the reverse. BMC does not minted during the reign of Alexander
Balas (BNF-925a, 4.01 gr, 16.5 mm).
include this type under Alexander Balas in the volume dedicated to the Seleucid kings
(presumably because it lacks a portrait); neither does Houghton in his catalogues.
However, since this type has the same date as that of the larger denomination
depicting the portrait of Alexander Balas, it was undoubtedly struck in his reign and
8
BMC Kings, p. 57, nos. 64-65; CSE I, nos. 441-443; CSE II, nos. 457-458; SC II, nos. 1803-1804.
9
A second variety of this type depicts Zeus holding the same objects but resting his right foot on a pile
of arms (CSE II, no. 457). These two varieties should not be considered as separate denominations,
since they have similar weights and sizes (see Metrology and Denominations chapter for statistics).
10
BMC Syria, p. 233, no. 1.
108
complements the denominational sequence similar to the two denominations minted at
Apamea under Antiochus IV.11
Another type listed in BMC Syria, depicting the head of Poseidon on the
obverse and for the reverse the standing figure of the same god, has also been
attributed to Apamea in Syria.12 However, the correct reading of the legend on the
reverse is ΑΤΤΑΛΕΩΝ and therefore the issue should be attributed to Attalia in
Pamphylia.13 Additional Seleucid bronze issues of the second century, namely that of
Antiochus VI, have also been assigned to Apamea; however, these remain
unconfirmed.14
Civic issues of Apamea commenced in the first quarter of the first century
BC, during the period following the disintegration of the Seleucid Empire. These
issues began just before the advent of the Roman period in 77/76 BC (as attested by
the earliest known civic issue) and continued to be produced after the conquests of
Pompey with no immediate change in the types or modules (see below). These civic
issues were followed by provincial coins bearing the portraits of Augustus, Tiberius
and Claudius (including a rare tetradrachm issue), after which Apamea ceased to mint
coins.
Butcher, in his study of the coinage of northern Syria, has observed that it is
difficult to compare issues in the Roman period with the ‘semi-autonomous’ coins
11
See Hoover 2004b for a discussion on the representation of civic status and identity on coins by civic
authorities, particularly in the reign of Alexander Balas. Although Hoover’s study focuses on the
territories of Phoenicia and Coele Syria, this particular type from Apamea may indicate that the
privileges of expressing civic identity on coins extended further north under this king.
12
BMC Syria, p. 233, no. 2, where the legend is misread as ΑΠΑΛΕΩΝ. See also SNG Poland, no. 61
and Lindgren III, no. 1174.
13
See BMC Lycia, p. 110, no. 1. Seyrig (1950, 15) also notes this misattribution.
14
SC II, nos. 1805, 1883-1884, 2008-2015, 2242-2243.
109
minted under Antiochus IV and Alexander Balas, since they were limited to the two
kings only.15 In the case of Apamea, however, one might argue that the types that
were used for the ‘semi-autonomous’ coins, namely that of Zeus, were continued in
the early Roman period as well, particularly in the early years of Pompey’s presence
in the region (see below for the remaining types). It has also been mentioned that the
very first issues of Apamea, depicting a horse and an elephant, pertain to the royal
stables and the war-elephants kept there,16 knowing that the elephant was also
portrayed on the civic coins issued before and after the advent of the Romans.17 The
Dionysus/thyrsus type, which was minted in the time of Augustus, can also be seen as
a continuation of the thyrsus type on the bronze issues of Antiochus IV attributed to
Apamea.18 In fact, a direct continuation of certain types at Apamea is also the case
before and after the conquests of Pompey (see Group 1 below), a trend which is in
line with other mints in the region.19 Even during the Julio-Claudian period the
coinage of Apamea seems to have maintained the Hellenistic style of iconography
used in the pre-Augustan period, with the emperor’s portrait as the only addition. All
this is a good indication that there was no intervention on the part of the Romans to
impose a new typological structure for the coinage. Unfortunately, because Apamea
did not mint coins after the mid first century AD, it is impossible to trace the
continuity or similarities any further.
15
CRS, 24.
16
WSM, 156.
17
The Zeus/elephant type of Apamea is similar to the elephant reverses issued by the Seleucids (SC I,
nos. 1065-1068).
18
SC II, no. 1884.
19
Butcher (CRS, 26) has noted this trend for the main mints of northern Syria (Antioch, Seleucia,
Laodicea, etc.). For a survey of the coinage in Syria during the pre-Augustan period see Augé 1989,
p. 166-168.
110
1. Civic issues
As stated above, during the reigns of Antiochus IV and Alexander Balas,
civic coins bearing the portrait of the king and engraved with the ethnic of the city
‘ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ’ were issued in Apamea. This tradition seems to have been continued in
the first century BC and into the early Roman period at Apamea. The civic coins of
Apamea do not present a major problem of classification since they are all dated,
similar to the first century BC issues of Antioch, Laodicea and Seleucia. The
difficulty arises from the fact that various dating systems were employed throughout
its minting history. However, this does not impose too great a challenge once the
issues are tabulated according to type, date and legend (see Table 1 below). The
classification is further established when taking into consideration the ensuing
historical events in the region during the early turbulent years of Rome’s presence in
the east.
The coins of Apamea of the first century BC have been recently classified by
Hoover.20 However, his classification suffers from inconsistencies, mainly because
the issues are organized according to denomination, based entirely on the average
weights for each issue, rather than according to their type. The classification is further
complicated because the issues have not been structured chronologically.
The civic issues of Apamea can be divided into three main chronological
groups based on type, date, and legend varieties:
20
Hoover 2009, 303-306.
111
Group 1
Date Seleucid Pompeian Antonian Zeus/ Tyche/ Demeter/ Dionysus/
(BC) year year year elephant Nike corn ear grapes
77/76 236 ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
76/75 237 ΑΣΥΛΟΥ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
75/74
74/73 239 ΑΣΥΛΟΥ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
73/72 240 ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
72/71
70/69 243 ΑΣΥΛΟΥ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ(?) ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
69/68
68/67 245 ΑΣΥΛΟΥ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ(?)
67/66
66/65
65/64
64/63
63/62
62/61
61/60
60/59 7 ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
58/57
57/56
56/55
55/54
54/53
53/52
52/51
50/49
112
49/48
48/47
47/46
46/45
45/44
Date Seleucid Pompeian Antonian Dionysus/ Athena/ Demeter/ Tyche/

(BC) year year year thyrsus Nike 3 corn ears Athena
42/41
41/40 272 ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
40/39 2 ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
39/38 3 ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
38/37 275 ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
37/36 276 ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
36/35 277 ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
35/34
34/33
33/32
32/31
31/30 282 ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ
30/29 283 ΑΣΥΛΟΥ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ/ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
29/28 284 ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
28/27 285 ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
26/25 287 ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
25/24
24/23
23/22
22/21
113
21/20 292 ΑΣΥΛΟΥ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ
19/18
17/16
16/15
15/14
14/13
Date Seleucid Pompeian Antonian Dionysus/ Dionysus/ Dionysus/ Zeus/

(BC) year year year thyrsus Demeter cornucopia Tyche seated
13/12 300 ΑΣΥΛΟΥ(?)
12/11
11/10
8/7
7/6
6/5
4/3
3/2
2/1
Table 1: Civic issues of Apamea tabulated according to types, dates and inscription varieties. Entries in bold in the first column denote dates when the mint
was active.
114
a. Group 1 (Cat. nos. 1-4)
The first civic coins, as stated above, commence in 77/76 BC during the rule
of Tigranes the Great in the region, a time of relative stability in Syria following a
period of political turmoil due to the gradual collapse of the Seleucids. This group
may be divided into two sub-groups, 1a and 1b, based on the dating system found on
the coins. The coins of Group 1a were minted in four denominations as follows:
Zeus/elephant; Tyche/Nike; Demeter/corn ear; Dionysus/grapes. Issues of this sub-
group are all dated using the Seleucid era ranging from 236 to 245 (77/76 to 68/67
BC). The coins of this group were minted throughout the ten recorded years, with the
exception of years 238, 241 and 244 (75/74, 72/71 and 69/68 BC), based on the data
from the specimens collected to date.
Group 1a continued to be minted until 68/67 BC, when Rome’s presence in
the region began with the campaigns of Pompey. After a gap of several years a second
sub-group of coins, Group 1b, commenced in Apamea. These were a direct
continuation of the previous types, the only exception being the Dionysus/grapes type,
which was either fully abandoned or no specimens have yet come to light.1 All the
coins of this sub-group are dated by a Pompeian era initiated in 66 BC similar to
Antioch.2 These issues commence in 60/59 BC and are minted sporadically until
51/50 BC. Dates recorded for this sub-group are Pompeian years 7, 8 and 16 (60/59,
59/58 and 51/50 BC). Perhaps the fact that Pompey razed the citadel of Apamea in 64
BC,3 where the main mint of the city most probably would have been located, resulted
1
It should be noted here that the coins of Group 1b are considerably lighter in weight than those of
Group 1a (see Metrology and Denominations chapter for details).
2
Seyrig 1950, 16; Baldus 1987, 131.
3
Josephus, JA, 14.3.2.
115
in the cessation of minting until few years later, by which time the Pompeian era was
used.
b. Group 2 (Cat. nos. 5-8)
After the issues of 51/50 BC a gap of several years is noted. This gap
coincides with the ensuing conflict between Caesar and Pompey, and the consequent
victory of the former. The coins of Group 2, which may also be divided into two sub-
groups, 2a and 2b, commenced in 44/43 BC, whereby the previous types represented
by Group 1 were completely abandoned. The issues of Group 2a were initially minted
in two types: Athena/Nike (Cat. no. 6) and Tyche/Athena standing (Cat. no. 8). These
coins at first used the Pompeian era, represented by the dates 23 and 24 (44/43 and
43/42 BC). In 41/40 BC, the Athena/Nike type reverted to the Seleucid date 272, a
date which coincides with the Parthian invasion of Syria.4
Apparently, in 40/39 BC Apamea was granted the status of autonomy by
Antony. This new title is reflected in the inscriptions of the coins, which then read
ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ. Although no change was introduced
in the types after receiving autonomy, a third type Demeter/three corn ears (Cat. no.
7) was added starting in 38/37 BC.5 This three-denominational system employing the
title of autonomy was continued until 31/30 BC (with a gap noted between 35/34 and
32/31 BC) when, as a result of Octavian’s victory over Antony in Actium, changes
appeared in Apamea’s coinage represented by Group 2b. First, a new and heavier type
of Dionysus/thyrsus (Cat. no. 5) was introduced. Second, the title of autonomy was no
4
It is also in this year that Antioch reverts to the Seleucid era on its coins (CRS, 27, 307; Baldus 1987,
130).
5
This of course is based on all the specimens collected to date. Future finds may show that the
Demeter/three corn ears type may have been introduced earlier, perhaps as early as the two other
types of this group.
116
longer inscribed on the coins; instead, Apamea returned to using the traditional title
ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ. These issues continued to employ the
Seleucid era and were minted regularly until 18/17 BC, with a gap noted from 25/24
to 22/21 BC.
It should be noted that the year 30/29 BC (Seleucid year 283) may be
considered a transition phase between the two sub-groups. All four types discussed
above (Dionysus/thyrsus, Athena/Nike, Demeter/three corn ears and Tyche/Athena
standing) have been noted for this year. In fact, the Athena/Nike type of this year has
been recorded with both legend varieties (ΑΣΥΛΟΥ and ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ). Thus, it
seems that Octavian’s passage through Syria on his way to Egypt had caused swift
changes in Apamea’s allegiance; the city was stripped of its autonomy granted by
Octavian’s rival Antony.
c. Group 3 (Cat. nos. 9-12)
After a gap of several years, Apamea resumed minting civic coins in 13/12
BC (or perhaps 10/9 BC, see discussion below). This group continued for a short span
of time until 5/4 BC, after which coins bearing imperial portraits were initiated. Coins
of Group 3 continued to employ the Dionysus/thyrsus type, although the remaining
types of Group 2b were abandoned and replaced by three altogether new types:
Dionysus/Demeter, Dionysus/cornucopia and Zeus/Tyche seated.
Coins of this group are represented by issues of a single year with the
exception of the Dionysus/Demeter type, which seems to have been minted in two
117
separate years: Seleucid date T = 300 = 13/12 BC and HT = 308 = 5/4 BC.6 All the
coins of Group 3 use the Seleucid era for dating and bear the legend ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ
ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ.
2. Augustus (Cat. nos. 13-14)
In 4/3 BC Apamea minted coins bearing the portrait of Augustus. Two
reverse types, Nike advancing and bust of Tyche, were minted concurrently in year 28
of the Actian era. Interestingly, although the Nike type has the usual legend of
ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ, the Tyche type reads only ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ
ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ. This does not seem to have been a deliberate omission by the issuing
authorities, implying that the title of ‘Inviolate’ was stripped from the city, because
both types were minted in the same year. The use of the ‘shorter’ legend is also not
accidental, since this type is known thus far by four dies, all of which were engraved
with the same legend (see Die Studies chapter). The flans used for striking the Tyche
type were by no means minute (averaging at 21 mm), and therefore it was not an issue
of a mere lack of space for accommodating a longer legend. Thus, no reason can be
found for the use of this shorter version which only occurs on this particular issue
under Augustus, since future issues of Apamea continued to use the ‘longer’ version
(see below).
3. Tiberius (Cat. nos. 15-16)
The issues of Tiberius are represented by a single year dated by the Seleucid
era 326 corresponding to AD 14/15. Two types are noted for this emperor: the first,
6
The Seleucid date on the specimen published in CRE 1469 seems to read only T, but due to the rather
poor condition of the coin, this reading remains unconfirmed. See also the discussion in RPC I for
this coin (no. 4370).
118
and heaviest, depicts the bust of Tiberius on the obverse and Nike advancing either
left or right on the reverse.7 These coins are inscribed with the legend ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ
ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ. The second type is of a smaller denomination and has
the bust of Tyche on the obverse and an advancing Athena on the reverse. This type
also has the same legend as the above type.
4. Claudius (Cat. nos. 17-19)
No coins of Gaius are yet known to have been minted in Apamea, with the
final issues of this city being minted in the reign of Claudius. The obverse of the
bronzes depicts the head of Zeus and for the reverse two types were minted: an
advancing Nike and a seated Tyche. The Nike type is dated ‘year 1’ and that of Tyche
‘year 2’. The legend on both coin types reads ΚΛΑΥ∆ΙΕWΝ ΑΠΑΜΕWΝ. It is
apparent from the legend that Claudius bestowed a new title on Apamea, and for this
reason it is more probable that the years inscribed on the coins relate to the initiation
date of this title and not to the regnal years of the Emperor. However, it remains
uncertain when this title was granted. A very rare issue of tetradrachms, the only
silver issue attributed to this city during the period covered in this study, is attested for
the reign of Claudius based on the legend of the reverse identical to the issues
mentioned above. These silver coins are dated ‘year 2’ and have a reverse type
comparable to the seated Tyche type mentioned above.
Seyrig states that Apamea minted tetradrachms as a result of it being given
liberty by Claudius.8 Callu shares this viewpoint and adds that the cessation of
7
Since both issues share obverse dies they should be considered as variants of a single type and not
two separate reverse types.
8
Seyrig 1950, 20. The tetradrachms have the field mark EΛ, which according to Seyrig signifies
EΛ[ευθεριας].
119
tetradrachms in Apamea by the mid first century AD is in line with the trend at other
mints of the region (Antioch, Seleucia, Sidon and Tyre, the exception being
Laodicea).9 However, in the case of Apamea the discontinuation of minting is not
only true in the case of silver but also bronze; no other mint in the region had a similar
fate. The reason for the cessation of minting remains unknown as no reference to it is
made in ancient sources, and historical events of that time and place do not provide a
reason for such an abrupt end. It seems that Apamea was not among the numerous
cities in Syria which took part in the minting of tetradrachms during the reign of
Caracalla and also Macrinus. This is intriguing for it is known that Apamea was a
well populated city boasting monumental streets and various public structures, which
were among the largest known in the Roman world. The city was the base for the
Legio II Parthica aiding Caracalla and his predecessors in their eastern campaigns. It
was also where Macrinus proclaimed his son emperor. Despite the significance of
Apamea, it does not seem to have minted tetradrachms in the third century (for
tetradrachms with a wheat symbol erroneously attributed to Apamea see the detailed
discussion in the Types and Legends chapter).
The above coinages represent the chronological sequence of Apamea’s
minting activity. Accordingly, a correlation can be drawn between these issues and
the prevailing historical events in the region as follows:
After the collapse of the Seleucid Empire, Apamea began minting civic coins
starting in 77/76 BC, in the time of Tigranes the Great. Laodicea, which served as
Apamea's outlet to the sea, was freed by the Armenian sovereign and first started
9
Callu 1979, 9.
120
minting in 80/79 BC.10 It is possible that Apamea too was freed by Tigranes, and
therefore starting minting in 77/76 BC, continuing this series (Group 1a) until 68/67
BC, when minting abruptly stopped.11 Seyrig states that Antiochus XIII, who was
reinstated by Lucullus, abolished minting at Apamea in this year to counter Tigranes’
granting of the right to mint.12 Rigsby attributes the gap in coinage after Tigranes’
deposition to the sporadic nature of minting in the city and not to grants or
abolitions.13 In any event, it is not a matter of simple happenstance that the cessation
of Group 1a coincides with the period when the Armenian king was ousted by
Lucullus.14 Therefore, Seyrig’s proposition seems more plausible, but due to the lack
of epigraphic evidence it can neither be confirmed nor refuted.
Apamea resumed minting in the time of Pompey’s influence in the region,
but only after a gap of several years. This delay may be explained by the fact that the
Roman general razed the citadel of Apamea, which would have interrupted the city’s
minting for a period of time, with output resuming in the seventh year of the Roman
presence. These issues were dated by a Pompeian era, similar to Antioch. Seyrig
relates this gap with Pompey’s hostility towards the city,15 but Butcher states that “a
break in production of coinage is not a very good indicator of the humiliation of a
city”.16 This statement is true regarding the association between coinage and politics
in the region in general, but in this particular case it seems that Pompey’s treatment of
the city did indeed have negative consequences on the minting operations there.
10
CRS, 25.
11
It should be noted here that the issues of Laodicea bear the title ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ, whereas those of
Apamea do not, even though both cities start minting under Tigranes.
12
Seyrig 1950, 18.
13
Rigsby 1996, 503-504.
14
Details and dates of the confrontation between Tigranes and Lucullus are documented in Plutarch
Lucullus 19.1, 21.7, 26.1 and 29.1-3.
15
Seyrig 1950, 18-19.
16
CRS, 26.
121
In 44/43 BC there was a complete change in the types issued in Apamea. The
initiation of a new coinage seems to be indirectly linked to Caesar’s arrival in the
area. Although other prominent mints in Syria reflect the Roman’s presence in the
region,17 it seems that Apamea and its currency was not influenced by him, keeping in
mind that from 46 to 44 BC Bassus, a follower of Pompey, defended the city against
the Caesareans.18 This observation is coupled with the fact that the new issues did not
use the Caesarean era, but rather continue the Pompeian.
Regarding the use of a Caesarean era, Rigsby19 and El-Zein20 propose the use
of this era at Apamea, namely for the coins engraved with years 7 and 8, which they
equate with years 43/42 and 42/41 BC (based on the reckoning of a Caesarean era).
However, the two types –Zeus/elephant (Cat. no. 1) and Demeter/corn– bearing the
dates 7 and 8, if indeed they were dated by a Caesarean era, would not fit in with the
typological sequence at Apamea for the following reason: the two types bearing the
dates 7 and 8 belong to the four types minted in Group 1 (Zeus/elephant, Tyche/Nike,
Demeter/corn ear and Dionysus/grapes, which ceased to be minted in 59/58 BC) and
are not part of the four types minted in Group 2 (Dionysus/thyrsus, Athena/Nike,
Demeter/three corn ears and Tyche/Athena standing, which commenced in the year
44/43 BC), thus creating a conflict in the proposal by the two authors above (see
Table 1).
Although the Pompeian era continued to be in use for the new issues of
Group 2 initially, in 41/40 BC the dating system reverted to the Seleucid era –a trend
which is also seen in Antioch– due to the Parthian invasion under the leadership of
17
For example Antioch and Laodicea, apart from introducing the Caesarean era on their coinage, made
changes to the denominations (CRS, 27).
18
Strabo 16.2.10.
19
Rigsby 1996, 502-504.
20
El-Zein 1972, 138-197.
122
Pacorus I of Parthia and Q. Labienus. The above-mentioned changes of the coinage at
Apamea brought about by the Parthian invasion seem to have been short-lived (as it is
attested by issues of a single year only) due to Antony’s arrival. The Roman seems to
have been congenial towards Apamea, and granted the city autonomy as supported by
the legends on the coins starting in 40/39 BC and continuing through 31/30 BC.21
Antony’s presence in the region brought some changes to the coinage of
Antioch, which reduced the modules of the bronzes.22 In the case of Apamea the
coinage remained unchanged with the exception of an ‘Antonian era’ initiated there,
as displayed by the Athena/Nike (Cat. no. 6) type bearing the dates Β and Γ (40/39
and 39/38 BC). It is worth pointing out that this era begins to be represented on the
coins from the second year and not the first, since the issues of the above type minted
in year 41/40 BC are dated by the Seleucid era. If year 2 corresponds to 40/39 BC,
this would naturally imply that year 1 would be 41/40 BC, the year that Decidius Saxa
held the city against Labienus. It seems that the Apamenes considered their liberation
to have taken place in 41/40 BC, since in that year they abandoned the use of the
Pompeian era in favour of a Seleucid one, even though the coins of that year continue
to use the title of ‘Inviolate’. This may imply that it was not until the second year that
the city was granted autonomy by Antony for its allegiance in the battle to repel the
Parthian forces. This may particularly be true if ‘year 1’ was short, i.e., if it was
initiated towards the end of the calendar year in use, and therefore it was not until the
second year that the new era and title were adopted on the coins.
21
The Athena/Nike type continued the use of the title down to 30/29 BC.
22
CRS, 27. Further north Rhosus starts minting using an ‘Antonian era’ and the title of autonomy (CRS,
426).
123
A coin listed in an auction by Malter23 attributed to Apamea, depicting on the
obverse the bust of Mark Antony wearing an Egyptian crown and on the reverse the
caps of the Dioscuri placed in a wreath, is a misattribution.24
The next notable change that took place in the coinage of Apamea is related
to the turn of events brought about by Actium and Octavian’s visit to Syria in 31/30
BC. No major changes were made to the coinage in northern Syria,25 with the issues
at Apamea also generally continuing from the pre-Actian period. However, some
changes are noted: a) the title of autonomy at Apamea was stripped and the coinage
reverted to using the traditional legend, referring to the city as being ‘Inviolate’
starting in 30/29 BC. b) A new heavier type –Dionysus/thyrsus (Cat. no. 5)– was
introduced, becoming the largest denomination. These issues continued quite
uniformly until 18/17 BC.
Mionnet proposes the use of the Actian era at Apamea, referring to the types
Zeus/elephant (Cat. no. 1) and Athena/Nike (Cat. no. 6) bearing the dates H = 8 and
∆Κ = 24 respectively.26 This proposal of course is incorrect for the following reason:
regarding the Zeus/elephant type, if indeed it was dated by an Actian era, it would
imply that these coins were minted in 24/23 BC. This would create an anomaly in the
typological sequence of these coins (see Table 1), since the Zeus/elephant type
belongs to Group 1 and was minted from 77/76 to 59/58 BC. In 24/23 BC coins of
Group 2 were well in place, represented by entirely new types, of which the
Zeus/elephant issue was not part of. The same argument holds true for the
Athena/Nike type. An Actian era would place it in 8/7 BC, i.e., in Group 3, whereas it
23
Auction II, February 23-24, 1978, lot no. 298, 3.86 gr, 19 mm.
24
RPC I, 632; CRS 27, footnote no. 22; Baldus 1987, 132.
25
CRS, 28.
26
Mionnet 1811, vol. 5, 224-225, nos. 577-581. Eckhel (1828, vol. 3, 308) also uses this era for
Apamea.
124
is clear that this type was minted from 43/42 to 18/17 BC and therefore belongs to
Group 2.27
After this date a gap of a few years followed, when from 13/12 BC(?) a new
series was sporadically minted until AD 5/4. The cessation of minting in 18/17 BC
and the initiation of a new series a few years later has parallels in Antioch, where
traditional types were abandoned in 19/18 or 17/16 BC and new denominations were
introduced.28
In 4/3 BC coins with Augustus’ portrait were initiated. Thus, Apamea
adopted the concept of applying the Emperor’s portrait relatively early, similar to
Antioch, Laodicea ad Mare and Aradus.29 For the issues under Claudius a different
system of dating was used, which most probably was initiated when Apamea was
given the title ‘Claudia Apamea’. Based on recent archaeological work at Apamea, it
has been proposed that the city was damaged in an earthquake during the reign of
Claudius.30 Consequently, reconstruction work was undertaken, perhaps with the
benefaction of the Emperor, as a result of which Apamea might have received its new
title. This, however, does not pin down the initiation date of this re-foundation,
although comparisons may be drawn with similar cases in the region. Balanea had
also attracted Claudius’ attention and was given the title ‘Claudia Leucas’ between
AD 47/48 and 53/54.31 Ake-Ptolemais also received recognition by Claudius and
coins were issued in AD 50/51 depicting for the first time an imperial portrait and
27
Mionnet in his supplement to Description de médailles (1837, vol. 8, p. 152, no. 142) also uses an
Actian era to classify the Tyche/Nike type with the date ςI = 16, but this too is incorrect.
28
CRS, 28.
29
Antioch in 5 BC (CRS, 58); Laodicea post 5 BC (RPC I, 634-635); Aradus 8/7 BC (RPC I, 641).
30
Viviers and Vokaer 2007, 143-145.
31
Seyrig 1950, 24. RPC I, p. 640, proposes a date between AD 48 and 51.
125
legends referring to its re-foundation.32 A similar case is also noted in Tiberias, where
coins where minted in Claudius’ year 13 = AD 53/54.33 The above cases may indicate
that the issues of Apamea under Claudius probably were minted during the later
period of the Emperor’s reign, possibly in AD 52/53 and 53/54.
B. Larissa (Cat. nos. 20-21)
The issues of Larissa are limited to two types only: Zeus/throne and
Tyche/horse.34 The two types were minted in the same year, dated by the Seleucid era
ZKΣ = 227 = 86/85 BC,35 and have an identical monogram 1 and the letter M in the
reverse field. The inscriptions on both types read ΛΑΡΙΣΑΙΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ, by
which Larissa, unlike Apamea, is not represented as ‘Inviolate’. The horse type is
certainly representative of the fact that the city was famous for horse breeding and
played a role in providing the cavalry for the Seleucid army (see Introduction
chapter). Although early numismatists such as Mionnet, Eckhel and Head had
correctly classified the horse type to Larissa in Syria,36 this attribution seems to have
been overlooked by numismatists in more recent times.37
W. M. Leake’s Supplement to Numismata Hellenica lists a coin of Larissa on
the Orontes with the bust of Tyche on the obverse and a horse’s head on the reverse,38
32
RPC I, 659. Note that the coins are dated by the Claudian year 11 and not by the initiation date of the
re-foundation. Soon after AD 50/51 Ake became a colony (see RPC I p. 659 for this chronology).
33
RPC I, 671.
34
See BMC Syria, p. 264, no. 1, for the Zeus/throne type; the Tyche/horse type is not listed.
35
Hoover (2009, 307) reads the date on the coins of Larissa as KΣ and therefore misattributes them to
the year 93/92 BC.
36
Mionnet 1811, vol. 5, 264, no. 817; Eckhel 1828, vol. 3, 322; Head 1887, 660.
37
BMC Syria; Hoover 2009.
38
Leake 1859, 65.
126
but the coin is in fact an electrotype of Aegeae in Cilicia.39 Head attributes a third
type to this city, Apollo/Artemis, but this is a misattribution.40
C. Epiphanea
To this mint, both Mionnet and Eckhel ascribe coins of the second century
BC, followed by imperial issues from Tiberius to Gordian.41 Head similarly attributes
coins to the second century BC, but extends the imperial issues to the reign of
Gallienus.42 BMC Syria attributes two types to the second century BC –Tyche/seated
Zeus and Athena/standing Apollo– with inscriptions reading
ΕΠΙΦΑΝΕΩΝ ΤΗC ΙΕΡΑC ΚΑΙ ΑCΥΛΟΥ.43 However, Seyrig considers these to be
issues of Epiphanea in Cilicia based on similarities of these issues with those of
Cilician, and not Syrian, mints.44 It is also worth noting that the above inscriptions use
the lunate sigma, a feature which is unusual of contemporaneous coins of Syria.
Accordingly, the above attributions are incorrect and therefore no coins have been
minted in Epiphanea of Syria.45 This proposal is further backed by the fact that
Epiphanea also did not mint under the Seleucids; neither silver nor bronzes have been
attributed by Newell46 and Houghton.47
39
Personal communication with Adrian Popescu (Senior Assistant Keeper, Department of Coins and
Medals, Fitzwilliam Museum).
40
Although the coin in question is not depicted by Head (1887, 660), it is most likely an issue of
Larissa in Thessaly (see SNG Cop. vol. 3, nos. 148-149).
41
Mionnet 1811, vol. 5, 231-233, nos. 615-623 ; Eckhel 1828, vol. 3, 312-313.
42
Head 1887, 659.
43
BMC Syria, nos. 1-2. See also the discussion on p. lxv-lxvi.
44
Seyrig 1950, 25-26. Note that Epiphanea in Cilicia also uses the title of ‘Inviolate’ on the reverse
(Rigsby 1996, 474), an aspect which may have given rise to this misattribution and confusion.
45
Lindgren I, no. 2050 (Tyche /seated Zeus), is misattributed to Epiphanea in Syria. See also Lindgren
III, no. 1183, for a coin of Domitian(?) depicting a seated Tyche on the reverse also misattributed to
Epiphanea.
46
WSM.
47
CSE I; CSE II; SC I; SC II.
127
D. Raphanea (Cat. nos. 22-24)
Although coins of Caracalla have been attributed to this mint,48 they are in
fact issues of Elagabalus (see Die Studies chapter).49 Thus, it is with the reign of
Elagabalus that Raphanea first started minting coins. Two denominations have been
noted. The larger denomination is known by three types: Elagabalus/seated genius,
Elagabalus/standing genius and Severus Alexander/standing genius.50 The smaller
denomination, thus far known by a single specimen, depicts a humped bull on the
reverse and the portrait of Elagabalus on the obverse (Cat. no. 25).51 Most of the coins
are undated, but a few specimens of the Elagabalus/standing genius type bear the
Seleucid date ΒΛΦ = 532 = AD 220/221 in the exergue of the reverse. Another
possible date reading AΛΦ = 531 = AD 219/220 is partially visible on two coins, but
this reading remains unconfirmed.52
The issues depicting the portrait of Severus Alexander were certainly issued
when he was Caesar under Elagabalus and should not be considered coins minted
during his reign. This classification is based on the absence of a wreath on
Alexander’s head and the fact that the legend reads M AVP AΛΕΞΑΝ∆POC (thus
lacking the imperial title); the die studies have also confirmed this classification.53
Despite this, most catalogues list this type as imperial issues of Severus Alexander
and not Elagabalus. This is probably because of Mionnet’s initial classification,54 an
48
BMC Syria, p. 267, nos. 1-2; SNG Schweiz II, nos. 2129-2130; Gschwind et al. 2009, 281; Augé
2000, 165.
49
See Johnston 1982 for a good guide for differentiating between issues of Caracalla and Elagabalus.
50
BMC Syria, p. 267, nos. 1 (listed as Caracalla), 3 and 4 respectively.
51
Butcher 2011, 78.
52
Both in a private collection and of the Elagabalus/standing genius type.
53
For further details refer to the relevant section in the Die Studies chapter.
54
Mionnet 1811, vol. 5, 268, no. 833.
128
error which seems to have been perpetuated in subsequent scholars’ listings, for
example Eckhel, Head and BMC.55 A reverse die used in conjunction with an obverse
depicting the bust of Severus Alexander bears a date in the exergue. Unfortunately,
the date is either illegible or off the flan on the two known specimens struck from this
reverse die (BNF-1304 and AUB-242).56 Augé, referring to this specimen in the BNF,
gives a possible reading of ΕΛΦ, ςΛΦ or ΖΛΦ, corresponding to AD 223/4, 224/5
and 225/6 respectively, clearly placing the coins during the period when Severus
Alexander was emperor.57 However, these readings are incorrect due to the reasons
explained above. Recently, a coin with the portrait of Severus Alexander was
published having the date ΛΓΦ = 533 = AD 221/222 in the exergue of the reverse.58
We know that Severus Alexander was Caesar under Elagabalus starting in
June 221 until his accession in March 222.59 Knowing that the Seleucid new year
commences in autumn,60 the above time span corresponds to the end of the Seleucid
year BΓΦ (AD 220/221) and the first half of ΛΓΦ (AD 221/222). Therefore, it is
certain that the coins bearing the portrait of Alexander were minted during this time
period. The coins of Elagabalus, with clearly legible dates, were minted in AD
220/221. This implies that the issues of Elagabalus were minted concurrently with
those depicting Severus Alexander. This hypothesis was also verified by the die
studies (see below). Thus, it seems that minting in Raphanea was short lived and was
perhaps linked to the military presence, which certainly would have had an effect on
55
Eckhel 1828, vol. 3, 323; Head 1887, 661; BMC Syria, p. 267, no. 4.
56
See Die Studies chapter under die R18.
57
Augé 2000, 167; Gschwind (2009, 281) also attributes coins to Severus Alexander during his reign as
emperor.
58
Ronde 2007 (referring to a coin in his private collection).
59
Kienast 1996, 177. RIC (Vol. IV, p. 69) provides the date of July 10th (AD 221) for Alexander’s
adoption.
60
Samuel 1972, 245-246; Bickerman 1980, 71-72.
129
the local economy. Although Raphanea was a military garrison early on, the fact that
the city started minting coins in the reign of Elagabalus may indicate that it was
elevated to the status of polis and was no longer seen as a mere military base.
The only other mint in the immediate region which was active solely during
the reign of Elagabalus is Botrys.61 Based on the Actian date inscribed on these coins,
it seems that the mint was operational throughout the Emperor’s reign in AD 218/219,
219/220, 220/221 and 221/222, whereby the coins with the latter date depict the bare-
headed bust of Severus Alexander as Caesar and have legends reading M AVP
AΛΕΞΑΝ∆POC. No other city in the region is known to have minted only during the
reign of Elagabalus, with the exception of Antipatris, further south in Palestine.62
E. Arethusa
Mionnet and Eckhel list three issues for this mint and Head two, but these are
misattributions.63 Noris, Marquardt and Seyrig discuss a single type with a crab
reverse which they attribute to Diadumenian.64 However, the coin is an issue of
Mopsus.65 Seyrig interprets the date inscribed on these coins as a Pompeian era and
therefore presumes that Arethusa was liberated by the Roman general, but this is not
the case.66
61
Sawaya 2006. A small issue of civic coins was also produced there in 37/36 BC.
62
BMC Palestine, p. 11 no. 1, Pl. II no. 7.
63
Mionnet 1811, vol. 5, 225-226, nos. 584-586; Eckhel 1828, vol. 3, 309-310; Head 1887, 658.
64
Noris 1696, 338; Marquardt 1892, 4 (under Syria); Seyrig 1950, 20-21.
65
Personal communication with Kevin Butcher, who has seen a specimen of the type.
66
Kropp 2010, 214. See also IGLS vol. V, no. 2085, for the erroneous Pompeian date on the coins of
Diadumenian wrongfully attributed to Arethusa.
130
F. Emesa
Mionnet and Head attribute coins to this mint starting from the reign of
Domitian, but in fact the first issues are those of Antoninus Pius, as Eckhel had
surmised.67
1. Antoninus Pius (Cat. nos. 26-28)
Emesa first started minting coins during the reign of Antoninus Pius, similar
to Caesarea ad Libanum (Arca)68 in the south and Zeugma69 further north. Three types
–perched eagle (right or left), bust of a sun god and a seated Tyche (left, right or
front)– are attested to this emperor, with the first being the most common type.70 It
would be simple to assume that the three types represent three separate
denominations; however, all the types, along with their variants, were minted using
almost identical modules (see Metrology and Denominations chapter).
Despite this uniformity in the modules, a structure for this series can be
attempted based on the numeral letters on the reverse of these coins: A; B; Γ; ∆; E; ς;
Z. First, an explanation will be provided on the meaning of these numeral letters
which, starting with the reign of Domitian, were a common feature on second century
coins of Syria until the reign of Caracalla.71 MacDonald suggested that these numeral
letters signify months since, based on his collected data, he noticed that the numbers
on the majority (but not all) of the coins do not go beyond 13, thus signifying the 12
67
Mionnet 1811, vol. 5, p. 227; Head 1887, 659; Eckhel 1828, vol. 3, 311.
68
BMC Phoenicia, lxxi.
69
CRS, 460.
70
BMC Syria, p. 237-238, nos. 1-8 (where the seated Tyche type is not listed). See also the RPC IV
Online database for bronzes of Antoninus Pius minted in Emesa (http://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk).
71
CRS, 14, 35, 236.
131
months of the year, with the thirteenth being an intercalary month.72 In recent years,
detailed tabulation of coins from Syria has clearly shown that the numerals cannot
signify months, since in certain cases they reach as high as 15.73 It could be assumed
that the numerals signify years (whether regnal years or an annual enumeration), but
this too is not the case, since on some issues the numbering extends beyond the span
of a particular reign. For example, the issues of Nerva (AD 96-98) at Antioch74 have
numeral letters extending from 1 to 10, in addition to 20.75 Due to these high numbers,
and the gaps in the sequences, Butcher excludes the possibility that the numbers may
alternatively represent officinae. He prefers to consider them as having a
‘chronological significance’ of a non-calendrical numbering system, perhaps
connected to magistracies.76 He reaches this conclusion since all the sequences start
with one and because the gaps indicate that a strict sequential numbering was not
followed for the issues. McAlee, by studying the progression of die cracks on bronze
coins of Antoninus Pius minted in Antioch, has shown that the numeral letters do not
follow a strict chronological sequence and therefore concludes that these numbers
denote different officinae of a mint sharing dies between them.77
The drachms of Tigranes the Great (95 - 55 BC), although produced some
two centuries before the Emesene issues, may provide a better understanding of these
numeral letters. The reverse of these silver issues depicts a seated Tyche holding a
palm branch with a river god swimming at her feet (Figure 5).78 Above the palm the
72
MacDonald 1903.
73
CRS, 236. For an example see the issue of Marcus Aurelius in Antioch (CRS p. 376, Group 4).
74
CRS, 355.
75
Certain ‘jumps’ in sequences, example from 10 to 20, should not be considered as gaps, but rather a
continuation where an alpha-numeric system was being employed as thus:
Α, Β, Γ, ∆, Ε, ς, Ζ, Η, Θ, Ι, Κ, Λ, and so on.
76
CRS, 237.
77
McAlee 2007, 8-12.
78
Bedoukian 1978, 55-61.
132
Greek numbers ∆Λ = 34, ΕΛ = 35, ςΛ = 36, ZΛ = 37, HΛ = 38 and ΘΛ = 39 are
inscribed, and below the palm: A, B, Γ, ∆, Ε, ς, Z, Η, Θ, I, K, and Λ. The two digit
numeral letters represent the regnal years of the Armenian king corresponding to the
years 62 - 57 BC.79 A die study of these drachms has provided the following
combinations for these field marks:80
∆Λ: A81 (3 specimens, 1 obverse die, 3 reverse dies)
ΕΛ: A, B, ∆, Ε, ς, Z, Η, Θ, I, Λ (64 specimens, 16 obverse dies, 44 reverse dies)
ςΛ: B, Γ, ∆, Ε, ς, Z, Η, Θ, I, K, Λ (57 specimens, 17 obverse dies, 38 reverse dies)
ZΛ: A (17 specimens, 3 obverse dies, 5 reverse dies)
HΛ: A, ∆ (3 specimens, 3 obverse dies, 3 reverse dies)
ΘΛ: none82 (1 specimen, 1 obverse die, 1 reverse die)
The above single digit numeral letters represent a system of enumeration
using an alpha-numeric system, hence the reason I is followed by K, which in turn is
followed by Λ. Since for all the dates the sequence begins with A,83 it seems very
likely that these single digit enumerations had a
fiscal significance, by which every year the
sequence recommenced at A and did not continue
from where the previous year’s sequence had Figure 5: Silver drachm of Tigranes
the Great (4.06 gr, 20 mm, CNG-
ended. These field marks also should not be 58.746).
considered as separate workshops, since the die links have shown that some obverse
dies were shared between the different groups; for example, an obverse die (a9) for
79
Foss 1986, 25.
80
Nercessian 2006, 87-102.
81
Erroneously listed as Λ.
82
Although all the drachms are inscribed with a regnal year, some do not bear any field mark below the
palm.
83
With the exception for ςΛ, but this may be because a specimen inscribed with A has not yet come to
light.
133
the group ΕΛ was shared between Ε, ς, Z and Η. Similarly, an obverse die (a24) for
ςΛ was shared between Ε and ς. This implies a chronological continuation for these
numeral letters and it seems very likely that they relate to production batches (as has
been demonstrated in the Die Studies chapter).
With regards to the coins of Emesa from the reign of Antoninus Pius, the
perched eagle type utilises all seven numeral letters listed above, the sun god type
only the first three (A, B and Γ) and the seated Tyche type only two (∆ and E). Thus,
it seems that the sun god type and that of the seated Tyche were not minted
concurrently, but rather sequentially, with the latter being less common than the
former. It should be noted here that the issues with the numerals ς and Z for the
perched eagle type are known by a very few specimens only (see the Die Studies
chapter for a thorough discussion on the structure of these coins based on the results
of the die studies).
2. Septimius Severus (misattributed denarii)
Certain denarii of Septimius Severus have been tentatively ascribed to a
number of eastern mints, including Emesa.84 These attributions were mostly based on
the style of the coins and their chronology as attested by the titles in the legends. This
classification was later re-evaluated by Bickford-Smith, without introducing any
significant changes to the proposed arguments in RIC and BMCRE, although he too
was skeptical of an attribution to Emesa and preferred a mint in the north-western
regions of Asia Minor.85 Butcher, in a more recent detailed study of these denarii,86
84
RIC IV, 64, 81-82, 137-150, 175-177; BMCRE V, cxvii-cxxi, 87-105. See also Mattingly 1932 whose
view remained influential although lacking evidence. The remaining mints are that of Laodicea ad
Mare and Alexandria.
85
Bickford-Smith, 1994-1995.
134
has convincingly argued against this attribution by studying the legends and the
stylistic similarities of these coins with those from the mint of Antioch produced
under Pescennius Niger. The main reason certain denarii were attributed to Emesa and
not Antioch was due to the fact that the coins in question were thought to be dated to
Septimius Severus’ first consulship in AD 193, when the Emperor did not have a hold
on Antioch (due to Pescennius Niger’s presence there), until his second consulship in
AD 194. However, by showing that the denarii presumably minted during Septimius
Severus’ first consulship were in fact issues of his second consulship (based on
epigraphic anomalies), Butcher has reattributed these denarii to the mint of Antioch.
His reattribution is also based on the stylistic similarities of these denarii with those of
Pescennius from Antioch.87
A metallurgical analysis was conducted on the denarii of Septimius Severus
from these ‘eastern mints’ and Rome.88 Although the results show that the denarii
attributed to Emesa should be considered separate from those of Laodicea and Rome,
the issues of Pescennius Niger from Antioch were not included in the study and
therefore it cannot be confirmed if the ‘Emesene’ issues are similar in chemical
composition to those of Antioch. Although a metallurgical analysis of the ‘Emesene’
and Antiochene denarii is needed to confirm Butcher’s proposition, his attribution
remains convincing and thus it may be stated that Emesa did not mint in the reign of
Septimius Severus.
86
CRS, 98-108.
87
Butcher also does not see any reason why Antioch could not have subsequently minted imperial
denarii of Septimius Severus even though it was ‘punished’ by the emperor for siding with
Pescennius Niger.
88
Gitler and Ponting 2007.
135
3. Caracalla (Cat. nos. 29-36)
After the issues of Antoninus Pius, a gap of at least five decades follows,
until minting was resumed at the very end of Caracalla’s reign. It is uncertain why the
successors of Antoninus Pius had no issues at Emesa, but it is known that during the
Severan period there was a proliferation of minting in the region, and perhaps this was
the reason Emesa resumed its output after the long gap. However, the direct reason for
Emesa restarting the minting of bronze coins is most probably the consequence of the
minting of tetradrachms there initiated in AD 215, in the Emperor’s fourth consulship,
which continued until his assassination in AD 217.89 It should be noted that because
Septimius Severus did not mint tetradrachms in Emesa, this could also explain why
there are no bronze coins of this emperor from this mint.
Under Caracalla, the production of tetradrachms was part of a region-wide
initiative; a total of 28 cities took part in this scheme,90 including Emesa. The
consensus regarding the reason for the production of tetradrachms in numerous mints
of the Syro-Phoenician territories is the preparation for the Emperor’s Parthian
campaign and the subsequent military pay.91 However, it should also be kept in mind
that there was no widespread production of tetradrachms for the eastern campaigns of
Septimius Severus, and therefore Caracalla’s motives may not have been purely
military in nature. As stated above, the production of tetradrachms at Emesa seems to
have been a likely incentive for the re-initiation of a bronze coinage there. This is
backed by the fact that the bronze coins of this emperor were issued towards the end
of his reign (see below), as was also the case for the silver.
89
Caracalla’s fourth consulship began in AD 213 (Kienast 1996, 163). Bellinger (1940, 6) is also aware
of this date, but proposes that minting started later in AD 215 due to the Emperor’s visit to the
region.
90
based on Bellinger’s classification (1940).
91
Bellinger 1940, 6; CRS 112; Prieur and Prieur 2000, xxv.
136
The bronze issues of Caracalla are known by six types: temple façade,
temple view (right or left), Julia Domna/altar, Caracalla/Julia Domna, perched eagle
and seated Tyche (front or left).92 These issues are difficult to classify in a detailed
sequential order, since they are all dated to the final two years of the Emperor’s rule.
The altar, perched eagle and both temple types are attested by two dates: ΖΚΦ = 527
= AD 215/216 and HΚΦ = 528 = AD 216/217. The seated Tyche type is attested by
the date ΖΚΦ only and the Caracalla/Julia Domna type by the date HΚΦ.
Based on the metrological data (see Metrology and Denominations chapter
for statistics) it is apparent that there existed three main modules, with the heaviest
weighing roughly 24 grams (temple façade and perspective view), the medium
module 12 grams (both types depicting the Emperor’s mother) and the lightest 8
grams (eagle and Tyche types). Regarding the largest denomination, as mentioned
above, both dates are attested for the two types, and thus it is apparent that they were
minted concurrently. However, it should be noted that the majority of the temple view
type is dated ΖΚΦ, by which it may be assumed that production of this type was
significantly reduced and perhaps ceased in the second year (represented by a single
specimen only, BNF-Y28045, 990a). The temple façade type is distributed equally
over the two documented dates. The Caracalla/Julia Domna type is tentatively placed
in the second denominational group since it is represented by a few specimens only
(seven coins), whereas the Julia Domna/altar issue was apparently minted in
substantial quantities. Most of these latter coins are dated ΖΚΦ, whereas the former
type is thus far known by the date HΚΦ only. This may imply that the altar type was
the only type for the medium module during the first year and was later supplemented
92
BMC Syria, p. 238-239, nos. 9-16, where the temple, Caracalla/Julia Domna and the eagle types are
not listed.
137
by the Caracalla/Julia Domna type, as production of the principal type was reduced
considerably after the first year (40 coins have been documented with the date ΖΚΦ,
though only 11 for those dated HΚΦ). Regarding the lightest modules, the perched
eagle was documented in greater numbers (27 specimens) than the Tyche type with all
its variants (8 specimens). As stated above, the former type is represented by both
dates of issue, with the latter being represented only by the first year. Thus, the
perched eagle type seems to have been the chief type of this third group.
In most of the cases above it is apparent that the second year (HΚΦ) was less
represented at Emesa for the reign of Caracalla and with fewer types than the first
year of issue (ΖΚΦ). This should not be interpreted as a decrease in production, but
rather due to Caracalla’s reign ending in AD 217, as a result of which minting was
stopped and then continued for Macrinus.
4. Macrinus (Cat. nos. 37-40)
Macrinus continued Caracalla’s system for the production of tetradrachms in
multiple mints of the Syro-Phoenician territories. Emesa also continued minting these
silver coins without introducing any changes in the metrology. Cases have been noted
where reverses of Macrinus have been paired with obverses of Caracalla (see Die
Studies chapter), indicating that minting of tetradrachms under Macrinus continued
immediately after the death of Caracalla without any apparent gap in the minting
activity.
The bronze issues of Macrinus at Emesa are represented by two types only –
temple façade and side view–93 both of which are of the same denomination as
93
Both types not listed in BMC.
138
attested by their modules. These coins are very limited in terms of specimens
surviving to date (a total of only seven specimens being documented during this
study) and are represented by the single date of HΚΦ, which corresponds to AD
216/217. Keeping in mind that the Seleucid new year commences in early autumn94
and knowing that Macrinus’ accession took place in April of 217,95 it seems that the
coins were minted towards the end of the Seleucid year HΚΦ, i.e., during the
spring/summer of AD 217. All this, in addition to the fact that only a single obverse
die was identified (used to strike both types), implies that it had a short-lived and
limited production. No other types or modules have come to light. It seems odd that
only a single denomination was issued; perhaps future finds may add to our
knowledge.
5. Elagabalus (Cat. nos. 41-48)
Although during the reign of Elagabalus a proliferation of types (eight in
total) took place, a regression in the output, modules and style is noticeable. The eight
types minted during the reign of Elagabalus are: temple façade, wreath with
inscriptions, prize-crown, seated Tyche, altar, eagle standing facing, perched eagle
and sun god.96
It is difficult to classify the issues of Elagabalus chronologically, since most
of the coins are undated. Only the temple façade and perched eagle types bear dates.
The latter is dated by the Seleucid era ΦΛ = 530 = AD 218/219, but in the case of the
temple type, the date is not fully legible apart from the ΦΛ, in which the single digit
number on the surviving specimens is either indiscernible or off the flan. This places
94
Samuel 1972, 245-246; Bickerman 1980, 71-72.
95
Kienast 1996, 169.
96
BMC Syria, p. 239-240, nos. 17-21. The wreath, seated Tyche and sun god types are not listed.
139
the issue anywhere in the Emperor’s reign (AD 218-222). The prize-crown, seated
Tyche and standing eagle types all have the numeral letter E in the field of the
reverse. There do not seem to be any other dates or field marks inscribed on the coins
of Elagabalus, with the exception of the altar type which has unidentifiable letters in
the exergue, perhaps representing a date.
Stylistically, the issues of Elagabalus seem to be of lesser quality than those
of his predecessors, in particular the standing eagle type, which occasionally has
blundered legends.
6. Uranius Antoninus (Cat. nos. 49-58)
Uranius Antoninus resumed the minting of tetradrachms in Emesa after a gap
of three decades.97 These base silver tetradrachms, the last of its kind to be minted in
Syria, followed the style of their contemporary counterparts produced in Antioch.
Two series have been noted based on the two consulships of Uranius as attested by
the reverse inscriptions.98 Baldus managed to identify a total of 19 obverse and 26
reverse dies, showing that these tetradrachms had a considerable output.99
A second group of silver coins, known as ‘reformed’ tetradrachms, were also
produced under Uranius.100 These were minted using a variety of reverse types
reminiscent of denarii and aurei (see Types and Legends chapter). Despite the lower
weight standard of these ‘reformed’ tetradrachms,101 their fineness of about 90%
97
Elagabalus did not continue the region-wide production of tetradrachms witnessed under Caracalla
and Macrinus.
98
Baldus 1971, 22; CRS, 122-123.
99
Baldus 1971, 17, 22.
100
Baldus initially included only two specimens known to him at the time of the publication of his
main corpus (1971, nos. 27-28), but later published a total of 41 specimens in a subsequent study
(Baldus, 1975).
101
The average weight of 41 specimens was calculated to be 8.44 gr (Baldus 1975, 448).
140
provides an intrinsic value of around four or five times that of the ‘pre-reform’ issues
discussed above.102 It remains uncertain why these new better-quality silver issues
were introduced. Walker has proposed that they were intended to contest the high
quality Sassanian drachms, but as Butcher has rightfully pointed out, the Sassanian
currency did not circulate in Syria.103 Nonetheless, it is likely that these silver coins
may have been intended to be circulated or sent elsewhere, otherwise Gresham’s law
would have inevitably driven them out of circulation in favour of the base silver
tetradrachms.104 Perhaps these new coins were intended to be paid as tribute to the
Sassanians by Uranius. Malalas reports that the Sassanian emperor accepted Uranius –
Samsigeramus, priest of Aphrodite– as an ambassador and ordered his troops not to
attack (see Introduction chapter for details of the account).105 Perhaps an agreement
was made where Emesa would be spared in return for the payment of tribute in a
medium acceptable to the Sassanians. Indeed, Emesa was not among the list of cities
conquered by Shapur. In any case, the new tetradrachms do not seem to have been put
into circulation; whatever the reasons for their production, the coins were not used for
their intended purpose and were discontinued with the cessation of Uranius’ reign.
The bronze issues of Uranius Antoninus, both in terms of modules and types,
reverted to those of Macrinus. Once again only the temple façade and side view types
were minted, both of which are dated EΞΦ = 565 = AD 253/254. Based on the
number of surviving specimens to date and the number of dies identified, it seems that
more bronzes were issued by Uranius than Macrinus. Baldus has documented two
102
CRS, 123.
103
See CRS p. 122-123 and note 310 for the relevant discussion. Walker 1978 (Part III), 96.
104
This would hold true even though the ‘reformed’ tetradrachms had a higher value than the
‘standard’ tetradrachms, since it would have been preferable to exchange the low quality silver coins
with the better, particularly for hoarding purposes.
105
Malalas Chronicle 12. 296-297.
141
obverse dies from a total of 15 bronzes of Uranius Antoninus.106 In the process of this
study, six more bronzes, not known to Baldus at the time, have been recorded from
online auctions,107 but without adding to the two dies already identified by Baldus. All
seven bronzes of Macrinus documented herewith were struck from a single obverse
die. Although the number of documented bronze coins for both emperors is not
comprehensive, and thus the die studies are incomplete, it may be tentatively implied
that the issues of Uranius Antoninus were more common than those of Macrinus.108
No smaller modules have yet come to light109 (as is the case for Macrinus also), but
this does not necessarily mean that only the largest denomination was produced;
future finds may add to the denominational sequence.110
As we have seen above, Emesa began minting in the reign of Antoninus Pius.
But what was the reason for this? Butcher has noted that these issues were similar in
style and size, and perhaps concurrent with those issued at Chalcis, Beroea and
Cyrrhus.111 He thus implies that they may have been minted as a result of an increase
in the military presence in Syria for a potential campaign against the Parthians, similar
to the reigns of Trajan and Lucius Verus. This proposition is plausible, when
considering Emesa’s proximity to Raphanea, a leading military base in the Orontes
Valley.
106
Baldus, 1971, nos. 30-44.
107
CNG-Triton V.1767; CNG-Triton IX.1561; CNG-76.3140; CNG-85.644; acsearch-NY Sale IX.143;
acsearch-M&M 20.634.
108
Although this may also be due to Uranius’ coins being more desirable and therefore sought after by
collectors.
109
Baldus lists a small bronze denomination (1971, coin no. 45), but questions the coin’s authenticity
which indeed seems to be a nineteenth century forgery.
110
The aurei and denarii are not discussed herein, since they are not considered to be provincial coins.
See Baldus 1971, 1977, 1983 and 1990 for a discussion of these coins.
111
CRS, 39.
142
The reason Emesa restarted minting coins during the very end of Caracalla’s
reign (after a considerable gap of half a century) may be due to the hiatus in the
production of coinage during the reign of Septimius Severus in northern Syria, with
no bronze coins being produced in Antioch at all;112 perhaps a shortage of coinage in
the area prompted Emesa to resume minting. However, the more likely reason seems
to be the fact that Emesa participated in the region-wide production of tetradrachms
under Caracalla, most likely prompting the resumption of bronzes as well. This
hypothesis is further backed by the fact that the bronzes date to the later period of
Caracalla’s reign, as is also the case for the production of the tetradrachms.
A gap in production between the reigns of Antoninus Pius and Caracalla for
Syrian mints is unknown and therefore it is not possible to draw any direct parallels.
A similar case can be found at Caesarea ad Libanum, where a gap in minting between
Antoninus Pius and Elagabalus is noted, and further south Dora and Sepphoris-
Diocaesarea had a cessation in their minting activity between the reigns of Antoninus
Pius and Caracalla, but it is difficult to see any direct parallels between these cities
and Emesa.
Another gap in minting at Emesa was between the reigns of Elagabalus and
Uranius Antoninus. The worship of Elagabal was unpopular in Rome and with the
army, an aspect which consequently played a role in the downfall of Elagabalus and
the accession of Severus Alexander to the throne.113 Perhaps this negative role was the
reason Elagabalus’ successor did not encourage the minting of coins at Emesa.
112
CRS, 23.
113
Herodian 5.7-8.
143
G. Laodicea ad Libanum
Mionnet, Eckhel, de Saulcy and Head attribute coins to this mint starting
from the reign of Antoninus Pius, although minting in fact began with Septimius
Severus.114
1. Septimius Severus (Cat. nos. 59-62)
The production of coins in Laodicea ad Libanum starts in the reign of
Septimius Severus, but the reasons for this remain unknown. Perhaps due to the
proliferation of mints elsewhere during this time period Laodicea ad Libanum also felt
the need to mint. Heliopolis, similar to Laodicea ad Libanum, also began minting in
the reign of this emperor.115 However, in the case of Heliopolis the historical context
for initiating a coinage is evident, since in the reign of this emperor it was detached
from the territory of Berytus and granted the rank of colonia.116 Perhaps it may have
been the result of rivalry and jealousy, or reasons of prestige, that Laodicea ad
Libanum started minting as a reaction to Heliopolis’ elevation in status in the region.
Similarities in style between the issues of both mints have been noted, but the
denominational system is entirely dissimilar (see Metrology and Denominations
chapter).
Four types are known under this emperor: Septimius Severus/Mên,
Caracalla/seated Tyche, Julia Domna/Tyche bust and Geta/Tyche bust.117 Although
minting in Laodicea ad Libanum started in the time of Septimius Severus (AD 193-
114
Mionnet 1811, vol. 5, 306-307, nos. 144-150 (the type listed under Antoninus Pius is in fact a coin
of Caesarea ad Libanum); Eckhel 1828, vol. 3, 336-337; de Saulcy 1874, 3-5; Head 1887, 663.
115
Sawaya 2009, 230.
116
Millar 1993, 124, 218.
117
Lindgren III lists a coin (no. 1289) with a seated Tyche reverse under Geta, but the portrait is that of
Caracalla and has an obverse die link (O9) with ten other coins of Caracalla (see Die Studies
chapter).
144
211), it is uncertain precisely when during the reign. The type depicting the young
Caracalla has inscriptions referring to him as Emperor (AVTKMANTWΝΙΝΟC) and
not Caesar; thus, they were minted after AD 198. Similarly, since Geta is presented as
Caesar (ΓΕΤΑ ΚΑΙCΑΡΙ), this too is after AD 198, though before AD 209 when Geta
becomes Augustus. With the above in mind, it may be proposed that minting under
Septimius Severus took place sometime during the period of AD 198 - 209.
In the reign of Caracalla the number of types decreased to two:
Caracalla/Mên and Julia Domna/bust of Tyche. As these two types are not dated, it is
difficult to establish their chronology, and the die studies unfortunately do not aid in
this question. Based on the number of surviving specimens and the number of dies
produced, the larger denomination represented by the Mên type seems to have been
produced in greater numbers (2 obverses, 11 reverses) than the smaller, which is
known by a single pair of dies only.
3. Macrinus (Cat. no. 65)
Issues of Macrinus at Laodicea ad Libanum are represented solely by the
Mên type, and as with the issue of Septimius Severus, it is quite scarce. The only
noticeable difference is that the average weight was increased to approximately 18
grams, compared to 9 grams under Caracalla. These issues too are undated as was the
case for the previous emperors.
145
4. Elagabalus (Cat. no. 66)
The case for Elagabalus is very similar to that of his predecessor with only
the Mên type represented. The issues of this emperor are also undated and rare. A
coin of Laodicea ad Libanum depicting Mên on the reverse listed in Lindgren I (no.
2177) is attributed to Trebonianus Gallus or Volusian by the authors, but the coin is
an issue of Elagabalus and is struck from the same obverse die (O19) as all the other
coins of Elagabalus (see Die Studies chapter).
It is difficult to ascertain the reason Laodicea ad Libanum began minting in
the reign of Septimius Severus, but perhaps the hiatus in production of coinage
starting in the reign of Commodus and continuing during the reign of Septimius
Severus in northern Syria118 may have prompted Laodicea ad Libanum to mint coins
to accommodate for a possible shortage. Alternately, as discussed above, the initiation
of a coinage in this city may have been a reaction to the debut of coinage in
Heliopolis. But perhaps it is more simply the case that this city too participated in the
proliferation of minting in the region during the Severan period.119
118
CRS, 23.
119
The reason for this proliferation remains uncertain, but perhaps the hiatus in the early Severan
period prompted an eventual increase in production to compensate for a possible shortage in currency
in the region.
146
CHAPTER IV
CIRCULATION
There has been a good amount of literature on how to interpret hoards,1 but
when it comes to site finds it is only recently that interest has emerged, and with it the
pitfalls it presents.2 In fact, it is courtesy of these pitfalls that the interest, and
surrounding debates, has grown even further, resulting in the acknowledgement of the
significance of documenting coin finds. One would assume that by tabulating and
mapping out the coins found from a site it would be easy to understand coin
circulation in a region, but this is not necessarily so.
The reason it is difficult for numismatists to understand monetary circulation
in the Roman Near East is due to the lack of any uniformity in the issues. Whereas in
Rome there was relative regularity in the currency, the opposite is true for the Roman
East. Although there may have been a generally accepted exchange rate between
Roman coins and those of the eastern provinces,3 this was certainly not true for the
denominations in use. Each city issued a variety of denominations which were not
compatible with issues of other cities. This lack of conformity has complicated the
understanding of coin circulation in the region and, as stated above, any attempt to
make sense of the picture through coin finds has been met with hurdles (see below).
1
Noe 1920; Milne 1939, 91-110; Laing 1969, 52-68; Crawford 1969; Casey 1986, 51-67; Duncan-
Jones 1998, 67-94.
2
For what follows, the term ‘site finds’ refers to coins, whether single or aggregate, retrieved from
excavations and surveys. The term ‘stray finds’, often used in the literature, is avoided here since it
denotes cases involving casual finds or when a coin is found out of context (for example, a medieval
coin from a Roman site).
3
Melville Jones 1971; Walker 1982-1983; Buttrey 1991; Howgego 2005, 54-60 (hereafter GIC);
Johnston 2007, 17.
147
The understanding of coin circulation in a region can be derived from site
finds, hoard evidence, countermarks, overstrikes, and epigraphic evidence. Literary
sources as an aid to the numismatist for the understanding of circulation in the Roman
East are nearly nonexistent. For this reason, site finds and hoards are considered the
chief source of information, followed by countermarks and overstrikes.
A. Site finds and hoards
1. Significance and problems
Site finds are the best source for understanding circulation patterns of
provincial bronzes, whereas hoards, being composed mostly of silver coins, are not as
useful. This is mostly because silver coins had a wide area of circulation and were
used as currency for a long period of time. However, the chief reason hoard evidence
cannot be used extensively for the current study is because there is no data from
hoards of the Orontes Valley.4
a. Interpretation of the data
The data obtained from site finds is more informative, but the interpretation
of it is risky.5 The main complexity lies in determining whether or not a coin was
legal tender in the place it was found. Does a single coin find of a certain city in the
territory of another imply that it was accepted there, or does it mean that the coin was
not acceptable and therefore discarded? If a coin can be shown to have been lost, this
would indicate that it was in circulation (and thus legal tender), whereas if it were
4
With the exception of Hama discussed below.
5
Reece 1982, 495-497.
148
deliberately discarded, this would indicate that it was obsolete (and therefore not legal
tender).6 Unfortunately, there is no obvious way of proving whether a single coin was
in circulation or not.7 But an alternative to this approach is available: if a significant
amount of a certain issue were to be found, it would be safe to assume that it had been
in circulation.8 If only a single coin were to be found, it would be safe to assume
nothing.
The notion that coins may have been systematically discarded because they
were not legal tender may not necessarily be true in all cases. The view that “it may
not have been worth the effort of recycling handfuls of small change”9 may not have
been true in all cases. To cite an example: it is true that the discard of ½ penny coins
was commonplace in the United Kingdom after they were withdrawn from circulation
in the 1980s. However, the 1 Livre nickel coins issued in Lebanon between 1975 and
1986, although currently no longer legal tender and are worthless as far as their face
value, are still sold as scrap metal by weight, even though several handfuls of these
coins merely fetch the price of a single modest meal. It would be difficult to discard a
piece of currency even if it no longer has buying value; money is not something
readily abandoned, in whatever form it may be. It is not uncommon to find coins put
aside in a drawer as keepsakes, even after they have been decommissioned.10 This is
also true for paper money, although it has no intrinsic value. This is not to say that
coins were never discarded; it merely means that it would be difficult to part with
6
As Butcher points out, “to describe the coins as ‘lost’ implies accident; ‘discarded’ implies a
deliberate act. ‘Deposited’ implies neither.” (Butcher 2001-2002, 31). In this study deposition should
be understood as a non-deliberate act.
7
Butcher 2001-2002, 36.
8
Milne (1939, 99) proposes that when the number of coins of the same issue or mint reaches double
figures it would be safe to assume that they were currency in the locality they were found.
9
Butcher 2001-2002, 24.
10
Coins put away in a drawer may be considered as a form of discard, but it also implies retention.
149
money, whether or not it still has value. Therefore, when a coin is found, it is
probably the case that it was not deliberately discarded.11
The above hypothesis implies that most coin finds from sites are due to loss.
Small change is more likely to be treated casually and carelessly; thus, the likelihood
of it being lost is more probable. More valuable coins, on the other hand, whether of
precious metal or higher base metal denominations, would have been treated with
more care to avoid loss, and in case of lost, more effort would have been exerted in
finding them.12 Similarly, with bronze coins having a lesser value than silver or gold,
it would have been more common to carry them around for convenience, and thus
they would have been more susceptible to loss.13
In the case of discarded coins, one should not be too hasty in concluding that
the coins were not in circulation. It may be the case that an issue was demonetised and
therefore discarded, but nevertheless it would still provide information about
circulation just before it was decommissioned. When it comes to coins classified as
forgeries or ‘foreign coins’, it has been proposed that they should be removed from
statistical analysis of site finds.14 But forgeries too can provide information on
patterns of circulation. It would have been worthwhile to make forgeries of a
particular issue and inject them into the market only if it was acceptable as a coin
already in circulation. Forgeries are also useful for evaluating economic crises in a
certain time and place. A shortage in the supply of money may have prompted the
introduction of forgeries to supplement liquidity in local markets.15 For these reasons,
11
This is not to say that there are absolutely no discarded coins among the finds.
12
Carradice 1983, 133; Casey 1986, 70-72; Blackburn 1989, 17-18.
13
Howgego 1992, 12.
14
Blackburn 1989, 17.
15
Burnett 1987, 97.
150
foreign coins should without a doubt be included in any statistical analysis, since it is
also through them that circulation patterns may be better understood.
It is generally accepted that there would have been some loss involved in the
exchange from one currency to another. This is more true when lesser known and far
away currencies were exchanged than in the case of well known and generally
accepted currencies. This is due to confidence in a currency. For example, the Euro is
better known and accepted in Britain than the Russian Ruble and therefore exchangers
and banks would probably demand a larger commission when it comes to exchanging
the Ruble as compared to the Euro. Similarly, in the case of the US Dollar, because it
is a well known global currency, and despite the fact that it is the currency of a distant
country, exchangers would be more readily willing to accept it at a smaller exchange
rate than the equally distant, but less known, Ruble. This hypothesis may apply to the
present study as well. Antioch and Berytus were relatively equidistant from the
Orontes Valley. However, it is much more common to find Antiochene coins in the
region as opposed to coins of Berytus (see below for the statistics). The reason for this
is because Antiochene coins (in particular the SC issues) enjoyed a wide circulation,
whereas those of Berytus did not. Thus, it is likely that exchangers would have been
more willing to accept Antiochene coins over those of Berytus.
b. Biases in interpretation
Regarding bias in the analyses of the site finds evidence, it should first be
stated what primary factors govern coin loss and retrieval. The number of coins
deposited should be based on a) the volume of coins in circulation and b) the venue
(market, military camp, farm, etc.). In the first case, the finds would be a true
representation of what was available in circulation, because the volume of coins
151
would be influenced by the demand of a particular coinage.16 In the second case,
however, the finds would present a misleading representation of what was in
circulation in general, since a particular venue would display finds influenced by the
needs of certain groups (merchants, soldiers, etc.).17 Secondary factors which may
govern a coin’s loss and its subsequent retrieval are the intrinsic value of a coin and
its size.18 It can be surmised that smaller pieces are more difficult to retrieve than
larger pieces, since the size of a coin can be an aid in finding it if lost in the past or
retrieving it in the present. This creates a bias in favour of bigger denominations, even
if it was not used at a particular place instead of the smaller. On the other hand, the
tendency to lose smaller denominations is greater than that of more valuable coins,
which would have been handled with more care. Thus, finds could be biased in favour
of small change.19 Similarly, site formation processes play a role in where a coin is
recovered, but not where it may have been originally deposited.
The presence or absence of a coin from an excavation may be the result of
chance, depending on which areas of a site are excavated and which are left
unexplored.20 Similarly, the coins that are retrieved are those which have survived
disintegration over the years. Some alloys are more vulnerable to corrosion than
others, thus creating a bias in favour of coins which ‘age’ better than those which do
not. On the same note, the chemical composition of the soil in a particular region may
be less damaging than in other places, which once again can lead to biases in the
survival rate for certain coins.21 Human factors may also play a role on the outcome of
16
Carradice 1983, 133.
17
Casey 1986, 81-83.
18
Casey 1986, 69-74.
19
Carradice 1983, 133.
20
Ryan 1988, 30.
21
Casey 1986, 80, 88; Ryan 1988, 30.
152
the results, based on the methodology used in recording the finds and their subsequent
publication.22
Therefore, whereas it is easy to draw conclusions from studying site finds, it
is even easier to draw false conclusions, especially if limited or biased data is used.23
On this note, numismatists have stated that the number of coins lost is directly
proportional to the number of (the same) coins in use.24 However, this may not
necessarily be the case. It could be that a number of coins of a certain issue were lost,
but due to various circumstances have not been recovered. Thus the proportions could
be only partially true.
c. Lack of systematic documentation
The lack of documented site finds in the form of published material also
hampers the understanding of coin circulation.25 In general, site directors are reluctant
to devote their resources to processing coin finds (cleaning, imaging and
documenting) and subsequently publishing them. This lack of enthusiasm on the part
of directors is to some extent due to numismatists, who themselves seem to be
undecided on how to interpret coin finds. The reason archaeologists are reluctant to
place much importance on coin finds is because they are not a reliable source for
dating archaeological contexts. A coin retrieved from a stratigraphic layer cannot
provide a date for that particular context. All that can be provided is the date of issue
of the coin.26 Archaeologists express frustration when trying to date a context
according to the date of a coin, whereas what should be sought is the date of
22
Howgego 1995, 88-89.
23
Grierson 1965, ii.
24
Casey 1986, 69-70; Blackburn 1989.
25
Although it is fair to say that this trend has been improving in recent years.
26
See the detailed discussion in Butcher 2001-2002, 23-28.
153
deposition of the coin.27 The unreliability of coins for chronological analyses is in fact
a realistic concern, but it should not be a reason to dismiss coin finds as
archaeologically unimportant artefacts. Numismatists have avidly tried to point out to
archaeologists the significance of site finds and the arguments involving
archaeological contexts and coin finds.28 Coins from excavations can provide an
understanding of the economic life of a region, especially when used in correlation
with finds from surrounding regions. Coin finds can also provide the sequence of
settlement periods at a particular site by statistically analysing a particular issue’s
production and circulation.29
Coordination between numismatists and archaeologists is progressing,
understanding that it is only with the accumulation of a substantial amount of data,
aided by comparative material from other regions, that a clearer image can be
composed.
d. Conclusion
This section has attempted to discuss the significance of coin finds and the
pitfalls that should be avoided when interpreting the data. In the case where an issue is
represented by a single coin find it is prudent to deduce nothing, as this may represent
a lost coin or one which was discarded. In cases where the list of coins from a site is a
small one, it would not warrant an interpretation, but it is certainly worth cataloguing
the coins. On this note, representing site finds lists in terms of percentages may also
misrepresent the data. For example, if 25% of a considerable number of coins
27
Blackburn 1989, 15.
28
Casey 1986, 74-79; Ryan 1988, 110-115; Blackburn 1989; Christophersen 1989.
29
Müller 1968. It should be noted that Müller‘s hypothesis requires further experimentation to be
conclusive.
154
collected from a particular site are of a single type, then it is a significant
representation of the presence of these coins. However, if the same 25% is
represented by only 2 or 3 coins, then this small number of specimens is too weak to
base an argument on. Accordingly, attempting to draw any conclusion from a small
number of finds is tempting but dangerously hasty. Even when a significant amount of
coins is available from a site, it is still difficult to compose a definite picture of coin
circulation. Yet this should not dissuade numismatists and archaeologists from
documenting coin finds. With a growing database of site finds from an entire
geographical region, such as the Roman province of Syria, a general understanding
can be composed.
2. The data
a. Finds from the Orontes Valley
Bronzes
• Apamea
Of the 2,452 coins excavated from Apamea between 1966 and 1971, 38 were
Hellenistic, 1,100 Roman, 153 Byzantine and 89 Islamic. The remaining coins,
comprising nearly half of the total retrieved, were unidentifiable. Only the Roman
coins were published,30 of which 48 belong to the period AD 27-253,31 with the
remaining vast majority belonging to the late Roman period. Here it should be noted
30
Callu 1979.
31
Potentially, civic coins of Apamea could have been among the finds, but would not have been
included in the publication by Callu.
155
that the statistics are biased towards the late Roman period, because 84.5% of the
coins collected came from areas and contexts dating to that period.32
The 48 coins retrieved from archaeological contexts are as follows:
Mint Obverse Reverse Reference Date (AD) Callu no.
Antioch Augustus AVGVSTVS in CRS 43 39

wreath
Antioch head of Zeus ram(?) SNG Cop. 95-98 Augustan 42
period
Antioch head of ram SNG Cop. 99 55/56 41
Tyche(?)
Antioch head of laurel branch SNG Cop. 106 68/69 44
Artemis
Antioch Trajan SC in wreath CRS 197ff 46
Antioch Antoninus Pius bust of Marcus CRS 304-313 47
Aurelius, SC in
field
Antioch Elagabalus seated Tyche, BMC Syria 458 or 76
SC in field 460
Antioch Elagabalus SC in wreath CRS 469 77
Antioch busts of Tyche seated in CRS 507 86
Trebonianus temple
Gallus and
Volusian
Antioch uncertain SC 1st - 2nd c. 48-65
Antioch uncertain SC 2nd - 3rd c. 66-74
Antioch uncertain SC 3rd c. 81-85
Antioch uncertain seated Tyche Post 218 78
Antioch uncertain SC 222-249(?) 80
Antioch or Trajan head of Tyche, CRS 13 45
Rome KOINON
CYPIAC
Laodicea Elagabalus ∆Ε in wreath SNG Glasgow 79
321933
Commagene Tiberius caduceus and BMCRE 17434 40
double
cornucopia
Judean palm. Lε Νερωνος in BMC Palestine 58/59 43
procurators Καισαρος wreath 266
32
Callu 1979, 9.
33
Callu, following BMC Syria (nos. 447-450) and SNG Cop. (248-249), attributes this coin of
Elagabalus with a ‘∆Ε in wreath’ reverse to the mint of Antioch. However, Butcher (CRS, 384)
considers these to be issues of Laodicea; his attribution is used here.
34
Butcher tentatively attributes these dupondii to Antioch (CRS, p. 332, nos. 68-69).
156
Megalopolis Septimius Zeus holding BMC 75
Severus sceptre Peloponnesus 17
Table 2: List of coins excavated from Apamea dating to the period AD 27 - 253.
Callu’s publication includes an appendix listing an additional 100 coins
collected from Apamea, but which were not retrieved from the excavations of 1966-
1971. The following is a list of 11 of these coins relative to the period covered in this
study:
Mint Obverse Reverse Reference Date (AD) Callu no.
Antioch Nerva SC in wreath CRS 183-194 1

Antioch Lucius Verus SC(?) SNG Cop. 228 2
Antioch Diadumenian SC in wreath CRS 463b-465b 6
Antioch Elagabalus SC in wreath CRS 469 7
Antioch Elagabalus(?) SC in wreath CRS 469 (?) 8
Antioch Severus seated Tyche CRS 488 11
Alexander flanked by a
standing Tyche
and a figure
crowning her
Antioch uncertain SC Early 3rd c. 3-4
Raphanea Elagabalus standing genius BMC Syria 3 9
Laodicea Caracalla wolf suckling BMC Syria 91 5
twins
Tripolis(?) Elagabalus tetrastyle temple SNG Cop. 10
with figures 292(?)
Table 3: List of coins included in Callu’s appendix relevant to the time period under study.
• Larissa
From the excavations at Shayzar, ancient Larissa, 7 badly corroded coins
have been retrieved. Preliminary observations indicate that they are of the Islamic
period. They are currently deposited in the Hama Museum.35
35
Personal communication with Matthias Grawehr (Universität Basel). In another communication,
Cristina Tonghini (Università Ca' Foscari, Venice) has stated that no coins were found from the areas
she has excavated in Shayzar.
157
• Epiphanea
The coins from Hama have been published by Thomsen.36 The references
provided by the author are rather generic and, unlike the publication by Callu, the
descriptions and the metrological data is not provided, rendering the finds difficult to
classify with certainty. From the pre-Islamic period a total of 545 coins and 11 hoards
were excavated. The bronze coins relative to this study, numbering 139 in total, are as
follows:
Mint Obverse Reverse Reference Date Number

of coins
Antioch head of Zeus Zeus seated SNG Cop. 67ff 1st c. BC 5

Antioch head of Zeus ram SNG Cop. 95ff. Augustan 1
Antioch head of Tyche altar SNG Cop. 102 uncertain 1
Antioch Augustus SC in wreath SNG Cop. 139ff37 2
Antioch Augustus AVGVSTVS in CRS 4338 339
wreath
Antioch Claudius SC in wreath SNG Cop. 150ff 2
Antioch Nero SC in wreath SNG Cop. 158ff 1
Antioch Otho Uncertain40 1
Antioch Vespasian SC in wreath SNG Cop. 171 1
Antioch Domitian SC in wreath SNG Cop. 178, 2
180
Antioch Trajan SC in wreath SNG Cop. 199 1
Antioch Antoninus Pius SC in wreath SNG Cop. 211ff 3
Antioch Macrinus SC in wreath BMC Syria 389 1
Antioch Diadumenian SC in wreath SNG Cop. 235 1
Antioch Elagabalus SC in wreath SNG Cop. 242ff 7
Antioch Elagabalus seated Tyche SNG Cop. 250ff 1
Antioch Severus seated Tyche(?) uncertain41 1
Alexander
Antioch Severus seated Tyche SNG Cop. 256 2
Alexander flanked by a
standing Tyche
36
Thomsen 1986.
37
Erroneously referenced as SNG Cop. 39ff by Thomsen.
38
Thomsen ascribes these to the mint of Pergamon and classifies them as Roman issues. Butcher
prefers an attribution to Antioch (CRS, 322-323).
39
Including a halved coin.
40
The reference provide by Thomsen (SNG Cop. 164f) is a tetradrachm of Otho and not a bronze coin.
41
The reference provide by Thomsen (SNG Cop. 250ff) is for bronzes of Elagabalus.
158
and a figure
crowning her
Antioch Philip I bust of Tyche SNG Cop. 272 1
Antioch Trebonianus seated Tyche in SNG Cop. 292 1
Gallus tetrastyle temple
Antioch 1st - 3rd c. 22
unidentified
AD
42
Hierapolis Caracalla uncertain 1
nd
Apamea bust of Athena Nike SNG Cop. 298- 2 half of 11
299 1st c. BC
Apamea bust of cornucopia SNG Cop. 300 Late 1st c. 2
Dionysus BC
Apamea bust of thyrsus SNG Cop. 301 2nd half of 4
Dionysus 1st c. BC
Apamea bust of Demeter standing SNG Cop. 302 Late 1st c. 2
Dionysus BC
Apamea bust of Zeus elephant BMC Syria 5 and 1st half of 5
14 1st c. BC
Emesa Caracalla Tyche seated BMC Syria 14 1
facing
Emesa Elagabalus prize-crown BMC Syria 21 1
Emesa unidentified 1
Laodicea bust of Tyche Nike SNG Cop. 321, Late 1st c. 3
323 BC - early
1st c. AD
Laodicea Domitian bust of Tyche SNG Cop. 341 1
Laodicea Macrinus wolf suckling BMC Syria 97 1
twins
Laodicea Elagabalus two wrestlers SNG Cop. 373 1
Laodicea Elagabalus bust of Tyche in SNG Cop. 374 2
distyle shrine
Laodicea bust of Athena eagle SNG Cop. 338 3rd c AD 1
Seleucia bust of Tyche thunderbolt on SNG Cop. 401 79/80 AD 2
Pieria throne
Heliopolis Septimius decastyle temple Cohen vol. IV, 1
Severus façade no. 916
Aradus female bust galloping bull SNG Cop. 71 1st c. BC 3
Tripolis jugate busts of Tyche standing SNG Cop. 274 Augustan 1
Dioscuri
Dora Trajan bust of Tyche BMC Phoenicia 1
33
Judaea parasol three corn ears SNG Cop. 72 Herod 1
Agrippa
Judean palm. Lε Νερωνος in BMC Palestine 58/59 AD 1
42
The reference provided by Thomsen (BMC Syria, 40ff) is for tetradrachms and not bronze coins of
Hierapolis.
159
procurators Καισαρος wreath 266
Philippopolis Philip I seated Athena BMC Arabia 443 1
Cyprus Caracalla temple with semi- SNG Cop. 92 1
circular court in
front
Rome Gordian III Inscriptions in RIC IV 263 144
wreath
‘Syrian area’ Roman emperor unidentified 5
Syro- unidentified 5
Phoenician
unidentified Roman emperor 2
unidentified 1st - 3rd c. 17
AD
Table 4: List of bronze coins excavated from Hama covering the period relevant to this study.
Eleven hoards were also retrieved from Hama, three of which contain bronze
coins relevant to this study:45 Hoard no. 4 (IGCH 1580) contains 51 bronze coins, all
of which (with the exception of two unidentifiable coins) are Antiochene dating to the
first half of the first century BC, asserting the fact that coins of Antioch dominate the
Hama finds (see below). Hoard no. 5 contains three coins from the mint of Rome,
including a single dupondius of Marcus Aurelius, the other two coins being silver
issues (see below). Hoard no. 6, composed mainly of ‘antiquities’, includes a single
bronze coin from Laodicea ad Mare of Caracalla or Macrinus with a wolf suckling
twins reverse.46
The two halved coins among the finds (Augustus/Antioch and
Gordian/Rome) may help in our understanding of the denominational structure in use,
but more specimens are needed before drawing conclusions.
43
Thomsen attributes this coin to Antioch.
44
Halved coin, denomination: As, date: AD 238/239.
45
Thomsen 1986, 63-68.
46
Note that a coin of the same type of Macrinus was among the single finds as well.
160
• Raphanea
Recent projects conducted at Raphanea have yielded only 5 identifiable
coins, two of which are of the relevant period and are tabulated below.47
Mint Obverse Reverse Reference Date
Antioch bust of Apollo lyre CRS 129, 136 1st c. AD

Carrhae Caracalla bust of Tyche BMC Arabia, 21
Table 5: List of coins collected from Raphanea relevant to the time period under study.
Of the remaining finds, two are Late Roman bronze coins dating to the fourth
and fifth centuries AD, and the others Byzantine anonymous folles of the eleventh
century.
• Arethusa
No archaeological work has yet been conducted at ar-Rastan, ancient
Arethusa. Thus, no data is yet available from this site, except for a single Emesene
coin of the Caracalla/temple façade type housed in the Homs Museum (see below no.
922).
• Emesa
As a result of successive visits to the Homs Museum of Syria in early 2011, a
total of 176 coins of the pre-Byzantine period (4 gold; 23 silver; 149 bronze) were
recorded as follows:48
Aurei: 4th c. Roman: 4
Tetradrachms: Alexander: 4
47
M. Gschwind et al (forthcoming).
48
The data was compiled from all the coins in the storerooms and display cases.
161
Lysimachus: 1
Demetrius I: 4
Alexander Balas: 1
Demetrius II: 1
Antiochus VIII and Cleopatra: 1
Antiochus VIII: 1
Post humous Philip Philadelphus: 3
Parthian: 1
Forgeries: 4
Fractional silver: Aradus: 2
Bronzes: Hellenistic: 12
Roman Provincial: 28
Late Roman: 80
Unidentifiable: 2949
Of the above coins 66 are directly relevant to this study and are tabulated in
detail below:
49
These include seven coins that were retrieved during the excavations on the tell of Homs, but due to
their heavy corrosion they were unidentifiable.
162
Mint/Ruler Obverse Reverse Reference Date Museum No. Provenance
Tetradrachms
Demetrius I bust right Tyche seated left SC, 1609ff "Homs 2009" clandestine excavations
in Homs
Alexander Balas bust right seated Zeus SC, 1781-1784 "Homs 2009" clandestine excavations
in Homs
Posthumous Philip bust right Zeus seated (date RPC I, 4127-4134 47/46 - 38/37 BC "Homs 2009" clandestine excavations
Philadelphus off flan) in Homs
Posthumous Philip bust right Zeus seated (date RPC I, 4136-4149 31/30 - 17/16 BC "Homs 2009" clandestine excavations
Philadelphus off flan) in Homs
Posthumous Philip bust right Zeus seated (∆ in RPC I, 4128 46/45 BC "Homs 2009" clandestine excavations
Philadelphus exergue) in Homs
Parthian bust left Tyche presenting BMC Parthia, "Homs 2009" clandestine excavations
diadem to the King Vologases V, 1ff in Homs
from outskirts of Homs
Demetrius II, 2nd bust right seated Zeus SC, 2155ff "Homs 2009" clandestine excavations
reign from outskirts of Homs
Cleopatra and jugate busts right seated Zeus SC, 2259ff "Homs 2009" clandestine excavations
Antiochus VIII from outskirts of Homs
Antiochus VIII bust right Athena standing SC, 2278-2279 1191 donated 1980, from
Termaaleh near Homs
Alexander bust of Heracles seated Zeus unidentifiable 1176 donated 1981, from
163
Homs area
Alexander bust of Heracles seated Zeus Price, 2851 1177 donated 1981, from
(Phaselis) Homs area
Alexander bust of Heracles seated Zeus Price, 2899a 1178 donated 1981, from
(Aspendus) Homs area
Alexander bust of Heracles seated Zeus, Price, 2902 1179 donated 1981, from
(Aspendus) countermarked Homs area
with radiate bust
Lysimachus bust of Alexander seated Athena similar to SNG 1167 donated 1984, unknown
Cop. 1101 source
Fractional silver
Aradus head of male deity galley BMC Phoenicia, 4th c. BC "Homs 2009" clandestine excavations
45-53 from outskirts of Homs
Aradus head of male deity galley BMC Phoenicia, 4th c. BC 719 donated 1976, from
45-53 Homs area
Forgeries (silver)
Alexander bust of Heracles seated Zeus (no identifiable modern forgery 1182 donated 1981, from
marks) Homs area
Parthian bust left two figures BMC Parthia, Pl. modern forgery 1760 confiscated 1989,
XXXIV, 3 unknown source
Bronzes
Alexander Zabinas bust right Dionysus standing SC, 2229 1511 Tell Nebi Mend 1986
(Antioch)
uncertain Seleucid bust right prow of galley SC, 1079-1080 or 1512 Tell Nebi Mend 1986
bust (Tyre) 1324
Aradus bust of male deity ship’s ram BMC Phoenicia, 2nd c. BC 1378 Tell Nebi Mend 1971,
164
104ff site find
Antioch Tiberius SC in wreath CRS, 64 168 Tell Nebi Mend 1975
Antioch bust of Asclepius entwined serpent CRS, p. 405, no. time of Hadrian? 1521 Tell Nebi Mend 1986
12
Emesa Caracalla temple façade BMC Syria, 15-16 922 ar-Rastan 1977, site
find
Antioch Claudius SC in wreath CRS, 92ff "Homs 2009" clandestine excavations
in Homs
Antioch Antonine bust SC in wreath - 369 donated from Homs
area
Emesa Caracalla temple façade BMC Syria, 15-16 717 donated 1976, from
Homs area
Emesa Antoninus Pius perched eagle BMC Syria, 1 1328 donated 1983, from
Homs area
Caesarea ad Marcus Aurelius Tyche bust BMC Phoenicia, Seleucid era 462 = 1404 donated 1984, unknown
Libanum as Caesar 108-109 AD 150/151 source
Tryphon (Antioch) bust right Macedonian SC, 2039-2040 "Homs 2008" confiscated 2008, from
helmet Homs area
Antioch Marcus Aurelius SC in wreath Similar to CRS, "Homs 2008" confiscated 2008, from
or Lucius Verus 210 Homs area
Emesa Antoninus Pius perched eagle BMC Syria, 6 2116 confiscated 1993, from
Feiruzi in Homs
Antiochus III Macedonian shield elephant right SC, 1089-1090 104 confiscated 1974, from
(unspecified mint) with gorgoneion Latakia
Antiochus IV bust of Laodike IV elephant head left SC, 1407 129 confiscated 1974, from
(Antioch) Latakia
Demetrius I horse head left elephant head right SC, 1646 124 confiscated 1974, from
(Antioch) Latakia
165
Antioch Elagabalus Tyche seated, ram CRS, 478.1a 96 confiscated 1974, from
jumping on top Latakia
Marathus bust of male deity prow of galley Lindgren III, 1407 2nd - 1st c. BC 121 confiscated 1974, from
Latakia
Aradus bust of Tyche aphlaston BMC Phoenicia, 2nd c. BC 165 confiscated 1974, from
173-177 Latakia
Laodicea ad Mare bust of Tyche Nike advancing RPC I, 4403-4413 42/41 BC - AD 95 confiscated 1974, from
(illegible date) 10/11 Latakia
Laodicea ad Mare? bust of Julio- Tyche standing RPC I, 4447-4448 92 confiscated 1974, from
Claudian Latakia
Laodicea ad Mare Domitian Tyche standing BMC Syria, 37-39 113 confiscated 1974, from
Latakia
Laodicea ad Mare Caracalla figure seated left BMC Syria, 89 90 confiscated 1974, from
(countermark CA) holding spear Latakia
Laodicea ad Mare Elagabalus Eagle within SNG Cop., 371 91 confiscated 1974, from
distyle shrine Latakia
Raphanea Elagabalus seated genius BMC Syria, 1 94 confiscated 1974, from
(under Caracalla) Latakia
Gabala Trajan eagle standing left BMC Syria, 6 118 confiscated 1974, from
Latakia
Alexandria Troas Valerian horse grazing BMC Troas, 157- 99 confiscated 1974, from
160 Latakia
Judaean Prutah corn ear wreath RPC I, 4965 time of Tiberius 123 confiscated 1974, from
(Procurator Latakia
Valerius Gratus)
uncertain mint Elagabalus or Nike - 111 confiscated 1974, from
Severus Alexander Latakia
Antiochus III? bust right Apollo standing SC, 1056-1057 1761 confiscated 1981,
(Antioch?) unknown source
166
Antioch Nero SC in wreath CRS, 113 1074 confiscated, unknown
source
Antioch Antoninus Pius SC in wreath CRS, 282 1069 confiscated, unknown
source
Antioch Elagabalus SC in wreath CRS, 470 1071 confiscated, unknown
source
Antioch Elagabalus seated figure left, similar to CRS, 1070 confiscated, unknown
SC in field 474 source
Aradus busts of female bull jumping BMC Phoenicia, time of Trajan 1072 confiscated, unknown
deity and Trajan 368-370 source
Cyrrhus Trajan Zeus seated left CRS, 4 1068 confiscated, unknown
source
uncertain mint Marcus Aurelius unidentifiable - 1073 confiscated, unknown
or Lucius Verus source
uncertain mint worn worn - Islamic? no number Homs tell excavations

uncertain mint worn worn - Crusader? no number Homs tell excavations
uncertain mint worn worn - no number Homs tell excavations
Table 6: List of coins in the Homs Museum of Syria tabulated according to the reliability of the provenance.
167
With the exception of the seven corroded coins from the excavations on the
archaeological tell of Homs, the specimens tabulated above represent an assortment of
coins from the immediate region of Homs, as well as Latakia.1 Most of the coins are
the result of either confiscations or donations to the museum. Some were found during
construction work in and around Homs, providing a more reliable provenance. Thus,
the coins should be interpreted with caution on the whole, though they nevertheless
present a broad idea of what may have been available in the general region.
The silver coins are mostly represented by tetradrachms of the Hellenistic
period, in addition to three posthumous Philips. All of these tetradrachms, with the
exception of a specimen from an unknown source (no. 1167), have been collected
from Homs and therefore may indicate that they were used there. This of course
would not be an unusual occurrence, since it is well known that tetradrachms enjoyed
a wide area of circulation. What it may show, however, is that silver coins were being
used in Emesa even before it became a city in the early Roman period. One of the
Alexandrine tetradrachms is countermarked with the bust of a radiate sun god (no.
1179). It may be possible that this countermark was applied in or near Emesa (for a
detailed discussion of this coin and the countermark see Types and Legends chapter).
A Parthian tetradrachm and two Aradian fractional silver coins were also among the
coins found from the Homs region.
Regarding the bronzes, the ratio of coins for each of the cities represented is
in fact similar to what has been documented for Apamea and Hama above. The
majority are coins of Antioch followed by Laodicea ad Mare and Aradus, in addition
to random single specimens from regional cities such as Caesarea ad Libanum,
1
The five coins from Tell Nebi Mend are discussed separately below under the section of Laodicea ad
Libanum.
168
Gabala, Cyrrhus and Alexandria Troas. However, with the exception of some of the
Antiochene coins, none of the Roman provincial coins were found directly from
Homs, but were rather confiscated from the region, namely Latakia. Coins of the
Hellenistic monarchs are also represented, but most of these are also from Latakia and
therefore do not represent finds from Homs. Of interest are the four bronzes of Emesa,
one of which (no. 922) is reported to be a site find from ar-Rastan (Arethusa), with the
remaining three from Homs itself. Thus, of the non-Emesene coins, it seems that only
the SC coins of Antioch circulated in the city, once again confirming that they had a
wide area of circulation in Syria. These SC coins are represented by all the periods
from the Julio-Claudians to Elagabalus, but based on their reported origin, it cannot
be deduced if the SC coins continued to circulate in Emesa after the city began
minting its own coins in the mid second century AD.
In addition to the above data from the museum, Henri Seyrig, in his
documentation of the tombs and the grave goods from the necropolis located in the
western part of modern Homs, refers to a bronze coin of Aradus dating to 94/93 BC
(BMC Phoenicia no. 325).2 The author also refers to a few unspecified coins found in
the burials, the most recent of which date to the early years of the first century AD.3
• Laodicea ad Libanum
A preliminary report of the 147 coins collected from this site was prepared
by Butcher,4 in which only a single Roman provincial coin dating to the reign of
Hadrian(?) was documented (see coin no. 1521 in Table 8 below). The remaining
2
Seyrig 1953, 15.
3
Seyrig 1952, 250.
4
My gratitude to Kevin Butcher for putting this unpublished report at my disposal.
169
majority of the coins belong to the late Roman period. It is worthwhile to list the pre-
Roman era coins found from this site also, since they provide an insight into the
circulation of coins there:
Mint/Ruler Obverse Reverse Period Quantity
Ptolemy I(?) head of Ptolemy I(?) eagle standing left 1

right on thunderbolt
Ptolemy II Alexander in elephant eagle standing left 1
headdress
Ptolemaic uncertain head right worn 1
Antiochus III head of Apollo Apollo standing left 3
Alexander head of Alexander Dionysus standing 1

Zebinas Zebinas right left
uncertain uncertain head right worn Seleucid 1
Aradus bust of Tyche right prow of galley left, 3rd - 2nd c. BC? 1
male figure above
Aradus bust of male deity ship’s ram 2nd c. BC 1
uncertain civic Hellenistic 3

coins
Table 7: List of coins from the pre-Roman period collected from Tell Nebi Mend.
During the visit to the Homs museum five bronze coins collected from Tell
Nebi Mend were also documented. Four of these coins seem to be those documented
by Butcher, the only exception being no. 168 below:
Mint/Ruler Obverse Reverse Reference Museum

no.
Alexander Zabinas bust right Dionysus SC, 2229 1511

(Antioch) standing
uncertain Seleucid bust right prow of galley SC, 1079-1080 or 1512
bust (Tyre) 1324
Aradus bust of male ship’s ram BMC Phoenicia, 1378
deity 104ff
Antioch Tiberius SC in wreath CRS, 64 168
Antioch bust of entwined serpent CRS, p. 405, no. 12 1521

Asclepius
Table 8: List of coins from Tell Nebi Mend deposited in the Homs museum.
170
Unfortunately, as can be seen from the data above, the coin finds relevant to
this study from Tell Nebi Mend are meagre and therefore cannot provide a detailed
insight into coin circulation there. However, some general observations may be noted
as follows: the Ptolemaic coins, as Butcher remarks, seem to indicate that the site fell
under the sphere of influence of the Ptolemies until the conquest of Antiochus III;
however, as Butcher also rightfully points out, three coins are not sufficient to
confirm this. Regarding the Seleucid coins, these are typical of such finds from the
general area. The presence of Aradian coins dating to the pre-Roman era is not an
uncommon occurrence in the Orontes Valley as has been demonstrated by other site
finds data listed in this chapter. The presence of Antiochene coins, albeit in small
numbers, once again shows that they were being circulated in the southern Orontes
Valley.
• Surveys
Several surveys have been conducted in the regions of the middle and upper
Orontes Valley. No coins were found during the course of these surveys.5
Silver
• Epiphanea
Two silver coins were retrieved from the excavations at Hama: a denarius of
Severus Alexander (BMCRE, 101ff) and an antoninianus of Trebonianus Gallus (RIC
5
With the exception of the surveys conducted by Graham Philip (Durham University) in the region
west of Homs from where two coins were collected (pictures unavailable). All other surveys have not
yielded any coin finds (personal communication with Karin Bartl, Deutsches Archäologisches
Institut, Damascus; Maya Haïdar-Boustani, Université Saint-Joseph, Beirut; and Michael Fortin,
Université Laval, Quebec).
171
IV, 30note). Of the eleven hoards retrieved from Hama, two are relevant here and are
as follows:6 Hoard no. 3 (IGCH 1576) is composed of five tetradrachms of Aradus all
dating to the first quarter of the first century BC, which may imply that Aradian
tetradrachms were in circulation in Hama, at least in the early years of the Roman
presence.7 Hoard no. 5 contains three coins from the mint of Rome: a denarius of
Antoninus Pius and another of Lucius Verus, with the third coin being a dupondius of
Marcus Aurelius.
• Raphanea
In 1955 a hoard of 21 silver coins was found from Ba’rin in the immediate
vicinity of Raphanea (IGCH 1567). The hoard, which was later dispersed, was
composed of nine tetradrachms and two drachms of Demetrius I, one tetradrachm
each of Antiochus IX and Eucratides I, with the rest of the hoard composed of five
tetradrachms of Cyme, two of Smyrna and one of Myrina. The hoard is dated to the
second half of the second century BC.
• Emesa
From Homs two silver hoards are listed: IGCH 1529, a dispersed hoard of
more than 50 tetradrachms, and IGCH 1532, composed of 60 tetradrachms. The coins
are all of the Hellenistic period and the burial date for both hoards is placed in the
early third century BC.
6
Thomsen 1986, 63-68.
7
It should be noted that Thomsen did not document the Hellenistic period coins, which potentially
could have included bronze coins dating to the early first century BC circulating in Hama.
172
In his documentation of the grave goods from the necropolis near Homs,
Seyrig refers to the following silver coins: a worn Augustan tetradrachm dating to 5
BC from Antioch (BMC Syria, 132),8 a tetradrachm of Seleucia Pieria dating to AD
5/6 (BMC Syria, 32)9 and a Tyrian tetradrachm of AD 14/15 (BMC Syria, 198).10
b. Finds from beyond the Orontes Valley
Bronzes
• Zeugma
Of 790 coins (composed of 288 single finds and 4 hoards) recovered in the
year 2000 during the excavations in Zeugma, not a single coin of the Orontes Valley
is represented.11
• Nisibis
The Nisibis hoard recorded by Seyrig is composed of 624 bronze coins
including one plated denarius.12 The burial date of the hoard is placed shortly after 31
BC. Apamea, being the only mint in this study relevant to the time period of the
hoard, is represented by a single coin of the Zeus/elephant type (Cat. no. 1) dated by a
Pompeian era Π = 8 = 59/58 BC.13
8
Seyrig 1953, 12.
9
Seyrig 1953, 14.
10
Seyrig 1953, 15.
11
Butcher, unpublished report.
12
Seyrig 1955.
13
Seyrig 1955, 92, no. 10.
173
• Gaziantep
From an accumulation of site finds from the general region of Gaziantep in
southern Turkey, Butcher has documented 163 coins which include a single Emesene
coin of the Julia Domna/altar type.14
• Antioch
The cities of the Orontes Valley are poorly represented in Waagé’s
publication of the coins from Antioch.15 Apamea is represented by a single coin of the
Zeus/elephant type (Cat. no. 1) issued during the first half of the first century BC.16
Emesa is represented by 2 coins, both of which are of the Caracalla/temple façade
type. Both coins are dated by the Seleucid Era HΚΦ = 528 = AD 216/217.17 Waagé
also lists a coin of Raphanea (no. 888), but Butcher remarks that the coin is not of that
mint.18 Waagé’s publication also includes the coins from the excavations at Seleucia
Pieria, which does not have any coins minted in the Orontes Valley.
• Antakya Museum
In a publication of the coins in the Antakya Museum, Butcher lists two coins
of Apamea. One is of the Athena/Nike type (Cat. no. 6) dated by the Seleucid era ςOΣ
= 276 = 36 BC, and the other is a countermarked coin of the Dionysus/thyrsus type
(Cat. no. 5) dated by the Seleucid era EΠΣ = 285 = 27 BC. Emesa is represented by
14
CRS, 153.
15
Waagé 1952.
16
Waagé no. 862 (the date is illegible).
17
Waagé nos. 863 and 864.
18
CRS, 159. Seyrig also expresses his doubt for the attribution to Raphanea (1958, 178).
174
two coins from the reign of Caracalla: the first is of the temple façade type and the
other Julia Domna/altar type.19
• Tell Rifa’at
Of the 90 coins documented from Tell Rifa’at situated 35 km north of
Aleppo, only seven coins relevant to the time period under study have been recorded,
all of which are from the mint of Antioch.
• Aleppo
In his collection of 1,404 coins acquired over a period of 25 years from
Aleppo, Seyrig lists 12 coins of Apamea, five of Emesa and one of Larissa.20 These
are certainly a collection of coins bought from the market and therefore not entirely
useful for the study of coin circulation in that region. However, the proportion listed
for the three mints is quite typical of what is available in museum collections
regarding these mints.
• Tell Abou Danné and Oumm el-Marra
The publication of the finds from Tell Abou Danné and Oumm el-Marra
(both sites located to the immediate east of Aleppo), which also includes a collection
of coins from several neighbouring sites, lists no coins of the relevant mints under
study.21
19
CRS, 160-161, 168 and Appendix 2.
20
Seyrig 1958, 180. Types not specified.
21
Doyen 1987.
175
• Tell ‘Acharneh
The coin finds from the 1998, 2001 and 2002 seasons at Tell ‘Acharneh,
located on the Orontes River halfway between Apamea and Shayzar, have been
published by Johnson. All the coins are of the Byzantine period.22
• Tell Qarqur
The coins from Tell Qarqur, situated on the Orontes Valley halfway between
Antioch and Apamea, have not yet been published in full, although a selected portion
has been. These, however, are mostly of the late Byzantine and Islamic periods, in
addition to 4 tetradrachms of Lysimachus. Of the period under study mention is made
of first and second century Roman coins without any further details provided.23
• Hosn Suleiman
The site of Hosn Suleiman is located in the Homs Gap and situated at the
southern tip of Jebel Ansariyeh. Excavations conducted there in 2004 and 2005
yielded 29 bronze coins as follows: Aradus 20, Antioch 4, Laodicea ad Mare 1,
Marathus 1, Emesa 1, Tripolis 1, and a coin of Arcadius. The coin of Emesa is that of
Antoninus Pius with a perched eagle reverse.24
• Marathus and Tartous
In his publication of coins collected from excavations in Amrit (Marathus)
and Tell Ghamqa (Tartous, ancient Antaradus) during the 2005 and 2006 seasons,
22
Johnson 2006.
23
Dornemann 1999, 60- 69 and 2008, 71, 143, 146.
24
Kiwan 2006-2007.
176
Kiwan lists 38 bronze coins, none of which are from the mints of the Orontes
Valley.25
• Dura Europus
From the excavations at Dura two coins of Apamea were retrieved.26 The
first is of the Athena/Nike type (Cat. no. 6) and the second of the Tyche/Nike type
(Cat. no. 2). Emesa is represented by six bronze coins:27 two of Antoninus Pius with a
perched eagle reverse, three of Julia Domna with an altar reverse, and one of
Elagabalus depicting a prize-crown on the reverse. It should be noted that three of the
six coins, one of each type, were from the hoards found at Dura.
• Palmyra
Butcher, who has compiled a list of the coins excavated from Palmyra, refers
to a single coin of Elagabalus from Laodicea ad Libanum. All other mints under study
are not represented.28 Recent excavations have yielded additional coins, the
publication of which is forthcoming.29
• Baalbek
The coins collected from the campaigns in Baalbek/Heliopolis are currently
being studied by Ziad Sawaya. Of the coins cleaned and documented thus far, only a
25
Kiwan 2004-2005. It should be noted that the author has documented only a selected sample of the
total number of coins excavated.
26
Bellinger 1949, nos. 1832-1833.
27
Bellinger nos. 1834-1838.
28
CRS, 164-165.
29
Personal communication with Andreas Schmidt-Colinet.
177
single coin of Emesa has been noted. The coin is an issue of Elagabalus with a
standing facing eagle reverse.30
• Beirut
Excavations conducted in Beirut during the 1990s have yielded an enormous
number of coins. Butcher has published these finds, which do not include any coins of
the mints under study.31 Since his publication excavations have continued and more
coins have been collected. Of the 10,000 coins documented thus far from the new
finds, only a single coin from Apamea of the Dionysus/thyrsus type has been
recorded.32
Silver
• Dura Europus
Tetradrachms of Emesa are well represented at Dura: one of Julia Domna33
and six each for Caracalla34 and Macrinus.35
• Capharnaum
A hoard composed of 270 tetradrachms, 1,274 antoniniani and a single
bronze coin was discovered from Capharnaum (identified with Tell Hûm) located to
30
Personal communication with Ziad Sawaya.
31
Butcher 2001-2002.
32
Personal communication with Ziad Sawaya.
33
Bellinger no. 207.
34
Bellinger nos. 248-252a.
35
Bellinger nos. 321-326.
178
the north of the Sea of Galilee. The hoard contained three tetradrachms of Emesa
(Caracalla 2 and Diadumenian 1).36
• Gush Halav
In 1948 a coin hoard was found in Gush Halav near the Sea of Galilee. The
hoard consisted of 180 Syrian tetradrachms, 22 denarii and 35 Roman provincial
coins. Five of the tetradrachms are issues of Emesa (Caracalla 2, Julia Domna 1 and
Macrinus 2).37
• Neapolis
Bellinger has listed a hoard of 93 tetradrachms, including eleven of Emesa,
found from Neapolis in Palestine.38
• Jerusalem
A hoard of 75 tetradrachms found in the ‘vicinity’ of Jerusalem is said to
have included two specimens of Macrinus from Emesa. The hoard was later
dispersed.39
• Mempsis
A hoard of several thousand Roman silver coins from Mempsis (Kurnub),
located south-west of the Dead Sea, was documented by Negev. The hoard contained
seven tetradrachms of Emesa: Caracalla 3, Julia Domna 1 and Macrinus 3.40
36
Spijkerman 1958-1959.
37
Hamburger 1954.
38
Bellinger 1940, 15-16.
39
Hamburger 1954, 202.
179
Other site finds publications (for both silver and bronze) from lesser known
excavations in the region have also been consulted, but not included here due to the
absence of any coins from the mints of the Orontes Valley.41
B. Countermarks and overstrikes
1. Significance and limitations
Countermarked coins can be used as an additional source of information for
the understanding of circulation patterns. This is because a group of coins having the
same countermark belonged, in general, to the same place and time.42 However, the
information which can be extracted from countermarked coins is limited. It is
generally assumed that local authorities resorted to countermarking foreign coins with
a locally acceptable symbol to render them legal tender, but this does not necessarily
seem to have been the case. It is well attested that countermarks were in the majority
of cases applied by cities to their own coins.43 As a result, not much information can
be extracted from them regarding circulation patterns beyond the borders of the
issuing city.
Overstruck coins may also be useful for the understanding of coin
circulation, particularly in the city where the process took place. Identification of the
undertype can be used to reveal which issues were in circulation at the time of
overstriking. However, it may also be the case that particular issues were imported for
40
Negev 1965-1966; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1980.
41
A list of these publications can be found in the Bibliography.
42
GIC, 32.
43
GIC, 32. The reason for the application of countermarks on local coins is not well known. Perhaps it
may have been used to denote changes in the value or denomination of the currency.
180
overstriking and therefore may not necessarily provide information to what was legal
tender in the city before being overstruck.
2. The data
Regarding the mints of the Orontes Valley, based on the data gathered thus
far, it seems that only Apamene coins were countermarked. The fact that Apamea
minted coins during the early Roman period, unlike the rest of the mints under study,
may be the reason for this. Howgego lists a countermark in the shape of Tyche’s head
applied on coins of Apamea, all of which are of the Dionysus/thyrsus type (Figure
6).44 The author considers this to be perhaps a countermark for indicating a lower
denomination.45 In the process of this research it has been observed that the same
countermark was also applied on the Dionysus/cornucopia (Cat. no. 11),46
Augustus/Tyche (Cat. no. 14)47 and
Tiberius/Athena advancing (Cat. no. 16)48
types. All these types are issues of the later
period when the mint was operational.

Figure 6: Coin of Apamea of the
However, of the eight countermarked Dionysus/thyrsus type countermarked with a
Tyche head (Vienna-GR 32469, AE 8.2 gr,
specimens of the Dionysus/thyrsus type 21.4 mm).
recorded in this study,49 no consistency was found regarding the application of these
countermarks, as the coins are of varying dates. A countermark depicting a
44
GIC no. 201.
45
GIC, 142.
46
Private collection.
47
Private collection.
48
Private collection. The letters E, N and T are also inscribed clockwise around the Tyche head of the
countermark.
49
CRE, 1471A; Berlin-v.Rauch; Berlin-no ticket; BNF-945c; SNG Glasgow, 3143; Lindgren III, 1176;
Vienna-GR 32469; Harvard-1980.85.197.
181
helmeted(?) bust was also noted to have been struck on a specimen of the
Athena/Nike type.50 A specimen of the Zeus/elephant type (Cat. no. 1) has the
countermark BAS (in Latin) on the reverse.51 Keeping in mind that Bassus defended
the city against the Caesareans from 46 to 44 BC52 (see Introduction chapter), the
countermark may be that of Bassus, which would back the idea that the Romans
exerted their influence in the city. However, a single specimen is not sufficient to
explore this further; if more specimens with this countermark come to light, their
dates can help in determining the terminus post quem for the application of this
countermark.
Regarding overstrikes, cases from the Orontes Valley are nearly nonexistent.
It has been noted in CRS that coins of Apamea (quantity not specified) were
overstruck on those of Antioch.53 This could be a good indication that coins of
Antioch did indeed circulate in Apamea. However, further cases must be collected to
conclude whether Antiochene coins were systematically overstruck in Apamea or if
they merely represent isolated cases.
C. Circulation patterns
1. Significance and interpretations
Before discussing coin circulation in the Orontes Valley, a few remarks
should be made on general circulation patterns in the Roman Near East. Butcher has
shown that in Syria, or at least in the northern part, “there is evidence to support the
50
BNF-951.
51
Lindgren I, 2037. The coin bears the date H = 59/58 BC.
52
Strabo 16.2.10.
53
CRS, 192. The author mentions a specimen in a private collection (p. 130, Fig. 40A, no. 2).
182
notion that individual city-states regulated the coinage in circulation in their
territories, sometimes to the exclusion of the coinage of their neighbours.”54 Whereas
in the case of Asia Minor, Johnston has noted that civic bronzes “circulated beyond
the boundaries of the issuing cities, sometimes over considerable distances.”55
Howgego similarly notes that “site finds indicate that it was normal in Asia Minor for
about half of the bronze coins circulating in a city to have been struck elsewhere.”56
Augé, in his study of the coins of the Decapolis and the Roman province of Arabia,
notes that coins of one city did circulate in another as a result of shortages due to
sporadic minting patterns in the region.57
As can be seen from the above observations, each region had adopted, or
adapted to, different circulation patterns. Since there was no centralised system of
coinage in the Roman Near East, the imperial authorities seem to have embraced a
laisser-faire attitude for the production and circulation of coins in the region.58 There
is also no evidence of the systematic presence of Roman base metal coins in the
region.59 There may be some indication that the Roman authorities did attempt to
create a uniform coinage in the form of the SC coins, but this does not seem to have
taken over the region’s monetary system (although it was circulated alongside local
currencies).
Monetary activity in a region was the result of what was available for use, as
well as the history of a particular city. Although it seems that each city controlled
what circulated in its territories, some were more liberal than others, with variations
54
CRS, 266.
55
Johnston 2007, 5.
56
GIC, 32.
57
Augé 2002, 158-159.
58
Butcher 2001-2002, 60.
59
Although there is evidence for the presence of a limited quantity of Roman aes during the second and
third centuries AD (Butcher 2001-2002, 76).
183
also noted in different time periods. In the case of Syria, although it may be right to
state that bronze coins had a geographically limited circulation, this is a somewhat
misleading and certainly an incomplete conclusion. In fact, bronze coins did circulate
outside the territories of the issuing city, namely in those cities which did not mint
coins. It is apparent that cities which were able to supply their market with local
coins, such as Antioch, did not need to import or use coins of their neighbours, at least
not in significant numbers. For those cities that did not have a local coinage, such as
Epiphanea, Apamea (post mid first century AD) and Dura, it seems inevitable that
foreign coins were allowed to circulate in their territories in order to supply the local
market with a currency. The above hypothesis may seem to be stating the obvious, but
it is not. It shows that bronze coins were not restricted by local authorities to the
boundaries of the city, but rather were circulated in far away regions as long as it was
acceptable to those areas which needed coinage, as in the case of Dura. For this
reason, any understanding of coin circulation should be accompanied by knowledge
of the prevailing circumstances at a certain time and place. To explain this point
further, the coin finds from Berytus may be used as a case study. It has been shown
that different coin circulation patterns existed during different time periods in the city,
when at times the local currency of Berytus was almost exclusively used, and at times
the local coins were supplemented by SC coins and other Phoenician mints.60
Coin circulation seems to be based on the concept of demand and supply. If
coins were in demand they were supplied from abroad; if the local mint satisfied the
demand, there was no need for foreign sources. Moreover, the two scenarios could
have existed in a single city, where local authorities could have restricted or opened
60
Butcher 2001-2002, 113-118 and Figure 88.
184
up the market to foreign coins, based on changes in the demand and supply of coins. It
is a general assumption that trade played a leading role in coin circulation, but
evidence from excavations has shown that this was not necessarily the case.61 The
above examples show that coin circulation was a result of prevailing historical and
economic circumstances in a particular city.
2. Analysis
The study of hoards from Syria has been somewhat problematic due to the
paucity of the data, with only a few hoards having been published. Most of the
documented bronze hoards are, as is the case for silver, from the third century AD.62
Of the hoards documented from the first century BC, it has been shown that coins
issued before the advent of the Romans circulated alongside those issued during their
presence,63 in particular Hama hoard no. 4 (see above). Consequently, due to this
fragmentary data it is difficult to compose a complete understanding of circulation
patterns during the first and second centuries AD. Regarding the site finds evidence,
only a few publications are available. Our current understanding of coin circulation in
the region is mostly based on the reports from Antioch, Dura, Hama, Apamea and
more recently Berytus, discussed individually below. These publications have
provided a partial understanding of coin circulation in the region.
a. Local circulation
As mentioned above, precious metal coinages had a wide area of circulation,
whereas base metal coinages were more geographically limited. To show that this
61
Butcher 2001-2002, 41, 117.
62
A list of both silver and bronze hoards can be found in CRS, Appendix 1.
63
CRS, 185.
185
point is applicable to the cities of the Orontes Valley, a significant number of coin
finds from well-documented excavations is needed. The data from Hama may be used
to formulate an idea regarding circulation in the region, but Epiphanea did not mint
coins and therefore had to resort to using currency from neighbouring mints.
Concerning Apamea, coinage in this city ceased to be produced in the middle of the
first century AD and thus the city would have also resorted to using, or freely
accepting, the currency of other mints.
Despite these restrictions, local circulation patterns can be discerned within
the Orontes Valley. It seems that coins of Apamea were quite dominant in the middle
Orontes Valley, but not in northern Syria (where coins of Antioch were dominant) or
the coast (where coins of Laodicea were prominent). The statistics from Hama clearly
show that before the advent of the Roman period, coins from Aradus were prevailing
at the site (represented by 21 coins).64 During the Roman period the coins of Antioch,
Apamea, Laodicea, Aradus, Emesa and Seleucia were prominent among the finds in
that particular order. But this data may be misleading if not broken down into
chronological phases, from which a progression in circulation patterns can be
distinguished, as shown in the table below:
Pre-Augustan Julio-Claudian Flavian to pre- Severan to mid

Severan 3rd c. AD
Antioch 5 + 4965 10 7 15
Apamea 16 8 - -
Laodicea - 3 1 5
Aradus 3 - - -
Emesa - - - 3
Seleucia - - 2 -
Hierapolis - - - 1
64
Thomsen 1986, 60. See also Butcher 2002, 148.
65
Hama hoard no. 4.
186
Heliopolis - - - 1
Tripolis - 1 - -
Dora - - 1 -
Jewish - 2 - -
Philippopolis - - - 1
Table 9: List of bronze coins from various mints excavated at Hama and grouped into separate periods.
The above table shows that coins of Antioch were prominent in Hama
throughout the Roman period.66 This is also partially the case for Apamene coins.
However, Apamea stopped minting during the Julio-Claudian period and therefore it
is not unusual that they are not represented in the finds after that time. Interestingly,
coins of Laodicea seem to have started circulating in Hama for the first time during
the Julio-Claudian period. A significant change regarding circulation patterns in
Hama deals with the coins of Aradus, which are no longer present with the advent of
the Roman period. This change may have been the result of the decreasing
productivity of the mint starting in the second century. Emesene coins of the Severan
period are also present among the finds, as the mint was most active during that
period.
Regarding Apamea, the finds are distributed by mint and time period as
follows:
Pre-Augustan Julio-Claudian Flavian to pre- Severan to mid

Severan 3rd c. AD
Antioch - 5 4 10
Laodicea - - - 2
Jewish - 1 - -
Peloponnese - - - 1
Raphanea - - - 1
Tripolis - - 1
Table 10: Number of bronze coins represented at Apamea grouped into separate time periods. Note that
the pre-Augustan coins are not included in the publication by Callu.
66
To the above data should be added the 22 unidentified (SC?) Antiochene coins.
187
The finds from Apamea are not radically different from those at Hama with
Antiochene coins dominating the finds, the majority of which are of the SC type.
Thus, the findings here are in line with the conclusions from northern Syria, showing
that the SC coins also circulated in the Orontes Valley. Among the finds Laodicea is
also present, perhaps indicating links between this important coastal city and the
Valley. Regarding chronology, it seems that starting with the Severan period more
mints are represented in the finds, but this is a provisional observation since the
number of finds from these mints is very small. Unfortunately, Callu did not publish
the pre-Roman period coins, for it would have been helpful to know if the coins of
Apamea were exclusive to the city during the pre-Augustan period, or if mints from
the region were also represented. Apamene issues of Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius
are not present among the finds, but this is probably due to their rarity more than
anything else. It is worth noting the presence of a coin of Raphanea in the finds from
Apamea.
The above data shows that very few mints are represented at Apamea, and
for those that are represented it is only by a single coin or, as in the case of Laodicea,
by two. It may be surmised that only Antiochene coins were legal tender in the city,
which may have been deliberately commissioned or imported from Antioch.
The coin finds from the excavations on the archaeological tell of Homs are
unfortunately all heavily corroded and therefore cannot provide an insight into
circulation patterns. The coins documented in the Homs museum are a collection of
confiscated and donated material from the region of Homs and Latakia and therefore
should be treated with caution. It has been discussed above that, in addition to the
bronzes of Emesa, Antiochene SC coins were also used in the city, with no other
regional city directly represented in the finds from Homs. Excavations in Raphanea
188
and Laodicea ad Libanum have provided too little information for any conclusions to
be drawn, except for preliminary indications that Antiochene coins were also present
there.
Based on the site finds data it seems that Hellenistic period Aradian coins
circulated in the Valley before the advent of the Romans. Seleucid coins are also
among the finds from this period, in addition to Ptolemaic bronzes further south in
Tell Nebi Mend. With respect to coins of the surrounding regions found from the
Orontes Valley, it is worth noting the presence of Tripolis among the finds both at
Hama and Apamea. The presence of coins of Tripolis may indicate that the Homs gap
was instrumental for trade between the coast and the Orontes Valley. Similarly,
Jewish coins are also present in both mints. This is not an uncommon feature for finds
from the Levant, implying that these coins did circulate there, perhaps entering
through the Bekaa Valley.67 A Peloponnesian coin was found from Apamea, which is
also in line with finds from the region.68 Coins of the Roman mint are barely present,
with no Roman aes from the excavations of Apamea and only two from Hama. Finds
from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor are absent.
b. Regional circulation
Despite the limited data on circulation patterns in the Roman Near East some
observations have been made. Butcher states that “it is quite clear from the finds that
the province of Syria itself did not form a regional system as far as bronze was
concerned.”69 Similarly, Rebuffat states that “on pourrait considérer qu'il n'existe pas
de véritable circulation des bronzes et que les monnaies provinciales romaines, dans
67
CRS, 173, 177.
68
CRS, 179.
69
CRS, 176.
189
la partie orientale de l’Empire ne servaient qu'à un usage strictement local.”70 This
lack of regional systems, as mentioned above, was due to the absence of a systematic
regulation by the Roman authorities to control the circulation of bronze civic coins. It
was most likely economic necessity and convenience that governed the circulation of
civic issues, at least in the early period of the Empire.71
With the data at hand it can be proposed that the coins of the mints under
study did not circulate beyond the Orontes Valley. Even where coins of the relevant
mints are represented at sites, they are present in very small numbers. Below is a table
of bronze coins from the mints under study found beyond the Orontes Valley.
Apamea Raphanea Emesa Laodicea ad

Libanum
Nisibis 1 - - -
Antioch 1 - 2 -
Dura 2 - 6 -
Palmyra - - - 1
Baalbek - - 1 -
Beirut 1 - - -
Table 11: List of bronze coins minted in the Orontes Valley found from sites in the Levant.
As can be seen from the results tabulated above, the finds are indeed trivial.
This is an indication that the bronze coins of the mints under study did not circulate
beyond the Valley.72 Thus, this observation is in line with both Butcher’s and
Rebuffat’s findings regarding circulation of bronze coins in the Roman province of
Syria.
70
Rebuffat 1999, 337.
71
72
Only at Dura can several bronze coins of Emesa be found. However, this can be explained by the fact
that Dura did not mint coins and therefore resorted to accepting the currency of other cities.
190
Regarding silver coins, any attempt to compose some idea of the circulation
pattern for tetradrachms from site finds has been inconclusive,73 especially for the
reigns of Caracalla and Macrinus, issues of whom are the most relevant to this study.
The main reason for this uncertainty is the fact that tetradrachms enjoyed a wide area
of circulation. The below table lists sites where hoards containing Emesene
tetradrachms have been found:
Caracalla Julia Macrinus Diadumenian Total

Domna
Dura 6 1 6 - 13
Capharnaum 2 - - 1 3
Gush Halav 2 1 2 - 5
Neapolis ? ? ? ? 11
Jerusalem - - 2 - 2
Mempsis 3 1 3 - 7
Table 12: List of cities where hoards containing Emesene tetradrachms have been found.
The above table shows that Emesene tetradrachms did circulate beyond the
city’s borders. This is in line with the fact that, as mentioned above, tetradrachms in
general had a wide circulation in the Roman East. It should be noted that the
significant concentration of Emesene tetradrachms in Palestine, as portrayed in the
table above, is most probably due to extensive excavations and well documented finds
from that region in comparison with other regions such as Syria or Mesopotamia.
73
Bellinger 1940, 14; CRS, 182 and also footnote 102.
191
CHAPTER V
METROLOGY AND DENOMINATIONS
It is difficult to determine the denominations used in Roman Syria due to the
absence of value marks on the vast majority of the coinages issued there.1 Despite this
difficulty recent scholarship has been able to present a good amount of discussions on
the subject, supported by metrological data, paving the way for a better understanding
of the prevailing denominational systems in the eastern part of the Empire during the
first three centuries of Roman rule.2 Whereas in the west Roman denominations had
been well established, this was not the case for the east. Although there may have
been a recognised exchange rate between Rome and the cities of the eastern
provinces,3 they may never have been fully compatible; this relationship is still not
completely understood.4
In Syria it is clear that Greek denominations had prevailed into the early
Roman period and therefore were not replaced by the Roman currency system.5
Perhaps both systems may have been used concurrently in Syria, although evidence
for this is scanty.6 It has also been proposed that the Greek system was still in use as
late as the third century AD.7 The use of Greek denominations was certainly true for
silver issues as attested by the tetradrachms. Because of the use of the Greek system
1
Only a small number of cases are known, for which see the table in RPC I, p. 33.
2
Callu 1969, 57-110; RPC I, 26-37, 587-590; RPC II, 20-29, 268-269; CRS 196-215; Johnston 2007,
7-13, 243-249.
3
RPC I, 31-32; CRS, 144.
4
RPC I, 32; CRS, 211.
5
CRS, 206; Johnston 2007, 3.
6
RPC I, 29, 33, 36-37; RPC II, 20, 22.
7
CRS, 209, 425; Johnston 2007, 2. This proposition is based on bronze coins of Severus Alexander
from Seleucia Pieria marked OBΘ on the reverse signifying ‘9 obols’ (CRS, Plate 23, nos. 94-95).
192
for the silver in Syria, it would only be natural that Greek denominations were also
used for the fractional coinages, i.e., the bronzes. This is not to say that a uniform and
universal system was in use in the Roman East. It is more the case that each region
had adapted to a specific denominational system customised to their particular local
needs, as shall be demonstrated below for the cities of the Orontes Valley.
By using coin finds, hoard evidence and countermarking patterns, Johnston
has shown that the civic bronzes of Asia Minor enjoyed a wide area of circulation,
certainly beyond the borders of the issuing cities, and that face values were widely
recognised or at least accepted as equivalent in value to local currencies.8 This,
however, was not the case for the coinages of Syria, in particular the Orontes Valley,
where coins of one city did not circulate in the territory of the other (see Circulation
chapter). This is one of the key factors impeding the understanding of the
denominational systems and their relationships in the Orontes Valley. Yet another
difficulty in distinguishing the various denominations is due to the fact that
metallurgical analyses on bronze coins of Roman Syria are still greatly lacking. Of the
small number of chemical analyses conducted–mostly on SC issues of Antioch– it has
become apparent that, in general, a composition of 90% copper and 10% tin was
employed, with the percentage of copper being gradually decreased by the second and
third centuries as the percentage of lead increased.9
Obviously, people in the past were able to identify the denominations despite
the absence of value marks, most probably by using types and sizes. This of course
should not imply that each type represented a different denomination, as shall be
8
Johnston 2007, 5. See the review of Johnston’s book by Spoerri Butcher (2009), who proposes that
the denominations in use in Asia Minor were similar to those of the Greek cities and not Roman
coinages as suggested by Johnston.
9
RPC I, 30; CRS, 205-206.
193
demonstrated in the discussions below under each mint. The metrological tables
presented in this chapter will also demonstrate that size was less of a factor when
determining denominations, since bronze coins of a single type/denomination were
struck without any strict consistency in their modules.
Many questions remain unanswered regarding our understanding of the
denominations and values of the coins in question precisely due to the inconsistency
in their modules. However, from the metrological data of the coins gathered thus far,
certain patterns have emerged concerning the denominational structure and weight
standards of each mint and the subsequent changes introduced throughout the period
covered in this study.
A. Apamea
Seleucid bronze coins which can be attributed to Apamea with certainty were
minted under Antiochus IV and Alexander Balas (see Production chapter). The bronze
issues of Antiochus IV were minted in two denominations.10 The larger depicts the
portrait of the King on the obverse and a seated Zeus on the reverse. These issues
have a weight range of 5.21 - 8.85 gr and measure 17 - 20 mm.11 The smaller
denomination has the same obverse, but a standing Zeus on the reverse. The weights
range between 2.44 - 3.95 gr and the sizes 13 - 16 mm.12 The issues of Alexander
Balas at Apamea were also minted in two denominations. The larger denomination
comes in two varieties: The first depicts Zeus standing on the reverse and has a
weight range of 6.6 - 9.05 gr and measures 20 - 22 mm.13 The second variety depicts
10
BMC Kings, p. 41, no. 81; CSE I, no. 440; CSE II, nos. 336-337; SC II, nos. 1427-1428.
11
SC II, 1427.
12
SC II, 1428.
13
SC II, 1804.
194
Zeus also standing but with his foot on a pile of arms. This variety has a weight range
of 7.51 - 9.6 gr and measures 20 - 21 mm.14 The smaller denomination, depicting the
turreted head of Tyche on the obverse and a marching warrior on the reverse, has an
average weight of 3.69 gr and an average size of 16.2 mm.15 This type in effect is the
first issue at Apamea under the Seleucids not bearing the effigy of a king, thus
anticipating the civic issues of Apamea minted in the very last years of Seleucid rule
in Syria.
1. Civic issues
The civic issues of Apamea are structured into three main groups, the
denominations of which are discussed separately below (Table 1 of the Production
chapter should be consulted in conjunction with the discussions below).
a. Group 1 (Cat. nos. 1-4)
The first group of civic coins at Apamea, Group 1a, commenced in 77/76 BC
and was produced until 68/67 BC in four denominations, each employing a separate
type: Zeus/elephant; Tyche/Nike; Demeter/corn ear; Dionysus/grapes. The coins of
this group are dated according to the Seleucid era. After a gap of several years,
minting resumed in the city in 60/59 BC; the same types were used with the only
exception being the absence of the Dionysus/grapes type. These coins, Group 1b,
were dated according to a Pompeian era. During the process of recording the
metrological data of all the above coins, it was noticed that the coins with a Pompeian
date were perceptibly lighter in weight than the coins bearing a Seleucid date. Indeed,
14
SC II, 1803.
15
Data gathered from 15 specimens.
195
upon tabulating the average weights (in grams) and sizes (in millimetres)16 of the
types of each group separately, a distinct difference became clear and is presented
below (numbers in parentheses represent the standard deviation):17
Apamea/civic issues - Group 1
Type Average weight Average size Number of coins
Group 1a (77/76 - 68/67 BC)

Zeus/elephant 8.17 (0.74) 21.4 (0.99) 20
Tyche/Nike 7.60 (0.98) 21.3 (2.06) 3
Demeter/corn ear 4.14 (0.55) 16.4 (0.90) 6
Dionysus/grapes 2.31 (0.40) 14.1 (0.89) 7
Group 1b (60/59 - 51/50 BC)
Zeus/elephant 7.87 (0.79) 21.3 (0.92) 47
Tyche/Nike 5.44 (0.71) 17.3 (0.71) 15
Demeter/corn ear 3.43 (0.41) 17.1 (0.22) 5
Table 13: Average weights and sizes of civic coins of Apamea belonging to Group 1.
The above table clearly shows that the distinction between the two subgroups
is not only based on the chronology of their production, or the difference in the dating
system used for each, but also on the noticeable differences in their modules. As
mentioned above, the Dionysus/grapes type is not present in Group 1b either because
this smallest denomination was abandoned, whereby only three denominations were
in use, or because no specimens have yet come to light, keeping in mind that this type
is indeed among the rarest of all the civic issues of Apamea. The standard deviation
for both the weights and sizes indicates that there was a relatively good degree of
control by the mint officials; in the vast majority of cases the deviation of the weight
is below one gram and for the size one millimetre.
16
Diameters were measured along the maximum width of individual coins.
17
The metrological data has been calculated from coins on which the dates are clearly visible; coins
with illegible dates have been omitted from the statistics to avoid distortions in the results.
196
b. Group 2 (Cat. nos. 5-8)
In 44/43 BC Apamea introduced new types which were minted until 18/17
BC. This group is also divided into two subgroups: 2a and 2b. Initially, the coins of
Group 2a were represented by two types, Athena/Nike and Tyche/Athena standing,
which used a Pompeian era. In 41/40 BC this subgroup commenced using the
Seleucid date and continued to be minted down to 31/30 BC, with an exception
between 40/39 and 39/38 BC, when an Antonian era was used. A third denomination
of this subgroup depicts the bust of Demeter on the obverse and three corn ears on the
reverse. This type is known by the earliest recorded date of 38/37 BC, but future finds
may show that it may also have been produced concurrently with the two types
mentioned above.
Octavian’s victory over Antony in Actium brought about changes in the
coinage of Apamea, represented by Group 2b, by which in 30/29 BC a new heavier
type, Dionysus/thyrsus (Cat. no. 5), was added to the above three denominations.
Thus, four denominations were now used, each represented by a different type. The
coins of Group 2b, which were all dated by the Seleucid era, continued to be minted
until 18/17 BC. The metrology of the coins of Group 2 is listed below:
Group 2a (41/40 - 31/30 BC)

Athena/Nike 7.61 (0.76) 20.7 (0.46) 66
Demeter/3 corn ears 6.40 (0.63) 18.2 (1.32) 5
Tyche/Athena 4.82 (0.49) 17.7 (0.98) 19
Group 2b (30/29 - 18/17 BC)
Dionysus/thyrsus 9.04 (0.82) 22.0 (1.09) 37
Athena/Nike 7.26 (0.80) 19.9 (1.27) 35
Demeter/3 corn ears 5.86 (0.83) 19.2 (0.40) 6
Tyche/Athena 4.73 (0.39) 17.3 (0.53) 10
Table 14: Metrology of coins of Group 2 minted in Apamea.
197
After documenting the metrology of the coins of Group 2, no significant
changes in the modules was noted between the issues of both subgroups, except for a
minor and gradual decrease in the weights throughout the period covered in this
group. However, the single noteworthy exception was among the very first issues
bearing the Pompeian date, i.e., the Tyche/Athena standing and Athena/Nike types
minted in 44/43 and 43/42 BC respectively. The metrology of these two early types is
presented below:
Athena/Nike (43/42 BC) 9.12 (1.22) 21.6 (0.46) 8

Tyche/Athena (44/43 BC) 8.24 (0.71) 21.8 (0.73) 8
Table 15: Metrology of coins of Group 2a dated with a Pompeian era.
The metrology of these coins with a Pompeian date was not included in the
statistics presented in Table 14 to avoid distorting the results. Note how the average
weight of the Tyche/Athena type with a Pompeian date is nearly twice the weight of
the coins of the same type which do not bear the Pompeian date. The early
Athena/Nike type was also noted to be significantly heavier than those which
followed it. Perhaps these two types initially represented a single denomination, as
can be ascertained from their similar modules, and were later integrated into the three-
and four-denominational system of Group 2.
A separate calculation was made for the Athena/Nike type bearing the
Antonian date, minted in 40/39 and 39/38 BC, to highlight any differences in the
weights of these coins and all other coins of this type listed in Table 14, but no such
disparity was noted, as can be seen from the data presented below:
Type Average weight Average size Number
Athena/Nike (40/39 - 39/38 BC) 7.35 (0.64) 21.1 (0.49) 9

Table 16: Metrology of the coins of Apamea bearing an Antonine date.
198
c. Group 3 (Cat. nos. 9-12)
Coins of Group 3 are dated according to the Seleucid era and were minted
between 13/12(?) and 5/4 BC. Four types are noted for this group: Dionysus/thyrsus;
Dionysus/Demeter; Dionysus/cornucopia; Zeus/Tyche seated. Initially, it was thought
that each type represented a different denomination, thus forming a four-
denominational system, which would be in line with the general trend observed in the
two groups presented above. However, after tabulating the metrological data for each
type, it soon became evident that only two denominations were employed:
Dionysus/Demeter 7.16 (0.86) 20.8 (1.06) 14

Dionysus/cornucopia 6.98 (1.14) 21.4 (1.32) 17
Dionysus/thyrsus 6.90 (0.76) 20.5 (1.19) 35
Zeus/Tyche seated 5.52 (0.46) 17.6 (1.15) 3
Table 17: Metrology of coins of Apamea belonging to Group 3.
It is clear from the above data that the heavier denomination was represented
by three types, all depicting the bust of Dionysus on the obverse. The metrology of
the smaller denomination is derived from only two coins, but a clear distinction in the
module between this type and the other three types is noticeable, particularly
regarding size. This two-denominational system continued to be used in Apamea for
the coins bearing the imperial portraits presented below.
2. Coins with imperial portraits
In 4/3 BC Apamea inaugurated two new types bearing the portrait of
Augustus on the obverse. Both types were minted concurrently as attested by the
Actian year HK = 28 = 4/3 BC on their reverses. The heavier type depicts Nike on the
reverse and the lighter the bust of Tyche, the metrology of which is listed below:
199
Apamea/Augustus
Nike advancing 10.16 (0.32) 23.0 (1.41) 3

Tyche bust 6.97 (0.68) 20.8 (0.66) 12
Table 18: Metrological table of Apamene coins bearing the portrait of Augustus.
Two decades after the issues of Augustus, Apamea minted coins bearing the
portrait of Tiberius in AD 14/15. Under this emperor the two-denominational system
was continued, with the heavier type once again depicting Nike on the reverse, but the
lighter an advancing Athena. The metrology of these coins is similar to Tiberius’
predecessor as can be observed in the table below:
Apamea/Tiberius
Nike (left and right) 9.87 (0.77) 23.2 (1.44) 5

Athena advancing 7.66 (1.03) 21.5 (0.5) 4
Table 19: Metrology of coins of Tiberius minted in Apamea.
Under Claudius two bronze types were minted which do not bear the
Emperor’s portrait. The two types are Zeus/seated Tyche and Zeus/Nike, both of
which are lighter in weight than the coins of this emperor’s predecessors:
Apamea/Claudius
Tyche seated 6.46 (0.55) 19.3 (1.09) 4

Nike 5.46 (0.09) 18.0 (1.00) 3
Table 20: Metrological data for the coins of Claudius minted in Apamea.
Unlike the issues of Augustus and Tiberius, the differences in weights for the
issues of Claudius is not considerable, raising the question whether or not the two
types represent separate denominations. The Nike type was minted first, followed by
the seated Tyche type, as attested by the dates ETO A and ETO B respectively. Thus,
200
the two types were not produced concurrently, as was the case for the coins of the
previous two emperors. Further specimens would be needed to clarify the disparities
in the average weights of both types, but with the available data thus far it seems that
the two-denominational system was continued, albeit using lighter modules.18
A rare tetradrachm issue of this emperor is known by two specimens. The
first is housed in the BNF (1973.1.352) and has a weight of 13.69 gr and measures
26.5 mm. The second is published by Imhoof-Blumer where only the weight of 15.0
gr is recorded.19
B. Larissa (Cat. nos. 20-21)
The two types minted in Larissa –Zeus/throne and Tyche/horse– represent
two denominations as attested by their modules, where the average weight of the
former is twice that of the latter. Hoover, in his classification of the coins of this mint,
does not list the Tyche/horse type and considers the Zeus/throne type to have been
minted in two denominations based on the wide fluctuation of their weights.20
Although it is true that these coins do have a wide weight range of approximately 6 to
9 grams, it is unlikely that the same type was minted in two denominations, especially
when taking into consideration that all the coins of Larissa were issued in a single
year as attested by the Seleucid date ZKΣ = 227 = 86/85 BC. The die studies, which
show that all the coins of the Zeus/throne type were minted using a single obverse die,
also confirm that all the coins of this type were of the same denomination (see Die
Studies chapter).
18
The weight range for the seated Tyche type is 6.11 - 7.28 gr, and that of the Nike type 5.37 - 5.56 gr.
19
Imhoof-Blumer 1913, p. 108, no. 292a (coin not illustrated).
20
Hoover 2009, 307.
201
Larissa
Zeus/throne 7.59 (0.98) 19.7 (1.17) 15

Tyche/horse 3.68 (0.48) 16.2 (0.59) 5
Table 21: Metrology of the coins of Larissa.
The standard deviations for both types are not too great, indicating that these
coins were minted with a relatively good degree of control by the mint authorities.
This small deviation also confirms that the Zeus/throne type was not minted in two
separate denominations, despite the relatively wide range for the weight of these
coins.21
C. Raphanea (Cat. nos. 22-24)
Two denominations are known for the mint of Raphanea, which minted coins
only during the reign of Elagabalus. The larger denomination is represented by three
types: Elagabalus/seated genius, Elagabalus/standing genius and Severus
Alexander/standing genius, the metrology of which is presented below:
Raphanea
Elagabalus/seated genius 9.10 (1.43) 23.1 (0.65) 8

Elagabalus/standing genius 7.83 (1.48) 23.1 (1.10) 72
Alexander/standing genius 7.72 (1.86) 23.3 (0.75) 23
Table 22: Metrology of the coins of Raphanea depicting a genius on the reverse.
It was initially believed that the seated genius type represented a larger
denomination due to its higher average weight. However, based on the numerous die
21
See also the distribution of the weights tabulated in the Catalogue, which shows that this type was
not minted using two distinct modules.
202
links that have been found between these two types (see Die Studies chapter), it has
been established that both types represented a single denomination. As can be seen
from the results of the standard deviations in the weights, it seems that not much
control was observed regarding the preparation of the flans. Perhaps this may also be
a reason the coins of the seated genius type are somewhat heavier, although the
average sizes are remarkably similar.
The average weights and sizes of all the coins of the larger denomination are
listed below, in addition to the smaller denomination, known by a single specimen,
depicting the bust of Elagabalus on the obverse and a humped bull on the reverse:
Raphanea
Large denomination 7.88 (1.59) 23.2 (0.99) 103

Small denomination 2.5 14 1
Table 23: Metrology of the two denominations minted in Raphanea.
It is fortunate that the single specimen representing the small denomination
has come to light and can be included in this study, otherwise it would have been
assumed that only a single denomination was in use in Raphanea. It should not be
ruled out that perhaps a medium denomination may also exist for this mint, which has
not yet come to light.
D. Emesa
1. Silver
203
a. Caracalla and Macrinus (Cat. nos. 29-30, 37-38)
Tetradrachms were issued in Emesa during the reigns of Caracalla and
Macrinus, the metrology of which are presented in the table below:
Emesa/tetradrachms
Caracalla 12.75 (1.30) 25.7 (1.23) 62

Julia Domna 12.85 (1.27) 25.9 (1.45) 28
Total 12.78 (1.29) 25.8 (1.29) 90
Macrinus 12.65 (1.21) 25.2 (1.57) 126

Diadumenian 12.49 (1.34) 25.6 (1.33) 8
Total 12.64 (1.21) 25.2 (1.55) 134
Table 24: Metrology of tetradrachms issued in Emesa during the reigns of Caracalla and Macrinus.
The above statistics show that there was no change in the weight standard of
the silver issues at Emesa during the reigns of the two emperors. The results of the
standard deviations also show a consistent degree of control regarding the modules.
Butcher has shown that the weight standard of Syrian tetradrachms remained quite
stable at approximately 14.50 gr from the reign of Augustus to Hadrian, thus over a
span of one and a half centuries. For the reign of Marcus Aurelius a lower weight of
12.66 gr was documented.22 Table 24 shows that this lower weight standard was also
continued in the reigns of Caracalla and Macrinus at Emesa. Prieur’s and Bellinger’s
corpora do not provide weights for these tetradrachms for purposes of a comparative
study, but McAlee lists a mean weight of 12.94 gr for the tetradrachms of these two
emperors.23 Future research on Syrian tetradrachms may confirm if this weight
standard was uniform throughout the Syro-Phoenician territories.
22
CRS, 198.
23
McAlee (2007, 16-19) using D. R. Walker’s (1978) data compiled from all Syrian mints.
204
b. Uranius Antoninus (Cat. nos. 49-56)
The average weight of the ‘pre-reform’ tetradrachms of Uranius Antoninus
was calculated to be 11.01 gr (25 coins) by Baldus.24 During the process of this
research 36 of these coins were documented as having an average weight of 11.17 gr
(standard deviation = 1.14), a reading very much similar to that of Baldus’.25
Evidently, by the time of Uranius Antoninus the weight of the tetradrachms in Emesa
had fallen to 11 grams, compared to an average of nearly 13 grams under Caracalla
and Macrinus. Regarding the ‘post-reform’ tetradrachms of Uranius, Baldus provides
an average weight of 8.44 gr (41 coins).26 The 26 coins documented in this study have
yielded an average weight of 8.37 gr (standard deviation = 0.46).
2. Bronze
a. Antoninus Pius (Cat. nos. 26-28)
During the reign of this emperor only a single denomination was minted,
represented by three different types: perched eagle (right and left), bust of sun god
and a seated Tyche (front, right and left). It would be tempting to think that each type
represented a separate denomination, but the die links have demonstrated that all three
types have shared dies, in addition to the fact that all have similar modules:
Emesa/Antoninus Pius
Perched eagle right 9.41 (1.56) 22.8 (1.00) 75
24
Baldus 1971, 17.
25
Baldus’ database was compiled from coins in major international collections. The current study has
supplemented the data by adding specimens from the online market, in addition to a private
collection.
26
Baldus 1975, 448.
205
Perched eagle left 10.11 (2.36) 23.0 (0) 2
Sun god 9.27 (1.21) 22.6 (1.00) 13
Seated Tyche front 9.28 (1.47) 23.1 (1.03) 4

Seated Tyche right 10.23 21.5 1
Seated Tyche left 9.02 22.0 1
Total 9.41 (1.50) 22.8 (0.99) 96

Table 25: Metrological list of the coins of Antoninus Pius minted in Emesa.
Not much control seems to have been enforced regarding the weights, based
on the readings of the standard deviations. However, it is clear from the tabulated data
that all three types were the same denomination, with the most common by far being
the perched eagle type. It may seem odd that only a single denomination was minted,
but as shall be demonstrated below, the use of a single bronze denomination has also
been attested for the reigns of Macrinus and Uranius Antoninus.
b. Caracalla (Cat. nos. 31-36)
Six types were minted during the reign of this emperor as follows: Caracalla/
temple façade, Caracalla/temple side view (right or left), Julia Domna/altar,
Caracalla/Julia Domna, Caracalla/perched eagle and Caracalla/Tyche seated (front or
left). These coins are dated to the years AD 215/216 and 216/217 and represent three
denominations as follows: the largest denomination depicts the temple of Elagabal,
either in perspective view or the façade. The medium denomination depicts the bust of
the Emperor’s mother either in conjunction with the portrait of Caracalla or the great
altar of Elagabal. The smallest of the denominations depicts a perched eagle or a
seated Tyche (left and front).
206
Emesa/Caracalla
Large denomination
Temple façade 22.62 (2.60) 29.5 (1.01) 41
Temple right and left 22.02 (2.50) 30.1 (1.07) 16
Medium denomination
Julia Domna/altar 11.71 (2.60) 24.8 (1.19) 63
Caracalla/Julia Domna 10.01 (1.07) 22.1 (1.57) 6
Small denomination
Perched eagle 8.01 (1.17) 21.0 (1.14) 26
Seated Tyche (front and left) 7.76 (0.69) 21.3 (1.10) 8
Table 26: Metrology of the coins of Caracalla minted in Emesa.
Based on the metrological
data provided in the table above, it is
apparent that there existed three main
modules weighing roughly 24, 12 and
8 grams, thus having a ratio of 6:3:2.

Figure 7: Coin of the Domna/altar type minted in
The Caracalla/Julia Domna type is Emesa having an ‘X’ cut on the reverse (BNF-
Y28045 989a, AE 4.95 gr, 24 mm).
tentatively placed under the medium category; more specimens of this rare type are
required to determine its averaged weight with better precision.27
Halved coins are a relatively common occurrence for first century AD ‘SC’
coins of Antioch, but this aspect was not encountered at all for the coins of the
Orontes Valley. However, five coins of the Domna/altar type were noted to have a
deep ‘X’ cut on their reverse (Figure 7).28 These specimens do not seem to be
27
A die study was not helpful in confirming if the two types featuring the portrait of Julia Domna were
indeed of the same denomination, since different dies were prepared for each (for the
Caracalla/Domna type the portrait of the Empress is accompanied with a date, whereas for the
Domna/altar type the date is not placed next to the portrait).
28
BNF-Y28045, 989a; AUB-228; Vienna-GR 21667; eBay; PC3. Both dates (ΖΚΦ and HΚΦ) have
been noted for these coins.
207
contemporary or modern forgeries based on their style and metrology.29 If these coins
were marked for cancellation, it would have been easier to completely destroy or melt
them down instead of applying these cuts on the reverses with what seems to have
been a chisel. If they were intended to be halved or quartered, no such cut pieces have
yet come to light. To confirm this point, a die study was conducted on these ‘marked’
coins and it was noted that all four specimens (the fifth being poorly preserved) were
struck from four different pairs of dies. It would be highly unlikely that at least four
separate pairs of dies were prepared to produce forgeries. Moreover, die links were
noted between these ‘marked’ coins and the ‘unmarked’ coins of the same type,
implying that they were the official products of the Emesene mint.30 All this shows
that these coins were not forgeries. As an alternate explanation, these ‘marks’ may
have been applied as a form of ritual demonetization,31 similar to the coins in the
Hoard of Villeneuve-au-Châtelot.32 However, this would be difficult to verify without
the archaeological context from which these coins were retrieved.
c. Macrinus (Cat. nos. 39-40)
Two types were minted under Macrinus depicting the great temple of Emesa
either from the front or the side. Since these coins were a direct continuation of
Macrinus’ predecessor’s two heaviest types, and like them have approximately the
same weights and sizes, it is only natural to assume that they represent the largest
29
Although it is true that the average weight of these five coins stands at 7.69 gr and is lower than the
overall average for this type, numerous other specimens without this mark have been recorded with
similarly low weights.
30
BNF-Y28045.989a (‘marked’) has an obverse die link with ANS-1944.100.66178 (‘unmarked’).
AUB-228 (‘marked’) has a reverse die link with BNF-Chandon de Briailles 1527 (‘unmarked’).
31
They should not be considered as a form of damnatio memoriae, since the cuts are not on the
portrait, but rather the reverse.
32
Zehnacker et al. 1984. I was unable to acquire this article, but it was suggested to me by Suzanne
Frey-Kupper (Department of Classics and Ancient History, University of Warwick).
208
denomination at Emesa. The fact that both types share the same obverse die also
asserts that they are of the same denomination. No other types have yet come to light
under Macrinus implying that only the heaviest denomination was produced, although
future finds may add to the denominational sequence for this emperor.
Emesa/Macrinus
Large denomination
Temple façade 23.31 (2.46) 30.0 (0.60) 6
Temple right 26.08 29.0 1
Table 27: Metrology of the coins of Macrinus minted in Emesa.
d. Elagabalus (Cat. nos. 41-48)
In the reign of Elagabalus a proliferation of types has been noted. Eight types
are known, the metrology of which is tabulated below:
Emesa/Elagabalus
Large denomination
Temple façade 11.13 (2.27) 23.3 (1.86) 6
Wreath 12.64 26.5 1
Medium denomination
Prize-crown 7.32 (1.42) 22.3 (1.30) 47
Seated Tyche 7.85 (1.32) 23.5 (2.64) 4
Small denomination
Altar 5.5333 19.2 (1.06) 2
Eagle standing facing 4.85 (1.24) 18.2 (1.22) 30
Perched eagle 4.07 (1.21) 18.5 (0.91) 4
Sun god 3.59 (1.15) 16.1 (1.83) 11
Table 28: Metrology of coins of Elagabalus minted in Emesa.
33
Two specimens of this type are documented (Lindgren III-1182 and Aeqvitas), but the weight of only
one is known.
209
Regarding the denominations, it is quite apparent that there was a significant
reduction in the modules as attested by
the average weights. The temple façade
type once again seems to have been the
heaviest and thus the largest
denomination. However, the average
weight for these coins at this point was
approximately 12 grams, standing at only
half the weight of the same type of Figure 8: The wreath type of Elagabalus minted
in Emesa (above, PC1, AE 12.64 gr, 26.5 mm)
Elagabalus’ predecessors. The wreath and the temple façade type (below, BMC Syria
17, AE 10.84 gr, 25 mm) share an obverse die
and are issues of the same denomination.
type is known only by a single specimen,
but its classification under the largest denomination along with the temple façade type
is based on its weight, in addition to the fact that it shares an obverse die with the
temple façade type (Figure 8). The medium denomination is represented by the prize-
crown and seated Tyche types, with a die link also having been established between
the two (see Die Studies chapter). The smallest denomination seems to be represented
by four types. The average weight and size of the sun god type seems to be somewhat
less than that of the other types, but the difference is not great enough to warrant a
separate classification. This is in addition to the fact that an obverse die link has been
found between the altar and sun god types (see below). The weight of the altar type is
known by a single specimen only (Lindgren III-1182), rendering it difficult to
classify; however, because an obverse die link has been established between this type
(Aeqvitas, no inventory number) and the sun god type (BNF-1005), it is placed under
the smallest denomination. It may be possible that all four types of the smallest
denomination were not produced concurrently. One type may have succeeded the
210
other, but this remains unverified since it has been difficult to establish the
chronology of these issues due to the absence of dates on them (see Production
chapter).34
A single specimen of the prize-crown type was documented to have three
deep cuts on the reverse in the following
shape: ⊥ (Figure 9). The cuts do not seem
to be the ‘X’ mark noted for the
Domna/altar type discussed above. The
style of this coin is unlike the remaining Figure 9: Prize-crown type of Elagabalus
minted in Emesa having three cuts on the
specimens of this type and does not have reverse (Aeqvitas, no inventory number, AE 22
mm).
any die links with them. Based on the crude style of the portrait and the fact that the
legend is blundered, the coin may be considered a contemporary imitation.
e. Uranius Antoninus (Cat. nos. 57-58)
As was the case for Macrinus, only the temple façade and side view types
were minted under Uranius Antoninus, the metrology of which is presented below:
Emesa/Uranius Antoninus
Temple façade 24.26 (4.21) 31.8 (1.15) 15

Temple left 22.12 (3.71) 32.3 (1.49) 4
Table 29: Metrology of bronze coins of Uranius Antoninus.
The modules under this emperor are not dissimilar to those of Caracalla and
Macrinus, with the only exception being the significantly elevated reading for the
standard deviation for the two types, implying that little control was enforced in
34
Only the perched eagle type of this group bears a date of ΦΛ = 530 = AD 218/219.
211
regulating the weights of these coins. Apparently, after the reduction in modules
witnessed under Elagabalus, the issues of Uranius at Emesa reverted to the original
weight standard used for the heaviest denomination under Elagabalus’ predecessors.
As for the case of Macrinus, no smaller denominations have been recorded. Baldus
has illustrated a smaller bronze coin of Uranius having a reverse type similar to the
above temple façade type, but the coin seems to be a nineteenth century forgery.35
E. Laodicea ad Libanum
1. Septimius Severus (Cat. nos. 59-62)
Four types were minted in the reign of this emperor depicting on the obverse
members of the imperial family:
Laodicea ad Libanum/Septimius Severus
Large denomination
Septimius Severus/Mên 11.32 (2.47) 27.3 (1.98) 9
Medium denomination
Caracalla/seated Tyche 7.67 (1.15) 24.2 (1.46) 24
Small denomination
Julia Domna/Tyche bust 6.36 (1.07) 22.0 (1.82) 4
Geta/Tyche bust 5.77 (1.29) 21.4 (0.82) 4
Table 30: Metrology of coins minted in the reign of Septimius Severus at Laodicea ad Libanum.
Three denominations were minted in Laodicea ad Libanum with the smallest
being represented by two types, both depicting the bust of Tyche on the reverse.
Although the Geta type is slightly smaller in weight and size compared to the type
depicting his mother, the two are classified under one denomination based on the
35
Baldus 1971, Table V, nos. 45 and 45a. Baldus too is skeptical of the coin’s authenticity.
212
overall similarity in their modules and the fact that they share a reverse die (see Die
Studies chapter). The weight standards used under this emperor seem to be roughly
12, 8 and 6 grams,36 thus having a ratio of 6:4:3.
What is interesting is the fact that the denominational structure of the coins
minted under Septimius Severus reflects the hierarchy of the imperial family, at least
as viewed by the mint officials, with the Emperor placed on the highest denomination,
followed by the heir apparent and then the remaining members of the family.
Under Caracalla only the Mên and the Domna/Tyche types were issued; no
other types have yet come to light. Therefore, it seems that only two denominations
were minted as follows:
Laodicea ad Libanum/Caracalla
Caracalla/Mên 9.03 (1.27) 24.0 (1.23) 24
Julia Domna/Tyche bust 4.89 (0.97) 20.8 (1.70) 3

Table 31: Metrology of coins of Caracalla minted in Laodicea ad Libanum.
Under Caracalla a clear reduction in modules is noted with the heaviest
weighing around 9 grams compared to 12 grams under his father. The same reduction
is noted for the smaller denomination as well.
3. Macrinus (Cat. no. 65)
Only a single type, and thus denomination, is recorded for Macrinus:
36
The average weight and size of the Julia Domna and Geta types combined is 6.06 gr and 21.71 mm.
213
Laodicea ad Libanum/Macrinus
Macrinus/Mên 18.84 (2.30) 29.5 (0.83) 6

Table 32: Metrology of the single type minted under Macrinus at Laodicea ad Libanum.
It is quite evident from the statistics above that there was a twofold increase
in the average weight of the Mên type minted under Macrinus when compared to that
of his predecessor. No other types have been recorded.
4. Elagabalus (Cat. no. 66)
Similarly, under this emperor only a single type was issued. Once again a
reduction in the module is noted, although it still remains significantly higher than
that used under Caracalla:
Laodicea ad Libanum/Elagabalus
Elagabalus/Mên 15.77 (2.69) 26.6 (1.67) 8

Table 33: Metrology of the Mên type minted under Elagabalus in Laodicea ad Libanum.
It should be noted that the standard deviation recorded for this mint is quite
high, indicating that little control was practised in the preparation of the flans.
F. Analysis
Although the above statistics do not present the face values of the various
issues under study, they have presented the denominational structure of the coinages
through tabulating the types and modules. Where possible, the denominational
divisions have also been corroborated with the results of the die studies. In most
cases, clear patterns for the denominations have emerged, but certain rare issues are
214
known by a few specimens only and therefore have been tentatively placed in the
denominational structures of each mint.
1. Northern Orontes Valley
Apamea and Larissa should be considered a separate group due to the
chronological difference between the issues of these two mints and those of the
southern Orontes Valley (Raphanea, Emesa and Laodicea ad Libanum). The first
‘semi-autonomous’ issues of Apamea date back to the reigns of Antiochus IV and
Alexander Balas, after which Apamea began minting civic issues in 77/76 BC. These
were followed by issues bearing an imperial portrait in 4/3 BC. All the bronze
denominations of Apamea have been listed below according to their weight averages:
2.0 - 2.5 gr
9.5 - 10.0
9.0 - 9.5
8.5 - 9.0
8.0 - 8.5
7.5 - 8.0
7.0 - 7.5
6.5 - 7.0
6.0 - 6.5
5.5 - 6.0
5.0 - 5.5
4.5 - 5.0
4.0 - 4.5
3.5 - 4.0
3.0 - 3.5
2.5 - 3.0
Apamea
HELLENISTIC ISSUES
Antiochus (2) * *
Balas (2) * *
CIVIC ISSUES
Group 1a (4) * * * *
Group 1b (3) * * *
Group 2a (3) * * *
Group 2b (4) * * * *
Group 3 (2) * *
IMPERIAL ISSUES
Augustus (2) * *
Tiberius (2) * *
Claudius (2) * *
Table 34: Chart illustrating the various weight standards and denominations used at Apamea. Numbers
in parentheses denote the number of denominations known for each group or ruler.
The above chart indicates that the denominations and modules employed at
Apamea were quite diverse. It is only during the imperial period that a uniform two-
denominational system was used, although it employed varying modules.
215
When comparing the issues of Larissa with Apamea, certain differences are
apparent, despite the relative proximity of the two cities and the fact that both of their
civic issues commenced in the first quarter of the first century BC. The two
denominations with their average weights of approximately 8 and 4 grams minted in
Larissa are very similar to the issues of Apamea minted during the period of the two
Seleucid kings mentioned above. However, when comparing them to the civic issues
of Apamea, the difference become more pronounced, particularly because Larissa
minted two denominations whereas Apamea initially minted four and later three.
Regarding coins of neighbouring mints, a comparison of denominations can
be conducted between Apamea and the prominent mint of Antioch in the north of the
Valley. Between 77/76 - 68/67 BC Apamea minted coins using a four-denominational
system (Group 1a). Antioch during this same time period minted three denominations:
Zeus/Zeus, Tyche/tripod and Artemis/Apollo.37 After the advent of the Roman period
and until 50/49 BC, Antioch continued to mint bronze coins in three denominations
with average weights of 7.54, 5.2 and 2.8 grams.38 These issues were concurrent with
the coins of Group 1b (60/59 - 51/50 BC) at Apamea, which also have similar weights
of 7.87, 5.44 and 3.43 grams.39 From 40/39 to 17/16 BC Antioch minted three
denominations having average weights of 7.82, 5.81 and 3.13 grams.40 During this
same period Apamea initially minted three denominations (Group 2a, 41/40 - 31/30
BC: 7.61, 6.40 and 4.82 gr) and later four (Group 2b, 30/29 - 18/17 BC: 9.04, 7.26,
5.86 and 4.73 gr).
37
CRS, 307-312, the average weights are not listed for these pre-Roman period issues. See also RPC I,
617-621 for what follows.
38
CRS, 312-314.
39
This similarity was mentioned by Butcher (CRS, 206), noting that the cities of the Tetrapolis during
63 - 47 BC minted a three-denominational bronze coinage with approximate weights of 7.5, 5.0 and
2.5 gr.
40
CRS, 317-319.
216
Regarding the imperial period, issues of Antioch under Augustus between 4 -
1 BC were struck in two denominations with average weights of 16.74 and 8.75
grams.41 Apamea also struck two denominations concurrent with these issues, but
which had considerably lower weight averages of 10.16 and 6.97 grams. For Tiberius’
reign both Antioch and Apamea minted two denominations in AD 14/15. However,
once again the modules at Antioch, 15.15 and 8.88 grams,42 were significantly heavier
than those at Apamea, having average weights of 9.87 and 7.66 grams. The
denominations and modules under Claudius in Antioch were similar to those of
Tiberius noted above,43 but in Apamea the weights had been reduced even further to
6.46 and 5.46 grams. The below chart provides a representation of all the above data:
2.0 - 3.0 gr
16.0 - 17.0
15.0 - 16.0
14.0 - 15.0
13.0 - 14.0
12.0 - 13.0
11.0 - 12.0
10.0 - 11.0
9.0 - 10.0
8.0 - 9.0
7.0 - 8.0
6.0 - 7.0
5.0 - 6.0
4.0 - 5.0
3.0 - 4.0
77/76 - 67/66 BC
Apamea Group 1a (4) * * * *
Antioch (3) * * *
66/65 - 50/49 BC
Apamea Group 1b (3) * * *
Antioch (3) * * *
41/40 - 31/30 BC
Apamea Group 2a (3) * * *
Antioch (3) * * *
30/29 - 17/16 BC
Apamea Group 2b (4) * * * *
Antioch (3) * * *
AUGUSTUS
Apamea (2) * *
Antioch (2) * *
TIBERIUS
Apamea (2) * *
41
CRS, 323-325. During 7/6 - 2/1 BC Antioch also struck smaller civic denominations, under P.
Quinctilius Varus and an unknown successor, with average weights of 6.88, 4.84, 2.54 and 1.46
grams (CRS, 326-327).
42
CRS, 331.
43
CRS, 336-339
217
Antioch (2) * *
CLAUDIUS
Apamea (2) * *
Antioch (2) * *
Table 35: Chart comparing the denominations used at Apamea and Antioch. Numbers in parentheses
denote the number of denominations known for each time period.
To sum up, for the pre-imperial period in which Apamea issued three
denominations, the average weights were very similar to those of Antioch, but this
does not imply that the face values were equal. However, Apamea at times issued four
denominations, a trend not known in Antioch. This shows that Apamea did not strictly
follow the Antiochene system, despite the similarities. During the reigns of Augustus,
Tiberius and Claudius both mints employed a two-denominational system, but the
modules at Apamea were significantly smaller than those at Antioch. All this implies
that different currency systems were utilised in each city.
2. Southern Orontes Valley
The coinages of Raphanea, Emesa and Laodicea ad Libanum form a rather
uniform grouping based on their chronology and geographical proximity. Despite this,
a clear dissimilarity in their issues is evident. The below table provides an overview
of the disparity observed in the denominations and weight standards used in the mints
of these cities:
2.0 - 3.0 gr
25.0 - 26.0
24.0 - 25.0
23.0 - 24.0
22.0 - 23.0
21.0 - 22.0
20.0 - 21.0
19.0 - 20.0
18.0 - 19.0
17.0 - 18.0
16.0 - 17.0
15.0 - 16.0
14.0 - 15.0
13.0 - 14.0
12.0 - 13.0
11.0 - 12.0
10.0 - 11.0
9.0 - 10.0
8.0 - 9.0
7.0 - 8.0
6.0 - 7.0
5.0 - 6.0
4.0 - 5.0
3.0 - 4.0
RAPHANEA
Elagabalus (2) * *
EMESA
Pius (1) *
Caracalla (3) * * *
Macrinus (1) *
Elagabalus (3) * * *
Uranius (1) *
218
LAODICEA
Septimius (3) * * *
Caracalla (2) * *
Macrinus (1) *
Elagabalus (1) *
Table 36: Chart depicting the various bronze denominations used in the mints of the southern Orontes
Valley. Numbers in parentheses denote the number of denominations known for each emperor.
Table 36 shows a distinct difference in the denominations and modules used
in each mint. It also portrays how within the same city the denominations varied from
one emperor to another. The reign of Elagabalus may be taken as a good case study,
since it is only during his reign that all three mints were concurrently operational. Yet
here, too, the differences in the metrology and denominations are quite diverse, as can
be seen in the table below:
2.0 - 3.0 gr
25.0 - 26.0
24.0 - 25.0
23.0 - 24.0
22.0 - 23.0
21.0 - 22.0
20.0 - 21.0
19.0 - 20.0
18.0 - 19.0
17.0 - 18.0
16.0 - 17.0
15.0 - 16.0
14.0 - 15.0
13.0 - 14.0
12.0 - 13.0
11.0 - 12.0
10.0 - 11.0
9.0 - 10.0
8.0 - 9.0
7.0 - 8.0
6.0 - 7.0
5.0 - 6.0
4.0 - 5.0
3.0 - 4.0
RAPHANEA
Elagabalus (2) * *
EMESA
Elagabalus (3) * * *
LAODICEA
Elagabalus (1) *
Table 37: The various denominations used in the cities of the southern Orontes Valley under
Elagabalus.
The data presented in Table 37 demonstrates how there was no coordination
between the denominational systems employed in the cities of the southern Orontes
Valley.44 This implies that the different currency systems used were most probably
incompatible with one another. Preliminary evidence also suggests that the coins of
these cities did not circulate in the territories of one another (see Circulation chapter),
44
A preliminary study by Sawaya (2006, p. 175, Table 4) on the denominations of nine Phoenician
mints for the reign of Elagabalus has also reached the same conclusion of diversity.
219
an aspect which further supports the above hypothesis. An attempt was also made to
find evidence of the sharing of obverse dies between these three mints for coins with
the portrait of Elagabalus, but no such cases were found.
In the Severan period a large module of about 30 mm was introduced in the
mints of northern Syria.45 This also was the case for Emesa and was later followed by
Laodicea ad Libanum, but not Raphanea. Once again, this aspect shows the lack of
uniformity in the currency systems used in the southern Orontes Valley. During the
reign of Elagabalus a heavy denomination was introduced in Antioch, which is
completely contrary to the case in Emesa, where the modules were actually reduced
during his reign.
A comparative study may be conducted between the denominational
relationships, if any, of the mints of the southern Orontes Valley and Antioch in the
north, and Heliopolis in the south of the Valley:46
1.0 - 2.0 gr
24.0 - 25.0
23.0 - 24.0
22.0 - 23.0
21.0 - 22.0
20.0 - 21.0
19.0 - 20.0
18.0 - 19.0
17.0 - 18.0
16.0 - 17.0
15.0 - 16.0
14.0 - 15.0
13.0 - 14.0
12.0 - 13.0
11.0 - 12.0
10.0 - 11.0
9.0 - 10.0
8.0 - 9.0
7.0 - 8.0
6.0 - 7.0
5.0 - 6.0
4.0 - 5.0
3.0 - 4.0
2.0 - 3.0
Antoninus Pius
Emesa *
Antioch 147 *
Antioch 2 * *
Antioch 3 *
Antioch 4 * *
Antioch 5 *
Septimius Severus
Laod. ad Lib. * * *
Heliopolis 148 * * * *
Heliopolis 2 * * *
45
CRS, 207. In Antioch, a heavy module was introduced starting from the reign of Elagabalus onwards
and not before.
46
For Antioch see CRS, 212-213, Figs. 62 and 63. For Heliopolis, which minted only during the reigns
of Septimius Severus, Philip I and Valerian, see Sawaya 2009, 145-146.
47
Five groups of issues have been listed by Butcher.
48
Six groups (émissions) have been recorded by Sawaya.
220
Heliopolis 3 * * * * *
Heliopolis 4 * * *
Heliopolis 5 * * * * *
Heliopolis 6 * *
Caracalla
Emesa * * *
Laod. ad Lib. * *
Antioch * *
Macrinus
Emesa *
Laod. ad Lib. *
Antioch *
Elagabalus
Raphanea * *
Emesa * * *
Laod. ad Lib. *
Antioch * * *
Table 38: Chart comparing the denominations at Antioch and Heliopolis with those of the southern
Orontes Valley.
The above table also shows a general lack of uniformity in the
denominational relationships between the various mints. For the reign of Antoninus
Pius, Antioch minted either one or two denominations with some similarities in their
modules with that of Emesa, but it is difficult to see any compatibility between the
issues of the two mints. Both Laodicea ad Libanum and Heliopolis began minting in
the reign of Septimius Severus, but whereas Laodicea had only a single series,
Heliopolis seems to have had a variety of issues and denominations. It has been
argued that the issues at Laodicea were minted sometime between AD 198 and 209
(see Production chapter). These coincide with Groups 3, 4 and 5 for Heliopolis, the
denominational systems of which are unlike those of Laodicea. For the reigns of
Caracalla, Macrinus and Elagabalus, the differences in denominations and modules of
the various mints are clearly visible in Table 38 above.
221
CHAPTER VI
TYPES AND LEGENDS
Coins, as a form of miniature art, provide a glimpse into the social and
cultural patterns prevalent in the Orontes Valley during the Roman period and before.
In the case of Apamea, the iconography of the coins clearly show that Greek religion
had left its imprint and continued to do so after the arrival of the Romans. Regarding
the remaining cities of the Orontes Valley further south, the coins present a mirror of
the communities’ civic identity and religious beliefs (or at least those of the elites).
A. Apamea
Silver
Tetradrachms of Caracalla with the symbol of a wheat ear between the legs
of the eagle on the reverse were initially attributed to Apamea by Bellinger, based on
the presence of wheat ears also on bronze issues of this mint.1 However, he later
classified them in his corpus under Cyprus based on Seyrig’s proposal.2 Prieur, too,
attributes these silver coins to Cyprus, but not without reservation.3 Parks also
classifies them to a Cypriot mint, but does not rule out an attribution to Ake
Ptolemais.4 Butcher, on the other hand, has noted that these tetradrachms with a wheat
ear have stylistic similarities with those of the mint of Sidon.5 Putting the attribution
1
2
Bellinger 1940, 104. For Seyrig see 1932, 362-363.
3
Prieur 1578-1583.
4
Parks 2004, 127-130. A possible attribution to Ake was initially suggested by Bellinger (1949, 121).
5
CRS 112. Also noted by Bellinger (1940, 105).
222
of these coins with a wheat symbol aside, it would be natural to raise the question
whether or not Apamea did indeed participate in minting tetradrachms under
Caracalla. Due to the lack of any evidence to date, no silver coins of the Roman
period can be attributed to Apamea with certainty, apart from those minted under
Claudius.6 These rare silver coins depict Tyche seated on a throne, holding a sceptre
and corn ears, with her feet placed on a nude swimming torso representing the
Orontes River.7 Unlike the typical portrayal of Tychai on Apamene coins, the Tyche
on the silver (and bronze) of this emperor is depicted in the style of a seated Roma.8 A
shield placed at her side has a scorpion engraved in relief, perhaps representing the
astrological symbol associated with the refoundation of the city as ‘Claudia
Apamea’.9
Bronzes
1. Types
a. Civic issues
Apamea’s civic issues, which originated in 77/76 BC, are dominated by the
images of Zeus, Dionysus, Demeter, Tyche and Nike, all of whom are familiar themes
for Hellenistic period issues in the region. What is noteworthy was the continuation of
these types with the arrival of the Romans, without changes being introduced. It was
6
The classification of mints producing tetradrachms during the reign of Caracalla and Macrinus based
on the symbols of the reverse is still not fully established, and therefore Apamea cannot be fully
excluded from the list of possible candidates.
7
Prieur 948.
8
In fact, Imhoof-Blumer (1913, 108) does describe the seated figure as Roma and not Tyche, although
she clearly is wearing a turreted crown.
9
For astrological symbols on Syrian coins see Barton 1994 and CRS 225-226.
223
only in 4/3 BC that the portrait of Augustus was introduced at Apamea, more than two
decades into his rule. These issues with imperial portraits continued using most of the
above mentioned iconography as reverse types.
Group 1
• Zeus/elephant (Cat. no. 1)
The image of Zeus had a prominent place on Seleucid coins. This seems to
have been the case also for the civic coins of Apamea from the outset, as it is present
on the earliest known autonomous issue from this mint and on the largest
denomination. These coins continued to be issued for nearly two decades until 59/58
BC, even after the conquest of the city by Pompey and the advent of the Romans.
The god’s local significance is evident from the existence of a prominent
temple, most likely dedicated to Zeus, located in the heart of the city.10 What is
certain is that an oracle of Zeus Belos was to be found in Apamea.11 The combination
of the Greek Zeus with an eastern Bel (a supreme god in Babylonia or the chief god of
a city12) is perhaps the result of the location of Apamea on the western fringes of the
Syrian steppe and at proximity to Palmyra, where the worship of this deity was
prominent. It should be noted that it may also be the case that the name Zeus Belos
derives from the river with that name flowing past Chalcis ad Belum, situated north-
east of Apamea, though Millar’s identification with the eastern Bel seems more
plausible.13 Unfortunately, the main temple at Apamea having been destroyed in the
10
There is no archaeological or epigraphic evidence that the temple is dedicated to Zeus.
11
Dio 79.8.
12
Millar 1993, 263.
13
Millar 1993, 263.
224
late fourth century AD by Bishop Marcellus14 cannot provide more insight into this
question.
The elephant represented on the reverse of these early coins was undoubtedly
a reference to Apamea being the military headquarters of the Seleucids, where 500
war elephants were kept.15 The Seleucids were keen on maintaining a contingent of
elephants in their arsenal, although by the time of Antiochus III the numbers had
dwindled to around one hundred.16 Despite this decline, the elephant as a symbol of
Seleucid military might was cherished, and several issues minted in Apamea under
the Seleucids continued to portray the elephant.17
What is indeed remarkable for the time period under study here is the fact
that the coins with this image were minted some two centuries after the elephants
were first stationed there. By the early first century BC it is unlikely that the site
continued to host elephants, for we know that in the mid-second century BC the
elephants were destroyed by the Roman ambassador Gnaeus Octavius (consul in 165
BC):
When the Roman senate heard that the Syrians kept more warships and
elephants than allowed by the peace treaty of Apamea made in 188 BC,
they sent a Roman embassy to travel along the cities of Syria and cripple
Seleucid military power. Warships were sunk and elephants hamstrung.
Lysias dared do nothing to oppose the Romans, but his subservience so
enraged his Syrian subjects that the Roman envoy Gnaeus Octavius was
assassinated (Appian Syr. 47).18
Apparently, the fact that Apamea was where the Seleucids kept their war
elephants must have been a symbol of pride for the Apamenes, for the representation
of this animal held a prominent place on their coinage (being the type used on the
14
Theodoret Hist. eccl. 5.21.
15
Strabo 16.2.10.
16
Polybius 5.79.13.
17
SC I, nos. 1065-1066 and possibly nos. 1067-1068; SC II, no. 2243.
18
See also Appian Syr. 46 and Cicero Philippic 9.
225
highest denomination) and continued to be issued even after the arrival of the Romans
and the destruction of the citadel by Pompey the Great.
• Tyche/Nike (Cat. no. 2)
The depiction of Tyche and Nike on the civic coins of Apamea originates
from Apamea’s Seleucid past. The bust of Tyche wearing a turreted crown,
representing the walls of the city, was a common theme utilised by numerous mints in
the region. Just as the walls defined a city and symbolised its identity as a polis,
Tyche too was a representation of civic pride and autonomy. Apamea, with its
monumental colonnaded streets and gates, certainly boasted impressive walls, and
excavations there have revealed a Tychaion, which stood in front of the city’s main
temple near the agora.19 It is also undoubted that statues representing Tyche stood in
most Syrian cities. Thus, it is no surprise that Tyche, with her mural crown, was also
depicted on the coinage of the city.20
No particular reason need be sought for the presence of Nike on the civic
issues of Apamea, as Nike was a popular theme of Hellenistic coins and continued to
be the case through the Roman period. The winged figure was in most cases
represented wearing a long dress and holding a wreath and palm branch.
• Demeter/corn ear (Cat. no. 3)
The bust of Demeter, the goddess of grain and harvest, is depicted on the
civic issues of Apamea in association with a corn ear which had two buds sprouting
19
Balty 1988, 95. See IGLS vol. IV, no. 1317, for a dedicatory inscription referring to the construction
of the ‘Temple of Fortuna’.
20
For a general discussion on the iconography of Tychai on Hellenistic and Roman coins see Cellini
2007.
226
from the stem. This was probably a reference to Apamea’s fertility, as the city was
situated in the fertile Orontes Valley.
• Dionysus/Grapes (Cat. no. 4)
The bust of Dionysus also appears on the first civic issues of this mint along
with a bunch of grapes for the reverse design. As a god of vegetation (notably fruits)
and wine, the depiction of Dionysus on the coins pertained to Apamea’s agricultural
fertility and/or to the worship of his cult. Apparently, the reverence of Dionysus had
become more prominent in Apamea throughout the first century BC, since the bust of
this deity and his attributes came to dominate the types (see Group 3 below).
Unfortunately, the archaeological record of this city provides only minimal evidence
for this worship. There is no specific mention of Dionysus and his cult in inscriptions
documented from Apamea and the surrounding area,21 except for an honorific
inscription dedicated by an association of actors devoted to Dionysus dating to the
early first century AD.22 A pillar, referred to as the ‘pilier bacchique’, was found
among the central ruins of the site, depicting in relief the fate of Dionysus’ victim
Lycurgus ensnared in vines.23 The only direct representation of the deity is in the form
of a mutilated statue reported by Haskett Smith to have stood in front of a ‘large
building’ located in the centre of the main street of Apamea.24 It is uncertain if the
‘large building’ is a reference to the main temple attributed to Zeus Belos, but if this
indeed is the case, then perhaps this temple may also have been associated with
Dionysus.
21
IGLS vol. IV, nos. 1311-1541.
22
Millar 1993, 262.
23
Balty 1981, 58-61.
24
Smith 1892, 582.
227
In any event, the theatre at Apamea was the largest in Syria and perhaps in
the Roman world. Keeping in mind that festivals dedicated to Dionysus were
performed in theatres, perhaps this was a reason the theatre was built on a colossal
scale, as to accommodate the deity’s prominence in the city’s religious life.
Group 2
• Dionysus/thyrsus (Cat. no. 5)
As stated above, the prominence of Dionysus on the coins of Apamea
increased, by which the bust of the deity, and his attribute the thyrsus, was then placed
on the largest denomination, replacing Zeus as the chief deity on the coinage. This
introduction took place in 31/30 BC, following the defeat of Antony by Octavian in
Actium (for the relevant historical events and the effect they had on the coinage see
the Production chapter).
• Athena/Nike (Cat. no. 6)
Athena was commonly depicted on coins along with Nike, representing
military victory. On the coins of Apamea the bust of Athena was depicted wearing a
Corinthian helmet, and Nike was represented advancing in a flowing dress while
holding a wreath and a palm branch over her shoulder. This type was issued in
Apamea for a relatively long period spanning nearly three decades. The origin of this
type (Athena/Nike) on the coins of Apamea can be traced back to Hellenistic times,
since it also appeared on the issues of Seleucus II attributed to this mint by Newell.25
25
WSM, nos. 1169-1174.
228
• Demeter/three corn ears (Cat. no. 7)
The symbolism of Demeter on the coins of Apamea was discussed above for
the issues of Group 1. In this group the same tradition was carried on with the
difference being that the single ear of corn was replaced by three individual corn ears.
The style in which Demeter was represented is also noticeably different. Whereas on
the earlier issue her veiled head was depicted, the later displayed her entire bust,
unveiled but draped.
• Tyche/Athena standing (Cat. no. 8)
In Group 2, the Tyche and Athena themes are combined. Each was discussed
separately above. However, in the case of these issues, Athena was no longer depicted
by her bust alone, but rather Nikephoros in the style of Athena Parthenos.
The fact that the Tyche/Athena type (represented by the year 44/43 BC) was
issued together with the Athena/Nike type above (represented by the year 43/42 BC),
may be connected to the relevant historical events taking place in the region, since
these types most likely relate to a victorious event. We know that during the period
from 46 to 44 BC Bassus, a supporter of Pompey, held out the city against the
Caesareans,26 keeping in mind that the first issues of the above two mentioned types
utilise the Pompeian era (year 23 and 24 = 44/43 and 43/42 BC respectively). Thus,
the fact that both Athena and Nike are represented on the new issues of Group 2 may
be explained by the military perseverance of Apamea in the ensuing battles of the
26
Strabo 16.2.10.
229
Roman generals and therefore may very well have been minted under Bassus to
commemorate the event.
Group 3
• Dionysus/thyrsus (Cat. no. 9)
This final group of civic issues of Apamea is almost completely dominated
by Dionysus. As discussed above, the prominence of this deity at Apamea during the
early Roman period is obvious, but the deity’s importance in the city can be traced
back to the Hellenistic period. Coins issued by several Seleucid kings in this mint also
utilised Dionysus as a theme, along with his attributes: thyrsus, panther, grapes and
the ivy wreath.
Posthumous issues of Antiochus IV struck by Alexander Balas depict the
bust of Dionysus on the obverse and a thyrsus on the reverse.27 These were followed
by the issues of Antiochus VI, who minted coinage in silver of several denominations,
all of which had Dionysian themes: thyrsus and ivy wreath on tetradrachms, a bunch
of grapes on drachms and a panther for the hemidrachms.28 Two separate bronze
issues of this monarch also have been tentatively attributed to the mint representing
Dionysus and a cantharus on the reverse.29 Antiochus VI associated himself with
Dionysus by using the deity’s epithet, but the issues of this king using Dionysian
elements was more likely linked with the cult practised at the city rather than his title,
since his predecessors and successors also used these themes on coins struck in
27
SC II, nos. 1883-1884.
28
SC II, nos. 2008-2012. See also discussion on p. 325.
29
SC II, nos. 2014-2015.
230
Apamea. Issues in bronze attributed to Alexander Zebinas from Apamea also portray
the bust of Dionysus.30
Thus, the cult of Dionysus at Apamea was certainly significant, since the
worship of this deity had taken a foothold in the Hellenistic era and probably grew in
importance, as can be seen from the place it occupied on the coins minted in the city.
• Dionysus/Demeter (Cat. no. 10)
In this issue, Dionysus is depicted in association with Demeter, who stands
holding a long torch. Once again Demeter was introduced into the iconography of the
coins, although in this group, she is not depicted as the sole deity on the coin, as was
the case for the previous two groups discussed above.
• Dionysus/cornucopia (Cat. no.11)
The cornucopia undoubtedly refers to Apamea’s fertility, as Dionysus was
also a god of vegetation and viticulture.
• Zeus/Tyche seated (Cat. no.12)
This very rare type of Apamea has thus far been documented by three
specimens only.31 A fourth specimen is said to be in the Studium Biblicum
Franciscanum of Jerusalem (SBF).32 A cast of a fifth specimen is reported to be in the
30
SC II, no. 2242.
31
BNF-959; Vcoins-Incitatus Coins; private collection. All three specimens are struck from a single
obverse die and at least two reverse dies (the reverse of the specimen in Paris is quite worn and
therefore difficult to identify the die used).
32
Personal communication with Kevin Butcher. Several unsuccessful attempts were made to contact
the museum staff, as a result of which an image and metrological data was not acquired.
231
British Museum.33 The obverse depicts the head of Zeus and the reverse a seated
Tyche. The seated female figure on the coins of Apamea has similarities with the
seated goddess on the coins of Gabala.34 However, the goddess of this coastal city is
Aphrodite/Astarte due to the presence of a sphinx at her feet, and therefore should not
be associated with the deity on the Apamene coins.35
• Misattribution
An Artemis/seated Zeus type published
in Lindgren I, no. 2038, is attributed to the mint
of Apamea in Syria based on the reading of the
legend ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ on the reverse by the Figure 10: Bronze coin erroneously
attributed to Apamea in Syria depicting a
authors (Figure 10). The inscription is rather female bust and a seated Zeus (Lindgren
I, 2038, 7.74 gr, 22.5 mm)
worn and therefore the reading is not unequivocal. Based on the style, the module and
the types it can be surmised that the coin is the product of Adana in Cilicia,36 hence
the confusion in the reading between ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ and Α∆ΑΝΕΩΝ.
b. Coins with imperial portraits
Apamea minted coins with the portrait of an emperor from the outset
(starting with Augustus), a trend in line with other Syrian mints such as Antioch,
Seleucia and Laodicea.37 The iconography on the coins minted under Augustus,
Tiberius and Claudius was a continuation of the previous types of Zeus, Athena,
33
Cited in RPC I, p. 634, no. 4371. The cast cannot be located in the present.
34
RPC I, nos. 4449-4452, 4454-4455.
35
For a description of the goddess of Gabala see Seyrig 1964, p. 22, and Imhoof-Blumer 1901, 7.
36
SNG Cop., 22.
37
CRS, 218; RPC I, 39-40.
232
Tyche and Nike. However, in the case of Claudius, the Emperor’s portrait does not
appear on the bronze issues, but is reserved for the tetradrachms.
c. Conclusion
The presence of Zeus, Athena, Tyche and Nike on the civic issues of
Apamea is in line with the iconography depicted on coins of the region. What is
somewhat unusual is the dominance of Dionysus, particularly during the later phases.
The presence of this deity and his attributes was a tradition carried down by the
Seleucids and continued to be in use during the Roman period. Almost nothing is
known of the cult of Dionysus in Apamea, but his birthplace is traditionally placed in
southern Syria, and it is well attested that this deity was popular in Hellenistic Syria.38
However, in the case of Apamea, a special connection may be drawn
between Dionysus and the fact that the city was the main military headquarters of the
Seleucids where the war elephants were kept. Dionysus is represented as the mythical
conqueror of India, whence the elephants were secured by Seleucus I, and later by
Antiochus III. This significant event by the first of the Seleucid monarchs may have
initiated the cult of Dionysus at Apamea early on.39 The presence at Apamea of the
Roman world’s largest theatre adds to the importance of Dionysus and his cult in the
city.
The cult of Demeter also seems to have been significant at Apamea based on
her presence on the coins of the city throughout the first century BC. This was in all
probability a reference to Apamea’s fertility due to its location in the productive
Orontes Valley.
38
Van Berg 1972, 112-113; Retsö 2003, 602-605, 610-614; Aliquot 2009, 189-194.
39
See also WSM, 171.
233
Regarding the coins with imperial portraits, no new iconography was
introduced, but it should be noted that the Dionysus and Demeter themes fell out of
use.
2. Legends
The name of Apamea first appeared on the ‘quasi-municipal’ coins minted
there in the time of Antiochus IV and Alexander Balas. The legend on the coins of the
former monarch reads ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΩΙ ΑΞΙΩΙ, whereas that of the
latter simply reads ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ. The first inscription refers to the city being situated
on the Axios River, as this was the name given to the Orontes River by the early
Macedonian settlers from Pella, as tribute to the main river which flowed in their
homeland.40
With the appearance of the civic issues of Apamea in the 70s BC, the legend
used on the coins for all denominations invariably reads ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ
ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ, proclaiming the city’s holy and inviolable status. The title on the
coins was later converted to ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ in 40/39
BC, following the granting of autonomy by Antony. This title was consistently used
on the coins for a period of ten years without any significant changes introduced in
the types.
Following the defeat of Antony in Actium, in 30/29 BC Apamea reverted to
using its original title of being ‘inviolable’ and no longer boasted its ‘autonomous’
status. The change of titles was apparently sudden, since the Athena/Nike type issued
in this year was recorded with both legend varieties (ΑΣΥΛΟΥ and ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ).
40
Grainger 1990, 42; Cohen 2006, 100.
234
After this transition, the city continued using the title ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ
ΑΣΥΛΟΥ on its civic coins until the last decade of the first century BC.
With the introduction of the coins bearing the imperial portrait, no change is
noted in the title inscribed on the coins. Coins with the portrait of Augustus at
Apamea are only known for the year 4/3 BC. Two types were minted: the Nike type
bearing the full legend ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ and the Tyche type
which reads ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ only. No particular reason can be given for the
use of the ‘short’ title on the second type, as this is the only case where this variety is
noted. The coins minted by Augustus’ successor continued using the ‘longer title’ (see
below). The coins minted under Augustus were later followed by the issues of
Tiberius minted in 14/15 AD. Two types were issued, both of which are known by
this year alone and utilise the ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ title.
A complete change was introduced for the title and status of Apamea on the
coins minted in the reign of Claudius, keeping in mind that for the first and only time
silver was also produced in this mint. The inscription on the obverse of the
tetradrachms reads ΚΛΑΥ∆ΙΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΣ and on the reverse
ΚΛΑΥ∆ΙΕWΝ ΑΠΑΜΕWΝ. It is apparent from the inscriptions on these coins that
the emperor bestowed the title of ‘Claudia Apamea’, by which the traditional ‘Sacred
and Inviolate’ titles were no longer used on these last issues of Apamea. It is
interesting to note here that the title bestowed by Claudius was still in use in Apamea
in the early third century AD, as is evident from an inscription dedicated to Caracalla
235
by ‘the Senate and the people of Claudia Apamea’,41 and by a second inscription
dedicated to Julia Domna using the same title for the city.42
3. Field marks
The coins minted in Apamea are all dated according to various systems. A
chronological classification for all these coins was proposed and discussed in detail in
the Production chapter above and therefore will not be repeated here. Regarding the
field marks on these coins, their precise function or meaning is not clearly understood.
However, upon a thorough tabulation of the field marks according to types and dates,
certain patterns have emerged and are presented below:
Group 1 Zeus/ Tyche/ Demeter/ Dionysus/

elephant Nike corn ear grapes
ςΛΣ=236=77/76 BC ? - - -
ΖΛΣ=237=76/75 BC ΣΕ ? - ΣΕ?
ΘΛΣ=239=74/73 BC - - ΣΕ ΣΓ; ΣΕ
ΜΣ=240=73/72 BC AN - - -
BΜΣ=242=71/70 BC ∆I - KA? KA
ΓΜΣ=243=70/69 BC MNA; MH ? AN -
EΜΣ=245=68/67 BC MNA; MA - - -
Z=7=60/59 BC ∆I; MH - - -
H=8=59/59 BC KA; MH - KA; MH -
ςI=16=51/50 BC - AN - -
Group 2 Dionysus/ Athena/ Demeter/ Tyche/

thyrsus Nike three corn Athena
ΓΚ=23=44/43 BC - - - AN; MH; EI
∆Κ=24=43/42 BC - AN; EI - -
ΒOΣ=272=41/40 BC - AN; MH - -
B=2=40/39 BC - MH; EI - -
Γ=3=39/38 BC - EI - -
EOΣ=275=38/37 BC - AN; MH; EI AN; ςI -
ςOΣ=276=37/36 BC - AN; MH - AN?
ZOΣ=277=36/35 BC - MH AN? AN; MH; EI
41
IGLS vol. IV, no. 1346. It would be difficult to establish any evidence for the use of iera and asylia
after the reign of Claudius in the city, since no coins were minted thereafter. Epigraphic evidence is
also lacking in this respect.
42
Jalabert 1910, 344.
236
ΒΠΣ=282=31/30 BC - AN; MH?; EI AN AN; MH?
ΓΠΣ=283=30/29 BC AN; MH?; EI? AN; MH AN? EI
∆ΠΣ=284=29/28 BC AN? - - -
EΠΣ=285=28/27 BC AN; MH - - -
ςΠΣ=286=27/26 BC - AN? - AN; MH
ZΠΣ=287=26/25 BC - ? - -
Β9Σ=292=21/20 BC NOY; EI; ΘE NOY NOY?; ∆I EI
Γ9Σ=293=20/19 BC NOY; EI; ∆I; XP NOY?; ∆I; XP - -
E9Σ=295=18/17 BC NOY; EI; ΘE NOY; XP - ΘE
Group 3 Dionysus/ Dionysus/ Dionysus/ Zeus/

thyrsus Demeter cornucopia Tyche seated
T=300=13/12 BC(?) - AN - -
ΓΤ=303=10/9 BC - - MA; ∆I -
∆T=304=9/8 BC NOY; MA - - -
HT=308=5/4 BC - MA?; ME - ME; AN; MΣ
Augustus Nike Tyche

HK=28=4/3 BC ∆H ∆H
Tiberius Nike Athena

ςKT=326=14/15 AD - -
Claudius Tyche seated Nike

ETO A - -
ETO B - -
Table 39: Table listing all known field marks on Apamene bronze coins.
It can be noticed from the above table that some particular field marks found
on a specific group continue to be used on the subsequent group as well. For example,
regarding Group 1 the field mark ΣΕ dominates the initial issues of the mint and is
later followed by MNA, KA, AN and MH, where the latter two continue to be used on
the early issues of the following Group 2. Subsequently, during the later phase of
Group 2, new field marks were introduced: NOY, ∆I and XP, of which some
continued to be used in Group 3. However, it has also been observed that certain field
marks were exclusive to a particular group, such as EI, which is reserved for the
issues of Group 2 alone. Some field marks, such as ςI, can be found exclusively on a
single type minted on a specific date only (Demeter/three corn ears). It may be argued
that the field marks represent a system of enumeration, which could seem to be the
237
case at first glance; however, this is unlikely since some do not represent consistent
dates, such as MNA, NOY, ΘE and ∆H. A system of enumeration is also unlikely due
to the existence of wide gaps in the sequence, for example between ∆I, KA, MA, MH
and AN, which represent the numbers 14, 21, 41, 48 and 51 respectively. Thus, the
above observations indicate that the field marks on the bronze coins of Apamea are
most probably signatures or control marks of families representing magistrates or
moneyers.43
It has been noted that several coins of the Dionysus/thyrsus type have a
ligatured ME inscribed on the obverse behind Dionysus’ head. This aspect occurs
only on coins dated ∆T=304=9/8 BC. A die study has also shown that more than one
obverse die with this field mark was prepared.
Of the bronze issues with imperial portraits, only those of Augustus bear
field marks (∆H). The tetradrachms of Claudius bear the field mark EΛ, which
according to Seyrig signifies ἐλευθερία, a privilege associated with the minting of
silver.44 However, after having consulted the corpus on Syro-Phoenician
tetradrachms,45 no similar cases have been noticed. Therefore, it is likely that the field
mark on the tetradrachms of Apamea represents a signature or control mark, which
would be in line with the cases presented above for the bronzes.
No monograms are present on the civic issues of Apamea.
43
It seems unlikely that they represent the symbol of individuals, since some remain in use for a long
period of time, for example MH.
44
Seyrig 1950, 20.
45
Prieur and Prieur 2000.
238
B. Larissa
The coins of this city were minted before the civic issues of Apamea
appeared in 77/76 BC. But unlike the civic issues of Apamea, which were produced
for several decades, the issues of Larissa were minted in the year 86/85 BC alone,
during a period preceding the Roman presence in the region.
1. Types (Cat. nos. 20-21)
The issues of Larissa are known by two types only: Zeus/throne and
Tyche/horse. The first type is most likely a reference to the chief deity of the city and
a representation of his throne. It is known from ancient sources that Larissa fell under
the sphere of influence of its more powerful neighbour Apamea,46 where the worship
of Zeus Belos was prominent (see above). Perhaps this deity’s influence spread south
to Larissa. However, without archaeological evidence, this remains unverified.
Documented inscriptions from Larissa are few and irrelevant to the time period under
study, and therefore do not add to the history of the pre-Roman period.47
Whereas the first type clearly represents the city’s religious facet, the second
type depicting the head of Tyche and a prancing horse pertains to Larissa’s civic
identity. The turreted bust of Tyche as a representation of a city’s autonomy and
communal identity has been discussed above. The depiction of a horse on the reverse
is a direct reference to Larissa’s origins. As a colony settled by residents of Larissa in
Thessaly famed for horse breeding,48 it is not surprising that this aspect of the city’s
46
Strabo 16.2.10.
47
IGLS vol. IV, no. 1377ff.
48
Diodorus 33.4-5.
239
identity was depicted on the coins as a symbol of pride, keeping in mind that the coins
of Larissa in Thessaly also depict horses.49
2. Legends and field marks
The inscriptions on both types read ΛΑΡΙΣΑΙΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ, representing
the city as holy and sacred. No reference is made to it being inviolate or autonomous,
unlike its more powerful neighbour to the north. The absence of these titles may be an
indication that even by the early first century BC Larissa was still under the influence
of Apamea.
The reverse of both types bear identical dates represented by the Seleucid era
ZKΣ. The field mark, monogram 1 over M, is also present on both types. The
meaning of this monogram is unknown. It should be noted here that this same
monogram is known on numerous issues of the Seleucid kings minted in Antioch, the
meaning of which also remains unclear.50
C. Raphanea
The minting activity of Raphanea seems to have been spontaneous and short-
lived (see Die Studies chapter). The reason for the initiation of a coinage in this city
remains uncertain, though the coins are clear evidence that the city had gained the
status of a polis. It is well known that it was in this city that Elagabalus was
proclaimed emperor by the army in AD 218,51 which perhaps prompted minting. But
history has recorded that the Legio III Gallica stationed there was disbanded soon
49
BMC Thessaly, p. 24-32, Pls. IV-VI. For a prancing horse see in particular coin no. 79, Pl. VI no.11.
50
Newell 1917, 137-151.
51
Dio 79.31; Herodian 5.3.11.
240
after Elagabalus’ accession to power, due to an insurgency by its commander Verus.52
A more probable reason for minting may have been the proclamation of Severus
Alexander as Caesar in AD 221. This hypothesis is based on the existence of the dates
ΒΛΦ = 532 = AD 220/221 and ΛΓΦ = 533 = AD 221/222, in addition to the results of
the die studies conducted on these issues, which conclude that the issues of
Elagabalus were minted concurrently with those depicting the bust of Severus
Alexander. Thus, until earlier dates become available, it may be surmised that minting
was initiated in the last years of Elagabalus’ reign.
1. Types (Cat. nos. 22-25)
The dominant type of this mint is the image of what is often referred to as the
genius of the army.53 The presence of this iconography is not surprising, for it is
known that Raphanea was the legionary base for Legio XII Fulminata, Legio VI
Ferrata and Legio III Gallica (see Introduction chapter). On the larger denomination
the figure is depicted seated or standing, with a naked torso, but wearing a himation
covering his waist and legs. He also wears a turreted headdress, similar to a top hat,
and not the usual depiction of a turreted crown often worn by civic Tychai. The figure
is accompanied by attributes associated with the army, for he holds a patera in his
right hand, from which he pours libation over a bull standing at his feet. The figure is
also flanked by an eagle at each side, along with a cornucopia in the right field.54 The
smaller denomination depicts the bull alone.
52
Dio 80.7.1; Gschwind (2009, 280-282) states that this legion was reinstated in Raphanea during the
reign of Severus Alexander, based on coins issued there in his reign. However, this is inaccurate
since the coins were minted during Alexander’s caesarship.
53
Augé 2000.
54
Some authors (Ronde 2007, 167 and Gschwind et al. 2009, 281) state that the cornucopia is held by
the figure, but this is not the case.
241
Certain parallels have been drawn between the ‘genius’ of Raphanea and the
figure depicted on some imperial coins of Gabala. In the words of Rey-Coquais “le
monnayage de Raphanée présente des analogies avec celui de Gabala”.55 However,
the figure on the coins of this coastal city is a seated female holding in her hands a
long sceptre and corn ears, with an animal at her feet. This deity is in fact Astarte
depicted with a sphinx,56 and the headgear she wears is not a turreted crown and
therefore should not be identified with Tyche. The main confusion in the paralleling
of these coins and those of Raphanea is due to a coin erroneously attributed to Gabala
in the coin catalogue of the British Museum (BMC Syria, p. 245, no. 9). The coin,
issued during the reign of Septimius Severus, depicts on the reverse a standing female
figure wearing a turreted crown and holding a long sceptre and cornucopia, with a
bull at her feet. The coin, as stated above, is erroneously listed under Gabala and
should hereby be reattributed to the mint of Gaza, based on the Marnas symbol in the
right field, as well as the similarity of the reverse type with other imperial issues of
this mint.
The figure depicted on the coins of Raphanea is a representation of the city’s
civic identity. The garrison at Raphanea
undoubtedly had a significant influence on the
region and the identity of the city. Its inhabitants
were certainly affected by the military presence Figure 11: Bronze coin of Elagabalus
minted in Tyre showing the emblems of
there, for the city flourished as a consequence of Legio III Gallica on the reverse (CNG
Inc.).
55
Rey-Coquais 1974, 111. See also Dussaud 1903-1905, 48 and note 5.
56
At times referred to as a lion in the literature.
242
the military fort (see Introduction chapter). The figure on the coins of Raphanea
represents the male genius of the city,57 who is depicted along with attributes
associated with the military stationed there. Thus, the depiction of the genius on the
coins is a combination of a) Raphanea’s civic identity, represented by the headdress
and the cornucopia, and b) the military garrison of the city, represented by the eagles
(as aquilae) and the bull, which is particularly associated with the Legio III Gallica.58
The bull as an emblem of Legio III Gallica also appears on the coins of Tyre, minted
during Elagabalus’ reign, where the reverse depicts two bulls and a military standard
reading LEG III GAL (Figure 11).59
2. Legends
The obverse legend on the coins depicting the portrait of Elagabalus reads:
Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (AVTKMAVPANTΩΝEΙΝΟC), and those with
the bust of Severus Alexander present him as Marcus Aurelius Alexander
(MAVPAΛΕΞΑΝ∆POC), with no mention of his title, as these coins were minted
during his caesarship under Elagabalus (see above). The reverse legend simply states
the ethnic of the city presented in two variants: ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ and ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ.60
Die study analyses on these coins have shown that both versions were minted
concurrently and interchangeably, with no transition noted from one variety to the
other. This observation holds true for both issues with the busts of Elagabalus and
Severus Alexander (see Die Studies chapter). It is only the coins with a seated genius
57
Wroth refers to these coins as having “a somewhat unusual type, apparently the Genius of the city”
(BMC Syria, p. lxx). Gschwind (2009, 281) describes the figure as ‘genius Raphanearum’. Ronde
(2007, 167) prefers to define the figure as the Genius of the Roman People and the eagles and bull as
symbols of the army stationed in the city.
58
Le Bohec, 1994, 247; Dabrowa 2000, 309; Augé 2000, 167; Ronde 2007, 167.
59
BMC Phoenicia 274, no. 394.
60
A variety reads only ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤ (BNF-Y23879.237).
243
reverse that use the longer ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ variety alone. This type however is
known by a few coins (8 specimens); future finds may bring to light the second
variety as well. The smaller bull type (Cat. no. 25) is known by a single specimen
with a partially legible reverse legend and therefore it remains uncertain which legend
variety is inscribed.
No explanation can be found for the use of these two forms.61 The
inscriptions from Raphanea are not useful in this respect, since they mostly relate to
the troops stationed there, and no mention is made of the city’s name.62 However, it
seems that several variants were used in denoting the city’s name in ancient texts.
Josephus (BJ, 7.1.3 and 7.5.1) uses the forms: Ῥαφαναίαις, Ῥαφανέαις and Ῥαφανέας,
whereas Ptolemy (Geography 5.15.16) uses Ραφανέαι.63 Stephanus of Byzantium, in
his work on ethnics, presents the name of the city in the following manner: Ῥαφάνεια,
Ῥαφανεῶται, Ῥαφανέας, Ῥαφανεώτης.64 These of course are similar to both variants
inscribed on the coins.
Eckhel, in his catalogue, refers to coins of Raphanea with the inscription
ΡAΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ.65 However, this variety with an A, instead of an E, was not
encountered on any of the specimens documented for this mint (see Die Studies
chapter).
Regarding dates, in the exergue of the reverse of some of the coins, Seleucid
era dates of ΒΛΦ and ΛΓΦ are inscribed.66 No other field marks are present on the
61
Such variations in the ethnic, although extraordinary, are not unknown in the region, see Nacrasa in
Lydia (BMC Lydia, lxxvii).
62
IGLS vol. IV, nos. 1397-1401.
63
See also Gschwind et al. 2009, 235, note 1.
64
Steph. Byz. Ethnicorum (ed. Meineke, 1849), p. 13, line 16; p. 256, line 9; p. 274, line 17; p. 543,
line 16.
65
1828, vol. 3, 323.
66
A possible reading of AΛΦ remains unconfirmed.
244
coins of Raphanea, although it should be noted that on one of the reverse dies a
symbol resembling a star is found in the exergue.67
D. Emesa
Silver
When the Romans inherited the remains of the Seleucid Empire, the standard
silver currency in the region was the tetradrachm. The Romans found it prudent to
continue the use of this currency without introducing any changes, so much so that
even the type minted under Philip Philadelphus, depicting a seated Zeus on the
reverse, was continued without any significant modifications. The first two Roman
emperors continued to use this type, but starting with the reign of Nero, the standard
type for tetradrachms became an eagle. A few exceptions, however, did exist:
Augustus and Trajan used the seated Tyche type first introduced by Tigranes the
Great, and Tyre minted tetradrachms depicting the bust of Melqart.68 As for the
production of these tetradrachms, Antioch and perhaps Tyre are where these silver
coins were initially minted, with Septimius Severus adding Laodicea ad Mare as a
third. During his fourth consulship, Caracalla launched the production of tetradrachms
in numerous mints of the Syro-Phoenician territories. Macrinus continued his
predecessor’s system of multiple mints, but Elagabalus abandoned it entirely.
67
Lindgren I, no. 2115 (Elagabalus) and Lindgren III, no. 1210 (Severus Alexander). The portrayal of a
star on other coins of Elagabalus is not unknown, for example: RIC IV nos. 61 (aureus) and 46
(denarius).
68
245
Emesa was among the 28 cities taking part in the region-wide scheme
initiated by Caracalla.69 As the vast majority of these tetradrachms utilised a universal
reverse type –depicting a standing facing eagle with spread wings and legs– each mint
employed a specific symbol on the reverse as a form of identification of the issuing
city. The unique symbol of Emesa was the left-facing radiate bust of the sun god,
placed between the legs of the eagle.70
The tetradrachms with the symbol of the radiate sun god were initially
attributed to Heliopolis by Imhoof-Blumer71 and Wroth,72 but this was refuted by
Dieudonné, who was right to point out that the sun god did not appear on any of the
coins of that mint.73 Attribution to Palmyra, where the worship of Shamash the sun
god was prominent, seems unlikely because the city did not minted coins with the
bust or the name of any Roman emperor.74 Knowing that the radiate bust of a sun god
was also portrayed on the bronze coins of Antoninus Pius and Elagabalus minted in
Emesa, in addition to the ‘reformed tetradrachms’ of Uranius Antoninus, it seems
highly likely that these tetradrachms were the product of Emesa. Although the above
propositions do not unequivocally show that these tetradrachms were the product of
Emesa, it remains the most likely candidate, as there is more evidence in favour of
this city than any other mint.
69
Bellinger 1940.
70
A single specimen in the British Museum has a facing bust (BMC Syria, p. 291, no. 10, classified
under Heliopolis). The style of this tetradrachm is unlike all other Emesene tetradrachms.
71
Imhoof-Blumer 1890, 767, see also p. 233-243.
72
BMC Syria, p. 291, nos. 5 (Julia Domna) and 7-10 (Caracalla). See also the discussion in Bellinger
1931, 10.
73
Dieudonné 1906 and also 1909. Dieudonné erroneously attributes tetradrachms of Marcus Aurelius
to Emesa as well (1906, p. 137, Plate IV, no. 5; 1909, 473-474).
74
Bellinger 1940, 10; Krzyżanowska 1982 and 2002.
246
It is noteworthy that the baetyl is not the symbol used on the tetradrachms,
which are of a higher denomination than the bronzes. Keeping in mind that silver
coins were intended for a wider circulation than the bronzes, which were primarily
confined for local use, the deliberate
choice of the sun god over the baetyl
is significant. The baetyl as an
aniconic representation of the cult
may have been only recognizable by

Figure 12: Tetradrachm of Alexander the Great
countermarked with the radiate bust of a sun god
the locals, but a generic (Homs Museum, Inventory no. 1179).
representation of a radiate bust to symbolise a sun god may have had a wider
recognition in the region.
It is worth noting that a number of Alexandrine tetradrachms bear a
countermark depicting a radiate bust.75 Price, following Seyrig, proposed that the
countermark, most of which were applied on tetradrachms of Aspendus, was struck
somewhere in Syria after 172 BC.76 During the process of this research a similar
tetradrachm of Aspendus with a radiate bust countermark was documented in the
Homs Museum (Inventory no. 1179). The coin was said to have been found in Homs
and donated to the museum in 1981 (Figure 12). Based on the provenance of this coin,
it is tempting to suggest that this countermark was applied in Emesa, but as Millar has
rightfully stated, “there is nothing to show that Emesa or its cult even existed in the
Hellenistic period proper.”77 In any event, a single coin is not sufficient to determine
the location in Syria where these tetradrachms were countermarked, but it may be
75
Price 1991, p. 70, nos. 2863, 2896a, 2903a, 2905b and 2930b.
76
Seyrig 1973, 58.
77
Millar 1987, 129.
247
surmised that the cult of the sun god did exist in the general region, perhaps even
before the domination of the Emesenoi tribe of the Samsigeramus dynasty.
The legends on the tetradrachms of Emesa need not be discussed in detail,
since they are of the standard inscriptions found on the general tetradrachms of the
Syro-Phoenician territories (see Catalogue entries). The only noteworthy exception is
the use of the legend ∆ΗΜΑΡXΕΞYΠΑΤΟCΤΟΒ on two known specimens of
Macrinus.78 The ‘TO B’ formula on these tetradrachms of Macrinus is not known in
any other mint.79 Evidently, these tetradrachms were minted during Macrinus’ second
consulship starting in January 218.80 But history tells us that Macrinus rejected the
title of a second consulship on the basis of the consular rank that he already had.81
Based on this fact, Clay proposes that Macrinus’ coins of the Roman mint bearing the
title COS II were discontinued, reverting back to COS.82 This case also seems to have
occurred at Emesa concerning these short-lived issues dated to the Emperor’s second
consulship (known thus far by two specimens only). However, Prieur disagrees with
this viewpoint and proposes that these rare coins were minted at the very end of
Macrinus’ reign, during the ensuing conflict with Elagabalus, when he proclaimed his
son emperor and perhaps also reclaimed his second consulship.83
Another anomaly regarding the reverse legend on the tetradrachms of
Macrinus is the inscription ∆ΗΜΑΡXΕΞYΠΑΤΟCΤΟ∆,84 where obviously a reverse
die of Caracalla was employed. Other specimens of Macrinus with a ΠΠ engraved
78
Prieur no. 977 and the second in a private collection.
79
Personal communication with Michel Prieur.
80
Kienast (1996, 169) places the Emperor’s second consulship after December 31 of AD 217.
81
Dio 79.13.
82
Clay 1979.
83
Prieur 1985a.
84
Forvm Ancient Coins, no. 9032.
248
over ΤΟ∆ are also known.85 This implies that reverse dies of Caracalla were (initially)
used to mint tetradrachms of Macrinus, and some were re-cut to accommodate the
new emperor’s title. The use of Caracalla’s reverse dies to strike tetradrachms of
Macrinus was not unknown elsewhere, for it also occurred in Antioch, Carrhae and
Beroea.86
Regarding the field marks on the reverse of the tetradrachms of Emesa, in the
form of Greek letters or crescents, scholars such as Bellinger and Prieur consider them
as officina symbols, although both have expressed their doubts.87 Die studies on these
silver coins have shown the absence of systematic links between these ‘officinae’,
implying that minting was done with no apparent interaction between the various
symbols (see discussion in Die Studies chapter).
Regarding the silver issues of Uranius Antoninus, the base silver ‘pre-
reformed’ tetradrachms followed the style of their contemporary counterparts minted
in Antioch. This similarity of styles has led some numismatists to raise the question
whether the tetradrachms of this emperor may have been minted in Antioch.88
However, there is no reason why engravers from Antioch may not have been hired to
cut the dies in Emesa. After all, minting in this city had ceased for more than thirty
years and a new generation of die carvers may have been commissioned from
surrounding regions, Antioch being the most likely candidate.
The ‘pre-reform’ tetradrachms depict on the obverse the laureate or radiate
bust of Uranius facing either right or left. At times the Emperor is depicted with a
85
Prieur 1015.
86
Prieur nos. 246A, 828, and 889-894 respectively.
87
Bellinger 1940, p. 64. Michel Prieur proposes that the symbols may signify magistrates’ names or
that of wealthy and influential families of Emesa (personal communication).
88
Prieur and Prieur 2000, 125.
249
raised hand (in a gesture of prayer or as a form of greeting),89 or in military attire
holding a spear and shield (compare Prieur nos. 1041 and 1043). A rare type depicts
the Emperor’s bust supported by an eagle. The reverse invariably portrays a standing
facing eagle with spread wings with the city’s name EMICA inscribed in the exergue
and the letters SC placed in various locations of the reverse field.90
The ‘reformed’ tetradrachms of this emperor were minted using a variety of
reverse types reminiscent of the iconography commonly reserved for aurei and
denarii. These types are: Fortuna standing or seated holding cornucopia and rudder,
Moneta standing holding scales and cornucopia, a saddled dromedary, the radiate bust
of a deity placed on a crescent, Minerva seated with spear and shield,91 and Victory
holding palm and wreath. The obverse depicts the radiate bust of the Emperor on all
the above mentioned types, with the exception of the sun god type on which he is
interestingly laureate, with the radiate crown reserved for the deity on the reverse.92
The field mark SC is commonly inscribed on the reverse field of these coins.93
Bronzes
The iconography on the bronze coins of Emesa is dominated by the cult of
Elagabal, a name which is derived from the Aramaic 'LH'GBL or Elahagabal,
89
Prieur (1985b, coin no. 5) tentatively suggests that tetradrachms of Elagabalus with a similar posture
(normally attributed to Antioch) may be the product of the mint of Emesa. Although Prieur is right in
noting that these tetradrachms are somewhat ‘strange’ in style and dissimilar to the tetradrachms of
Antioch, attribution to Emesa seems unlikely.
90
A variety not listed by Baldus lacks EMICA on the reverse and has BSC inscribed in the exergue, a
reference to the Emperor’s second consulship (CNG-87.882).
91
It is uncertain if the seated figure represents Minerva or Roma. Both figures are known on the aurei,
where the former is depicted standing holding a spear and shield with inscriptions reading
MINERVA VICTRIX (Baldus nos. 51-52), and the latter is depicted seated holding Victory and a
spear and reads ROMAE AETERNAE (Baldus no. 46). In the case of the silver issues the figure is
not labelled, however Minerva is preferred due to the absence of Victory.
92
This coin shares an obverse die link with a ‘pre-reform’ tetradrachm of Uranius (Butcher 1989).
93
Baldus 1975; Prieur 1062-1086.
250
meaning ‘god’ and ‘mountain’.94 The deity was also conceived as a sun god and was
referred to as ‘Theos Hēlios Elagabalos’,95 an appellation known from an inscription
found on the tell of Homs. The name was later converted to Heliogabalus.96 It is
unclear if this deity was associated with a specific mountain in the region, or whether
it was worshiped as a generic mountain god. This deity’s aniconic cult image was an
ovoid baetyl depicted with an eagle either perched on top or standing in front.97
Objects of veneration in the form of baetyls (derived from the Semitic word
byt-‘l, meaning ‘house of god’) were certainly known in the ancient Near East, where
religious anthropomorphic images were mostly absent, unlike in the Graeco-Roman
world.98 Emesa was not unique in displaying a baetyl on its coinage, for coins of
Seleucia in Pieria also depict an ovoid stone placed within a shrine, at times with an
eagle perched on top, and labelled Zeus Kasios (of Mount Casius, south of the city).99
Although the stone is not labelled on the coins produced in Emesa, the coins minted in
Rome depicting the baetyl explicitly state the deity’s name: SANCT DEO SOLI
ELAGABAL.100
1. Types
a. Antoninus Pius (Cat. nos. 26-28)
94
Millar 1993, 301.
95
Millar 1993, 304.
96
Millar (1993, 304) stresses that the form Heliogabalus is only known from the fourth century AD and
therefore was not contemporaneous.
97
For the iconography of the perched eagle on the baetyl of Emesa and the cult of Elagabal, see LIMC
vol. III, 705-708. For a discussion of baetyls in the religious life of the Near East see Millar 1993,
13-15, and Gaifman 2008.
98
Gaifman 2008.
99
CRS 229, 414, and Pls. 21-23. See coin no. 88 in particular for the perched eagle.
100
RIC no. 143.
251
The most common type issued under this emperor represents an eagle
perched on an ovoid stone. Herodian (5.3.5-6) describes this baetyl as an “enormous
stone, rounded at the base and coming to a point on the top, conical in shape and
black” and having on it “some small projecting pieces and markings that are pointed
out, which the people would like to believe are a rough picture of the sun, because this
is how they see them”. In fact, on some well preserved coins of this city minted in the
reign of Antoninus Pius, the baetyl is depicted with astrological symbols such as stars
and crescents in relief (Figure 13). It is worth noting that depictions of the baetyl on
the coins do not show it conical in shape, with a pointed tip as Herodian describes it,
but rather ovoid with a rounded top.
The earliest known imagery of the
stone with a perched eagle on top comes from
a limestone relief located 75 kilometres south-

Figure 13: Bronze coin of Antoninus Pius
east of Homs, dating to a period roughly a minted in Emesa showing the baetyl with a
star (BMC Syria 6, 11.55 gr, 23.5 mm).
century before the above mentioned coins
were minted.101 This would place the relief in the later period of the Samsigeramus
Dynasty. History tells us that Emesa as a city came into being sometime after Actium
and that it was annexed by the Roman Empire in the Flavian period (see Introduction
chapter). The fact that Emesa was minting during the reign of Antoninus Pius shows
that it had attained the status of a city. The above mentioned relief indicates that the
cult of Elagabal existed when the region was under the power of the Emesenoi tribe
and, as the coins show, continued to be the prominent religion even after the
annexation. Shahîd proposes the interesting idea that the tribe brought this old Arab
101
Millar 1993, 301.
252
religion of the sun god to the region, but unfortunately he does not verify it with
historical evidence.102 Icks is also of the opinion that Elagabal was a local deity and
that the sun god was introduced by Samsigeramus,103 as evident by the ruler’s name,
which derives from the words shams (the sun) and karam (venerate): the sun has
venerated.104
Regarding variations in the iconography of this baetyl, a specimen in the
BNF (Inv. no. 979) depicts the stone with a feature on top resembling a pedestal
(Figure 14).105 The exact identification of this
feature is unknown, but the style in which the
eagle is portrayed is not similar to any other
reverse of this type. However, despite this

Figure 14: Coin of Antoninus Pius from
anomaly, die studies have shown that this coin Emesa with an unusual feature on top of
the baetyl (BNF-979, AE 8.95 gr, 22.5
mm).
has an obverse die link with two other
specimens,106 both of which have different reverse dies depicting the ‘usual’ stone and
eagle. It is noteworthy that all three specimens have the field mark ‘Γ’ (see Die
Studies chapter for details). Thus, because all three coins have a common obverse die
but different reverse dies, in addition to sharing a common field mark, it follows that
the above mentioned coin was struck approximately at the same time and place as the
others, and that it is not a forgery.
The second most common type of this city minted during the reign of
Antoninus Pius depicts the radiate bust of a sun god on the reverse. It is known that
102
Shahîd 1984, 13.
103
Icks 2011, 49.
104
Ball 2000, 37.
105
A second specimen in a private collection is reported to have a similar design (information from
RPC online database).
106
Vienna-GR 21666 and BNF-978.
253
Julia Domna was the daughter of the high priest of the sun, Iulius Bassianus, in most
probability the ruling family of Emesa into which Septimius Severus married.107 Here
there seems to be an association or confusion between the two deities: the sun god and
the mountain god. Perhaps this confusion was the result of the conversion of the term
Elagabal into Heliogabalus as discussed above. As Millar rightfully points out,
Herodian may have been instrumental in creating this confusion: “the stone with its
eagle has changed meaning and – rather improbably – has come to be interpreted as a
symbol of the sun (‘Helios’)”.108 It may simply be the case that both deities coexisted
in Emesa, and were connected, by which the ‘priests of the sun’ were the keepers of
the ovoid stone sent from heaven (a meteorite?) representing Elahagabal. Butcher
sees composite deities as the creation of socio-political strategies and draws a possible
link between the Samsigeramus Dynasty and Elagabal:109 The name Samsigeramus
derives from the Semitic word shams, meaning the sun, implying a connection with a
sun cult. When the Dynasty settled in Emesa, this cult perhaps merged with the
existing cult of the mountain god, crafting the amalgamated ‘Sun God Elagabalus’.
This scenario, although difficult to prove, seems likely, for it cannot be contested that
the two cults were combined. It is irrefutable that the baetyl of Elagabal was
associated with the sun, based on aurei and denarii of Elagabalus with inscriptions
reading SANCT DEO SOLI ELAGABAL.110 In fact, there is an even more direct
association between the baetyl, representing the mountain god and the sun.
Astrological symbols were seen on the baetyl by the locals, a feature which is also
depicted on the coins. Interestingly, Herodian cynically states that the people would
107
Millar 1993, 119.
108
Millar 1993, 305. Dieudonné (1906, 136) also implies a probable connection of the two.
109
Butcher 2003, 343-344.
110
RIC nos. 143-145 and 195-197 respectively.
254
have liked to believe that they were rough pictures of the sun, since this is how they
wanted to see them. It may have been the case that these astrological features were a
creation of the local priests to emphasise the connection between the baetyl and the
sun, the product of the above mentioned socio-political strategies.
Here a discussion should also be included regarding the sun god Shamash of
Palmyra, who played a significant role in the city’s religion, as attested by the coin
types minted there.111 It is known that Emesa and Palmyra shared a common border
and were undoubtedly connected through trade routes running from the Syrian coast
to the inland steppe, and both came into being as urban centres sometime in the first
century BC.112 However, there is no evidence that the Palmyrene Shamash was also
worshiped in Emesa. Despite the relation of the two cities, it would be incorrect to
refer to the radiate figure on the coins of Emesa as Shamash, which is the case in
some publications dealing with this subject.113 Therefore, it is preferable to refer to
the deity depicted on the coins of Emesa simply as a ‘sun god’ without assigning a
specific name. In any event, both the sun god and the baetyl of Elagabal are depicted
on the coins of Antoninus Pius, implying that both cults were practised in the city
nearly a century before the reign of Elagabalus and his elevation of the cult to a state
level.
The third type on the coins of Antoninus Pius is represented by a seated
Tyche with her feet placed on a swimming torso representing the Orontes River. The
iconography of Tyche on civic issues is a common theme and has been discussed in
detail above (see Apamea) and therefore need not be repeated here. What is
noteworthy is that whereas the first two types relate to the city’s religion, this third
111
Krzyżanowska 2002, 173, nos. i, iv, ix, xi, xiv, xviii.
112
Millar 1993, 34, 319-320.
113
Seyrig 1971; Prieur and Prieur 2000.
255
type is undoubtedly a representation of Emesa’s civic identity. As stated above,
Emesene coins are the earliest evidence indicating that by the reign of Antoninus Pius,
Emesa was fully recognised as a polis and was no longer a tribal entity.
Although it was after a gap of several decades that Emesa began minting in
the reign of Caracalla, no major changes were introduced in the iconography chosen
for these coins, which continued to focus on the cult of Elagabal. The only significant
change was the portrayal of the great temple. This temple was either shown in
perspective view or the façade alone. This latter view depicts a flight of steps leading
up to a balustraded platform on top of which rests the baetyl with an eagle standing in
front.114 The connection of the eagle with the baetyl of Elagabal should not be linked
to the association of this bird of prey with Zeus, but rather to the eagle’s relationship
with solar characteristics and its relations to the sun god (Helios). Naturally, no
astrological symbols are found on the ovoid stone due to the eagle standing in front of
it, although these symbols were placed in the pediment of the temple in the shape of a
crescent, a circular disc or a square. Whereas the religious significance of the latter is
uncertain (a window?),115 the disc and crescent are clear references to the sun, planets
and moons.116
It is worth noting that the temple is not depicted on the coins of Antoninus
Pius, perhaps indicating that the construction of the sanctuary was conducted after the
114
The eagle is not carved on the baetyl, but stands in front of it. A specimen in the Homs Museum
(Inventory no. 992) has an eagle noticeably larger than the stone itself.
115
Temples from the Roman Near East are known to have stairs leading up to a second floor and
having windows in the pediment (Butcher 2003, 358).
116
Delbrueck (1948, 23) states that the crescent represents the female goddess Aphrodite Urania-
Astarte.
256
mid-second century. If true, this would coincide with the intense construction activity
that took place during the second and early third centuries AD in the cities of the
Roman East. However, if an analogy is drawn with the temples at Heliopolis,
Damascus, Palmyra and Jerusalem, its construction would have been earlier.
Unfortunately, without epigraphic and archaeological evidence, it is difficult to
specify a date for the construction of the temple.
Julia Domna is represented by two types on Emesene coins. On the first, she
is depicted with Caracalla and on the second she is portrayed in association with the
great altar of Elagabal. Although the first type does not have a direct connection with
the cult of the city, the depiction of Julia Domna undoubtedly relates to her status as
the daughter of the high priest of the sun, thus boasting her connection with the cult of
the city. The second type is a direct reference to the great temple represented by its
altar. This structure seems to have been an impressive monument, for it is depicted
with two rows of niches with statues inside and a flame burning on top.117
Unfortunately, this structure has undergone the same fate as the temple, for its
remains have not been located.118 However, from nearby Heliopolis, a multi-story
altar with a staircase inside leading to the top still stands to this day in front of a
massive temple; such monumental altars are not unknown in the region.119 It may
have been the case that the altar at Emesa was multi-storied, with sacrifices conducted
on the roof, but it is difficult to confirm this without any archaeological evidence (see
discussion below).
117
The specimen in SNG Glasgow, no. 3161, has two arches on top of the altar instead of a burning
flame.
118
Leverton (1966, 184-186) suggests that the structure may have been a pyre where the body of Julia
Domna was cremated, although he entertains the idea of it being an altar also.
119
Butcher 2003, 355-356.
257
The significance of the perched eagle and seated Tyche (left and front) types
of Caracalla need not be repeated here, since the iconography is identical to the issues
of Antoninus Pius discussed above.
c. Macrinus (Cat. nos. 39-40)
Two types have been minted under this emperor at Emesa showing the great
temple of this city. The imagery on both types is the same as those under Caracalla,
discussed above. The symbol in the pediment on these coins is a crescent, and no
other shapes have thus far been noted.
It is remarkable that the only two types minted under this emperor depicted
the temple. This structure was naturally the centre of focus for the worship of the cult
and must have been an impressive sight, for it was “richly ornamented with gold and
silver and valuable stones”.120 Herodian states that the cult extended to adjacent
territories and was frequented by Roman soldiers garrisoned nearby in Raphanea, and
nobles from the surrounding region outdid one another in sending dedications to the
temple and its cult.121 Based on the existing imagery of the temple on the coins of
Emesa, it is worth discussing Ball’s proposal that the great temple of the sun was not
located in Emesa, but rather that it was the Jupiter temple of Heliopolis.122 This seems
highly unlikely, since the temple of Elagabal depicted on the Emesene coins is a
hexastyle temple (as depicted on both types), whereas the temple of Jupiter at
Heliopolis, the largest known in the Roman world, is decastyle.123 For the engravers
the space available on the coins certainly did not inhibit the number of columns they
120
Herodian 5.3.4.
121
Herodian 5.3.4-5, 9.
122
2000, 38-42. See Young 2003 for a convincing argument invalidating Ball’s hypothesis.
123
Jidéjian 1975, 24 and fig. 75; BMC Syria, p. 290, Plate XXXVI, no. 2.
258
could place, since the coins of Heliopolis clearly depict ten columns at the entrance,
keeping in mind that the coins of this city are by no means larger than those of Emesa.
Although the temple of Elagabal was an important sanctuary and was known
throughout the region according to Herodian (5.3.4-5), it may not necessarily have
been an enormous edifice, as can be discerned from it being hexastyle. It may have
been the case that although the temple itself was not a huge structure, the temenos
may have been; thus its fame. It is true that the fourth century AD writer Avienus
describes the temple of Emesa as higher than the mountain peaks of Lebanon,124 but
his portrayal is clearly poetic in nature and certainly an exaggeration of gross
proportion.
Ball also proposes that the altar of the temple of Emesa depicted on the coins
is the same as the altar of Heliopolis, since both are ‘cuboid’ in shape, without
presenting any other similarities.125 Emesene coins depict an altar with two rows of
niches with statues inside. However, the altar depicted on the coins of Emesa is not
similar to the two altars at Heliopolis. The first of these altars, still standing today, has
only a single niche in each side. The second and larger ‘tower’ altar has been
destroyed over the ages, but drawings of its reconstruction do not display any
niches.126 In conclusion, the temple of Emesa should not be equated with the one at
Heliopolis, based on the available iconography of the sanctuary and its altar.
d. Elagabalus (Cat. nos. 41-48)
The Roman emperor Elagabalus, as his nickname implies, associated himself
with the cult practised in Emesa. He entirely devoted himself to the worship of
124
Avienus Descriptio orbis terrae, 1083.
125
Ball 2000, 43.
126
Jidéjian 1975, 25-26, Figs. 39-42; Collart and Coupel 1951, plate LXII-LXIII.
259
Elagabal, which resulted in animosity against him. Herodian’s description of the
Emperor’s ‘ecstatic and orgiastic’ religious fervor is the most vivid:127 The Emperor,
covered in make-up and adorned with jewels, would dress in special silken garments
of Phoenician style and participate in processions accompanied by music and
dancing.128 Upon his arrival in Rome, the Emperor-priest constructed a temple
dedicated to this new religion and continued practicing the rites, forcing officials to
dress in oriental garb and participate in the rituals. He executed numerous notables
who disapproved of his way of life. The Emperor constructed a second temple in the
suburbs of Rome where his god would be taken to on a chariot every summer. He
would accompany this chariot on foot running backwards throughout the entire
journey. After Elagabalus and his mother were executed by the army, Severus
Alexander became emperor and dissociated himself from the worship of Elagabal by
returning the stone to its native city and restoring traditional Roman life and beliefs.
Regarding the types issued under Elagabalus at Emesa, a new theme was
introduced connected to the Pythian Games. Two types are known: the first depicts a
prize-crown flanked by two laurel branches, and the second, known by a single
specimen, shows a laurel wreath within which is inscribed ΗΙΛΑ (sic) flanked by two
small laurel branches. The legend on the reverse of this unique coin is partially legible
of which only ΛO…ΜΗΤΡ is visible. Although the name of the city is not present on
the coin, attribution to Emesa has been confirmed by an obverse die link with the
temple façade type,129 in addition to the iconography of the reverse.130
127
See Herodian 5.5.3ff and also Dio 80.8-11 for what follows.
128
The reason Herodian on several occasions presents the cult as having Phoenician characteristics may
be due to Emesa having been included in the province of Syria Phoenice in the Severan period (see
Millar 1987, p. 129, and also CRS p. 12, note 23).
129
BMC Syria, Plate XXVII, no. 14 (reverse illustrated only).
130
A similar reverse type under Elagabalus is also known for Damascus (BMC Syria, p. 286, no. 21).
260
The Pythian Games, dedicated to Apollo, originated in Delphi and spread
throughout the Greek world and later the Roman East.131 The festival, which was held
once every four years, revolved around athletic and musical competitions and was
performed in a number of cities of Roman Syria. The games were known in Antioch
and were introduced in Laodicea ad Mare by Caracalla.132 The above mentioned coins
clearly show that these games were known in Emesa as well, most probably
introduced by Elagabalus, for there is no reference to these games on the coins of his
predecessors. Keeping in mind that Apollo was the sun god, it does not at all seem
surprising that the Pythian Games were inaugurated by Elagabalus in honor of his
eastern sun god at Emesa. Just as the cult preceded the competitions in Delphi, this
also seems to have been the situation in Emesa. The Pythian Games were renowned
for musical competitions as Apollo was also the god of music. Apparently, the cult of
Elagabal was also associated with music, for Herodian describes rituals involving
various instruments, including cymbals and drums.133 The prize awarded to the victors
in the original Pythian Games was an honorific laurel wreath, a feature which made
its way on the coins as well. In this respect, the two branches depicted on the prize-
crown type should be considered laurel rather than palm branches, as is often referred
to in descriptions of this type.134 Additionally, the shoots of the branches resemble
laurel leaves and not palm fronds.135 The prize-crown first appears in the reign of
131
Kyle 2007, 137-139, see also 337-338. For a discussion on the iconography of festivals and prizes
on coins of the Roman East see Klose 2005.
132
Millar 1993, 259. More than 30 imitations of the Pythian Games are known from coin inscriptions
of the Roman East (Klose 2005, 126).
133
Herodian 5.8.9.
134
A single specimen in a private collection is documented having a prize-crown which is not flanked
by any branches.
135
This is not to say that palm branches are not unknown in conjunction with prizes and festivals on
coins minted in Roman Syria (CRS 40).
261
Commodus and becomes the most commonly represented prize on coins from the
time of Septimius Severus onwards.136
The remaining types of this emperor minted in Emesa depict the façade of
the great temple with the ovoid stone inside, the seated Tyche with a torso of a river
god at her feet, the perched eagle on the stone of Elagabal, a standing facing eagle, the
great altar and the bust of the sun god. Each type has been individually discussed
above, with the exception of the facing eagle type, but this too is not new imagery
used on the coins of this mint. On the temple façade type the eagle with spread wings
is depicted standing facing in front of the baetyl and not perched on it. Additionally,
the connection of the eagle with the cult of Elagabal and the sun god was discussed
above, and thus this type too is in line with the general iconography relating to the
worship of this deity at Emesa.137
The baetyl is often depicted flanked by objects commonly referred to as
parasols in the literature.138 However, the exact significance of these objects is
unclear. If indeed parasols, it would be odd to
shade the baetyl from solar rays, particularly
when the cult is associated with the sun.
Similarly, the ovoid stone, placed inside the

Figure 15: Denarius of Elagabalus
depicting the sacred baetyl on a quadriga
temple, would not need to be covered from the (CNG-72.1593, 3.00 gr).
sunlight. Prieur disagrees with the idea of parasols for the above mentioned reasons
and prefers to identify them with palm trees, as symbols of fertility.139 It is more
136
Klose 2005, 128-129.
137
For the iconography on the coins of Elagabalus, refer also to Laurent Hernandez’s PhD thesis: Essai
d'iconographie religieuse d'après le monnayage syrien d'Héliogabale (218-222): approche
numismatique (Université de Perpignan, 1992), which I was unable to access.
138
BMC Syria, p. 239, no. 15-17 and p. 241, no. 24; Baldus 1971, 67-69, 143-144.
139
Prieur and Prieur 2000, 116. Delbrueck (1948, 12) describes them as ‘fans’.
262
likely that these objects represent religious standards. Rowan,140 following Frey,141
prefers to identify these objects as semeia, religious cultic standards best known from
Hierapolis and elsewhere in the Near East.142 On the temple façade type, where the
baetyl is depicted frontally, two standards are shown. However, on denarii of
Elagabalus depicting a quadriga carrying the sacred stone four standards are depicted.
On well-preserved denarii, the objects are neither parasols nor palm trees, but rather
standards with hanging tassels or perhaps jingles, which would tinkle in the wind or
when the chariot was in motion (Figure 15). As mentioned above, the processions of
this sacred stone were accompanied with music and dancing, perhaps to the tune of
the sounds made by these standards with jingles. The iconography of a chariot
transporting the baetyl is also known from the mint of Rome143 and a number of
provincial mints, such as Antioch,144 Hierapolis-Castabala,145 Aelia Capitolina146 and
Alexandria.147 Interestingly, this imagery was not used by the Emesenes, perhaps
because processions were not part of the ritual practised in the city itself, or because
of resentment for having their sacred relic removed to Rome.
e. Uranius Antoninus (Cat. nos. 57-58)
After a gap of three decades, Emesa resumed minting during the rule of
Uranius Antoninus, and interestingly the same two types minted under Macrinus were
once again continued without any change.
140
2006, 115.
141
1989.
142
For a discussion of semeia from the region see Millar 1993, 246-247.
143
RIC nos. 143-144, Pl. II no. 19 (aurei).
144
RIC nos. 195-197, Pl. III no. 2 (denarii). Butcher (1988) suggests a mint in the Balkans for these
denarii.
145
SNG Levante, 1594.
146
BMC Palestine, p. 97, nos. 85-89, Pl. X nos. 12-13.
147
BMC Alexandria, no. 1520, Pl. XXV.
263
Delbrueck considers that the different representations of the temple relate to
a seasonal cycle of worship, by which the sacred stone was transported to a ‘summer
residence’, similar to the case in Rome discussed above, and returned to the main
temple in autumn. Thus, he considers that the temple perspective view type, which
does not depict the baetyl, was minted earlier in the summer of AD 253, and later was
followed by the temple façade type in the autumn of AD 253, when the baetyl was
then placed in the temple.148
Baldus rightfully disputes Delbrueck’s hypothesis by showing that the two
types were minted concurrently, based on his die studies, and therefore not
sequentially or seasonally. Baldus considers that the different views of the temple
were due to mere convention, in line with generic representations of temples on coins.
However, Baldus states that Delbrueck’s hypothesis –that the minting of these coins
was based on a religious aspect related to the cult– may have some weight when
considering that the bronze coins of Uranius Antoninus were minted during a very
short period of time in late AD 253, and at the latest by early AD 254. Thus,
according to Baldus’ proposal, because the bronze issues were minted immediately
after the new year of the Seleucid calendar, they probably were related to the festival
associated with the worship of this cult in Emesa.149
2. Legends
All three types minted under Antoninus Pius are inscribed with the ethnic of
the city ‘EMICHNWN’. These coins also have field marks employing a system of
enumeration ranging from 1 to 7, with the following Greek numerals noted: A, B, Γ,
148
Delbrueck 1948, 24.
149
Baldus 1971, 68-70.
264
∆, E, ς, Z. The precise significance and function of these numerals remains uncertain
despite a die study conducted on all types of this emperor; however, certain results
and explanations have been achieved (see Die Studies chapter for these findings).
After a break of more than half a century, minting resumed in Emesa under
Caracalla, with a change in the title of the city now clearly presented as a colony. This
new title ‘EMICΩΝ KΟΛΩΝΙΑC’ is in line with the fact that Caracalla granted the
status of colonia to Emesa, his mother’s native city.150 All the types are inscribed with
the above mentioned legend and its variants (see Catalogue entries), with the
exception of the type depicting Julia Domna, the reverse of which reads IOVΛIA
∆OMNA AVΓ. On all the types under Caracalla, the Seleucid date ΖΚΦ or HΚΦ is
placed in the various fields of the reverse.
The reverse inscriptions on the coins of Macrinus continue from those of his
predecessor: ‘EMICΩΝ KΟΛΩΝIAC’ and the date HΚΦ.151
A noteworthy change in the title of the city took place in the reign of
Elagabalus, by which the legends then read MHTPOKΟΛ EMICΩΝ. This new title
was most probably bestowed by the Emperor, who had a special attachment to the city
due to the religious cult practised there. Rey-Coquais proposed that the title
metropolis was given to cities which were centres of the provincial imperial cult.152
Butcher, however, on the basis that each eparchy had a chief or official metropolis,
expresses his doubts that Emesa may have been a metropolis due to it being situated
in the territory of Syria Phoenice, where Sidon was the metropolis during this
150
Ulpian, Digest 50.15.1.4; Millar 1990, 41 and 1993, 143; Rey-Coquais, 1978, 55.
151
At times blundered legends (ex: KΟΛΩΝCΙΑC) and retrograde dates have been noted for Caracalla,
Macrinus and Elagabalus.
152
Rey-Coquais 1978, 54. Although it should be noted that the author’s discussion is for the Antonine
period.
265
emperor’s reign.153 It is uncertain if the inscriptions on the coins specifically state that
the city was a colony and a metropolis, or rather a metrocolonia.154 Millar, in his
study of coloniae in the Roman Near East, points out that metrocolonia was a ‘hybrid
Greek-Latin term’ also attested in Palmyra,155 by which the title was not unique to
Emesa. The concept of ‘hybridization’ seems probable when taking into account that
bilingual coins of Elagabalus were also minted in this city (see below). In any event, it
seems that Elagabalus wished to elevate the city’s status by adding yet another title, as
attested by the coins, perhaps connected to Emesa being his mother city.
A unique feature regarding the inscriptions on Emesene coins is the use of
bilingual inscriptions for the reign of Elagabalus. This is attested for the prize-crown
and seated Tyche types, which have Latin inscriptions on the obverse and Greek on
the reverse. The former type, however, is also known for having obverse inscriptions
in Greek.156 No other Latin inscriptions are known for coins of Emesa. Perhaps the
reason for the use of Latin can be explained by the fact that Emesa had become a
colony. However, the status of colonia did not necessarily promote the use of Latin,
as was the case for Antioch.157 Bilingual inscriptions from the region are rare, with the
only direct parallel found in Paltus, where issues of Severus Alexander (and those
with the portrait of Julia Mamaea) have Latin inscriptions on the obverse, but Greek
on the reverse. All other issues of this coastal city, both before and after the reign of
153
CRS, 220-221. Unless, as the author points out, if the title metrocolonia does not denote a
metropolis.
154
Although most of the coins read MHTPOKΟΛ EMICΩΝ and its variants, MHTPO EMICΩΝ is also
attested without reference to the title of colony (see the relevant Catalogue entries for all the known
varieties).
155
Millar 1990, 41.
156
The seated Tyche type is thus far known by four specimens only and future finds may provide a
Greek/Greek inscription as is the case for the prize-crown type.
157
Millar 1990, 41. See CRS coin nos. 474-482 for the colonial coinage of Elagabalus using Greek
legends.
266
Alexander, have Greek legends only.158 Some bilingual inscriptions are also noted at
Antioch and Laodicea ad Mare, but these seem to have been due to die-sharing,
resulting in the unintentional combination of dies having Latin inscriptions with those
having Greek.159
Regarding field marks, the prize-crown, seated Tyche and standing facing
eagle types of Elagabalus bear the field mark E on the reverse, the significance of
which is unclear, for it does not seem to be part of a sequential enumeration. A small
number of coins bear the Seleucid date ΦΛ =
530 = AD 218/219 in the exergue.
The title on the bronze coins of
Uranius Antoninus reverts to the ‘standard’
EMICΩΝ KΟΛΩΝ, further backing the
argument that the title of metropolis was

Figure 16: Above: bronze coin of
bestowed by Elagabalus and was discontinued Septimius Severus minted in Antioch in
Pisidia depicting the god Mên (CNG-
later on. These coins bear the Seleucid date 136.151, 28.10 gr, 35 mm).
Below: bronze coin of Antoninus Pius
EΞΦ in the exergue. minted in Gaba depicting a figure
resembling the god Mên (CNG-69.1239,
11.68 gr, 25 mm).
E. Laodicea ad Libanum
The coins of Laodicea ad Libanum, the iconography of which is dominated
by the Phrygian god Mên, present an intriguing case. As a Phrygian god, originating
from Persia and worshipped in western Asia Minor, no explanation can be found for
his presence in southern Syria. Historical and literary sources are silent regarding the
158
Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer 1994, p. 106-108, nos. 19-25. It would have been interesting to see if any dies
with Latin legends were shared between Emesa and Paltus, but since the latter did not mint under
Elagabalus this option is unavailable.
159
For details see CRS 243-244, 336, 384, 447.
267
worship of this deity in the city. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the deity depicted
on the coins is Mên, since he is clearly labelled MHN in the exergue of the reverses.
The complex and multi-faceted god Mên was presented with various
attributes and powers. This lunar god was primarily known as a god of fertility and
healing, as well as an arbitrator of disputes, protector of communities, and guardian of
families and victims of wrongdoing.160 Thus, the cult of Mên was concerned with
family life, agricultural fertility and farming. The deity is presented with a crescent on
his back, wearing a tunic and Phrygian hat, and holding a variety of objects including
a patera, a staff, a pine cone and a torch. He is often depicted on horseback and in
association with rams, chickens, roosters and at times bulls.
Numerous temples and shrines have been identified in Asia Minor dedicated
to Mên,161 but none have been recorded in the archaeological record at Tell Nebi
Mend. Similarly, dozens of cities in south-west Asia Minor minted coins depicting
Mên and his cult, with more than 40 types having been recorded from Nysa alone,162
yet it seems that Laodicea ad Libanum presents an isolated case for the presence of
Mên as a coin type outside Asia Minor. However, some imperial coins of Gaba,
further south of Laodicea ad Libanum, have a deity resembling Mên. The deity of
Gaba also holds a long staff, wears a Phrygian hat and a knee-length chiton with a
cloak, and is thus portrayed in many ways similar to the depictions of Mên on coins of
Asia Minor. However, the only difference noted is that the crescent is not placed on
160
A comprehensive study of this deity can be found in the multi-volume work by Lane (1971-1978).
See also LIMC vol. VI, 462-473.
161
For a list see Lane 1976, vol. 3, p. 44.
162
Lane 1976, vol. 3, p. 44. See also Lane 1975, vol. 2, for the ‘Distribution Map of the Coins’.
268
his back but rather in the field behind his shoulder (Figure 16).163 Lane does not refer
to these coins of Gaba in his corpus.
The reason for the existence of this deity at Laodicea ad Libanum remains
unknown. Several hypotheses may be explored: It is generally believed that the Tell is
named after a Muslim holy man, to whom the small mosque on the summit is
dedicated. However, Claude Conder, who was the first to identify the site with
Qadesh, mentions that locally Nebi Mendeh or Mendau was said to have been a son of
Jacob.164 He also suggested that there might have been a connection with the Egyptian
war-god Mentu or Mando whom, according to Condor, Ramses II invoked during his
great battle there with the Hittites. It is also tempting to find a connection between the
name of the deity ‘Mên’ and the modern name of the site ‘Tell Nebi Mend’, but
without evidence this suggestion remains unconfirmed. A second reason for the
worship of Mên at Laodicea ad Libanum may be based on the deity’s powers as a
healing god, in addition to his attribute as a river god controlling irrigation,
inundations and floods.165 It is known that in classical times the city was referred to as
Laodicea Skabiosa,166 indicating that the region was diseased due to malarial
conditions, perhaps resulting from swampy conditions of the river and its tributary.
Lane proposes that perhaps a local Semitic god having mythological and
iconographical similarities with the Phrygian Mên was associated with him in
Laodicea ad Libanum.167 However, this does not seem to have been the case, since the
deity is clearly labelled as MHN on the coins of this Syrian mint. Thus, the label
163
BMC Syria, p. 300, no. 1.
164
Conder 1885, 29-30. My gratitude to Peter Parr, director of excavations at Tell Nebi Mend, for
bringing this to my attention.
165
Lane 1976, vol. 3, p. 44-45.
166
Ptolemy 5.14.16.
167
Lane 1976, vol. 3, p. 100.
269
explicitly points to the fact that the deity is Mên, and therefore should not be confused
with any other deity.
1. Types
a. Septimius Severus (Cat. nos. 59-62)
On the coins of Laodicea ad Libanum, which were initiated during the reign
of Septimius Severus, Mên is depicted standing in front of a horse holding the bridle
with his right hand and a staff in his left. The remaining types minted under this
emperor present the entire imperial family. The issues portraying a young Caracalla
have on the reverse Nike crowning a seated Tyche depicted with two swimming river
gods, undoubtedly representing the Orontes and the Mukadiyeh, as the ancient site
was located at a fork between the two rivers. Although some descriptions refer to a
single river god on these coins, this false impression is due to the second being either
off the flan or too worn to be distinguished; die studies have confirmed that all known
dies were engraved with two river gods (see Die Studies chapter). Cohen in his
description of the coins of this mint refers to ‘water urns’ placed on either side of
Tyche,168 but no such vessels have been noted on any coin of this type. Apparently, he
was perpetuating Mionnet’s description, who does not say that Tyche is flanked by
water urns, but rather that below her and on either side there are rivers (i.e. the torsos)
with urns: “de chaque côté, un Fleuve, avec des urnes.”169
168
Cohen 2006, 117, note 5.
169
Mionnet 1837, Supplement vol. 8, p. 213, no. 87.
270
For issues depicting on the obverse either the portrait of Julia Domna or
Geta, a common reverse type was chosen displaying the turreted and veiled bust of
Tyche.
Thus, on the issues of Laodicea ad Libanum minted under Septimius
Severus, Mên was chosen as the primary type for the coins depicting the Emperor’s
portrait, with the Tyche of the city reserved for members of the imperial family.
In Caracalla's reign two issues were minted. The first depicts the Emperor on
the obverse and Mên on the reverse. The second type has the Emperor’s mother Julia
Domna on the obverse and the bust of Tyche on the reverse. Coins of this second type
were previously classified only under this emperor. However, based on the hairstyle
of Julia Domna, it can now be divided into two separate issues, one minted under her
husband and the other her son. Coins of Julia Domna minted under Septimius Severus
depict the Empress’ hairstyle with an elongated vertical bun behind the head, whereas
under Caracalla she has wavy hair with no bundle (Figure 17).170
170
For the different hairstyles of Julia Domna depicted on Roman imperial coins see RIC IV: Plate IX
nos. 1-18 for coins minted under Septimius Severus, and Plate XIII nos. 16-20 for coins minted
under Caracalla.
271
c. Macrinus and Elagabalus (Cat. nos. 65-66)
A single type was minted under
Macrinus and Elagabalus depicting Mên on the
reverse. No other types have thus far come to
light. However, a minor variation is noted in
the depiction of the reverse type. The object
held by Mên is at times described as a sceptre

Figure 17: Coins of Laodicea ad Libanum
or a torch in the literature. Based on the depicting the bust of Julia Domna. Note
the difference in hairstyles.
imagery of the coins, the object resembles a Above: minted under Septimius Severus
(Wildwinds-34.63623, AE 6.96 gr, 23
mm).
sceptre on the early coins of Septimius Severus Below: minted under Caracalla (CNG-
162.267, AE 5.97 gr, 21 mm).
and Caracalla (Figure 18), whereas it appears
to be a torch on the coins of Macrinus and Elagabalus (Figure 19).
2. Legends
The reverse legends on the coins of
Laodicea ad Libanum read ΛΑΟ∆ΙΚ ΠΡΟC
ΛΙΒΑΝW, by which this city is clearly
distinguished from other Laodiceas in the Figure 18: Bronze coin of Caracalla
minted in Laodicea ad Libanum
depicting Mên holding a sceptre in his
region, and it is well attested that in the Classical left hand (CNG-246.231, 8.35 gr, 23
mm).
period the city was known as Laodicea ad
Libanum.171 On some of the coins which represent Tyche, whether portrayed seated or
as a bust, the legend reads ΤΥXΗ ΛΑΟ∆ΙΚ ΠΡΟC ΛΙΒΑΝW, again a clear
identification of the city and its Tyche.
171
Pliny NH 5.82; Strabo 16.2.18.
272
As mentioned earlier, the inscription
MHN can be found in the exergue of the
reverses depicting Mên, minted under both
Septimius Severus and Caracalla. However, on
the coins of Macrinus and Elagabalus, both of Figure 19: Bronze coin of Elagabalus
minted in Laodicea ad Libanum depicting
the god Mên with a horse and holding a
which have a single type representing Mên with
torch (CNG-57.879, 16.38 gr, 27 mm).
a horse, the inscription ‘MHN’ is no longer engraved in the exergue.
273
CHAPTER VII
DIE STUDIES
A. Output
Examining proportions of issues represented in hoards is undoubtedly one of
the best ways to determine output,1 but hoards (particularly for bronze coins) relevant
to the time period covered in this study are almost non-existent in Syria in general and
the Orontes Valley in particular. A general idea about the output may be gathered by
referring to the number of specimens surviving in collections, the market, and site
finds. However, each of these categories is prone to biases and pitfalls as shall be
demonstrated below (regarding site finds, the biases are explained in detail in the
Circulation chapter).
The more a coin of a certain type has been produced, the more chances of it
having survived in the present. In practical terms, this means that by composing a
comprehensive database of coins from collections (public and private), site finds and
those in the trade (auctions and the market), a reasonably reliable idea can be
composed of the output of a particular mint at a particular time. To explain this, coins
of Antoninus Pius from Emesa, which come in three main types –perched eagle, bust
of the sun god and a seated Tyche– will be discussed as a case study. A quick glance
at the total number of specimens of each type, including their varieties, clearly shows
that the perched eagle type is by far the most common in the surviving record (81
specimens, 38 reverse dies). It may be safely surmised that it was produced in
significant quantities. Regarding the remaining issues of this emperor at Emesa, the
1
CRS, 134.
274
number is significantly smaller for the sun god type (13 specimens, 9 reverse dies),
which itself is higher than that of the seated Tyche type (6 specimens, 5 reverse dies).
This would seemingly imply that the sun god type was produced in greater quantities
than that of the seated Tyche. In fact, the die studies do not confirm the above
observations, since it has been estimated that an equal number of reverse dies
(standing at 30) were prepared for each of the sun god and Tyche types (see statistics
below). Therefore, these results indicate that the number of surviving specimens do
not necessarily represent the true number of coins minted in the past when dealing
with smaller numbers. An issue may have been produced in great quantities, but due
to decommissioning it may have been recalled from the market and recycled, resulting
in only a small number of the original output surviving in the record today. A second
prejudice involves preferences of individual collectors or museums.2 When coin
collections are formed, certain periods, regions or themes are preferred over others,
and therefore distort the ratio between output in the past and the number of coins
actually surviving in the present. Although, this is more the case for private
collections than public. However, in the case of many museum collections, such as the
British Museum and the Bibliothèque nationale de France, these collections
themselves were initially formed from private collections.
Another major factor which may govern our understanding of output is
related to denominations. It would be wrong to assume that all denominations in use
at a particular time and place were produced in equal amounts. A certain
denomination may have been in greater demand for everyday use over another, which
would naturally result in it being produced in greater numbers. A good example for
2
CRS, 139. See also the discussion in RPC II, 14.
275
this hypothesis is Apamea. In the case of the first issues of Apamea, four
denominations have been noted: Zeus/elephant, Tyche/Nike, Demeter/corn and
Dionysus/grapes (Cat. nos. 1-4). It is quite apparent that the output is directly
proportional to the denomination/value of the coin.3 The largest denomination has
survived in greater numbers than the smaller denominations. This observation may
indicate that during the first half of the first century BC the larger denominations were
in greater demand in Apamea and therefore produced more than the lighter. Of
course, the size of a coin may govern the factors under which it may be retrieved in
the present (see Circulation chapter), but the smaller denominations of this group are
by no means minute and therefore it is unlikely that the size played a major role in
their low survival rate. This same trend, where the larger denomination is produced in
greater quantities at Apamea, also holds true for Groups 2 and 3, but does not hold
true for the issues with imperial portraits. The numbers produced are small indeed,
which indicates that output was considerably lowered and denominations no longer
seemed to affect volumes of production; the die studies have also confirmed this
observation (see below). The issues of Larissa, concurrently issued in the same year
and known by two denominations, follow the trend of Apamea’s civic coins, in which
the larger Zeus/throne type (Cat. no. 20) is present in greater numbers than the smaller
Tyche/horse type (Cat. no. 21). Once again, the die studies have confirmed this
observation, where six reverse dies have been recorded for the former and only a
single die for the latter.
In the case of Raphanea, the larger denomination was produced in great
quantities. From a total of 107 specimens, 15 obverse and 42 reverse dies were
3
Keeping in mind that the numbers are based on the number of specimens collected from various
sources.
276
identified (from the well preserved specimens). The smaller bull type is known by a
single specimen and therefore had a very trivial output. In the case of Emesa,
however, the denominations do not seem to have played a direct role in the output, as
can be discerned from the metrology tables prepared for each emperor and type.
Concerning Laodicea ad Libanum, the general trend whereby the bigger denomination
was produced in greater quantities than the smaller holds true. This observation can be
demonstrated from both the tabulated data (see Metrology and Denominations
chapter) and the die studies (see below).
Thus, to avoid the above discussed drawbacks, a relatively reliable method of
determining the volume of production of a particular coin issue is by conducting a die
study, through which an approximate number of coins produced may be estimated
from determining the number of dies used.4
B. Die studies
Several methods have been proposed for the estimation of the size of a
coinage, the original number of dies produced, and the coverage of a sample by using
mathematical formulae.5 Each method, however, provides an estimate. Therefore, it is
preferable to apply more than one method and correlate the results. Die identities are
established by comparing coins using casts or, more recently, digital photographs,
which may not always be of the required quality. This inevitably causes mistakes in
the identification process, which can be minimised by checking and rechecking, but
which can never be completely void of errors.6 The reader should also be aware of the
fact that interpretations are based on the results obtained from the available sample,
4
Carter 1983; Esty 1986 and 2006.
5
Good 1953; Carter 1983; Esty 1986 and 2006.
6
See Bracey 2009 for a good discussion on the methodology of die studies.
277
and therefore are limited in results and not fully comprehensive. Thus, the higher the
coverage of a sample, the better the results. It is always preferable to include as many
specimens as possible when conducting a die study, but time restrictions dictate a
cutoff point where the researcher has to suffice with the assembled data and proceed
with the study. Due to the poor condition of a coin, or the inadequate quality of a
photograph, some specimens must be omitted from the study and therefore are not
included in the statistical analyses.
To compose a better understanding of the output of coins in the Orontes
Valley, it was decided to conduct die studies on particular issues which would yield
the most useful information. Therefore, what follows should be considered selective
die studies. A comprehensive study was conducted on the issues of Raphanea,
Laodicea ad Libanum and Larissa. In the case of Emesa, only certain issues were
chosen: the tetradrachms (with the portraits of Caracalla, Julia Domna, Macrinus and
Diadumenian), the bronze coins of Antoninus Pius, and issues of Elagabalus with
bilingual inscriptions. Regarding Apamea, a die study was conducted on all the coins
issued under the emperors (Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius). A table representing all
the identified dies has been provided at the end of each relevant section, in addition to
die charts with illustrated coin images. Regarding the analytical section, Esty’s
method of calculating the original number of dies produced is used, since it is
currently one of the better known and refined methods.
let: n = the total number of coins in the sample
do = the number of obverse dies identified in the sample
dr = the number of reverse dies identified in the sample
Do = the estimated total number of obverse dies produced
278
Dr = the estimated total number of reverse dies produced
e = the number of die combinations (number of connecting lines in a chart)
where: Do = (ndo) / (n-do) and Dr = (ndr) / (n-dr)
thus: do / Do and dr / Dr provide the coverage of the dies in the sample
and: n/do and n/dr provide an index number measuring the average number
of coins per die in the sample. This index number is usually between 2 and 5;
if less than 2 the sample available is not adequate for a good study, if above
10 the sample is almost complete.
Once the original number of dies for both the obverse and reverse has been
estimated, their ratio can be obtained by dividing Dr by Do. This will show how many
reverse dies were used for every obverse die.7
1. Apamea
a. Augustus
During the reign of this emperor two reverse types were minted: Nike
advancing and the bust of Tyche. From the sample collected thus far, two reverse dies
have been identified for the former and four for the latter. Both the number of
surviving coins of the Tyche type (12) and the number of reverse dies identified
implies that this type was minted in greater quantities than the Nike type, known by
7
My gratitude to Robert Bracey (British Museum) for describing the concepts involved in die studies.
279
three specimens only. Two obverse dies were identified; one which was used
exclusively with the Nike type and the other with the Tyche type.
Because the Nike and Tyche types were minted concurrently (based on the
dates they bear) all the coins have been treated as a single sample, since a die study
should not differentiate between different types of a particular issue. In total, 11 coins
(3 Nike and 8 Tyche) were used in the study, with four coins of the Tyche type
excluded due to their worn condition or poor quality of the images:
n do dr Do Dr do/Do dr/Dr n/do n/dr Dr/Do e

11 2 6 2.44 13.2 82% 45% 5.5 1.83 5.41 6
The sample was collected from public and private collections, publications
and online sources, but because the number of coins is rather small some of the
statistics obtained above may be distorted. Nonetheless, the data shows that a good
deal of the obverse dies has been documented, whereas less than half of the reverses
are available so far.
The below chart shows all the die combinations recorded for both types.
Regarding the coin images, the best preserved specimen from each die is depicted and
denoted with an asterisk in the list of coins struck from that particular die. Note that
the depicted coins are not to scale; for the size and weight of each individual coin
refer to the Catalogue.
280
R1
1. CNG-78.1449*
O1
1. CNG-78.1449
2. PC1
3. SNG Glasgow-3150*
R2
1. PC1
R3
1. Berlin-Imhoof Blumer
1900*
2. Berlin-Cassel 1925
3. SNG Glasgow-3151
O2 R4
1. Berlin-Imhoof Blumer 1. CNG-181.241
1900 2. Ashmolean-Martin
2. Berlin-Cassel 1925 1975*
3. SNG Glasgow-3151
4. CNG-181.241
5. Ashmolean-Martin
1975*
6. PC2 R5
7. PC2 1. PC2*
8. BNF-1968.115 2. PC2
R6
1. BNF-1968.115*
The below table presents a numerical rendering of the above chart:
Apamea/Augustus
Specimen Reverse type Obverse die no. Reverse die no.
CNG-78.1449 Nike 1 1
PC1 Nike 1 2
SNG Glasgow-3150 Nike 1 2
Berlin-Imhoof Blumer 1900 Tyche 2 3

Berlin-Cassel 1925 Tyche 2 3
SNG Glasgow-3151 Tyche 2 3
CNG-181.241 Tyche 2 4
Ashmolean-Martin 1975 Tyche 2 4
PC2 Tyche 2 5
PC2 Tyche 2 5
281
BNF-1968.115 Tyche 2 6
Table 40: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Augustus minted in Apamea.
b. Tiberius
Apamea minted two types under Tiberius: Nike and Athena. The former is
known by two varieties depicting Nike advancing either left or right. The obverse of
all these coins depicts the bust of the Emperor. The Athena type is known by four
coins struck from one obverse and two reverse dies. Only one obverse die was
recorded for the Nike type, which was used to strike both varieties mentioned above.
One reverse die for each of the two varieties was recorded. In total, seven coins (Nike
right 3; Nike left 1; Athena 3) were used in the study with two (Nike left 1; Athena 1)
excluded due to their poor condition:

7 2 4 2.8 9.33 71% 43% 3.5 1.75 3.33 4
The results for the issues of Tiberius are quite similar to those of Augustus,
keeping in mind that the statistics were derived from a small sample and therefore
should not be considered a comprehensive overview of the coinage. A separate
obverse die was used for each reverse type – that is, no obverse die link was recorded
between the two types.
282
R1
1. Belgium-896*
2. BNF-964
O1 3. SNG Glasgow-3152
1. Belgium-896*
2. BNF-964
3. SNG Glasgow-3152
4. BM-1986.4.34.16 R2
1. BM-1986.4.34.16*
R3
1. AUB-209*
2. Lindgren III-1178
O2
1. AUB-209*
3. SNG Glasgow-3149
R4
Apamea/Tiberius
Specimen Reverse type Obverse die Reverse die
Belgium-896 Nike right 1 1

BNF-964 Nike right 1 1
SNG Glasgow-3152 Nike right 1 1
BM-1986.4.34.16 Nike left 1 2
AUB-209 Athena advancing 2 3

Lindgren III-1178 Athena advancing 2 3
SNG Glasgow-3149 Athena advancing 2 4
Table 41: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Tiberius minted in Apamea.
c. Claudius
Similar to the two emperors above, Apamea minted two types under
Claudius: Zeus/seated Tyche and Zeus/Nike. Four coins have been documented for
the former and three for the latter. A statistical analysis was not conducted on the
issues of this emperor, since only a single pair of dies has been recorded for each type.
Once again, a separate obverse die was used with each reverse type. The two issues
283
are stylistically different from one another, implying that the engraver of the two was
not the same person, despite the fact that there was a lapse of only a single year
between the two issues. The issues under Claudius, for both silver and bronze, are
quite rare and it may be very likely that only a single pair of dies was used for each
type.
O1 R1
1. Berlin-286.1911* 1. Berlin-286.1911*
2. Netherlands-GR 2. Netherlands-GR
1949.68 1949.68
3. BNF-965 3. BNF-965
4. SNG Glasgow-3153 4. SNG Glasgow-3153
O2 R2
1. AUB-210* 1. AUB-210*
2. BNF-965a 2. BNF-965a
3. Wildwinds-27.62350 3. Wildwinds-27.62350
Apamea/Claudius
Specimen Type Obverse die Reverse die
Berlin-286.1911 Zeus/Tyche 1 1
Netherlands-GR 1949.68 Zeus/Tyche 1 1
BNF-965 Zeus/Tyche 1 1
SNG Glasgow-3153 Zeus/Tyche 1 1
AUB-210 Zeus/Nike 2 2
BNF-965a Zeus/Nike 2 2
Wildwinds-27.62350 Zeus/Nike 2 2
Table 42: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Claudius minted in Apamea.
2. Larissa
Two types were minted in Larissa −Zeus/throne and Tyche/horse− both of
which were marked by the same Seleucid date ZKΣ = 227 = 86/85 BC, indicating that
it was a relatively short-lived production not exceeding the span of a year. This
observation is also corroborated by the results of the die study, whereby only one
obverse die was noted for each of the two types. Additionally, the small number of
284
surviving specimens also shows the above to be true. Sixteen specimens of the
Zeus/throne type and only five of the Tyche/horse type were collected.
a. Zeus/throne
Only 12 of the 16 documented specimens of the Zeus/throne type were used
in this study, as four coins were excluded due to their poor quality. A single obverse
die and six reverse dies were identified:

12 1 6 1.09 12 92% 50% 12 2 11 6
b. Tyche/horse
For the Tyche/horse type five specimens struck from the same pair of dies
were recorded, all of which were included in the study:

5 1 1 1.25 1.25 80% 80% 5 5 1 1
The above estimates show that in most likelihood only one obverse die was
used for the Zeus/throne type. This obverse die seems to have lasted for a relatively
long time, for it was used with at least six reverse dies. In fact, the index measuring
the average number of coins struck from the obverse die is considerably high at 12
coins per die.
For the sake of completeness, a statistical analysis was conducted on the
smaller type also, but the fact that this type was struck from only a single pair of dies
shows that it had a significantly smaller production than its heavier counterpart. It
should be reminded here that because the samples used for both analyses are small,
some of the results obtained may be distorted. But even though the margin of error
increases when a small number of coins are used, the above statistics show that the
285
available sample is quite complete and the original population seems to have been
small indeed. This observation is also backed by the fact that all the coins are dated to
a single year only.
R1
1. CNG-Triton V.530*
R2
1. CNG-57.869
2. CNG-201.130
3. CNG-203.186*
4. Lindgren I-2109
O1
R3
1. CNG-Triton V.530*
1. PC1
2. CNG-57.869
2. BNF-1288*
3. CNG-201.130
3. MA-Münzhandlung
4. CNG-203.186
Ritter 29384
5. Lindgren I-2109
4. SNG Braunschweig-
6. PC1
1386
7. BNF-1288
8. MA-Münzhandlung
Ritter 29384
9. SNG Braunschweig- R4
1386 1. BM-1872.07.09.333*
10. BM-1872.07.09.333
11. Ashmolean-Godwyn
1117
12. PC3
R5
1. Ashmolean-Godwyn
1117*
R6
1. PC3*
O1 R1
1. Elsen-Dec 2007, 860* 1. Elsen-Dec 2007, 860*
2. BNF-1289 2. BNF-1289
3. PC2 3. PC2
4. PC2 4. PC2
5. Vienna-GR 21792 5. Vienna-GR 21792
286
Larissa
CNG-Triton V.530 Zeus/throne 1 1

CNG-57.869 Zeus/throne 1 2
Lindgren I-2109 Zeus/throne 1 2
PC1 Zeus/throne 1 3
BNF-1288 Zeus/throne 1 3
MA-Münzhandlung Ritter 29384 Zeus/throne 1 3
SNG Braunschweig-1386 Zeus/throne 1 3
BM-1872.07.09.333 Zeus/throne 1 4
Ashmolean-Godwyn 1117 Zeus/throne 1 5
PC3 Zeus/throne 1 6
Elsen-Dec 2007, 860 Tyche/horse 1 1

BNF-1289 Tyche/horse 1 1
PC2 Tyche/horse 1 1
PC2 Tyche/horse 1 1
Vienna-GR 21792 Tyche/horse 1 1
Table 43: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Larissa.
3. Raphanea
Raphanea minted coins only during the reign of Elagabalus. The obverse of
these coins depicts the laureate or radiate bust of the Emperor and, less commonly, the
bare head of Severus Alexander (as Caesar under Elagabalus). The reverse depicts the
standing or seated genius of the city. A smaller unique coin has a bull on the reverse
and the bust of Elagabalus on the obverse. The ethnic of the city is inscribed using
two varieties: ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ and ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ. In total, 80 coins were used in the
study with another 20 excluded due to their unsatisfactory condition:

80 15 42 18.46 88.42 81% 48% 5.33 1.90 4.79 51
The statistics indicate that a good deal of the obverse dies has been
accounted for, but only half of the reverse dies have thus far been documented. The
ratio of reverse to obverse dies stands at nearly 5 to 1.
287
Initially, die studies of each of the above types −Elagabalus, Severus
Alexander, seated genius and standing genius− were conducted separately, since it
was believed that each was an independent issue representing different denominations
or that they were chronologically separate issues. However, based on the die link
results (see chart below) it soon became evident that all of the above types were
minted more or less at the same time and place. For this reason, all the coins of
Raphanea, regardless of the obverse and reverse images, were treated as a single
sample in the statistical analysis (with the exclusion of the unique bull type).
Regarding the obverses, the die links establish that the dies engraved with the
busts of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander were used interchangeably when minting
the coins, and for the reverses the same held true for the seated and standing genius
types. The same observation is also true for both ethnic varieties. The use of different
portraits, ethnics and reverse types interchangeably is best seen in the die group from
O9-R21 to O15-R42.
The above observation shows that traditional approaches to the classification
of a particular coinage by type may not necessarily reveal the structure of that
coinage. When two separate types are noted for a particular mint, it is often assumed
that they either represent two different denominations or that they indicate a
chronological sequence, with one type replacing the other. The die links of Raphanea
clearly show that the two reverse types were not differentiated and that one did not
follow the other chronologically. The same argument holds true for the inscriptions,
whereby both varieties were used concurrently, showing that both ethnics were
simultaneously used in the city, at least on an official level. It is also customarily
understood that types portraying members of the imperial family or appointed Caesars
were reserved for smaller denominations. However, in the case of Raphanea, the
288
portrait of the Emperor and his Caesar were depicted on coins of the same
denomination.8 Yet another random choice for these coins was the depiction of the
Emperor either laureate or radiate. Once again, the two varieties seem to have been
used indiscriminately. In the case of coins of northern Syria, it has been shown that
the radiate imperial bust did not denote a difference in denomination;9 this also has
been proven to be true in the case of Raphanea further south.
The case of Raphanea shows that although types do have significance, they
are not necessarily denominational or chronological in nature. The choice of different
varieties in the imagery may have been purely aesthetic. It may also have been the
case that one was preferred over the other by a particular die engraver. On this note,
an attempt was made to distinguish stylistic differences between the dies with the
ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ variety and that of ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ, but no distinguishing differences
were found.
Although it has been established that all the types and varieties were minted
at the same time and place, it is clear that the seated genius type and that of Severus
Alexander were minted in smaller quantities based on estimates of the dies produced.
Seven specimens of the seated genius have been documented struck from five dies:
n dr Dr dr/Dr n/dr e
7 5 17.5 29% 1.4 5
And only three dies have been noted from a total of 17 specimens depicting
the bust of Severus Alexander:
8
This aspect is also true for the issues of Botrys, where coins depicting the bust of Elagabalus and
those of Severus Alexander (as Caesar) minted concurrently in AD 221/222 are of the same
denomination (Sawaya 2006, p. 173, Table 2).
9
CRS, 126.
289
n do Do do/Do n/do e
17 3 3.64 82% 5.66 8
The data indicates that there is a small chance that more obverse dies of
Severus Alexander may come to light, but the seated genius type seems to be
underrepresented in the available sample and therefore more reverse dies are likely to
emerge. The fact that obverse dies had a longer life span probably explains why less
dies depicting Severus Alexander were prepared than those depicting a seated genius.
The information available thus far indicates that minting of coins in
Raphanea commenced during the later years of Elagabalus’ reign, perhaps to
commemorate the appointment of Severus Alexander as Caesar. Two reverse dies
(R34 and R42) bear the Seleucid date ΒΛΦ = 532 which places the coins in the year
AD 220/221, when Severus Alexander was Caesar under Elagabalus.10 Ronde,
discussing a coin with the portrait of Severus Alexander,11 reads the date ΛΓΦ = 533
= AD 221/222, which again would not contradict the fact that the coins were minted
during the caesarship of Severus Alexander. The die links also imply that minting
occurred during the later phase of Elagabalus’ reign. Two other coins struck from the
same reverse die (R16) are also inscribed with a date in the exergue, perhaps AΛΦ =
531 = AD 219/220, but this remains unconfirmed. If future finds verify this date, then
the hypothesis that minting commenced after Alexander’s caesarship will no longer
be valid.12 In fact, the issues of Botrys under Elagabalus where minted in AD 218/219
(Elagabalus), 219/220 (Elagabalus), 220/221(Elagabalus and Julia Soaemias) and
10
Alexander’s caesarship is placed from June 221 to March 222 (Kienast 1996, 177).
11
Ronde 2007.
12
It may simply be the case that Raphanea started minting as part of the region-wide proliferation of
minting in this period.
290
221/222 (Elagabalus and Severus Alexander), thus covering the entire span of the
Emperor’s reign, and not only the period after Alexander’s caesarship.13
A number of authors have attributed coins of Raphanea to Caracalla.14 This
attribution is of course incorrect and has been hereby disproved by the die links. For
example, BMC attributes a coin of Raphanea to Caracalla (BMC Syria, p. 267, no. 1),
but the die links have shown that the coin in question (O10-R24) is linked to several
coins already attributed to Elagabalus.
Of all the die studies conducted and presented in this chapter, those of
Raphanea have the greatest number of links. For this reason, a line-drawing diagram
has been prepared and displayed herewith to demonstrate the complex die link
combinations and the relationship between the different varieties: seated/standing,
laureate/radiate, ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΝ/ΡΕΦΑΝΕΩΤΩΝ. A die chart with coin images has also
been provided below. Note that a dashed line is used when connecting a die on one
page to a die on the next page. An attempt has been made to display the links with the
least number of lines crossing over one another. However, for some links this was
unavoidable. These ‘cross-overs’ imply that two workstations were in use, an
occurrence not uncommon for the time period.15
13
Sawaya 2006, 166.
14
BMC Syria, 267; SNG Righetti, nos. 2129 and 2130; Augé 2000, 165; Ronde 2007, 167; Gschwind et
al. 2009, 281.
15
Personal communication with Robert Bracey.
291
292
Diagram showing die links of coins of Raphanea (part 1 of 2). Uncertain ethnic varieties are listed as ‘ΡΕΦΑΝ . . . ’
293
Diagram showing die links of coins of Raphanea (part 2 of 2).
O1 R1
1. PC1* 1. PC1*
R2
1. ANS-1961.154.104*
O2
1. ANS-1961.154.104* R3
2. BMC Syria 3 1. BMC Syria 3*
3. BNF-1301a
R4
1. BNF- Ch. de B. 1750*
R5
1. BMC Syria 1
2. Aeqvitas*
R6
O3 1. acsearch-Künker
1. BMC Syria 1 97.1696*
2. Aeqvitas* 2. PC2
3. acsearch-Künker
97.1696
4. PC2
5. acsearch-M&M
20.750 R7
6. Smithsonian 1. acsearch-M&M
7. BNF-1301b 20.750*
8. ANS-1944.100.66530 2. Smithsonian
R8
1. BNF-1301b
2. ANS-1944.100.66530*
294
R9
1. Berlin-Lobbecke
1906*
R10
1. PC2*
O4 2. Aeqvitas
1. Berlin-Lobbecke 1906*
2. PC2
3. Aeqvitas
4. PC2
5. acsearch-Rauch 786
(summer 2007)
R11
1. PC2*
R12
1. acsearch-Rauch 786
(summer 2007)*
O5
1. PC1 R13
2. PC3* 1. PC1
3. Tantalus-7883 2. PC3*
4. acsearch-M&M 3. Tantalus-7883
14.684 4. PC2
5. BNF-Y23879.237
R14
O6 1. acsearch-M&M
1. PC2 14.684
2. BMC Syria 4* 2. BNF-Y23879.237
3. PC2 3. PC2
4. BMC Syria 4*
295
R15
1. Forum-17555*
2. BNF-1302
O7
1. Forum-17555 R16
2. BNF-1302 1. PC2*
3. PC2* 2. PC2
4. PC2
5. Lindgren I-2115
R17
1. Lindgren I-2115
2. PC1*
O8 R18
1. PC1* 1. AUB-242*
2. Lindgren III-1210 2. BNF-1304
3. AUB-242
4. BNF-1304
5. Berlin-Lobbecke 1906
6. PC1
7. PC1
8. acsearch-M&M
14.685
9. BNF-Chandon de R19
Briailles 1751 1. Berlin-Lobbecke
10. BNF-Chandon de 1906*
Briailles 1752a 2. PC1
11. PC2
R20
1. PC1*
2. acsearch-M&M
14.685
3. BNF-Chandon de
Briailles 1751
4. BNF-Chandon de
Briailles 1752a
5. PC2
296
R21
1. BNF-1300*
R22
1. BNF-1301a*
O9
1. BNF-1300
2. BNF-1301a*
3. PC3
4. ANS-1944.100.66531
R23
1. PC3*
R24
1. ANS-1944.100.66531
2. BMC Syria 2*
O10
1. BMC Syria 2*
R25
2. Lindgren I-2116
R26
1. eBay*
O11
1. eBay
2. BNF-1305
3. PC2*
R27
1. BNF-1305
2. PC2*
Note
Dashed lines indicate die links
continuing on next page.
297
R28
O12
2. Forum-13195*
R29
1. Forum-13195
2. acsearch-M&M
20.751*
R30
1. acsearch-CGB 115623*
O13
1. acsearch-M&M
20.751
2. PC2
3. SNG Glasgow-3175
4. PC5 R31
5. Lindgren I-2116 1. BM-1975.4.11.175*
6. acsearch-CGB 115623
7. BM-1975.4.11.175
1900
9. PC1
R32
10. PC2
11. BNF-1303
1900
12. Vienna-GR 21806*
2. PC1
13. Berlin-86/1871
3. PC2*
14. ANS-1944.100.66532
15. ANS-1948.19.2089
R33
1. BNF-1303
2. Vienna-GR 21806*
R34
1. Berlin-86/1871
2. ANS-1944.100.66532
3. PC1
4. PC1
5. PC2
6. PC5*
R35
1. ANS-1948.19.2089*
2. PC2
298
R36
1. BNF-Chandon de
Briailles 1747
2. Vcoins-Kovacs 4538*
O14
1. PC2
2. BNF-Chandon de
Briailles 1747
3. Vcoins-Kovacs 4538*
4. PC2
R37
1. PC2*
R38
1. BNF-1301*
R39
1. PC5*
O15
1. PC1
2. PC1
3. PC2 R40
4. PC5 1. acsearch-M&M
5. BNF-1301* 14.683*
6. PC5
7. acsearch-M&M 14.683
8. BNF-1300
9. Aeqvitas
R41
1. BNF-1300*
R42
1. Aeqvitas*
299
Raphanea/Elagabalus
Specimen Obverse type Reverse type Obverse Reverse
die die
PC1 Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 1 1

ANS-1961.154.104 Elagabalus/laureate standing genius 2 2
BMC Syria 3 Elagabalus/laureate standing genius 2 3
BNF- Ch. de B. 1750 Elagabalus/laureate standing genius 2 4
BMC Syria 1 Elagabalus/radiate seated genius 3 5
Aeqvitas Elagabalus/radiate seated genius 3 5
Künker 97.1696 Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 3 6
acsearch-M&M-20.750 Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 3 7
Smithsonian Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 3 7
BNF-1301b Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 3 8
ANS-1944.100.66530 Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 3 8
Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 4 9
Aeqvitas Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 4 10
acsearch-Rauch 786 Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 4 12
Tantalus-7883 Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 5 13
acsearch-M&M 14.684 Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 5 14
BNF-Y23879.237 Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 5 14
PC2 Severus Alexander standing genius 6 13
BMC Syria 4 Severus Alexander standing genius 6 14
Forum-17555 Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 7 15
BNF-1302 Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 7 15
Lindgren I-2115 Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 7 17
Lindgren III-1210 Severus Alexander standing genius 8 17
AUB-242 Severus Alexander standing genius 8 18
BNF-1304 Severus Alexander standing genius 8 18
Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 Severus Alexander standing genius 8 19
acsearch-M&M 14.685 Severus Alexander standing genius 8 20
BNF- Ch. de B. 1751 Severus Alexander standing genius 8 20
BNF- Ch. de B. 1752a Severus Alexander standing genius 8 20
BNF-1300 Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 9 21
BNF-1301a Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 9 22
300
ANS-1944.100.66531 Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 9 24
BMC Syria 2 Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 10 24
eBay Severus Alexander standing genius 11 26
BNF-1305 Severus Alexander standing genius 11 27
Forum-13195 Elagabalus/radiate standing genius 12 29
acsearch-M&M 20.751 Elagabalus/laureate standing genius 13 29
PC2 Elagabalus/laureate standing genius 13 27
SNG Glasgow-3175 Elagabalus/laureate standing genius 13 27
Lindgren I-2116 Elagabalus/laureate standing genius 13 25
acsearch-CGB 115623 Elagabalus/laureate seated genius 13 30
BM-1975.4.11.175 Elagabalus/laureate seated genius 13 31
Berlin-Imhoof 1900 Elagabalus/laureate standing genius 13 32
BNF-1303 Elagabalus/laureate standing genius 13 33
Vienna-GR 21806 Elagabalus/laureate standing genius 13 33
Berlin-86/1871 Elagabalus/laureate standing genius 13 34
BNF-Ch. de B. 1747 Elagabalus/laureate seated genius 14 36
Vcoins-Kovacs 4538 Elagabalus/laureate seated genius 14 36
BNF-1301 Elagabalus/laureate seated genius 15 38
acsearch-M&M 14.683 Elagabalus/laureate standing genius 15 40
BNF-1300 Elagabalus/laureate standing genius 15 41
Aeqvitas Elagabalus/laureate standing genius 15 42
Table 44: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Raphanea.
4. Emesa
a. Antoninus Pius
The primary reason a die study was conducted on the bronzes of Antoninus
Pius was to find an explanation for the numeral letters on the reverse of these coins:
301
A, B, Γ, ∆, E, ς and Z. A secondary goal was to find the relationship between the three
types −perched eagle, sun god and seated Tyche− minted under this emperor. The
latter goal was immediately achieved as a result of the die study, whereby the die
links revealed that the perched eagle and sun god types were initially minted together,
after which the seated Tyche type replaced the sun god and continued to be minted
concurrently with the perched eagle type. This finding, in addition to the results
obtained from the metrological data of all three types (see Metrology and
Denominations chapter), demonstrates that they all represent a single denomination.
Regarding the main goal related to the numeral letters, no definitive explanation
became evident from the die studies. However, the die links did provide some
progress towards explaining their function.
Greek numeral letters were a common feature of second century coins of
Syria, starting with the reign of Domitian and up to the reign of Caracalla.16 However,
despite several studies, no definitive explanation has been provided (see the detailed
discussion in the Production chapter). The die links indicate that the numeral letters
on the coins of Emesa have a chronological significance and that they were produced
in the same location (see explanation below). The study indicates that these numeral
letters might represent batch numbers, perhaps as a means of controlling production.17
Certain die links (O2-R11 to O4-R13) have die combinations (linking lines) crossing
over one another, which implies that more than one workstation was in use.
Additionally, the fact that certain obverse die links exist between different batches
(listed below) implies that the coins were produced in the same location. The idea that
16
CRS, 14, 35, 236.
17
Although this finding may hold true for Emesa, it may not necessarily be the case for all other mints
where these numeral letters occur.
302
the numeral letters represent isolated officinae can also be excluded based on the case
of the zeta, which seems to have originally been gamma (see below). It would only be
reasonable to assume that new officinae were added to keep up with an increase in
demand for production, and therefore it would be illogical to set up an entire ‘Zeta
officina’ just to strike a few coins (known by two specimens only).
Some batches, such as B and Γ, had a relatively big production based on the
number of surviving specimens and number of obverse/reverse dies produced. Other
batches, such as ς and Z, had a small production and seem to have been short-lived, as
can be discerned from the table below:
Numeral letter No. of specimens No. of obverse dies No. of reverse dies
A 13 1 8
B 24 5 13
Γ 12 8 11
∆ 13 3 9
E 12 3 6
ς 3 2 2
Z 2 2 2
Table 45: List providing number of specimens and number of obverse and reverse dies for each batch
group minted in Emesa under Antoninus Pius.
Table 45 indicates that production under Antoninus Pius began with a
moderate output and then quickly increased, but subsided considerably towards the
end. The gamma batch seems to have been the most prolific based on the number of
obverse and reverse dies recorded, followed by the Beta batch. Interestingly, gamma
has die links with delta (see O10-R25 to O11-R30) and stigma (O7-R22 to O8-R24),
in addition to a particular case where a die with the gamma symbol was re-cut to
accommodate a zeta (R24, Figure 20). A link was also established between beta and
303
zeta (O6-R20 and O6-R21), and also
between stigma and zeta (O8-R23 and
O9-R24).18
Thus, the links identified
among the various numeral letters are:
Γ with ∆; Γ with ς; Γ with Z; B with Z;
ς with Z. These five links show a
connection, either directly or indirectly,
between B, Γ, ∆, ς and Z, with the Figure 20: Coin of Antoninus Pius minted in Emesa
(above, Ashmolean-Jesus College, AE 7.08 gr, 22.5
exclusion of A and E. It would not be mm) with the bust of the sun god on the reverse as
well as the field mark ‘Γ’, which was re-cut as a ‘Z’
(below, BMC Syria 8, AE 10.74 gr, 23 mm).
surprising if future finds provide a link
between the latter two groups and the former five.
In total, 73 coins were used in the die study (perched eagle right 62, sun god
8, seated Tyche 3), with ten omitted due to their poor condition:

73 19 48 25.69 140.16 74% 34% 3.84 1.52 5.46 56
These statistics were obtained when all the coins were studied as a single
sample. A significant number of the obverse dies have been recorded, but the number
for the reverse dies is rather low at 34%. Due to this low percentage, it is worth
statistically analysing the reverses of the sun god and seated Tyche types as separate
samples. In fact, of the ten coins not used in the study, five are of the sun god type and
3 of the seated Tyche, indicating that these types are certainly underrepresented in the
18
A die study on the issues of Trajan from Beroea, inscribed with the numeral letters A, B, Γ, ∆, E, ς, Z
and H, has shown a link between gamma and delta, with no other links recorded (personal
communication with Kevin Butcher).
304
analysis. Fortunately, it was possible to identify the reverse dies, though the obverse
dies remain unidentifiable (hence the reason they were excluded from the overall
sample of 73 coins).
The sun god reverse has been analyzed as follows:
n dr Dr dr/Dr n/dr
13 9 29.25 31% 1.44
And the seated Tyche thus:
n dr Dr dr/Dr n/dr
6 5 30 17% 1.2
The statistics show that many more dies should be available and that both
types seem to have been produced in similar quantities based on the estimated original
number of reverse dies prepared. It is curious why both types survive in small
numbers at present; the above statistics may be biased since the sample is small and
therefore the results may not be a true representation of the actual number of dies
produced.
305
R1
1. AUB-223*
2. Berlin-12620
R2
1. PC1
2. Homs-1328
3. Smithsonian*
R3
1. BMC Syria 1*
2. SNG Copenhagen-307
O1
1. AUB-223
2. Berlin-12620 R4
3. PC1 1. BNF-976*
4. Homs-1328 2. SNG Glasgow-3154
5. Smithsonian
6. BMC Syria 1
7. SNG Copenhagen-307
8. BNF-976*
9. SNG Glasgow-3154
10. BNF-977 R5
11. PC3 1. BNF-977*
12. Lindgren I-2040
13. BNF-973
R6
1. PC3*
R7
1. Lindgren I-2040*
R8
1. BNF-973*
306
R9
1. Aeqvitas*
R10
2. ANS-1944.100.66174*
O2 R11
1. Aeqvitas 1. Berlin-C. R. Fox 1873
2. ANS-1944.100.66174 2. BNF-Vogue 251*
3. Berlin-C. R. Fox 1873 3. SNG Antiquaries-777
4. BNF-Vogue 251* 4. acsearch-CNG 57.863
5. SNG Antiquaries-777 5. Vienna-GR 21664
6. PC5
7. PC3
R12
1. PC5*
2. VCoins-S&L 15924
R13
1. PC3
O3 2. Vienna-GR 21665
1. Vienna-GR 21665* 3. PC1*
4. PC1
R14
1. CNG-185.227*
O4
1. acsearch-CNG 57.863 R15
2. Vienna-GR 21664 1. SNG Glasgow-3155*
3. VCoins-S&L 15924*
4. PC1
5. PC1
6. CNG-185.227
7. SNG Glasgow-3155
8. BNF-974 R16
9. Wildwinds-64783 1. BNF-974*
10. Lindgren I-2042
R17
1. Wildwinds-64783*
R18
1. Lindgren I-2042*
307
O5 R19
1. ANS-1974.276.10* 1. ANS-1974.276.10*
R20
O6
1. SNG Glasgow-3159
2. CNG-203.389*
R21
1. CNG-203.389*
O7
1. BNF-975* R22
2. AUB-224 1. BNF-975*
O8 R23
1. BNF-983* 1. AUB-224
2. Ashmolean-Jesus 2. BNF-983*
College
R24
O9 1. Ashmolean-Jesus
1. BMC Syria 8* College
2. BMC Syria 8*
(Note: Γ recut as Z)
308
R25
1. BMC Syria 5*
O10
1. BMC Syria 5 R26
2. CNG-213.317* 1. CNG-213.317*
3. PC3
R27
1. PC3*
R28
1. BMC Syria 2*
O11
1. BMC Syria 2
2. BMC Syria 3 R29
3. SNG Glasgow-3156* 1. BMC Syria 3*
R30
O12
1. BMC Syria 4* R31
2. SNG Copenhagen-309 1. BMC Syria 4*
O13 R32
1. Harvard-1980.85.199* 1. SNG Copenhagen-309
2. Harvard-1980.85.199*
309
R33
1. BNF-978*
O14 R34
1. BNF-978* 1. BNF-979*
2. BNF-979 (Note: unusual baetyl)
3. Vienna-GR 21666
R35
1. Vienna-GR 21666*
O15 R36
1. PC2* 1. PC2*
R37
1. AUB-225
2. BNF-Y23879.243*
3. VCoins-S&L 16137
R38
1. CNG-191.101*
O16
1. AUB-225
2. BNF-Y23879.243
3. VCoins-S&L 16137 R39
4. CNG-191.101 1. Wildwinds-vauctions
5. Wildwinds-vauctions 62725
62725 2. Falghera-964
6. Falghera-964 3. SNG Glasgow-3157*
7. SNG Glasgow-3157
8. Yale-2004.6.3674*
9. SNG Righetti-2076
R40
1. Yale-2004.6.3674*
R41
1. SNG Righetti-2076*
310
R42
1. ANS-1944.100.66175
1900
3. CNG-112.158*
O17 R43
1. ANS-1944.100.66175 1. BNF-981
2. Berlin-Imhoof Blumer 2. BNF-982
1900 3. Yale-2009.110.33*
3. CNG-112.158
4. BNF-981
5. BNF-982
6. Yale-2009.110.33*
7. SNG Glasgow-3158
R44
8. BNF-Y28359 1960
R45
1. BNF-Y28359 1960*
R46
1. CNG-72.1244*
O18
1. CNG-72.1244*
2. BMC Syria 6
R47
1. BMC Syria 6*
2. PC1
O19
1. PC1
2. Berlin-Fox 1873*
R48
1. Berlin-Fox 1873*
Emesa/Antoninus Pius
Specimen Symbol Reverse type Obverse Reverse
die die
AUB-223 A perched right 1 1

Berlin-12620 A perched right 1 1
PC1 A perched right 1 2
Homs-1328 A perched right 1 2
Smithsonian A perched right 1 2
BMC Syria 1 A perched right 1 3
311
SNG Copenhagen-307 A perched right 1 3
BNF-976 A perched right 1 4
SNG Glasgow-3154 A perched right 1 4
BNF-977 A perched right 1 5
PC3 A perched right 1 6
Lindgren I-2040 A perched right 1 7
BNF-973 A sun god 1 8
Aeqvitas B perched right 2 9
ANS-1944.100.66174 B perched right 2 10
Berlin-C. R. Fox 1873 B perched right 2 11
BNF-Vogue 251 B perched right 2 11
SNG Antiquaries-777 B perched right 2 11
PC5 B perched right 2 12
Vienna-GR 21665 B perched right 3 13
acsearch-CNG 57.863 B perched right 4 11
Vienna-GR 21664 B perched right 4 11
VCoins-S&L 15924 B perched right 4 12
CNG-185.227 B perched right 4 14
SNG Glasgow-3155 B perched right 4 15
BNF-974 B sun god 4 16
Wildwinds-64783 B sun god 4 17
Lindgren I-2042 B Tyche front 4 18
ANS-1974.276.10 B sun god 5 19
SNG Glasgow-3159 B sun god 6 20
CNG-203.389 Z perched right 6 21
BNF-975 Γ sun god 7 22
AUB-224 ς perched right 7 23
BNF-983 ς perched right 8 23
Ashmolean-Jesus College Γ sun god 8 24
BMC Syria 8 Z sun god 9 24
BMC Syria 5 Γ perched left 10 25
CNG-213.317 ∆ perched right 10 26
PC3 ∆ perched right 10 27
BMC Syria 2 Γ perched right 11 28
SNG Glasgow-3156 ∆ perched right 11 30
SNG Copenhagen-309 Γ perched right 12 32
Harvard-1980.85.199 Γ perched right 13 32
BNF-978 Γ perched right 14 33
BNF-979 Γ perched right 14 34
Vienna-GR 21666 Γ perched right 14 35
PC2 Γ perched right 15 36
AUB-225 ∆ perched right 16 37
BNF-Y23879.243 ∆ perched right 16 37
312
VCoins-S&L 16137 ∆ perched right 16 37
CNG-191.101 ∆ perched right 16 38
wildwinds-vauctions 62725 ∆ perched right 16 39
Falghera-964 ∆ perched right 16 39
SNG Glasgow-3157 ∆ perched right 16 39
Yale-2004.6.3674 ∆ perched right 16 40
SNG Righetti-2076 ∆ perched right 16 41
ANS-1944.100.66175 E perched right 17 42
Berlin-Imhoof Blumer 1900 E perched right 17 42
CNG-112.158 E perched right 17 42
BNF-981 E perched right 17 43
BNF-982 E perched right 17 43
Yale-2009.110.33 E perched right 17 43
SNG Glasgow-3158 E perched right 17 44
BNF-Y28359 1960 E Tyche right 17 45
CNG-72.1244 E perched right 18 46
BMC Syria 6 E perched right 18 47
PC1 E perched right 19 47
Berlin-C. R. Fox 1873 E Tyche front 19 48
Table 46: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Antoninus Pius minted in Emesa.
b. Elagabalus
The use of Latin on the coins of Elagabalus is not unusual since Emesa was a
colony in this period. However, to test whether the use of Latin in conjunction with
Greek was merely a case of happenstance or a systematic and intentional occurrence,
a die study was conducted on the bilingual coins. In these cases, Latin was used for
the obverse inscriptions and Greek for the reverse. Two types were noted having
bilingual inscriptions: prize-crown and seated Tyche.
Seven obverse dies with Latin inscriptions have been recorded for the prize-
crown type and three for the seated Tyche, with an additional obverse die (O8) shared
between the two. The fact that the two types share a die is not surprising since both
belong to the same denomination (see Metrology and Denominations chapter). In
total, 21 coins with bilingual inscriptions were used in the sample:
n do dr Do Dr do/Do dr/Dr n/do n/dr Dr/Do

21 11 15 23.1 52.5 48% 29% 1.91 1.4 2.27
313
Apparently, only half of the Latin obverses have been documented, with
estimates that the original number was around twice (23) what has been recorded thus
far. This clearly shows that Latin inscriptions on the coins of Elagabalus were
certainly intentional. The study also shows that the seated Tyche type systematically
utilised Latin, since it was struck with four different obverse dies and therefore could
not have been an isolated occurrence. No other Latin obverses at Emesa have been
noted on the remaining coins minted under Elagabalus or any other emperor.
Emesa/Elagabalus - bilingual inscriptions

Specimen Reverse type Obverse die Reverse die
eBay prize-crown 1 1
acsearch-M&M 20.630 prize-crown 2 2
CNG-191.105 prize-crown 5 5
PC5 prize-crown 6 6
BNF-1001 prize-crown 7 7
SNG Glasgow-3170 prize-crown 7 8
VCoins-Sayles & Lavender 15967 prize-crown 7 8
SNG Glasgow-3171 prize-crown 7 9
BNF-993 prize-crown 7 10
PC1 prize-crown 8 10
Aeqvitas prize-crown 8 11
CNG-174.151 prize-crown 8 11
BMC Syria 21 prize-crown 8 11
Lindgren I-2047 prize-crown 8 11
Wildwinds-VAuctions 30563 prize-crown 8 12
BNF-Y23879.250 seated Tyche 8 13

PC1 seated Tyche 9 14
Lindgren I-2049 seated Tyche 10 14
ANS-1944.100.51967 seated Tyche 11 15
Table 47: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Elagabalus with bilingual inscriptions minted
in Emesa.
314
c. Tetradrachms
A die study has been conducted on the tetradrachms minted in Emesa during
the reigns of Caracalla and Macrinus to quantify their output and to understand the
significance of the symbols on the reverses. These symbols are as follows:
Caracalla: A, H, o, crescent (left, right, upward), pellet, no symbol
Domna: A, H, o, crescent (left, upward), Γ
Macrinus: A, H, o, crescent (left, upward), no symbol
Diadumenian: A, H, crescent (left)
It would be easy to consider these symbols officina marks, but the
preliminary results from the die study indicate that they are the control marks of the
issuing authorities (see below).19 The ‘A’, ‘H’, ‘o’ and ‘crescent’ symbols seem to
have been the most prolific and used under both emperors, whereas other symbols
such as the ‘pellet’ and ‘Γ’ were noted only for Caracalla and Julia Domna
respectively.
The estimates show that many more dies were prepared than those identified
in the sample, and therefore the number of coins used in the current study was
insufficient to provide a comprehensive overview of these issues. Despite these
limitations, some results have been attained. However, it would be premature to draw
finite conclusions, since more die links will certainly emerge as more finds come to
light. The statistics will be provided first, followed by a discussion.
The tetradrachms depicting the bust of Caracalla and those of Julia Domna
were treated as a single sample, since both were minted concurrently based on the die
links observed between them. In total, 37 obverse (Caracalla 28 and Julia Domna 9)
19
Although at first Prieur identified these symbols as officina marks (Prieur and Prieur 2000), he now
considers them as signatures of the ruling elite families or magistrates in Emesa (personal
communication).
315
and 70 reverse (Caracalla 50 and Julia Domna 20) dies were recorded from a total of
86 specimens (Caracalla 57 and Julia Domna 29), with another 15 unusable:

86 37 70 64.94 376.25 57% 19% 2.32 1.23 5.79
The tetradrachms with the busts of Macrinus and his son were also treated as
a single sample. A total of 85 coins (Macrinus 79 and Diadumenian 6) were used in
the study, with the exclusion of 36 due to their poor condition. The coins in the
sample were struck from 39 obverses (Macrinus 36 and Diadumenian 3) and 69
reverses (Macrinus 65 and Diadumenian 4):

85 39 69 72.06 366.56 54% 19% 2.18 1.23 5.09
The statistics for the issues under the two emperors are remarkably similar.
Both seem to have had a similar output, although it should be mentioned that more
tetradrachms with the portrait of Macrinus are known than those with Caracalla. At
first, it was presumed that tetradrachms of Caracalla were melted down or overstruck
under Macrinus (thus their relative scarceness). In reality, this difference is due to the
fact that significantly more tetradrachms with the portrait of Julia Domna were minted
(thus supplementing the issues with the portrait of Caracalla) than that of
Diadumenian (which supplement the issues of Macrinus).
A diagram of the die links is not displayed since only a very few die
combinations were recorded and because the identified dies represent only a small
portion of what was produced. However, a number of observations are noted
providing a useful insight into the production of these coins, presented below:
316
Caracalla
‘A’ symbol (15 coins, 8 obverse dies, 15 reverse dies):
• From the 15 documented specimens belonging to this group an equal number
of 15 reverse dies was identified, implying that this group had quite a
substantial output.
• A reverse die of Julia Domna with a legend reading ∆ΗΜΑΡXΕΞΟΥCΙΑC
was used in striking the reverse of a coin of Caracalla (acsearch-Lanz
132.425). This observation verifies that tetradrachms of Caracalla were struck
concurrently with those of Julia Domna (more similar cases listed below).
• A specimen in the BNF (Chandon de Briailles 1906) has a reverse legend
ending in YΠΑΤΟCΠΠ. This title (ΠΑΤΗΡ ΠΑΤΡΙ∆ΟΣ) on tetradrachms of
Caracalla is not known at any other mint, except on a single specimen from
Tyre.20 It may be the case that the coin is a mule struck in the reign of
Macrinus using a reverse of his and an obverse of his predecessor. An attempt
was made to identify a tetradrachm of Macrinus struck from this reverse die to
confirm the above proposition, but none was found in the available sample.
• A coin in the British Museum (1897.1.4.2) has a ‘Λ’ on the reverse, but it
should be considered as an ‘A’ with a missing horizontal bar. This conclusion
has been drawn since a number of similar cases have also been documented
for Macrinus, where tetradrachms with a ‘Λ’ have obverse die links with the
‘A’ group (see details below).
20
Prieur 1552.
317
‘H’ symbol (11 coins, 4 obverse dies, 9 reverse dies):
• One of the coins in this group was also noted to have been struck using a
reverse of Julia Domna (eBay-260068851552).
‘o’ symbol (10 coins, 4 obverse dies, 9 reverse dies):
• An obverse die of this group was used to strike coins of the ‘H’ group above.
Seven coins of the ‘o’ group (acsearch-CGB 173709; Künker 97.1629; CNG-
240.332; Forum-10736; BMC Syria 8; Yale-1938.6000.1024) and two coins of
the ‘H’ group (acsearch-CGB 173704; Yale-2009.110.131) were struck using
this obverse die, proving that the detected link is not an isolated case. This is
the only instance where a link has been found between two different symbols.
• A coin of this group was struck using a reverse of Julia Domna (private
collection).
‘Crescent’ symbol (16 coins, 9 obverse dies, 14 reverse dies):
• A specimen belonging to this group in a private collection was struck using a
reverse prepared for Julia Domna (∆ΗΜΑΡXΕΞΟΥCΙΑC).
• A coin with no symbol on the reverse (acsearch-CGB 173697) has an obverse
die link with four other coins of this group, all of which were struck from
different reverse dies with a crescent (Yale-1938.6000.1011; Yale-
1938.6000.1012; acsearch-CGB 173714; Ashmolean-Bodleian). This implies
that a crescent was most probably forgotten to be engraved on the die in
question. Fourteen reverse dies were documented out of a total of sixteen
coins, implying that this group, too, had a significant output. Thus, it may have
318
been the case that at least on one of the numerous reverse dies prepared for
this group the symbol was forgotten to be added.
• Two coins (BNF-1989.341; Yale-1938.6000.1012) struck from the same pair
of dies have as a reverse symbol two
interlocking crescents referred to as
‘double crescents’ (Figure 21).21 These
two coins share an obverse die with Figure 21: Tetradrachm of Caracalla from
the mint of Emesa with a ‘double crescent’
four other coins of this group, all of symbol on the reverse (BNF-1989.341,
13.21 gr, 26.30 mm)
which have a crescent, and therefore the two coins should not be considered as
belonging to a separate ‘double crescent’ group.
• One coin has a crescent facing right (BNF-Y19562), with all the others having
a crescent pointing either upward or to the left. The latter two varieties share
obverse dies, implying that all the coins with a crescent on the reverse,
irrespective of its direction (left, right or upward), are part of the same group.
‘pellet’ symbol (2 coins, 1 obverse die, 1 reverse die):
• Two coins with two pellets on their reverses have been documented, struck
from the same pair of dies (acsearch-CGB 173718; BNF-Y19566). It does not
seem that the two pellets were engraved randomly or by mistake, since a
single pellet is symmetrically placed on either side of the eagle’s head.
21
Prieur 1023.
319
No symbol (2 coins, 2 obverse dies, 2 reverse dies):
• Two coins of Caracalla have been documented with no symbol on the reverse,
one of which has an obverse die link with the ‘crescent’ group (discussed
above). No die links were found for the second coin (CNG-67.1143).
• A third coin in the British Museum (BMC Syria 10) with a facing sun god
below the eagle does not seem to have a symbol on the reverse.22 No obverse
die link was found between this coin and any other tetradrachm of Caracalla.
Julia Domna
‘A’ symbol (4 coins, 1 obverse die, 3 reverse dies):
• One specimen (CNG-79.650) was noted to be struck using a reverse of
Caracalla, i.e., with a legend reading ∆ΗΜΑΡXΕΞYΠΑΤΟCΤΟ∆, implying
once again that tetradrachms of Julia Domna were struck concurrently with
those of Caracalla.
• A specimen was noted to have the symbol ∆ on the reverse (CNG-45.994), but
the symbol is in fact an ‘A’. This deduction is based on an obverse link
between this coin and 3 other tetradrachms of Julia Domna with the ‘A’
symbol (CNG-79.650; CNG-137.111; BNF-Y19567). Therefore, the symbol ∆
does not exist; it is nothing other than an A engraved with a very low
horizontal bar.
22
The coin is quite worn and therefore difficult to confirm if there is indeed no symbol on the reverse;
therefore, it is tentatively placed under this category.
320
• A specimen in a private collection was documented having an H on either side
of the eagle’s head. This is the only
case where two symbols are found
on the reverse of Emesene
tetradrachms (all the remaining

Figure 22: Tetradrachm with the portrait of
reverse dies of this group have a Julia Domna minted in Emesa with the symbol
‘H’ on both sides of the eagle’s head (private
single H). The coin unquestionably collection, metrology not available).
belongs to the ‘H’ group, since it has an obverse link with another specimen
(BNF-Y19566) with a single H on the reverse. It should be noted that several
forgeries of this coin have been circulating in the market, with the mold taken
from the authentic coin in the private collection mentioned above (Figure
22).23
• No remarkable observations have been noted.
‘Crescent’ symbol (2 coins, 1 obverse die, 2 reverse dies):
• Only two coins have been documented with this symbol for Julia Domna, the
first having a crescent facing left (acsearch-Numismatica Ars Classica 2048)
and the second upward (acsearch-Künker 94.1990). Both coins share an
23
My gratitude to Michel Prieur for providing the images.
321
obverse die showing that the direction of the crescent on the reverse was
irrelevant, and accordingly they should not be classified as separate groups.
‘Γ’ symbol (2 coins, 1 obverse die, 1 reverse die):
• The Γ symbol is only known for Julia Domna. Two coins struck from the
same pair of dies have been recorded (Boston-1971.391; Berlin-Imhoof
Blumer 1900). The tetradrachms with this symbol seem to have had a small
output, since this symbol has thus far been noted on only a single die.
Macrinus
‘A’ symbol (17 coins, 6 obverse dies, 13 reverse dies):
• One coin has a ∆ on the reverse (CNG-225.288), but it should be considered as
an A engraved with a low horizontal bar (see the case discussed under Julia
Domna above).
• Six coins have been recorded with a Λ on the reverse, five of which have an
obverse die link with coins of the ‘A’ group. This of course shows that there is
no ‘Λ’ group and that it is none other than an A engraved without the
horizontal bar (see similar case under Caracalla above).
• Four out of the six obverse dies of this group depict a draped bust of the
Emperor. This feature is also present on the ‘no symbol’ group (see below),
but otherwise unknown.
322
• Although for the issues of Caracalla an obverse die link was noted between the
‘H’ and ‘o’ groups, no such link has been detected under Macrinus.
‘Crescent’ symbol (13 coins, 8 obverse die, 12 reverse dies):
• A specimen of this group has the reverse
legend ∆ΗΜΑΡXΕΞYΠΑΤΟCΤΟΒ.24 The title of a second consulship on
tetradrachms of Macrinus is not known at any other mint (for further details
see discussion in the Types and Legends chapter).
• A single specimen was noted to have a reverse legend ending in
TOCTO∆ (Forum-9032). The most likely explanation is that a reverse of
Caracalla was used in striking this coin.25 The use of reverse dies of Caracalla
is not surprising, since this occurrence is also known for other mints,
particularly Beroea26 (for further details see Types and Legends chapter).
However, what is noteworthy is that both the ‘TO ∆’ and ‘ΤΟ Β’ legend
varieties belong to the ‘crescent’ group and do not occur in any other Emesene
group.
No symbol (12 coins, 9 obverse dies, 10 reverse dies):
• Two coins in this group (CNG-94.119; BNF-Y19575) have an obverse die link
with three coins of the ‘H’ group (Berlin-Imhoof Blumer 1928; Forum-278;
Yale-1938.6000.63). It is also significant that two of the obverse dies (Boston-
24
Private collection. See also Prieur no. 977 for the only other known specimen with this title.
25
No link was found between the reverse of this coin and all other reverses with a crescent for
Caracalla from the sample available.
26
Prieur 889-894.
323
1973.190; eBay) in this group, in addition to the one mentioned above, have a
draped bust similar to the coins of the ‘H’ group, since a draped bust is not
present in the other groups of this emperor. Therefore, it is very likely that this
group with no symbol is none other than the ‘H’ group.
Diadumenian
Three different symbols were recorded on the tetradrachms with the portrait
of Diadumenian: ‘A’ (1 coin), ‘H’ (4 coins, 1 obverse, 2 reverses), ‘crescent left’ (1
coin). No links have been noted among the tetradrachms of Diadumenian or with
those of his father.
Summary
The only link recorded among the different groups for these tetradrachms is
between ‘H’ and ‘o’ under Caracalla. It seems likely that the symbols represent
control marks or signatures of the issuing authorities. Other similar links between
different groups are likely to emerge knowing that the currently available sample is
not comprehensive. For the above noted case under Caracalla, it could have been that
one official was replaced by another, hence the change in the symbol.
Butcher, in his discussion of the tetradrachms of Antioch minted in the 170s
AD under Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, has shown that it is possible for the same
mint to use different symbols.27 His hypothesis was demonstrated by the presence of
obverse die links between the different symbols, a case also true for Emesa, albeit on
27
CRS, 94-95.
324
a smaller scale due to the limited sample. Gilmore proposes that the letters at Emesa
(A, H, o, etc.) are the initials of the responsible strikers and the symbols (crescent,
pellet, etc.) are batch marks for their subordinates.28 This proposal does not seem
likely since many more ‘initials’ and ‘batch marks’ should have been documented on
Emesene tetradrachms for his proposition to be plausible. Also, if the hypothesis is
true, a large number of obverse die links should have been drawn between the coins of
the ‘responsible strikers’ and their ‘subordinates’.
Several symbols which were identified as separate groups should now be
disregarded based on the results of the die study: The coins with a Λ on the reverse
should not be considered a separate group, since die links have shown that they
belong to the ‘A’ group. The same case is true for ∆. Similarly, the coins with no
symbol are not to be considered as a separate entity, since they too have obverse links
with the ‘crescent’ group under Caracalla and the ‘H’ group under Macrinus.
Reverses of Caracalla and Julia Domna were shared showing that both were
minted at the same time and place. These muled coins should not be considered
contemporary forgeries, because they occur quite frequently: six specimens from five
different dies have thus far been recorded from the limited sample.
There are currently no published die studies on tetradrachms of Caracalla and
Macrinus. The current study, although incomplete, is a first step towards the
understanding of Syro-Phoenician tetradrachms of Caracalla and Macrinus.
28
Gilmore 1979, 287.
325
5. Laodicea ad Libanum
A die study has been conducted on all the issues of this mint. All the types
under a particular emperor were treated as a single entity or output, since die studies
should not differentiate between various types of a particular issue. Laodicea ad
Libanum minted under four emperors: Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Macrinus and
Elagabalus, with the most typologically and quantitatively prolific being that of the
first emperor.
a. Septimius Severus
During the reign of Septimius Severus, four types were minted: Septimius
Severus/Mên; Caracalla/Tyche seated; Julia Domna/Tyche bust; Geta/Tyche bust. A
total of 34 coins were documented (Septimius Severus 6 coins, 4 obverses, 3 reverses;
Caracalla 19 coins, 4 obverses, 10 reverses; Julia Domna 5 coins, 2 obverses, 2
reverses; Geta 4 coins, 2 obverses, 3 reverses) with 8 coins (3 Septimius Severus; 5
Caracalla) in an inadequate condition for the study.

34 12 17 18.55 34 65% 50% 2.83 2.0 1.83 20
No die links between the types were recorded in this group, with the
exception of a single reverse link between Julia Domna (O6-R5, CNG-181.308) and
Geta (O7-R5, PC3). This die link confirmed the proposition that coins of Geta were
minted under his father and not his brother. The same link also helped in confirming
that the coins of Julia Domna which depict her hairstyle with an elongated vertical
bun behind her head, as opposed to a wavy hair with no bundle, were minted in the
reign of her husband (see Types and Legends chapter). Regarding Caracalla, he is
326
represented at times draped and either laureate or radiate;29 however, no reverse die
links were noted among these varieties.
Based on the number of obverse and reverse dies recorded for the members
of the imperial family above, the issues depicting Caracalla seem to have been more
abundant, followed by those of his father. The same observation is also true when
taking into consideration the number of surviving coins.
29
The radiate portraits depict an older looking Caracalla than the laureate ones.
327
O1
1. ANS-1944.100.83968*
R1
1. ANS-1944.100.83968*
2. SNG Glasgow-3445
3. BNF-200
O2
R2
1. acsearch-M&M
O3
20.698
1. BNF-200*
2. BNF-201*
O4
1. acsearch-M&M R3
20.698* 1. BNF-Chandon de
2. BNF-201 Briailles 1739*
3. BNF-Chandon de
Briailles 1739
O5 R4
1. CNG-194.193* 1. CNG-194.193*
O6 R5
1. CNG-181.308 1. CNG-181.308
2. Lindgren I-2174 2. Lindgren I-2174
3. Wildwinds-7603* 3. Wildwinds-7603*
4. PC3
O7
1. PC3 R6
2. Berlin-325/1909* 1. Berlin-325/1909*
O8 R7
1. AUB-1617 1. AUB-1617
2. BNF-Y28464* 2. BNF-Y28464*
328
R8
1. Forum-9258*
2. Forum-8735
3. PC1
4. BNF-Chandon de
Briailles 1742
5. SNG Righetti-2171
R9
1. PC1*
O9
1. Forum-9258
2. Forum-8735
3. PC1
4. BNF-Chandon de R10
Briailles 1742 1. BM-1977.3.4.7*
5. SNG Righetti-2171 2. PC3
6. PC1
7. BM-1977.3.4.7*
8. PC3
9. PC3
10. BNF-Chandon de
Briailles 1743 R11
1. PC3*
R12
1. BNF-Chandon de
Briailles 1743*
O10 R13
1. PC1* 1. PC1*
R14
1. ANS-1944.100.83973
2. ANS-1948.19.2519
O11 3. acsearch-M&M
1. ANS-1944.100.83973 20.701*
2. ANS-1948.19.2519
3. acsearch-M&M
20.701
4. Wildwinds-726758* R15
5. ANS-1944.100.83975 1. Wildwinds-726758*
2. ANS-1944.100.83975
R16
2. Helios-3.738*
O12
2. Helios-3.738
3. Wildwinds-7119*
R17
1. Wildwinds-7119*
329
Laodicea ad Libanum/Septimius Severus
ANS-1944.100.83968 Septimius/Mên 1 1
SNG Glasgow-3445 Septimius/Mên 2 1
BNF-200 Septimius/Mên 3 1
acsearch-M&M 20.698 Septimius/Mên 4 2
BNF-201 Septimius/Mên 4 2
BNF-Ch. de B. 1739 Septimius/Mên 4 3
CNG-194.193 Domna/Tyche bust 5 4

CNG-181.308 Domna/Tyche bust 6 5
Lindgren I-2174 Domna/Tyche bust 6 5
Wildwinds-7603 Domna/Tyche bust 6 5
PC3 Geta/Tyche bust 7 5

Berlin-325/1909 Geta/Tyche bust 7 6
AUB-1617 Geta/Tyche bust 8 7
BNF-Y28464 Geta/Tyche bust 8 7
Forum-9258 Caracalla/Tyche seated 9 8

Forum-8735 Caracalla/Tyche seated 9 8
PC1 Caracalla/Tyche seated 9 8
BNF- Ch. de B. 1742 Caracalla/Tyche seated 9 8
SNG Righetti-2171 Caracalla/Tyche seated 9 8
BM-1977.3.4.7 Caracalla/Tyche seated 9 10
BNF- Ch. de B. 1743 Caracalla/Tyche seated 9 12
ANS-1944.100.83973 Caracalla/Tyche seated 11 14
acsearch-M&M 20.701 Caracalla/Tyche seated 11 14
wildwinds-726758 Caracalla/Tyche seated 11 15
Lindgren III-1287 Caracalla/Tyche seated 12 16
Helios-3.738 Caracalla/Tyche seated 12 16
Wildwinds-7119 Caracalla/Tyche seated 12 17
Table 48: List of obverse and reverse dies for the issues of Septimius Severus minted in Laodicea ad
Libanum.
30
Although Caracalla looks noticeably older on this singleton (O10-R13), it is placed under the issues
of his father, since the reading of the obverse legend, and thus his title, is not clear.
330
b. Caracalla
In the reign of Caracalla, two types were issued: Caracalla/Mên (23 coins, 2
obverses, 11 reverses) and Caracalla/Julia Domna (2 coins, 1 obverse, 1 reverse). In
total, 25 coins were documented, all of which were in identifiable condition:

25 3 12 3.41 23.08 88% 52% 8.33 2.08 6.77 13
Based on the number of dies used in the reign of this emperor compared to
that of his father, it seems that output was generally reduced. A high portion of the
obverses have been documented, but only half of the reverses have come to light. Of
the two obverse dies, one depicts the Emperor draped and the other without the
drapery. The fact that there are no coins depicting Geta implies that these issues were
minted under Caracalla’s sole reign.
A coin of Laodicea ad Libanum depicting Mên on the reverse (O14-R28,
Wildwinds-John Noory 2003) has been classified as an issue of Severus Alexander
due to its partial obverse legend reading ΜΑCΕΟV…. However, the die study has
shown that it is none other than an issue of Caracalla having a blundered obverse
legend, the full reading of which is ΜΑCΕΟVΑΝΤΟ…ΝΟΓ,31 as Severus Alexander
did not use the name Antoninus. The attribution is further confirmed by obverse and
reverse die links between this coin and several other coins of Caracalla (O13-R26 to
O14-R28).
31
This more complete reading of the legend was compiled from three other coins (AUB-1618; BM-
1929.8.22.1; PC3) struck from the same obverse die.
331
R18
1. PC5*
R19
1. M&M 20.700*
O13
1. PC5
2. M&M 20.700
4. CNG-191.121
5. CNG-194.194
R20
6. Ashmolean-Bouchier
1930
7. BNF-Chandon de
Briailles 1740
8. ANS-1944.100.83969
9. PC3
10. BNF-203
11. CNG-213.322* R21
12. Wildwinds-7602 1. CNG-191.121*
13. VCoins-Jencek
N1248
14. BNF-202
15. M&M 20.699
16. AUB-1619
17. CNG-246.231
R22
1. CNG-194.194*
R23
1. Ashmolean-Bouchier
1930
2. BNF-Chandon de
Briailles 1740*
3. ANS-1944.100.83969
4. PC3
332
R24
1. BNF-203
2. CNG-213.322*
3. Wildwinds-7602
R25
1. VCoins-Jencek N1248*
R26
1. BNF-202
2. M&M 20.699
3. AUB-1619
4. CNG-246.231*
6. PC3
O14
1. PC3
2. AUB-1618* R27
3. BM-1929.8.22.1 1. AUB-1618*
4. Wildwinds-John
Noory 2003
R28
1. BM-1929.8.22.1*
2. Wildwinds-John
Noory 2003
O15 R29
1. ANS-1944.100.83654 1. ANS-1944.100.83654
2. CNG-162.267* 2. CNG-162.267*
Laodicea ad Libanum/Caracalla
PC5 Caracalla/Mên 13 18
M&M 20.700 Caracalla/Mên 13 19
Berlin-Löbbecke 1906 Caracalla/Mên 13 20
CNG-191.121 Caracalla/Mên 13 21
Ashmolean-Bouchier 1930 Caracalla/Mên 13 23
BNF-Ch. de B. 1740 Caracalla/Mên 13 23
ANS-1944.100.83969 Caracalla/Mên 13 23
BNF-203 Caracalla/Mên 13 24
Wildwinds-7602 Caracalla/Mên 13 24
333
VCoins-Jencek N1248 Caracalla/Mên 13 25
BNF-202 Caracalla/Mên 13 26
M&M 20.699 Caracalla/Mên 13 26
AUB-1619 Caracalla/Mên 13 26
Lindgren III-1288 Caracalla/Mên 13 26
AUB-1618 Caracalla/Mên 14 27
BM-1929.8.22.1 Caracalla/Mên 14 28
Wildwinds-John Noory 2003 Caracalla/Mên 14 28
ANS-1944.100.83654 Domna/Tyche 15 29
CNG-162.267 Domna/Tyche 15 29
Table 49: List of obverse and reverse dies for the issues of Caracalla minted in Laodicea ad Libanum.
c. Macrinus
For Macrinus only a single type depicting Mên is known. The six
documented coins are struck from two pair of dies:

6 2 2 3 3 67% 67% 3 3 1.0 3
R30
O16 1. Berlin-Morel 5/1908*
1. Berlin-Morel 5/1908* 2. PC1
2. PC1 3. BNF-no number
3. BNF-no number 4. Lindgren I-2175
4. Lindgren I-2175 5. Yale-2001.87.5775
5. Yale-2001.87.5775
O17 R31
1. Lindgren I-2176* 1. Lindgren I-2176*
334
Laodicea ad Libanum/Macrinus
Berlin-Morel 5/1908 Macrinus/Mên 16 30

PC1 Macrinus/Mên 16 30
BNF-no number on ticket Macrinus/Mên 16 30
Lindgren I-2175 Macrinus/Mên 16 30
Yale-2001.87.5775 Macrinus/Mên 16 30
Lindgren I-2176 Macrinus/Mên 17 31
Table 50: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Macrinus minted in Laodicea ad Libanum.
d. Elagabalus
A single obverse die has been recorded, struck in conjunction with four
reverse dies. A total of seven coins, all of which depict the god Mên as a reverse type,
have been recorded:

7 1 4 1.17 9.33 85% 43% 7 1.75 7.97 4
The decrease in output noted under Caracalla seems to have continued under
Macrinus and even more so under Elagabalus, with statistics showing that most likely
only one obverse die was used for the latter.
335
R32
1. acsearch-CNG 57.879*
2. BNF-204
3. Lindgren I-2177
R33
1. PC3*
O18
1. acsearch-CNG 57.879*
2. BNF-204
3. Lindgren I-2177
4. PC3
5. PC3
6. PC3 R34
1. PC3*
R35
1. PC3*
Laodicea ad Libanum/Elagabalus
acsearch-CNG 57.879 Elagabalus/Mên 18 32

BNF-204 Elagabalus/Mên 18 32
Lindgren I-2177 Elagabalus/Mên 18 32
PC3 Elagabalus/Mên 18 33
Table 51: List of obverse and reverse dies for the coins of Elagabalus minted in Laodicea ad Libanum.
An attempt was made to identify any possible die links between all the
reverses depicting Mên under all four emperors, but none were found.
C. Die axes
The vast majority of the coins of Apamea were struck with an axis between
11h to 1h, with the most common axis being 12h. This consistency holds true for all
types, including the imperial period issues. The same case has also been noticed for
336
Larissa, indicating that strict control was enforced in both mints concerning the
striking procedure and the angle at which the dies were held.
In Emesa, although the upright die axis (11h to 1h) was also generally used, a
considerable portion of the coins were struck with the obverse and reverse dies in
opposite directions, i.e., 6h. This variation in the die axes is true for issues of all
emperors and types. Noteworthy are issues depicting the bust of Julia Domna and an
altar, in which the coins were struck at 12h and 6h in nearly equal proportions.
Irregular axes such as 4h and 8h have also been noted for Emesene issues. This implies
that rigid control was not enforced at Emesa, as was the case for Apamea, keeping in
mind that Emesa commenced minting an entire century later. This trend of irregular
die axes is even more noticeable for Raphanea, where the coins were struck with
upright or opposite angles in equal proportions, and with irregular axes, again
implying leniency in control. At Laodicea ad Libanum the case is also similar, except
for the issues of Septimius Severus, where only the upright axis has been recorded.
It therefore seems that for the mints of the southern Orontes Valley, keeping
in mind that these cities issued coins in the second and third centuries, no strict
control was observed regarding the minting process, whereas for the mints in the
north producing in the first century BC and early first century AD, more uniformity
was observed regarding the die axes. To prove this point further, an attempt has been
made to correlate the angle of the die axis with the results of the die studies by taking
Raphanea as a case study, since more than one workstation is noted for that mint (see
Die Studies chapter). It was noticed that within the same die groups, i.e., a group of
coins sharing the same obverse dies but using different reverses (seated or standing
genius), the die axis were not uniform. This shows that within the same workstation
no strict control was used for the position of the dies during the striking process.
337
Thus, it cannot be stated that one workstation was striking coins by holding the dies in
an upright position (12 o'clock), and the other in an inverted position (6 o'clock).
D. Lettering styles
Regarding the legends on Apamene coins, the letters seem to have been
engraved using a round-edged punch or drill, resulting in a rounded edge for the
letters. This technique, or style, was used for the civic issues and continued to be the
case for the later issues with the portraits of the emperors. Larissa also used this
technique. The case of Emesa is more interesting because, although the coins of
Antoninus Pius also display this round-edged lettering style, the issues of all the
following emperors, starting with those of Caracalla, use a wedged-edged style for the
letter tips (serifs). There seems to have been a change in the style, or engraving
method, of the letters in the late second/early third century AD, keeping in mind the
gap in minting of more than half a century between the two emperors. This latter style
was also used on the coins of Raphanea. In the case of Laodicea ad Libanum the
wedges were less emphasised and shortened. It should be stated that the above
mentioned techniques/styles for the mints were not present on every specimen, but
rather were the general trend, with some exceptions. For example, in the case of the
issues representing Julia Domna and Geta at Laodicea ad Libanum, the edges of the
letters are at times rounded and at times wedge-like, with some employing neither
style.
The above noted styles/techniques on the coins of the Orontes Valley, and
the subsequent changes noted during the late second century AD, are also consistent
338
with that of northern Syria.32 The absence of ‘centering marks’ on all the coins in this
study is also consistent with the issues of the northern mints.33
E. Imitations
Imitations of coins of the Orontes Valley have not been noted.34 It is only in
the case of the issues of Elagabalus at Emesa that blundered and/or retrograde legends
have been noticed. This is true for the prize-crown and standing facing eagle types. It
is worth noting that the issues of this emperor at Emesa are relatively crude in style,
particularly when compared with the issues of his predecessors and successors.35
32
CRS, 128.
33
CRS, 129.
34
A coin of Elagabalus of the prize-crown type (Aeqvitas, no number) was noted to be highly irregular
in style and therefore proposed to be a contemporary forgery (see Metrology and Denominations
chapter).
35
Butcher (CRS, 133) has observed that the tetradrachms of Elagabalus in Syria were the most
frequently imitated, being of lighter weight and often having blundered and retrograde legends.
339
CHAPTER VIII
CONCLUSION
The current study has presented a structure of the coinages and a corpus of
all the known coin types minted by the cities of the Orontes Valley, including hitherto
unknown or unpublished new types. This was primarily achieved by recording as
many specimens as possible from both private and public collections (including less
visited museums such as that of Homs), in addition to those from publications and the
trade. It is hoped that the documentation and subsequent publication of these coins
will aid in ‘preserving’ this material and making it available for future researchers
who wish to complement the study of the coinages of Roman Syria. Before the
preparation of this study, coin catalogues (BMC Syria, SNG Copenhagen, etc.) were
the chief resources available for the classification of the coins of the Orontes Valley,
but these remain incomplete, as they are primarily based on private collections.
Currently, the RPC project is the best resource for the classification of the coins of
Roman Syria, but apart from Apamea, the mints of the remaining cities has not yet
been covered.
The current study has continued the work started in CRS, and in most cases it
has been demonstrated that the results obtained for the coinages of northern Syria
hold true for those of the Orontes Valley as well. This observation is particularly true
for the various aspects of production and circulation, in addition to the diverse
characteristics of denominations and iconography of the coinages.
Regarding production, the mints of the Orontes Valley were studied as a
single geographic entity, but the coinage the cities produced should in fact be divided
340
into two distinct chronological groups. The first group is that of Apamea and Larissa,
which minted mainly in the first century BC, and the second group the remaining
cities to the south –Raphanea, Emesa and Laodicea ad Libanum– which minted
mostly in the Severan period.
Apamea’s cessation of the production of coins during the reign of Claudius
should not necessarily be seen as an abrupt stop, but rather a gradual one. Die studies
have shown that in the imperial period output was decreased significantly. This was in
direct contrast to the abundant production of the civic coinages of the first century
BC, as attested by the considerable number of surviving specimens and types. After
the scarce issues of Augustus and Tiberius, no coins were produced during the reign
of Gaius. Minting seems to have resumed temporarily during the reign of Claudius,
including the rare tetradrachm issue, but this might have been the result of celebrating
Apamea’s new title bestowed by this emperor and not necessarily related to fiscal
requirements. These were the very last coins minted by Apamea.
The cities of the southern Orontes Valley were late in producing coins when
compared to most of the mints of northern Syria and Phoenicia to the south. By the
time of Trajan most of the northern Syrian mints were operational, with the inland
cities –Chalcis, Beroea, Cyrrhus and Hierapolis– also participating for the first time.1
Butcher relates this activity to Trajan’s campaigns and the fact that the above
mentioned four inland cities would likely have been mustering points for the
Emperor’s armies. This seems very probable considering that the southern inland
cities, in this case Raphanea, Emesa and Laodicea ad Libanum, did not mint during
Trajan's rule, but only in the Severan period (in the case of Emesa starting with
1
CRS, 11, 37.
341
Antoninus Pius), perhaps due to their remoteness from the above mentioned military
activity. Issues of Septimius Severus are non-existent in the southern Orontes Valley,
with the exception of Laodicea ad Libanum.2 This aspect has its parallels with
northern Syria, where Butcher has noted that minting activity under this emperor was
low (particularly for inland northern Syria) despite his military campaigns in the
region.3 However, it is a well known fact that mints in the eastern Roman provinces
proliferated under Septimius Severus.4 Despite this augmentation the mints under
study remained dormant (with the exception of Laodicea ad Libanum as mentioned
above). It was only during the reign of Caracalla, and later Elagabalus, that these
mints became more active. It seems that the cities in the region were initiating and
ceasing minting on an ad hoc basis to accommodate for their particular needs.
Although, it is remarkable that all three mints of the southern Orontes Valley ceased
production after Elagabalus (excluding the extraordinary issues of the usurper Uranius
Antoninus at Emesa). A number of mints in Phoenicia and Palestine also stop minting
in the reign of this Emperor, but it is difficult to establish a collective reason for this
with the insufficient information at hand.
Regarding coin circulation in the Orontes Valley, with the data collected and
presented in the Circulation chapter (including new site finds evidence), it has been
shown that coinages of the individual cities did not circulate in the territory of others.
Of foreign coins, it has been observed that Antiochene SC coins are present in the
Orontes Valley, with all other regional mints scarcely represented in the site finds
evidence. With regards to the understanding of circulation on a regional scale, it may
be surmised that the coins of the mints under study did not circulate beyond the
2
Parallels between this city and Heliopolis were discussed in the Production chapter.
3
CRS, 42.
4
CRS, 42-43.
342
Valley. This pattern is in line with the trend for mints of northern Syria. Butcher has
pointed out that one of the main difficulties faced in his research of northern Syria
was the lack of site finds data. This difficulty was also present for southern Syria,
although it is fair to say that more published site finds have since become available,
though they are still insufficient to compose a concrete understanding of circulation
patterns. Regarding the tetradrachms of Emesa, hoard evidence has shown that these
coins did indeed enjoy a wide geographical distribution, though this aspect is not an
unusual occurrence for silver issues of this region and time period.
Regarding denominations, Butcher has remarked that no universal pattern
emerged for northern Syria and that “it would be interesting to see whether similar
features can be discerned in neighbouring regions.”5 Indeed, for the Orontes Valley
the same conclusion has been reached, thus expanding Butcher’s findings further
south. The current study does not claim to have determined the face values of the
coins used in the cities under study; however, it has presented the denominational
structure of the coinages through tabulating the types and modules. One of the main
goals of the chapter on metrology and denominations was to determine whether or not
a uniform currency system was used throughout the Orontes Valley. The statistics
have clearly shown that there was no similarity between the denominational structures
of the various cities. Furthermore, within the same city the modules changed from one
reign to the next. Weight standards too were often altered, in addition to
denominations being added or removed on what seems to have been an ad hoc basis.
The reign of Elagabalus was taken as a case study, where it became evident that there
was no attempt by the Roman state to standardize the currency in the mints of the
5
CRS, 265.
343
southern Orontes Valley, by which each city utilised different denominational
structures of varying modules. There also does not seem to have been any attempt by
the cities themselves to coordinate production and produce compatible coinages. In
this respect, no cases of obverse die sharing were found among the cities of the
southern Orontes Valley, highlighting the lack of any coordination between the cities
regarding their currency. A comparison was conducted between the denominations of
the cities of the Orontes Valley with a number of regional mints, but once again no
direct correlation was found between the metrology and denominational structures of
the coinages produced.
The statement of diversity is particularly apparent regarding the civic identity
of these cities as presented on their coins, by which each city emphasised its local
religious identity and its civic pride as a polis. For Apamea, the types were dominated
by deities, a characteristic in line with the general trend of Hellenistic period coinages
of the region. Apamea’s military significance was also emphasised (with the portrayal
of an elephant), in addition to its fertility (represented by cornucopias and corn ears).
The iconography used on the reverses of the coins of the southern Orontes Valley also
had a local significance. In most cases, the iconography presented was religious in
nature, showing a direct connection between the local cult and civic identity and
pride. The second most common feature on these coinages related to the aspect of the
polis represented by depictions of the city-goddess Tyche. On the coinage of Emesa
the local cult of Elagabal dominated the iconography, whether in the form of the
baetyl or the great temple itself. In the case of Laodicea ad Libanum the deity is
specifically labelled ‘Mên’, who was certainly an uncommon god for the Syro-
Phoenician territories. Regarding Raphanea, the iconography depicted on the coins
344
was an expression of the city’s civic pride and its special connection with the army
garrison there.
Future metallurgical analyses will no doubt provide a more refined insight
into these coinages, particularly regarding the bronzes. Despite the lack of such
analyses, the die studies have added greatly to this research, especially regarding the
output of the coinage, the classification of the types, and their denominational
structure. With the aid of die studies it was argued that conventional approaches of
using types for the classification of a particular coinage may not necessarily reveal the
actual structure of that coinage. In the case of Raphanea it was shown that the use of
the two different reverse types (seated/standing genius), in addition to the manner in
which the emperor was depicted on the obverse (laureate/radiate), did not represent
the denominational or chronological structure for that coinage.
The die studies, a novel for this area and period, were also useful for the
understanding of the numeral letters on the Emesene bronzes of Antoninus Pius. It
was shown that these numeral letters were based on an alpha-numeric system of
enumeration having a chronological significance. Regarding the tetradrachms of
Emesa the die study was a tentative step in understanding the nature of the various
symbols inscribed on them, with preliminary results indicating that they represent
control marks of issuing authorities. In the case of Laodicea ad Libanum, it was only
with the help of a die study that a comprehensive structure for the coinage was
achieved (this was particularly true for the issues under Septimius Severus and
Caracalla).
The study of the coinages of the Orontes Valley has also provided an insight
into the social and cultural life of the various cities discussed. The above listed
differences in the coinages have hinted at the diverse nature of these societies. In
345
conclusion, the main theme that has emerged from this study is one of diversity in the
currencies of the Orontes Valley, and not unity.
346
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdulkarim, M. 1997. Recherches sur la cite d'Emese a l'époque romaine.

Unpublished PhD thesis, Université de Versailles.
_______ 2001. “Problems relating to the refoundation of the city of Emesa (Homs) in
the Hellenistic and Roman periods.” Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes
Syriennes 44: 45-53 (in Arabic).
Aliquot, J. 1989. "La monnaie en Syrie a l'époque hellénistique et romaine," in

Dentzer, J.-M. and Orthmann, W. (eds.), Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie
II. Saarbrücken: 149-190.
_______ 2000. "Un type monétaire romain de Raphanée (Syrie)." Bulletin de la

Société Française de Numismatique 55.7: 165-167.
_______ 2002. "La place des monnaies de Décapole et d'Arabie dans la numismatique
du Proche-Orient à l'époque romaine," in Augé, Ch. and Duyrat, Fr. (eds.),
Les monnayages syriens - Quel apport pour l’histoire du Proche-Orient
hellénistique et romain ? Actes de la table ronde de Damas, 10-12 novembre
1999. Beirut: 153-166.
_______ 2003. “Rémanences hellénistiques dans les monnayages provinciaux de

Syrie et d’Arabie." RN 6.159: 75-82.
_______ 2009. La vie religieuse au Liban sous l'Empire romain. Beirut.
Arrizabalaga y Prado, L. de. 2010. The Emperor Elagabalus: Fact or Fiction?

Cambridge.
Augé, C. 1985. “Les monnaies de fouille de Si’ et la circulation monétaire antique

dans le Hauran,” in Dentzer, J.-M. (ed.), Hauran I. Recherches
archéologiques sur la Syrie du sud a l'époque hellénistique et romaine. Paris:
203-217.
Augé, Ch. and Duyrat, Fr. (eds.). 2002. Les monnayages syriens - Quel apport pour
l’histoire du Proche-Orient hellénistique et romain? Actes de la table ronde
de Damas, 10-12 novembre 1999. Beirut.
Baldus, H. R. 1963. “Eine unedierte Münze des Uranius Antoninus.” Schweizer

Münzblätter, Gazette numismatique Suisse 49: 8-12.
_______ 1975. "Die 'reformierten' Tetradrachmen des Uranius Antoninus im Lichte

eines neuen Fundes (Nachtrag I)." Chiron 5: 443-484.
_______ 1977. "Neue Münzen des Uranius Antoninus (Nachtrag II)." Jahrbuch für
Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 27: 69-74.
_______ 1983. "Neue Forschungen zu Uranius Antoninus und seinen Münzen

(Nachtrag III)." Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 33: 29-39.
347
_______ 1987. “Syria,” in Burnett, A. and Crawford, M. (eds.), The Coinage of the
Roman World in the Late Republic. Oxford: 121-151.
_______ 1990. "Denare des Uranius Antoninus." Jahrbuch für Numismatik und
Geldgeschichte 40:29-34 .
_______ 1996. “Uranius Antoninus of Emesa: A Roman Emperor from Palmyra's

Neighbouring-City and his Coinage.” Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes
Syriennes 42: 371-377.
Ball, Warwick. 2000. Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire. London.
Balty, J. Ch. 1969. Apamée de Syrie: Bilan des recherches archéologiques, 1965-
1968. Brussels.
_______ 1972. Apamée de Syrie: Bilan des recherches archéologiques, 1969-1971.

Brussels.
_______ 1981. Guide d’Apamée. Brussels.
_______ 1988. “Apamea in Syria in the Second and Third Centuries A.D.” JRS 78:
89-104.
_______ 2003. "A la recherche de l'Apamée hellénistique: les sources antiques."

Topoi (Supplement 4) : 211-222.
Balty, J. and Balty, J. Ch. 1977. "Apamée de Syrie, archéologie et histoire. I. Des
origines a la Tetrarchie," in Temporini, H. (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der
römischen Welt, 2.8. Berlin: 103-134.
Barton, T. 1994. Ancient Astrology. London.
Bedoukian, P. Z. 1978. Coinage of the Artaxiads of Armenia. London.
Bellinger, A. R. 1931. Two Roman Hoards from Dura-Europos. New York.
_______ 1938. Coins from Jerash, 1928-1934. New York.
_______ 1949. The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report VI: The Coins. New
Haven.
_______ 1951. “The Early Coinage of Roman Syria,” in Coleman-Norton, P. R. (ed.),

Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan Chester
Johnson. Princeton: 58-67.
_______ 1956. “Greek Mints under the Roman Empire,” in Carson, R. and
Sutherland, C. H. V. (eds.), Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold
Mattingly. Oxford: 137-148.
Bérard, F 2000. Guide de l'épigraphiste: bibliographie choisie des épigraphies

antiques et médiévales. Paris (3rd edition).
348
Bernhart, M. 1949. “Dionysos und seine Familie auf griechischen Munzen
(Numismatischer Beitrag zur Ikonographie des Dionysos).” Jahrbuch für
Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 1: 7 -175.
Bickerman, E. J. 1980. Chronology of the Ancient World. New York.
Bickford-Smith, R. A. 1994-1995. “The Imperial Mints in the East for Septimius

Severus: It is Time to Begin a Thorough Reconsideration.” Rivista Italiana di
Numismatica 96: 53-71.
Bishop, J. D. and Holloway, R. R. 1981. Wheaton College collection of Greek and

Roman coins. New York.
Blackburn, M. 1989. “What factors govern the number of coins found on an

archaeological site?” in Clarke, H. and Schia, E. (eds.), Medieval
Archaeology Research Group. Proceedings of the First Meeting at Isegran,
Norway 1988. Oxford: 15-24.
Bland, R. 1991. “Six hoards of Syrian Tetradrachms of the Third Century AD.” NC
151: 1-33.
Bolin, S. 1958. State and Currency in the Roman Empire. Stockholm.
Bracey, R. 2009. "The Coinage of Wima Kadphises." Gandharan Studies 4: 25-75.
Boustani, M. H. et al. 2003-2004. “Prospections archéologiques a l'ouest de Homs:

résultats préliminaires, campagne 2004.” Tempora, Annales d'histoire et
d'archéologie 14: 59-90.
Burckhardt, J. L. 1822. Travels in Syria. London.
Burnett, A. 1987. Coinage in the Roman World. London.
_______ 2002. “Syrian Coinage and Romanization from Pompey to Domitian,” in

Augé, Ch. and Duyrat, F. (eds.), Les monnayages syriens - Quel apport pour
l’histoire du Proche-Orient hellénistique et romain? Actes de la table ronde
de Damas, 10-12 novembre 1999. Beirut: 115-122.
Burns, R. 1992. Monuments of Syria, an Historical Guide. London.
Butcher, K. E. T. 1988. “The Colonial Coinage of Antioch-on-the-Orontes, c. AD

218-53.” NC 148: 63-75.
_______ 1989. “Two Notes on Syrian Silver of the Third Century AD: Silver
Drachms of Caracalla from Petra; Uranius Antoninus - A Missing Link.” NC
149: 169-172.
_______ 2001-2002. “Small Change in Ancient Beirut. The Coin Finds from BEY
006 and BEY 045: Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Periods.”
Berytus 45-46.
349
_______ 2002. “Circulation of Bronze Coinage in the Orontes Valley in the Late
Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods,” in Augé, Ch. and Duyrat, F. (eds.),
Les monnayages syriens - Quel apport pour l’histoire du Proche-Orient
hellénistique et romain? Actes de la table ronde de Damas, 10-12 novembre
1999. Beirut: 145-151.
_______ 2003. Roman Syria and the Near East. London.
Buttrey, T. V. 1991. “The President’s Address: Exchange and circulation at

Pergamum in the second century AD.” NC 151: iii-xii.
_______ 1992. “The Denarii of Pescennius Niger.” NC 152: iv-xxii.
de Callataÿ, F. and van Heesch, J. 1999. Greek and Roman Coins from the Du Chastel
Collection. Coin Cabinet of the Royal Library of Belgium. London.
Callu, J.-P. 1969. La politique monétaire des Empereurs romains de 238 à 311. Paris.
_______ 1979. Fouilles de Apamée de Syrie 8, 1. Monnaies antiques (1966-1971). 2.

Les monnaies romaines. Brussels.
Carradice, I. 1983. Coinage and Finances in the Reign of Domitian, A.D. 81 - 96.
Oxford.
Carradice, I. and Cowell, M. 1987. “The Minting of Roman Imperial Bronze Coins
for Circulation in the East: Vespasian to Trajan.” NC 147: 26-50.
Carter, G. F. 1983. “A Simplified Method for Calculating the Original Number of

Dies from Die Link Statistics.” ANSMN 28:195-206.
Casey, P. J. 1986. Understanding Ancient Coins: An Introduction for Archaeologists

and Historians. London.
Cellini, G. A. 2007. “Aspetti iconografici ed ideologici di Tyche nel Mondo

ellenistico-romano." Numismatica e antichità classiche 36: 157-190.
Cesano. S. L. 1955. “Di Uranio Antonino e di alter falsificazioni di monete romane

piu o meno note, VI. Uranius Antoninus e le sue monete.” Rivisita Italiana di
Numismatica 57: 51-69.
Chad, C. 1972. Les dynastes d'Emese. Beirut.
Chehade, K. 1981. “La citadelle de Cheizar.” Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes

Syriennes 31: 107-128 (in Arabic).
Christophersen, A. 1989. “Coins in Complex Archaeological Contexts - A Source-

Critical Survey,” in Clarke, H. and Schia, E. (eds.), Medieval Archaeology
Research Group. Proceedings of the First Meeting at Isegran, Norway 1988.
Oxford: 1-7.
Chuvin, P. and Will, E. 1991. Mythologie et géographie dionysiaques: recherches sur

l'œuvre de Nonnos de Panopolis. Puy-de-Dôme.
350
Clain-Stefanelli, E. E. 1985. Numismatic Bibliography. New York.
Clay, C. L. 1979. “The Roman Coinage of Macrinus and Diadumenian.”

Numismatische Zeitschrift 93: 21-40.
Clayton, P. A. 1967. “The Coins from Tell Rifa'at.” Iraq 29.2: 143-154.
Cohen, G. M. 2006. The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and
North Africa. Berkeley.
Collart, P. and Coupel, P. 1951. L'autel monumental de Baalbek. Paris.
Comstock, M. B. and Vermeule, C. C. 1967. Greek Imperial Coins and Medallic

Issues in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston.
Conder, C. R. 1885. Heth and Moab. London (new edition).
Crawford, M. H. 1969. “Coin Hoards and the Pattern of Violence in the Late
Republic.” Papers of the British School at Rome 37: 76-81.
_______ 1970. “Money and exchange in the Roman world.” JRS 60: 40-48.
Dabrowa, E. 2000. "Legio III Gallica," in Le Bohec, Y. and Wolff, C. (eds.), Les
légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire. Actes du Congrès de Lyon, 17-19
Septembre 1998. Lyon: 309-315.
Delbrueck, R. 1948. “Uranius of Emesa.” NC 8: 11-29.
Dentzer, J.-M. and Orthmann, W. 1989. Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie. Vol. II.
Saarbrücken.
Dieudonné, A. 1906. “Numismatique syrienne, Émèse.” RN 10: 132-155.
_______ 1909. “ Numismatique syrienne, l'aigle d'Antioche et les ateliers de Tyr et

d’Émèse.” RN 13: 458-480.
Dornemann, R. H. 1999. “Seven seasons of ASOR excavations at Tell Qarqur, Syria,

1993-1999.” Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 56: 1-
141.
_______ 2008. "Tell Qarqur Excavations (1999-2008)." Studia Orontica 1: 5-160.
Doyen, J.-M. 1987. Les Monnaies Antiques du Tell Abou Danné et D'Oumm el-Marra
(Aspects de la circulation monétaire en Syrie du nord sous les Seleucids).
Brussels.
Drijvers, H. J. W. 1976. The Religion of Palmyra, Iconography of Religions. Leiden.
Duncan-Jones, R.P. 1998. Money and government in the Roman Empire. Cambridge.
Dussaud, R. 1903-1905. Notes de mythologie syrienne. Paris.
_______ 1927. Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et médiévale. Paris.
351
Dussaud, R. and Macler, F. 1903. Mission dans les régions désertiques de la Syrie
moyenne. Paris.
Eckhel, J. 1828. Doctrina Numorum Veterum. Vienna (Vol. 3, 2nd edition).
El-Zein, M. 1972. Geschichte der Stadt Apameia am Orontes von den Anfängen bis
Augustus. Heidelberg.
Esty, W. W. 1986. “Estimation of the Size of a Coinage: a Survey and Comparison of

Methods.” NC 146: 185-215.
_______ 2006. “How to estimate the original number of dies and the coverage of a
sample.” NC 166: 359-364.
Frey, M. 1989. Untersuchungen zur Religion und zur Religionspolitik des Kaisers
Elagabal. Wiesbaden.
Foss, C. 1986. “The Coinage of Tigranes the Great: Problems, Suggestions and a New
Find.” NC 146: 19-66.
Gaifman, M. 2008. “The Aniconic Image of the Roman Near East,” in Kaizer, T.
(ed.), The Variety of Local Religious Life in the Near East in the Hellenistic
and Roman Periods. Leiden and Boston: 37-72.
Gilmore, P. M. 1979. “Two Unrecorded Tetradrachms from Syria.” Numismatic

Circular 87.3: 129.
_______ 1979. “Syrian Officinae under Caracalla and Macrinus.” Numismatic

Circular 87.6: 286-289.
Gitler, H. and Ponting, M. 2007. “Rome and the East: a study of the chemical
composition of Roman coinage during the reign of Septimius Severus, AD
193-211.” Topoi Supplement 8: 375-397.
Good, I. J. 1953. “The population frequencies of species and the estimation of

population parameters.” Biometrika 40: 237-264.
Grainger, J. 1990. The Cities of Seleukid Syria. Oxford.
Grierson, Ph.1965. “The President’s Address: The Interpretation of Coin Finds (1).”
NC 5: i-xiii.
Grose, S. W. 1923-1929. Catalogue of the McClean Collection of Greek Coins.

Cambridge.
Gschwind, M. et al. 2009. “Raphaneae: Report on the 2005 and 2006 Survey.”
Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 2: 234-289.
Hamburger, H. 1954. “A Hoard of Syrian Tetradrachms and Tyrian Bronze Coins

from Gush Halav.” Israel Exploration Journal 4: 201-226.
352
Harl, K.W. 1987. Civic Coins and Civic Politics in the Roman East, AD. 180-275.
Los Angeles.
_______ 1996. Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 B.C. to A.D. 700. Baltimore.
_______ 1997. “Greek Imperial Coins in the Economic Life of the Roman East,” in
Nollé, J., Overbeck, B. and Weiss, P. (eds.), lnternationales Kolloquium zur
kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens. 27. -30. April 1994 in der
Staatlichen Münzsammlung, München. Milan: 223-229.
Harper, R. P. and Wilkinson, T. J. 1975. “Excavations at Dibsi Faraj, Northern Syria,

1972-1974: A Preliminary Note on the Site and Its Monuments with an
Appendix.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 29: 319-338.
Hay, J. S. 1911. The Amazing Emperor Heliogabalus. London.
Head, B. V. 1887. Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics. Oxford.
Hernandez, L. 1992. Essai d'iconographie religieuse d'après le monnayage syrien

d'Héliogabale (218-222): approche numismatique. Perpignan.
Hopkins, K. 1980. “Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire (200 BC - AD 400).” JRS
70: 101-125.
Hoover, O. D. 2004a. “Anomalous tetradrachms of Philip I Philadelphus struck by

autonomous Antioch (64-58 BC).” Schweizer Münzblätter, Gazette
numismatique Suisse 214: 31-35.
_______ 2004b. “Ceci n’est pas l’autonomie: The Coinage of Seleucid Phoenicia as
Royal and Civic Power Discourse.” Topoi Supplement 6: 485-507.
_______ 2009. Handbook of Syrian Coins: Royal and Civic Issues Fourth to First
Centuries BC. Lancaster and London.
Howgego, C. J. 1982. “'Coinage and Military Finance: The Imperial Bronze Coinage
of the Augustan East.” NC 142: 1-20.
_______ 1992. “The Supply and Use of Money in the Roman World: 200 B.C. to
A.D. 300.” JRS 82: 1-31.
_______ 1995. Ancient History from Coins. London and New York.
Howgego, C., Volker H. and Burnett, A. 2005. Coinage and Identity in the Roman
Provinces. Oxford.
Huyse, Ph. (ed.), 1999. Die dreisprachige Inschrift Sabuhrs I. an der Kaʿba-i Zardušt.
Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum III/1. London.
Icks, M. 2011. The Crimes of Elagabalus: The Life and Legacy of Rome's Decadent
Boy Emperor. London.
Imhoof-Blumer, F. 1890. Griechische Münzen. Munich.
353
_______ 1901. “Zur syrischen Münzkunde.” Wiener numismatische Zeitschrift 33: 3-
15.
_______ 1913. “Antike griechische Münzen.” RSN 19: 5-134.
Ingholt, H. 1940. Rapport préliminaire sur sept campagnes de fouilles a Hama en

Syrie. Copenhagen.
_______ 1942. “The Danish excavations at Hama on the Orontes.” American Journal
of Archaeology 46: 469-476.
_______ 1957-1990. Hama, fouilles et recherches, 1931-1938. Copenhagen (in 4

volumes).
Jalabert, L. 1910. "Claudia apameia." Bulletin de la société nationale des antiquaires

de France 9: 343-347.
Jidéjian, N. 1975. Baalbek: Heliopolis, City of the Sun. Beirut.
Johnson, N. J. 2006. “The Coins from Tell ‘Acharneh,” in Fortin, M. (ed.), Tell
‘Acharneh 1998-2004: Preliminary Reports on Excavation Campaigns and
Study Season. Brepols: 225-237.
Johnston, A. 1982. “Caracalla or Elagabalus?” ANSMN 27: 97-120.
_______ 2007. Greek Imperial Denominations, ca 200-275: a Study of the Roman

Provincial Bronze Coinages of Asia Minor. London.
Jones, A. H. M. 1971. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Oxford.
Kaizer, T. 2002. The Religious Life of Palmyra. Stuttgart.
_______ 2006. “In Search of Oriental Cults. Methodological Problems Concerning

‘The Particular’ and ‘The General’ in Near Eastern Religion in the
Hellenistic and Roman Periods.” Historia 55.1: 26-47.
Kapossy, B. 1995. Römische Provinzialmünzen aus Kleinasien in Bern. Mailand.
Kent, J. P. C. 1988. “Interpreting Coin Finds,” in Casey, P. J. and Reese, R. (eds.),

Coins and the Archaeologist. London: 201-217.
Kienast, Dietmar. 1996. Römische Kaisertabelle. Darmstadt.
King, G. R. D. 2002. “Archaeological Fieldwork at the Citadel of Homs, Syria: 1995-

1999.” Levant 34: 39-58.
Kiwan, Kh. 2004-2005. “Note préliminaire sur les monnaies trouvées a Marathos
(Amrit) en 2005-2006, et a Tell Ghamqa (Tartous).” Les Annales
Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 47-48: 161-169 (in Arabic).
354
_______ 2006-2007. “Note préliminaire sur les monnaies trouvées a Hosn
Souleiman.” Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 49-50: 13-21 (in
Arabic).
Klose, D. 2005. “Festivals and Games in the Cities of the East during the Roman
Empire,” in Howgego, C., Volker H. and Burnett, A. (eds.), Coinage and
Identity in the Roman Provinces. Oxford: 125-133.
Kropp, A. 2010. “Earrings, Nefesh and Opus Reticulatum: Self-Representation of the

Royal House of Emesa in the First Century AD,” in Kaizer, T. and Facella,
M. (eds.), Kingdoms and Principalities in the Roman Near East. Stuttgart:
199-216.
Krzyżanowska, A. 1982. “Les monnaies de Palmyre,” in Hackens, T. and Weiller, N.

(eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Numismatics,
Louvain-la-Neuve: 445-457.
_______ 2002. "Les monnaies de Palmyre: leur chronologie et leur rôle dans la
circulation monétaire de la région," in Augé, Ch. and Duyrat, Fr. (eds.), Les
monnayages syriens - Quel apport pour l’histoire du Proche-Orient
hellénistique et romain? Actes de la table ronde de Damas, 10-12 novembre
1999. Beirut: 167-173.
Kyle, D. 2007. Sport and Spectacle in the Ancient World. Oxford.
Laing, L. R. 1969. Coins and Archaeology. London.
Lane, E. N. 1967-1968. “A Re-study of the God Mên: Part II. The Numismatic and
Allied Evidence.” Berytus 17: 13-47.
_______ 1971-1978. Corpus Monumentorum Religionis Dei Menis. Leiden (in 4

volumes).
Le Bohec, Y. 1994. The Imperial Roman Army. London.
Leake, W. M. 1856. Numismata Hellenica: A Catalogue of Greek Coins. London.
_______ 1859. Supplement to Numismata Hellenica: A Catalogue of Greek Coins.

London.
Leverton, Th. 1966. Architectura Numismatica; Ancient Architecture on Greek and

Roman Coins and Medals. Chicago.
Lo Cascio, E. 1981. “State and Coinage in the Late Republic and Early Empire.” JRS
71: 76-86.
MacDonald, G. 1899-1905. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection.

Glasgow.
_______ 1903. “The Numerical Letters on Imperial Coins of Syria.” NC 3: 105-110.
Marquardt, J. 1892. Römische Staatsverwaltung. Paris.
355
_______ 1932. “The Coinage of Septimius Severus and his Times. Mints and
Chronology.” NC 12: 177-198.
Mathias, V. T. and Parr, P. J. 1989. “The Early Phases at Tell Nebi Mend: A
Preliminary Account.” Levant 21: 13-32.
Matthews, J. F. 1984. “The Tax Law of Palmyra: Evidence for Economic History in a
City of the Roman East.” JRS 74: 157-180.
Mayance, F. 1939. “Les fouilles d’Apamée. Mise au point des travaux exécutés
jusqu’ici et des principaux résultats obtenus." Bulletin de l'Académie Royale
de Belgique, CI, Lettres, 25: 328-344.
McAlee, R. 2007. The Coins of Roman Antioch. Pennsylvania.
Melville Jones, J.R. 1971. “Denarii, Asses and Assaria in the Early Roman Empire.”
Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London 18:
99-105.
Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer, E. 1994. “Die Münzprägung von Paltos in Syrien.” Jahrbuch

für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 44: 91-111.
Millar, F. 1987. “The Problem of Hellenistic Syria,” in Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White,

S. (eds.), Hellenism in the East. London.
_______ 1990. “The Roman Coloniae of the Near East: a Study of Cultural
Relations,” in Solin, H. and Kajava, M. (eds.), Roman Eastern Policy and
Other Studies in Roman History. Proceedings of a Colloquium at Tvlirminne.
Helsinki: 7-58.
_______ 1993. The Roman Near East: 31 BC - AD 337. Harvard.
Milne, J. G. 1939. Greek and Roman Coins and the Study of History. London.
Mionnet, T. E. 1806-1837. Description de médailles antiques, grecques et romaines.

Paris (with supplements).
Montet, P. 1923. "Le dieu Seth sur la stèle égyptienne de Tell Nebi Mend," Syria 4:
179.
Mørkholm, O. 1966. Antiochus IV of Syria. Copenhagen.
Mouterde, R. 1949-1950. "A travers l'Apamène." Mélanges de l’Université Saint-

Joseph 28: 37-42.
Müller, J. W. 1968. “Datierung des römischen Theaters in Lenzburg durch die

Münzfunde.” RSN 47: 105-130.
Negev, A. 1965-1966. “The Mempsis (Kurnub) Hoard of Roman and Provincial

Silver: A Preliminary Note.” Israel Numismatic Journal 3: 27-31.
356
Nercessian, Y. T. 2006. Silver Coinage of the Artaxiad Dynasty of Armenia. Los
Angeles.
Newell, E. T. 1917. “The Seleucid Mint of Antioch.” AJN 51: 123-151.
Noe, S. P. 1920. Coin Hoards. New York.
_______ 1937. A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards. New York.
Noris, H. 1696. Annus Et Epochae Syromacedonum In Vetustis Urbium Syriae

Nummis Praesertim Mediceis Expositae. Leipzig.
Parks, D. A. 2004. The Roman Coinage of Cyprus. Nicosia.
Parr, P.J. 1983. “The Tell Nebi Mend Project.” Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes
Syriennes 33: 99-117.
_______ 1990-1991. "The Tell Nebi Mend Project: A Progress Report on the Institute
of Archaeology’s Excavations at Ancient Kadesh-on-the-Orontes in Syria."
Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum 4: 78-85.
Pekari, T. 1973. “Uranius Antoninus. Zum Buch von Hans Roland Baldus.”
Schweizer Münzblätter, Gazette numismatique Suisse 89: l5-18.
Pézard, M. 1922. “Mission archéologique à Tell Nebi Mend, 1921.” Syria 3: 89-115.
_______ 1931. Qadesh: Mission archéologique à Tell Nebi Mend, 1921-1922. Paris.
Philip, G. et al. 2005. “Settlement and Landscape Development in the Homs Region,
Syria. Report on Work Undertaken during 2001-2003.” Levant 37: 21-42.
Ploug, G. 1985. Hama, the Graeco-Roman Town, vol. 3.1, in Ingholt, H. (ed), Hama,
fouilles et recherches, 1931-1938. Copenhagen.
Potter, D.S. 1990. Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire: A
Historical Commentary on the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle. Oxford.
Price, M. J. 1991. The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip
Arrhidaeus. Zurich.
Price, M. J. and B. L. Trell. 1977. Coins and Their Cities. London and Detroit.
Prieur, M. 1985a. “Datation des deniers tétradrachmes syro-phéniciens de Macrin.”

Bulletin de la Société Française de Numismatique 40.7: 676-678.
_______ 1985b. “La question des ateliers d'émission des tétradrachmes syro-
phéniciens sous Elagabal au travers de quatre monnaies rares ou inédites.”
Bulletin de la Société Française de Numismatique 40.8: 690-694.
Rebuffat, F. 1999. "Peut-on parler d'une circulation des monnaies impériales

grecques?" in Amandry, M. and Hurter, S. (eds), Travaux de numismatique
grecque offerts a Georges Le Rider. London: 337-45.
357
Reece, R. 1982. “Economic History from Roman Site-Finds,” in Hackens, T. and
Weiller, N. (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of
Numismatics. Louvain-la-Neuve: 495-502.
Retsö, J. 2003. Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umayyads.
London.
Rey-Coquais, J.-P. 1974. Arados et sa pérée aux époques grecque, romaine et

byzantine. Paris.
_______ 1978. “Syrie Romaine, de Pompée a Dioclétien.” JRS 68: 44-73.
Rigsby, K. J. 1996. Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World. Berkeley

and London.
Ronde, A. 2007. “Digressions sur le monnayage romain de Raphanée de Syrie.”

Bulletin de la Société française de numismatique 62.7: 166-167.
Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 1980. “The Mampsis Hoard - A Preliminary Report.”

Israel Numismatic Journal 4: 39-54.
Rowan, C. 2006. “The Procession of Elagabalus and the Problem of the Parasols.”
Journal of the Numismatic Association of Australia 17: 114-119.
Ryan, N. S. 1988. Fourth-Century Coin Finds from Roman Britain: A Computer

Analysis. Oxford.
Salvatore, de G. 1962. “Ancora su Uranio Antonino.” Numismatica 3.1: 64-65.
Samuel, A. E. 1972. Greek and Roman Chronology: Calendars and Years in

Classical Antiquity. Munich.
Sartre, M. 2005. The Middle East under Rome. Harvard.
de Saulcy, F. 1874. Numismatique de la terre sainte. Paris.
Sawaya, Z. 2006. “Le monnayage de Botrys en Phénicie.” RN 162: 159-180.
_______ 2009. Histoire de Bérytos et d’Heliopolis d’après leurs monnaies (Ier siècle
av. J.-C. - IIIe siècle apr. J.-C.). Beirut.
Sear, D. 1986. “The stone of Emesa on a tetradrachm of Caracalla.” Numismatic Fine

Arts Journal 32. California.
Seyrig, H. 1932. "Antiquités syriennes 10: Sur certains tétradrachmes provinciaux de

Syrie." Syria 13: 360-368.
_______ 1939. "Antiquités syriennes 24: Les rois Séleucides et la concession de

l'Asylie." Syria 20: 35-42.
_______ 1950. “Antiquités syriennes 42: Sur les ères de quelques villes de Syrie.”
Syria 27: 5-50.
358
_______ 1952. “Antiquités syriennes 53: Antiquités de la nécropole d’Émèse.” Syria
29: 204-250.
_______ 1953. “Antiquités syriennes 53: Antiquités de la nécropole d’Émèse.” Syria

30: 12-24.
_______ 1955. “Trésor monétaires de Nisibe.” RN 17: 85-128.
_______ 1958. “Uranius Antonin. Une question d'authenticité.” RN 6: 51-57.
_______ 1958. “Monnaies grecques des fouilles de Doura et d'Antioche.” RN 6: 171-

181.
_______ 1959. “Antiquités syriennes 76: Caractères de l’histoire d’Émèse.” Syria 36:
184-192.
_______ 1964. "Monnaies hellénistiques." RN 6: 7-67.
_______ 1971. “Antiquités syriennes 95: Le culte du soleil en Syrie a l’époque

romaine.” Syria 48: 337-373.
_______ 1973. Trésors du Levant anciens et nouveaux. Paris.
Shahîd, I. 1984. Rome and the Arabs. Washington D.C.
Shotter, D. 1979. “Gods, Emperors, and Coins.” Greece and Rome 26.1: 48-57.
Smith, H. 1892. Handbook for Travellers in Syria and Palestine. London.
Smith, W. 1854. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. London.
Spijkerman, F. A. 1958-1959. “A Hoard of Syrian Tetradrachms and Eastern

Antoniani from Capharnaum.” Studii biblici franciscani Liber annuus 9: 283-
327.
Spoerri Butcher, M. 2009. “Dénominations et systèmes monétaires en Asie Mineure à

l’époque romaine: a propos de «Greek Imperial Denominations» et des
colonies romaines.” RSN 88: 217-224.
Spoerri Butcher, M., Gitler, H. and Butcher, K., et al. (forthcoming). Griechische
Münzen in Winterthur, vol. 3.
Sullivan, R. D. 1977. “The Dynasty of Emesa,” in Temporini, H. (ed.), Aufstieg und

Niedergang der römischen Welt, vol. 2.8, Berlin: 198-219.
Thomsen, R. 1986. “The Graeco-Roman Coins,” in Christensen, A.P., Thomsen, R.

and Ploug, M. (eds.), Hama; Fouilles et Recherches, 1931-1938, lll, 3.
Copenhagen.
Van Berg, P.-L. 1972. Corpus Cultus Deae Syriae: étude critique des sources
mythographiques grecques et latines. Leiden (part II).
359
Van Haeperen-Pourbaix, A. 1971. “Les épithètes du dieu Mên d’après les monnaies.”
Revue Belge de Numismatique 117: 71-79.
Viviers, D. 2006. “Apamée de Syrie: Archéologie de l'urbanisme romain en Orient.”

L'archéologie à l'Université libre de Bruxelles. Études d'archéologie: 109-
122.
_______ 2008. “Recherches récentes à Apamée-sur-l’Oronte.” Studia Orontica

2:109-115.
_______ 2009. “Travaux de la mission archéologique belge à Apamée de Syrie: XLIIe

campagne (2008).” Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 87: 105-144.
Viviers, D. and Paridaens, N. 2010. “Travaux de la Mission archéologique belge à

Apamée de Syrie. XLIIIe campagne (2009). Épigraphie: une nouvelle stèle
funéraire.” Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 88: 132.
Viviers, D. and Vokaer, A. 2007. "Travaux de la Mission archéologique belge à

Apamée de Syrie XLe campagne (2006)." Revue belge de philologie et
d'histoire 85: 125-156.
_______ 2008. “Travaux de la mission archéologique belge à Apamée de Syrie: XLIe

campagne (2007).” Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 86: 115-150.
Waagé, D. B. 1952. Antioch on the Orontes IV, Part 2. ‘Greek, Roman, Byzantine and
Crusaders’ Coins’. Princeton.
Walker, A. 1982-1983. “16 or 18 Assaria, Drachmai and Denarii in Mid Second

Century A.D. Athens.” Israel Numismatic Journal 6-7: 142-147.
Walker, D. R. 1976-1978. The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage. Oxford.
Watzinger, C. 1923. Das Grabmal des Samsigeramos von Emesa. Stockholm.
Weulersse, J. 1940. L 'Oronte. Etude de fleuve. Tours.
Wirth, E. 1971. Syrien: Eine geographische Landeskunde. Darmstadt.
Young, G. K. 2003. “Emesa and Baalbek: Where is the Temple of Elahagabal?”

Levant 35: 159-162.
Zehnacker, H., Richard, J.-C. and Barrandon, J.-N. 1984. “La trouvaille de
Villeneuve-au-Châtelot (Aube).” Trésors monétaires 6: 9-92.
Ziegler, R. 1996. “Civic Coins and Imperial Campaigns,” in Kennedy, D. L. (ed.),

The Roman Army in the East. Ann Arbor: 119-134.
360
KEY TO PLATES
APAMEA
Civic issues
1) Zeus/elephant. AE 8.63 gr, 22 mm, CNG-729552
2) Tyche/Nike. AE 5.73 gr, 17 mm, Wildwinds-27.62309
3) Demeter/corn ear. AE 5.03 gr, 18 mm, Wildwinds-27.62306
4) Dionysus/Grapes. AE 2.29 gr, 14 mm, Lindgren III-1175
5) Dionysus/thyrsus. AE 8.93 gr, - mm, MA-Münzhandlung Ritter 29280
6) Athena/Nike. AE 7.74 gr, 21 mm, CNG-162074
7) Demeter/three corn ears. AE 7.16 gr, 20 mm, CNG-750609
8) Tyche/Athena standing. AE 4.77 gr, 17 mm, Wildwinds-27.62310
9) Dionysus/thyrsus. AE 7.51 gr, - mm, MA-Münzhandlung Ritter 29374
10) Dionysus/Demeter. AE 6.88 gr, - mm, MA-M&M 5584
11) Dionysus/cornucopia. AE 8.45 gr, 22 mm, BNF-Luynes 3458
12) Zeus/Tyche seated. AE 6.0 gr, 17 mm, Vcoins-Incitatus Coins
Augustus
13) Augustus/Nike. AE 10.49 gr, - mm, SNG Glasgow-3150
14) Augustus/Tyche. AE 6.91 gr, 21.5 mm, BNF-1968.115
Tiberius
15a) Tiberius/Nike left. AE 10.21 gr, 23.5 mm, BM-1986.4.34.16
15b) Tiberius/Nike right. AE 10.63 gr, 23 mm, Belgium-896
16) Tyche/Athena advancing. AE 7.68 gr, 21.5 mm, Lindgren III-1178
Claudius
17) Claudius/seated Tyche. AR tetradrachm 13.69 gr, 26.5 mm, BNF-1973.1.352
18) Zeus/Nike. AE 5.37 gr, 18 mm, Wildwinds-27.62350
19) Zeus/seated Tyche. AE 6.11 gr, 19 mm, BNF-965
LARISSA
Civic issues
20) Zeus/throne. AE 9.77 gr, 20 mm, CNG-201.130
21) Tyche/horse. AE 3.59 gr, 16 mm, Elsen-Dec. 2007, 860
RAPHANEA
Elagabalus
22) Elagabalus/seated genius. AE - gr, 23 mm, Aeqvitas
23) Elagabalus/standing genius. AE 8.66 gr, 23.5 mm, private collection
24) Severus Alexander/standing genius. AE 7.06 gr, 23 mm, BMC Syria no. 4
25) Elagabalus/bull. AE 2.5 gr, 14 mm, NC 2011, p. 78
361
EMESA
Antoninus Pius
26a) Perched eagle right. AE 10.66 gr, 22.5 mm, BNF-Vogue 251
26b) Perched eagle left. AE 11.79 gr, 23 mm, BMC Syria no. 5
27) Sun god. AE 9.04 gr, 22 mm, ANS-1974.276.10
28a) Tyche seated front. AE 10.73 gr, 24.5 mm, Berlin-C. R. Fox 1873
28b) Tyche seated right. AE 10.23 gr, 21.5 mm, BNF-Y28359 1960
28c) Tyche seated left. AE 9.02 gr, 22 mm, Berlin-Löbbecke 1906
Caracalla
29) Caracalla. AR tetradrachm 13.99 gr, - mm, CNG-Triton V.1766
30) Julia Domna. AR tetradrachm 11.98 gr, - mm, CNG-60.1367
31) Temple façade. AE 25.22 gr, 30.5 mm, BMC Syria no. 15
32a) Temple right. AE 22.3 gr, 30 mm, CNG-73.740
32b) Temple left. AE 22.77 gr, - mm, SNG Munich-818
33) Julia Domna/altar. AE 14 gr, 24.5 mm, BNF-Y23879.245
34) Caracalla/Julia Domna. AE 10.12 gr, 24 mm, M&M 20.628
35) Perched eagle. AE 5.97 gr, 18 mm, CNG-271.350
36a) Tyche seated front. AE 7.82 gr, 21 mm, Wildwinds-64784
36b) Tyche seated left. AE 8.07 gr, - mm, M&M 14.666
Macrinus
37) Macrinus. AR tetradrachm 12.83 gr, 25 mm, CNG-238.274
38) Diadumenian. AR tetradrachm 14.39 gr, 27 mm, CNG-139.203
39) Temple façade. AE 24.98 gr, 30.2 mm, Yale-2009.110.152
40) Temple right. AE 26.08 gr, 29 mm, CNG-79.652
Elagabalus
41) Temple façade. AE 13.73 gr, 24 mm, CNG-262.241
42) Wreath. AE 12.64 gr, 26.5 mm, private collection
43) Prize-crown. AE 6.36 gr, 23 mm, CNG-174.151
44) Tyche seated left. AE 8.14 gr, 24 mm, Lindgren I-2049
45) Altar. AE - gr, 20 mm, Aeqvitas
46) Eagle standing facing. AE 5.37 gr, 17.5 mm, private collection
47a) Perched eagle facing. AE 2.42 gr, 19 mm, private collection
47b) Perched eagle left. AE 4.04 gr, 17.5 mm, BMC Syria no. 20
48) Sun god. AE 3.44 gr, - mm, Helios-5.1122
Uranius Antoninus
49) Eagle standing facing. AR tetradrachm 11.83 gr, 26 mm, CNG-87.882
50) Radiate deity. AR 8.4 gr, 30 mm, BM-1975.9.30.1
51) Fortuna standing. AR 7.91 gr, 28 mm, Numismatica Ars Classica 42.168
52) Victory. AR 8.97 gr, - mm, Baldus 1975, Plate 45, no. 4
53) Moneta standing. AR 8.07 gr, 27.5 mm, BNF-1973.1.457
54) Fortuna seated. AR 8.25 gr, 27 mm, BNF-1973.1.456
55) Minerva seated. AR 8.51 gr, 28 mm, SNG Copenhagen Supplement no. 1191
56) Dromedary. AR 8.29 gr, 27 mm, BNF-1973.1.454
57) Temple façade. AE 21.42 gr, 32 mm, CNG-Triton V.1767
58) Temple left. AE 20.09 gr, 32 mm, BM-1946.10.4.625
362
LAODICEA AD LIBANUM
Septimius Severus
59) Septimius Severus/Mên. AE 11.8 gr, 27 mm, M&M 20.698
60) Caracalla/Seated Tyche. AE 8.39 gr, 23.6 mm, Forum-09258
61) Julia Domna/Tyche. AE 5.54 gr, 21 mm, CNG-194.193
62) Geta/Tyche. AE 6.68 gr, 22 mm, BNF-Y28464
Caracalla
63) Caracalla/Mên. AE 10.56 gr, 25 mm, VCoins-Jencek N1248
64) Julia Domna/Tyche. AE 5.97 gr, 21 mm, CNG-162.267
Macrinus
65) Macrinus/Mên. AE 15.14 gr, 28.5 mm, Berlin-Morel 5/1908
Elagabalus
66) Elagabalus/Mên. AE 16.38 gr, 28 mm, Lindgren III-1290
363
PLATES
APAMEA
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
10 11 12
13 14
15a 15b 16
17 18 19
364
LARISSA
20 21
RAPHANEA
22 23 24
25
EMESA
26a 26b 27
28a 28b 28c
29 30
365
31 32a
32b 33
34 35 36a
36b 37 38
39 40
41 42 43
366
44 45 46
47a 47b 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
367
57 58
LAODICEA AD LIBANUM
59 60 61
62 63 64
65 66
368
369

Coinage in Late Hellenistic and Roman Syria

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coinage in Late Hellenistic and Roman Syria

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coinage in Late Hellenistic and Roman Syria

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Warwick institutional repository: http://go.warwick.ac.

A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick

This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright.

Jack Antoine Nurpetlian

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

University of Warwick, Department of Classics and Ancient History

Figure 2: Bronze coin of Seleucus I attributed to Apamea (CNG-Triton V.537,

Figure 3: Bronze coin of Alexander Balas minted in Apamea depicting Zeus

Figure 6: Coin of Apamea of the Dionysus/thyrsus type countermarked with a

Figure 8: The wreath type of Elagabalus minted in Emesa (above, PC1, AE

Figure 9: Prize-crown type of Elagabalus minted in Emesa having three cuts

Figure 10: Bronze coin erroneously attributed to Apamea in Syria depicting a

Figure 12: Tetradrachm of Alexander the Great countermarked with the

Figure 15: Denarius of Elagabalus depicting the sacred baetyl on a quadriga

Figure 16: Above: bronze coin of Septimius Severus minted in Antioch in

Figure 18: Bronze coin of Caracalla minted in Laodicea ad Libanum depicting

Figure 19: Bronze coin of Elagabalus minted in Laodicea ad Libanum

Figure 20: Coin of Antoninus Pius minted in Emesa (above, Ashmolean-Jesus

Table 1: Civic issues of Apamea tabulated according to types, dates and

Table 2: List of coins excavated from Apamea dating to the period AD 27 -

Table 10: Number of bronze coins represented at Apamea grouped into

Table 14: Metrology of coins of Group 2 minted in Apamea.................................... 197

Table 17: Metrology of coins of Apamea belonging to Group 3. .............................. 199

Table 19: Metrology of coins of Tiberius minted in Apamea. .................................. 200

Table 21: Metrology of the coins of Larissa. ............................................................. 202

Table 22: Metrology of the coins of Raphanea depicting a genius on the

Table 24: Metrology of tetradrachms issued in Emesa during the reigns of

Table 28: Metrology of coins of Elagabalus minted in Emesa. ................................. 209

Table 29: Metrology of bronze coins of Uranius Antoninus. .................................... 211

Table 30: Metrology of coins minted in the reign of Septimius Severus at

I am very grateful to Dr. Kevin Butcher for advising me on my thesis. I would

The research was conducted by recording as many specimens as possible

The mints of northern Syria have been previously studied, in addition to

Reference works and periodicals

AJN American Journal of Numismatics

ANSMN American Numismatic Society Museum Notes

Baldus Baldus, H. R. 1971. Uranius Antoninus, Münzprägung und

Bellinger Bellinger, A. R. 1940. The Syrian Tetradrachms of Caracalla

BMC Thessaly Gardner, P. and Poole, R. S. 1883. A Catalogue of the Greek

BMC Thrace Head, B. V., Poole, R. S. and Gardner, P. 1877. A Catalogue of

CRE Sutherland, C. H. V. and Kraay, C. M. 1975. Catalogue of Coins

CRS Butcher, K. E. T. 2004. Coinage in Roman Syria: Northern Syria,

CSE Houghton, A. 1983. Coins of the Seleucid Empire from the

Falghera Martini, R. 1992. Monetazione provinciale romana II. Collezione

GIC Howgego, C. J. 2005. Greek Imperial Countermarks: Studies in

IGCH Thompson, M., Mørkholm, O. and Kraay, C. M. (eds.). 1973. An

IGLS Jalabert, L. and Mouterde, R. 1955-1959. Inscriptions Grecques

ILS Dessau, H. 1892-1916. Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. Berlin.

JRS The Journal of Roman Studies

LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. 1981-1999.

Lindgren I Lindgren, H. C. and Kovacs, F. L. 1985. Ancient Bronze Coins of

Mabbott Schulman, H. M. F. 1969. The Thomas Ollive Mabbott

NC The Numismatic Chronicle

Neuchâtel Spoerri, M. 1996. Monnaies provinciales de l'Orient romain:

Prieur Prieur, M. and Prieur, K. 2000. The Syro-Phoenician

RPC Burnett, A., Amandry, M., and Ripollès, P. P. 1992. Roman

RSN Revue Suisse de Numismatique

SAN Journal for the Society of Ancient Numismatists

SC I Houghton, A. and Lorber, C. 2002. Seleucid Coins, a