Antioch in Syria: A History from Coins (300 BCE–450 CE) 110883714X, 9781108837149

Citation preview

Antioch in Syria

Antioch in Syria critically reassesses this ancient city from its Seleucid foundation into Late Antiquity. Although Antioch’s prominence is famous, Kristina Neumann newly exposes the gradations of imperial power and local agency mediated within its walls through a comprehensive study of the coins minted there and excavated throughout the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Patterns revealed through digital mapping and Exploratory Data Analysis serve as a significant index of spatial politics and the policies of the different authorities making use of the city. Evaluating the coins against other historical material reveals that Antioch’s status was not fixed, nor were the people passive pawns for external powers. Instead, as imperial governments capitalized upon Antioch’s location and amenities, the citizens developed in their own distinct identities and agency. Antioch of the Antiochians must therefore be elevated from traditional narratives and static characterizations, being studied and celebrated for the dynamic polis it was.

 .  is an assistant professor in the Department of

History at the University of Houston and codirector of The SYRIOS Project – a web-based, interactive exhibit inviting the public into the history of ancient Syria (https://syrios.uh.edu/). She has worked with archaeological projects in Rome, Pompeii, and Israel.

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch in Syria A History from Coins (300 BCE–450 CE)  .  University of Houston

Published online by Cambridge University Press

University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia 314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110025, India 103 Penang Road, #05–06/07, Visioncrest Commercial, Singapore 238467 Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108837149 DOI: 10.1017/9781108938471 © Kristina M. Neumann 2021 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2021 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Neumann, Kristina M., 1985- author. Title: Antioch in Syria : a history from coins (300 BCE–450 CE) / Kristina M. Neumann. Description: Cambridge, United Kingdom; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020055542 (print) | LCCN 2020055543 (ebook) | ISBN 9781108837149 (hardback) | ISBN 9781108940375 (paperback) | ISBN 9781108938471 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Coins, Roman–Syria–Antioch. | Antioch (Turkey)–Antiquities. | Antioch (Turkey)–History. Classification: LCC CJ1089.A5 N48 2021 (print) | LCC CJ1089.A5 (ebook) | DDC 737.49394/31–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020055542 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020055543 ISBN 978-1-108-83714-9 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch in Syria

Antioch in Syria critically reassesses this ancient city from its Seleucid foundation into Late Antiquity. Although Antioch’s prominence is famous, Kristina Neumann newly exposes the gradations of imperial power and local agency mediated within its walls through a comprehensive study of the coins minted there and excavated throughout the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Patterns revealed through digital mapping and Exploratory Data Analysis serve as a significant index of spatial politics and the policies of the different authorities making use of the city. Evaluating the coins against other historical material reveals that Antioch’s status was not fixed, nor were the people passive pawns for external powers. Instead, as imperial governments capitalized upon Antioch’s location and amenities, the citizens developed in their own distinct identities and agency. Antioch of the Antiochians must therefore be elevated from traditional narratives and static characterizations, being studied and celebrated for the dynamic polis it was.

 .  is an assistant professor in the Department of

History at the University of Houston and codirector of The SYRIOS Project – a web-based, interactive exhibit inviting the public into the history of ancient Syria (https://syrios.uh.edu/). She has worked with archaeological projects in Rome, Pompeii, and Israel.

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch in Syria A History from Coins (300 BCE–450 CE)  .  University of Houston

Published online by Cambridge University Press

University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia 314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110025, India 103 Penang Road, #05–06/07, Visioncrest Commercial, Singapore 238467 Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108837149 DOI: 10.1017/9781108938471 © Kristina M. Neumann 2021 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2021 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Neumann, Kristina M., 1985- author. Title: Antioch in Syria : a history from coins (300 BCE–450 CE) / Kristina M. Neumann. Description: Cambridge, United Kingdom; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020055542 (print) | LCCN 2020055543 (ebook) | ISBN 9781108837149 (hardback) | ISBN 9781108940375 (paperback) | ISBN 9781108938471 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Coins, Roman–Syria–Antioch. | Antioch (Turkey)–Antiquities. | Antioch (Turkey)–History. Classification: LCC CJ1089.A5 N48 2021 (print) | LCC CJ1089.A5 (ebook) | DDC 737.49394/31–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020055542 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020055543 ISBN 978-1-108-83714-9 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch in Syria

Antioch in Syria critically reassesses this ancient city from its Seleucid foundation into Late Antiquity. Although Antioch’s prominence is famous, Kristina Neumann newly exposes the gradations of imperial power and local agency mediated within its walls through a comprehensive study of the coins minted there and excavated throughout the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Patterns revealed through digital mapping and Exploratory Data Analysis serve as a significant index of spatial politics and the policies of the different authorities making use of the city. Evaluating the coins against other historical material reveals that Antioch’s status was not fixed, nor were the people passive pawns for external powers. Instead, as imperial governments capitalized upon Antioch’s location and amenities, the citizens developed in their own distinct identities and agency. Antioch of the Antiochians must therefore be elevated from traditional narratives and static characterizations, being studied and celebrated for the dynamic polis it was.

 .  is an assistant professor in the Department of

History at the University of Houston and codirector of The SYRIOS Project – a web-based, interactive exhibit inviting the public into the history of ancient Syria (https://syrios.uh.edu/). She has worked with archaeological projects in Rome, Pompeii, and Israel.

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch in Syria A History from Coins (300 BCE–450 CE)  .  University of Houston

Published online by Cambridge University Press

University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia 314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110025, India 103 Penang Road, #05–06/07, Visioncrest Commercial, Singapore 238467 Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108837149 DOI: 10.1017/9781108938471 © Kristina M. Neumann 2021 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2021 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Neumann, Kristina M., 1985- author. Title: Antioch in Syria : a history from coins (300 BCE–450 CE) / Kristina M. Neumann. Description: Cambridge, United Kingdom; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020055542 (print) | LCCN 2020055543 (ebook) | ISBN 9781108837149 (hardback) | ISBN 9781108940375 (paperback) | ISBN 9781108938471 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Coins, Roman–Syria–Antioch. | Antioch (Turkey)–Antiquities. | Antioch (Turkey)–History. Classification: LCC CJ1089.A5 N48 2021 (print) | LCC CJ1089.A5 (ebook) | DDC 737.49394/31–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020055542 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020055543 ISBN 978-1-108-83714-9 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Published online by Cambridge University Press

For Mom, Dad, and Wes

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Contents

List of Figures [page viii] List of Tables [xvi] Acknowledgments [xvii] Chronology of Rulers [xx] Note for the Reader [xxiii] List of Abbreviations [xxiv]

Introduction [1] 1 Counting Change [19] 2 Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE) [43] 3 Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE) [95] 4 Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

[146]

5 Imperial Creations (192–284 CE) [206] 6 Imperial City (284–450 CE)

[258]

Conclusion [295] Appendices [307] Bibliography [354] Index [395]

vii

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Figures

0.1 A map of Antioch in its geographical context [page 3] 1.1 The location of excavation sites with coin reports examined in this study: (a) Full map of excavation sites; (b) close-up of Levantine sites; (c) map key [34] 1.2 The location of hoards containing Antioch coins with burial dates between 300 BCE and 450 CE [35] 2.1 Royal tetradrachm of Seleucus I with Heracles/Zeus Nicephorus minted at Antioch [51] 2.2 Royal coins of Seleucus I minted at Antioch: (a) Bronze coin with Apollo/Athena and anchor; (b) bronze coin with Medusa/bull [52] 2.3 Early Hellenistic coins minted at Antioch for the Seleucid kings: (a) Silver coin of Antiochus I/Apollo on omphalos; (b) bronze coin of Antiochus I with Zeus/thunderbolt; (c) bronze coin of Antiochus I with Macedonian shield/elephant; (d) bronze coin of Antiochus II with Apollo/tripod [57] 2.4 Second-century BCE coins minted at Antioch for the Seleucid kings: (a) Silver tetradrachm of Antiochus IV/Zeus Nicephorus; (b) bronze coin of Antiochus IV with Serapis/eagle; (c) bronze coin of Antiochus IV with Isis/eagle; (d) silver tetradrachm of Demetrius I/Tyche; (e) silver hemidrachm of Antiochus VI/panther; (f ) silver tetradrachm of Tryphon/Macedonian helmet [63] 2.5 “Of the brother peoples” coins minted at Seleucia Pieria (c. 149–146 BCE): (a) Bronze coin with demoi/Tyche; (b) bronze coin with Zeus/ thunderbolt [65] 2.6 Civic coins minted at Antioch during the second century BCE: (a) Bronze coin of Antiochus IV/Zeus; (b) bronze coin of Alexander I Balas/tripod [66] 2.7 The origins of coins found within Syrian hoards buried between 300–129 BCE [72] 2.8 The location of Hellenistic hoards with silver coins minted at Antioch between 300 and 129 BCE compared to the origins of all coins found in Syrian hoards of the same period [73] viii

Published online by Cambridge University Press

List of Figures

2.9 The percentage represented by silver Antioch coins within individual hoards buried between 300 and 129 BCE [76] 2.10 Bronze coins minted between 300 and 129 BCE and excavated at Antioch according to mint/territory of origin [79] 2.11 Excavations with bronze coins minted at Antioch between 300 and 129 BCE [80] 2.12 The distribution of bronze coins minted at Antioch (300–129 BCE) according to their relative percentage per site; numerical data listed in the table [81] 2.13 A comparison of the range of percentages represented by bronze Antioch coins minted 300–129 BCE according to region [83] 2.14 Origins of non-Antioch coins minted between 300 and 129 BCE and excavated at Antioch [85] 2.15 Origins of non-Antioch coins minted between 300 and 129 BCE and excavated within Syria, excluding coins excavated at Antioch [85] 2.16 Bronze coins minted between 300 and 129 BCE and excavated at Seleucia Pieria and Berytus according to mint/territory of origin; numerical detail for each pie chart included in table [88] 2.17 Total quantity of finds of bronze coins minted at Antioch (300–129 BCE) according to excavation region and minting period [90] 3.1 Royal coins of the Seleucid kings minted at Antioch c. 129–64 BCE: (a) Silver drachm of Antiochus X/Tyche; (b) silver tetradrachm of Philip I Philadelphus/Zeus Nicephorus; (c) bronze coin of Alexander II Zabinas/cornucopiae; (d) bronze coin of Antiochus VIII with Artemis/Apollo; (e) bronze coin of Antiochus VIII/eagle [103] 3.2 Civic coins of the Antiochians minted c. 92/1–31 BCE: (a) Bronze coin of Zeus/Zeus Nicephorus; (b) bronze coin of Tyche/tripod; (c) bronze coin of Artemis/Apollo [109] 3.3 Silver tetradrachm of King Tigranes/Tyche minted at Antioch [112] 3.4 Silver tetradrachm of posthumous Philip Philadelphus/Zeus Nicephorus minted at Antioch with monogram of the Roman governor Aulus Gabinius (57–55 BCE) [117] 3.5 Silver tetradrachm of posthumous Philip Philadelphus/Zeus Nicephorus minted c. 47–46 BCE [122] 3.6 Silver tetradrachm of Cleopatra/Mark Antony questionably attributed to the Antioch mint [123] 3.7 Hoards with silver coins minted at Antioch and buried c. 129–31 BCE [126] 3.8 The percentage represented by silver Antioch coins within individual hoards buried c. 129–31 BCE [127]

Published online by Cambridge University Press

ix

x

List of Figures

3.9 Excavations with finds of bronze royal Seleucid coins minted at Antioch c. 129–94/3 BCE [128] 3.10 Four bronze hoards from the Southern Levant, which contain royal Seleucid coins minted at Antioch [129] 3.11 Bronze coins minted c. 129–31 BCE and excavated at Dura Europos according to mint/territory of origin; numerical data listed in table [130] 3.12 Silver coins minted c. 129–31 BCE and excavated at Dura Europos according to mint/territory of origin; numerical data listed in table [130] 3.13 The origins of mostly silver coins found within Syrian hoards buried c. 129–31 BCE [134] 3.14 Bronze coins minted c. 129–31 BCE and excavated at Antioch according to mint/territory of origin; numerical data listed in table [135] 3.15 Excavations with finds of bronze civic coins minted at Antioch c. 129–31 BCE [136] 3.16 The percentages represented by bronze Antioch coins minted c. 129–31 BCE within individual excavations; numerical data listed in the table [137] 3.17 The origins of non-Antioch coins minted c. 129–31 BCE and excavated at Antioch [141] 4.1 Bronze civic coin of the Antiochians minted at Antioch (54–68 BCE) with Tyche/ram and the Roman governor’s name [153] 4.2 Excavations with finds of bronze civic coins minted at Antioch c. 31 BCE–192 CE [154] 4.3 Excavations with finds of bronze civic coins minted c. 31 BCE–192 CE at (a) Seleucia Pieria and Laodicea ad Mare and (b) Tyre and Berytus [155] 4.4 Civic coins of the Antiochians minted at Antioch (c. 31 BCE–192 CE): (a) Bronze coin of Zeus/Tyche of Antioch (6/5 BCE); (b) bronze coin of Zeus/boule (128–129 CE); (c) bronze coin of Apollo/lyre (128–129 CE); (d) bronze coin of Tyche/altar (161–180 CE); (e) bronze coin of Tiberius/wreath with governor’s name (14–37 CE) [158] 4.5 Gold aureus minted at Antioch of Vespasian/Vespasian reaching out to a kneeling Tyche [163] 4.6 Bronze archieratic coin minted at Antioch with Augustus/wreath (5–1 BCE) [166]

Published online by Cambridge University Press

List of Figures

4.7 Bronze coin of Trajan/Tyche minted at Rome for the koinon of Syria [167] 4.8 Silver tetradrachm minted at Antioch with Augustus/Tyche of Antioch [173] 4.9 Silver tetradrachm minted at Antioch with Nero/eagle [174] 4.10 The origins of hoards with silver Antioch coins, which were buried after Nero’s reforms (c. 59–192 CE) [176] 4.11 The percentages represented by silver Antioch coins within individual hoards buried after Nero’s reforms (c. 59–192 CE) [177] 4.12 A comparison of hoards containing silver coins minted at Antioch according to the issuing period of individual Antioch coins (by reign of emperor) and the burial date of each hoard [177] 4.13 A comparison of hoards containing silver coins minted at Tyre according to the issuing period of individual Tyrian coins (by reign of emperor) and the burial date of each hoard [178] 4.14 Silver tetradrachm minted at Antioch with Trajan/Tyche of Antioch [180] 4.15 Provincial bronze coins minted at Antioch c. 31 BCE–192 CE: (a) Bronze coin of Augustus/ob civis servatos in a wreath; (b) bronze coin of Augustus/CA in wreath; (c) bronze coin of Claudius/SC in wreath; (d) bronze coin of Hadrian/SC in wreath [182] 4.16 Excavations with finds of bronze provincial coins minted at Antioch c. 31 BCE–192 CE [186] 4.17 The percentages represented by bronze Antioch coins minted c. 31 BCE–192 CE within individual excavations; numerical data listed in the table [187] 4.18 A comparison of the percentages represented by bronze provincial Antioch coins minted c. 31 BCE–192 CE according to region [189] 4.19 A comparison of the percentages represented by bronze provincial Antioch coins minted c. 31 BCE–192 CE within each Syrian excavation site [189] 4.20 The origins of coins minted c. 31 BCE–192 CE and excavated at Dura Europos [195] 4.21 Bronze coins minted c. 31 BCE–192 CE and excavated at Antioch according to mint/territory of origin [197] 4.22 The origins of non-Antioch coins minted c. 31 BCE–192 CE and excavated at Antioch [198] 4.23 A comparison of the bronze coins minted under the Julio-Claudian/ Flavian and Nervan-Antonine periods and excavated at Antioch according to mint of origin [199]

Published online by Cambridge University Press

xi

xii

List of Figures

4.24 A comparison of Antioch civic and provincial bronze coins minted c. 31 BCE–192 CE and excavated at Antioch according to the reigns of individual emperors [200] 4.25 A comparison of the percentages represented by bronze provincial Antioch coins within select Syrian sites according to period of issue [201] 5.1 Roman imperial denarius minted at Antioch with Pescennius Niger/Fortuna [213] 5.2 Hoards with denarii minted at Antioch, which were buried c. 192–284 CE [214] 5.3 Imperial radiates minted at Antioch during the third century CE: (a) Gordian III/Concordia; (b) Trebonianus Gallus/Roma; (c) Aurelian/Vaballathus; (d) Aurelian/Woman presenting a wreath to the emperor [217] 5.4 Hoards with radiates minted at Antioch, which were buried c. 192–300 CE [218] 5.5 Excavations with radiates minted at Antioch c. 192–284 CE [219] 5.6 The percentages represented by Antioch radiates within individual hoards buried c. 192–300 CE [220] 5.7 The percentages represented by radiates minted at Antioch c. 192–284 CE within individual excavations; numerical data listed in the table [221] 5.8 A comparison of the percentages represented by Antioch radiates in hoards buried c. 192–300 CE according to region [223] 5.9 A comparison of the percentages represented by Antioch radiates minted c. 192–284 CE within excavation assemblages according to region [223] 5.10 Civic bronze coins minted at Antioch during the third century CE: (a) Elagabalus/Tyche of Antioch with Orontes and ram; (b) Philip I/Tyche with ram; (c) Trajan Decius/Tyche of Antioch in temple [230] 5.11 So-called provincial bronze coins minted at Antioch in the third century CE: (a) Elagabalus/SC with delta-epsilon and eagle; (b) Elagabalus/SC with delta-epsilon and star; (c) Elagabalus/SC with delta-epsilon and ram [232] 5.12 Excavations with bronze provincial coins minted at Antioch c. 192–284 CE [236] 5.13 The relative percentage represented by provincial Antioch coins within each Syrian site [237]

Published online by Cambridge University Press

List of Figures

5.14 Comparison by period of the relative percentages of provincial Antioch coins within individual excavations (c. 31 BCE–284 CE) [238] 5.15 Excavations with finds of bronze civic coins minted at Antioch c. 192–284 CE [240] 5.16 The relative percentage represented by civic Antioch coins within each Syrian site [240] 5.17 The percentage represented by bronze Antioch coins minted c. 192–284 CE within individual excavations; numerical data listed in the table [241] 5.18 The relative percentages represented by Antioch bronze coins minted c. 192–284 CE within Syrian sites [243] 5.19 The origins of bronze coins minted c. 192–284 CE and excavated at Dura Europos [245] 5.20 The presence of Antioch coins within bronze hoards from Dura Europos [246] 5.21 Silver tetradrachm minted at Antioch with Caracalla/eagle and deltaepsilon [247] 5.22 Silver tetradrachms minted at Antioch during the third century CE: (a) Philip I/eagle with ANTIOXIA and SC; (b) Trajan Decius/eagle with SC [250] 5.23 Hoards with tetradrachms minted at Antioch, which were buried c. 192–284 CE [251] 5.24 The percentages represented by Antioch tetradrachms within individual hoards buried c. 192–284 CE [252] 5.25 A comparison of the percentages represented by Antioch tetradrachms and radiates within hoards buried c. 192–284 CE [253] 5.26 Coins minted c. 192–284 CE and excavated at Antioch, according to mint/territory of origin [254] 5.27 The origins of non-Antioch coins minted c. 192–284 CE and excavated at Antioch [255] 6.1 Mints of the late Roman imperial government, c. 300–450 CE [268] 6.2 Roman imperial coins minted at Antioch c. 284–450 CE: (a) Bronze coin of Diocletian/standing genius; (b) bronze coin of Maximinus II/ Virtus; (c) solidus of Constantine/Victory; (d) bronze coin of Constans/emperor in galley holding a phoenix and banner with a chi-rho; (e) bronze coin of Julian/bull; (f ) solidus of Jovian/ Constantinopolis and Roma; (g) bronze coin of Theodosius II/cross in wreath [270]

Published online by Cambridge University Press

xiii

xiv

List of Figures

6.3 Excavations with finds of Roman imperial coins minted at Antioch c. 284–450 CE [271] 6.4 Hoards with bronze and billon Roman imperial coins minted at Antioch, which were buried c. 284–450 CE [272] 6.5 The percentages represented by Antioch coins within individual hoards buried c. 284–450 CE [274] 6.6 The percentages represented by Antioch coins minted c. 284–450 CE within individual excavations; numerical data listed in the table [275] 6.7 A comparison of the percentages represented by Antioch coins minted c. 284–450 CE, according to region of excavation [277] 6.8 A comparison of the percentages represented by Antioch coins minted c. 284–450 CE, according to region of hoard discovery [278] 6.9 Hoards with gold and silver minted at Antioch, which were buried c. 284–450 CE [279] 6.10 The distribution of base metal coins minted at Antioch (c. 284–450 CE) according to percentage within excavation sites of the eastern Mediterranean [280] 6.11 The percentages represented by finds of imperial Roman coins minted c. 284–450 CE within Levantine excavations according to mint/territory of origin [282] 6.12 Coins minted c. 284–450 CE and excavated at Antioch, according to mint/territory of origin [285] 6.13 The origins of non-Antioch coins minted c. 284–450 CE and excavated at Antioch [286] 6.14 Civic bronze coin of the Antiochians minted at Antioch and dating to the late antique period [288] 7.1 Comparison of all coins excavated at Antioch according to period of issue and issuing authority [297] 7.2 Comparison of all hoards containing “central” Antioch coins minted for the royal Seleucid and Roman imperial authorities according to burial location and percentage represented by Antioch coins [299] 7.3 Comparison of all excavations containing “central” Antioch coins minted for the royal Seleucid and Roman imperial authorities according to location and percentage per site [300] 7.4 Comparison of the distribution of provincial coins minted at Antioch between 31 BCE and 284 CE [302] 7.5 Distribution of the civic coins of the Antiochians according to their relative percentage per site (c. 92 BCE–284 CE) [304]

Published online by Cambridge University Press

List of Figures

A1.1 The approximate territorial designations applied within this study [309] A1.2 A comparison of the boxplots generated for the raw count of coins minted c. 300–129 BCE within individual excavation sites and for the scaled count via binary logarithm of these same finds [314] A1.3 The normal probability plot for the scaled count via binary logarithms of excavated bronze coins minted c. 300–129 BCE [318]

Published online by Cambridge University Press

xv

Tables

A3.1 Third- and second-century BCE hoards from Syria containing silver minted at Antioch [page 334] A3.2 Third- and second-century BCE hoards from outside of Syria containing silver minted at Antioch [336] A3.3 Late second- and first-century BCE hoards containing silver minted at Antioch [337] A3.4 Hoards buried c. 31 BCE–192 CE, which contain silver minted at Antioch [339] A3.5 Hoards buried c. 192–284 CE, which contain tetradrachms attributed to the mint at Antioch [341] A3.6 Hoards buried c. 192–284 CE, which contain denarii attributed to the mint at Antioch [343] A3.7 Hoards buried c. 192–300 CE, which contain radiates attributed to the mint at Antioch [344] A3.8 Hoards buried c. 284–450 CE, which contain bronze coins attributed to the Antioch mint [348] A3.9 Hoards buried c. 284–450 CE, which contain gold and silver coins attributed to the Antioch mint [352]

xvi

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Acknowledgments

This work began as a dissertation but has evolved significantly since then because of the insight and support of a number of individuals and institutions. To the faculty and staff of the Department of Classics at the University of Cincinnati, where this work began. Your guidance and rigorous instruction taught me to walk the path between texts and material culture. I am particularly indebted to Barbara Burrell, who helped nourish these ideas from rough draft to the current monograph; to John Wallrodt, for his collegiality and out-of-the-box thinking on digital methodologies; and to Kathryn Gutzwiller, who first pointed me toward Antioch. Thanks are also due to the librarians of the John Miller Burnam Classical Library, who helped me navigate this amazing collection. To my brilliant colleagues at the University of Houston, especially those in the Department of History, the Department of Modern and Classical Languages, and the College of Technology. I am especially grateful to Frank Holt, whose mentorship helped move this project beyond the dissertation; Peggy Lindner, who challenged me to join her in the world of data science; Leandra Zarnow, for her friendship and tremendous editing skills; Casey Dué Hackney, for her kindness, conversation, and savvy insight; Richard Armstrong, for his generous guidance; and James Schafer and Nancy Beck Young, whose input throughout this whole process has been invaluable. Thank you also to my fellow explorers of the ancient world within my undergraduate and graduate courses and for the energy and inspiration you bring to every semester. To the numerous other people who have lent their time and talents to this project. Special thanks must be given to Duncan MacRae, Kevin Butcher, and Frédérique Duyrat, who read drafts of this monograph and offered keen critique and encouragement. In addition, enough gratitude cannot be expressed to Donald Hackler, who patiently walked me through Exploratory Data Analysis and taught me how to make sense of my numbers. Thank you also to Isabell Uta and Digital Classics Online for publishing my earliest experimentations with this data. xvii

Published online by Cambridge University Press

xviii

Acknowledgments

To my co-laborers and advisers on the digital exhibit complementing this book: Elizabeth Rodwell, Salam Al Kuntar, Ethan Gruber, Nathanael Andrade, Sarah Kielt Costello, Monica Perales, and Claude Willan. Thank you also to the University of Houston student research assistants, in particular Xandria Outing, Jinelly Swasey, and Rahul Raj Mogili. To everyone who answered my queries and so freely shared their knowledge and resources: Matthew Adams, Donald Ariel, Joshua Been, Austin Chapman, Karsten Dahmen, Taylor Davis-Van Atta, Jane DeRose Evans, Diane Harris Cline, Oliver Hoover, Arthur Houghton, Christopher Howgego, Amy Koshoffer, Dane Kurth, Kris Lockyear, Jerome Mairat, Irene Soto Marin, Elizabeth Molacek, Lee Mordechai, James Newhard, Julien Olivier, Michael Padgett, Mark Schuler, Alex Simons, Elena Stolyarik, Danny Syon, Agnès Vokaer, and D. Özlem Yalçın. Thanks are due specifically to Alan Stahl, Andrea U. De Giorgi, and A. Asa Eger for their gracious welcome into the community of new Antioch research. To my editor Michael Sharp, Katie Idle, Bethany Johnson, A. Shaheer, and the many dedicated people at Cambridge University Press who helped me realize this work. Thank you also to the anonymous readers of my manuscript, whose comprehensive comments elevated this entire project, and to Kate Mertes for her careful eye. To the many institutions and agencies which have supported my research, especially the Digital Research Commons of M.D. Anderson Library at the University of Houston. I am very appreciative of the many opportunities provided to present my work, including at the Hewlett Packard Enterprise Data Science Institute and as part of the annual meetings for Digital Frontiers, the American Schools of Oriental Research, the Classical Association of Canada, and the Archaeological Institute of America. Thank you to the many museums and collections for allowing me to reproduce their coins, especially the American Numismatic Society, the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the Münzkabinett at the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, and Princeton University Library. Additionally, I am grateful for the support of several fellowships, including the Louise Taft Semple Fellowship for Graduate Study and the Isabel and Mary Neff Scholarship for Dissertation Research at the University of Cincinnati; the New Faculty Research Program and CLASS Book Completion Fellowship at the University of Houston; and seed and development grants from the Digital Research Commons. Finally, this work would never have come to fruition without the love and support of my family and friends, especially my parents, Bethany,

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Acknowledgments

Michael, Nicole, Jamie, Laura, Jerry, Sara, and Cheryl. Thank you for cheering me through the best, the worst, and all the liminal spaces. Most importantly, to my husband Wes for your partnership in every aspect of our life, not the least of which was the crafting of this book. I owe my deepest gratitude to you all and claim all errors as my own.

Published online by Cambridge University Press

xix

Chronology of Rulers

Seleucid Kings (312–65 BCE) Seleucus I (312–281 BCE) Antiochus I (281–261 BCE) Antiochus II (261–246 BCE) Seleucus II (246–226 BCE) Antiochus Hierax (242–227 BCE) Seleucus III (226–223 BCE) Antiochus III (223–187 BCE) Seleucus IV (187–175 BCE) Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE) Antiochus V (164–162 BCE) Demetrius I (162–150 BCE) Alexander I Balas (151/0–145 BCE) Demetrius II (145–139 & 129–126/5 BCE) Antiochus VI (144–142/1 BCE) Tryphon (142–138 BCE) Antiochus VII (138–129 BCE) Alexander II Zabinas (128–123 BCE) Seleucus V (125 BCE) Antiochus VIII (125–98/7 BCE) Antiochus IX (113–97/6 BCE) Antiochus X (97/6–93/2 BCE) Demetrius III (97/6–88/7 BCE) Seleucus VI (96–94? BCE) Antiochus XI (94–93? BCE) Philip I Philadelphus (94–83 or 70s? BCE) Antiochus XII (87/6–84/3? BCE) Antiochus X (97/6–93/2 or 88? BCE) Antiochus XIII (69–67 BCE) Philip II (67–65 BCE) xx

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Chronology of Rulers

Roman Principate (31 BCE–235 CE) Augustus (31 BCE–14 CE) Tiberius (14–37 CE) Gaius (Caligula) (37–41 CE) Claudius (41–54 CE) Nero (54–68 CE) Vespasian (69–79 CE) Titus (79–81 CE) Domitian (81–96 CE) Nerva (96–98 CE) Trajan (98–117 CE) Hadrian (117–138 CE) Antoninus Pius (138–161 CE) Marcus Aurelius (161–180 CE) Lucius Verus (161–169 CE) Commodus (180–192 CE) Pescennius Niger (193–194 CE) Septimius Severus (193–211 CE) Caracalla (211–217 CE) Macrinus (217–218 CE) Elagabalus (218–222 CE) Severus Alexander (222–235 CE)

Third-Century CE Crisis (235–284 CE) Maximinus (235–238 CE) Pupienus (238 CE) Balbinus (238 CE) Gordian III (238–244 CE) Philip I (244–249 CE) Decius (249–251 CE) Hostilianus (251 CE) Trebonianus Gallus (251–253 CE) Volusianus (251–253 CE) Aemilianus (253 CE) Valerian (253–260 CE) Gallienus (253–268 CE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press

xxi

xxii

Chronology of Rulers

Macrianus (260–261 CE) Quietus (260–261 CE) Claudius II (268–270 CE) Aurelian (270–275 CE) Tacitus (275–276 CE) Probus (276–282 CE) Carus (282–283 CE) Carinus (283–285 CE) Numerianus (283–284 CE)

Late Antiquity (284–450 CE) Diocletian (284–305 CE) Maximianus (286–305, 307–310 CE) Constantius I (305–306 CE) Galerius (305–311 CE) Maximinus II (305–313 CE) Constantine I (306–337 CE) Maxentius (307–312 CE) Licinius (308–324 CE) Constantius II (337–361 CE) Julian (361–363 CE) Jovian (363–364 CE) Valentinian I (364–375 CE) Valens (364–378 CE) Gratianus (367–383 CE) Valentinian II (375–392 CE) Theodosius I (379–395 CE) Arcadius (395–408 CE) Theodosius II (408–450 CE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Note for the Reader

A digital supplement to this book is available at https://syrios.uh.edu.

xxiii

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Abbreviations

AE ANS BMC Galatia

CH CHRE CIL FD FHG FMRD IV

FMRK XVIII FMRL I FMRSI I FMRSI III FMRU I FMRU II

FMRU III

xxiv

FGrH

Published online by Cambridge University Press

L’année épigraphique. American Numismatic Society. http://numismatics.org. Wroth, W. 1899. Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum: Galatia, Cappadocia, and Syria. London: British Museum. Coin Hoards. 1975–2010. 10 vols. London: Royal Numismatic Society. Coin Hoards of the Roman Empire. University of Oxford. http://chre.ashmus.ox.ac.uk. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Fouilles de Delphes. Müller, K. (ed.). 1841–1870. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. 5 vols. Paris: Firmin Didot. Kellner, H.-J. and Overbeck, M. 1978. Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland IV: Oberfranken. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Miškec, A. 2002. Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Kroatien XVIII: Istrien. Mainz: P. von Zabern. Weiller, R. 1972. Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit im Großherzogtum Luxemburg I. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Kos, P. 1988. Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Slowenien I. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Kos, P. and Šemrov, A. 1995. Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Slowenien III. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Lányi, V. 1990. Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Ungarn I: Komitat Fejér. Bonn: R. Habelt. Bakos, M. and Lányi, V. 1993. Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Ungarn II: Komitat Gyór-Moson-Sopron. Bonn: R. Habelt. Lányi, V., Redo, F., and Torbagyi, M. 1999. Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Ungarn III: Komitat Komaron-Esztergom. Bonn: R. Habelt. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker.

List of Abbreviations

GICM

ID IG IGCH

IGLS IGR IV

ILS I. Anazarbos IAph2007

I. Iasos I. Napoli I. Side OGIS PAS P. Cair. Zen. P. Dura

P. Euphr.

RIC I

Howgego, C. 1985. Greek Imperial Countermarks: Studies in the Provincial Coinage of the Roman Empire. London: Royal Numismatic Society. Inscriptions de Délos (1926–1972). Inscriptiones Graecae. Thompson, M., Mørkholm, O., and Kraay, C. (eds.). 1973. An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. New York: American Numismatic Society. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Cagnat, R. et al. 1975. Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes IV: Inscriptiones Asiae II. Reprint. Chicago: Ares. Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. Sayar, M. H. 2000. Die Inschriften von Anazarbos und Umgebung. Bonn: R. Habelt. Reynolds, J., Roueché, C., and Bodard, G. 2007. Inscriptions of Aphrodisias. http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/ iaph2007. Blümel, W. 1985. Die Inschriften von Iasos. 2 vols. Bonn: R. Habelt. Miranda, E. 1990–1995. Iscrizioni greche d’ Italia, Napoli. 2 vols. Rome: Casa Editrice Quasar. Nollé, J. 1993, 2001. Side im Altertum: Geschichte und Zeugnisse. 2 vols. Bonn: R. Habelt. Dittengerger, W. 1903–1905. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae. 2 vols. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. The Portable Antiquities Scheme Database. British Museum. https://finds.org.uk/database. Edgar, C. C. 1925. Zenon Papyri I. New York: Georg Olms. Welles, C. B., Fink, R. O., and Gilliam, J. F. 1959. The Excavations at Dura-Europos Final Report V.1: The Parchments and Papyri. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Feissel, D. and Gascou, J. 1995. “Documents d’archives romains inédits du moyen Euphrate (IIIe siècle après J.-C.) I. Les Pétitions (P.Euphr. 1 à 5),” Journal des Savants 65–119. Sutherland, C. H. V. 1984. The Roman Imperial Coinage I: From 31 BC to AD 69. Revised Edition. London: Spink and Son.

Published online by Cambridge University Press

xxv

xxvi

List of Abbreviations

RIC IV.1

RIC IV.2

RIC IV.3

RIC V.1

RIC V.2

RIC VI

RIC VII

RIC VIII

RIC IX

RIC X

RPC I

RPC II

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Mattingly, H. A. and Sydenham, E. A. 1936. The Roman Imperial Coinage IV.1: Pertinax to Geta AD 193–212. Reprinted in 1968. London: Spink and Son. Mattingly, H. A., Sydenham, E. A., and Sutherland, C. H. V. 1938. The Roman Imperial Coinage IV.2: Macrinus to Pupienus. Reprinted in 1972. London: Spink and Son. Mattingly, H. A., Sydenham, E. A., and Sutherland, C. H. V. 1949. The Roman Imperial Coinage IV.3: Gordian III to Uranius Antoninus. Reprinted in 1968. London: Spink and Son. Webb, P. H. 1927. The Roman Imperial Coinage V.1: Valerian to the Interregnum. Reprinted in 2001. London: Spink and Son. Webb, P. H. 1933. The Roman Imperial Coinage V.2: Probus to Amandus. Reprinted in 2001. London: Spink and Son. Sutherland, C. H. V. and Carson, R. 1967. The Roman Imperial Coinage VI: Diocletian’s Reform (AD 294) to the Death of Maximinus (AD 313). London: Spink and Son. Bruun, P. M. 1966. The Roman Imperial Coinage VII: Constantine and Licinius (AD 313 to 337). London: Spink and Son. Kent, J. P. C. 1981. The Roman Imperial Coinage VIII: The Family of Constantine I (AD 337–364). London: Spink and Son. Pearce, J. W. E. 1933. The Roman Imperial Coinage IX: Valentinian I to Theodosius. Reprinted in 1968. London: Spink and Son. Carson, R. A. G., Kent, J. P. C., and Burnett, A. M. 1994. The Roman Imperial Coinage X: The Divided Empire and the Fall of the Western Parts (AD 395–491). London: Spink and Son. Burnett, A., Amandry, M., and Ripollès, P. P. 1992. Roman Provincial Coinage I: From the Death of Caesar to Vitellius (BC 44–AD 69). London: British Museum Press. Burnett, A., Amandry, M., and Carradice, I. 1999. Roman Provincial Coinage II: From Vespasian to Domitian (AD 69–96). London: British Museum Press.

List of Abbreviations

RPC III

SC I

SC II

SEG SIG

Amandry, M. and Burnett, A. (eds.). 2015. Roman Provincial Coinage III: From Nerva to Hadrian (AD 96– 138). London: British Museum Press. Houghton, A. and Lorber, C. 2002. Seleucid Coins: A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part I: Seleucus I through Antiochus III. 2 vols. New York: American Numismatic Society. Houghton, A., Hoover, O., and Lorber, C. 2008. Seleucid Coins: A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part II: Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII. 2 vols. New York: The American Numismatic Society. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum.

Published online by Cambridge University Press

xxvii

Published online by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

And while [the emperor Trajan] was spending time in Antioch, an extraordinary earthquake occurred: even though many cities suffered, Antioch was by far the most unfortunate. For because Trajan was passing the winter in the city, and many soldiers and private individuals from all corners had gathered there for legal matters, embassies, commerce, and spectacle, not a single people group or land went unharmed – and thus in Antioch, the whole world under Roman control was shaken. —Cassius Dio 68.24.1–21

From the perspective of the historian Cassius Dio, there was no room for ambiguity in characterizing the ancient city of Antioch-on-the-Orontes in northern Syria. When an earthquake struck in 115 CE, the whole world under Roman rule suffered loss because of how many regions and ethnicities were represented in the stricken population. Other cities of Syria experienced damage, but Antioch endured the worst because the city played host to the Roman emperor as well as to a multitude of soldiers, civilians, sightseers, merchants, embassies, and plaintiffs from all over the ancient Mediterranean and Middle East. The city’s attraction as a political, economic, and social center meant that a single earthquake sent shockwaves across an entire empire. In modern terms, Dio’s portrayal of Antioch calls to mind a city like New York or London and the ramifications of a disaster hitting either location during a world summit. Most ancient and modern descriptions agree with Dio in declaring Antioch a prominent metropolis of the ancient world, but these sources consistently struggle in capturing the vibrancy of the people and communities located within the city. One of the main reasons for this difficulty is the fact that as a city, Antioch’s cultural, economic, and governmental infrastructure always consisted of a uniquely tangled and layered web of civic, regional, and imperial political authorities. Separating these various governing bodies from the residents themselves as they negotiated with the

1

All translations are my own.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

1

2

Introduction

larger administrations is a daunting, yet necessary task if we wish to understand how Antioch and its people endured and evolved throughout antiquity. The goal of this study is therefore to unpack Antioch’s complexity by exploring the gradations of imperial power and local agency, both of which are integral to the history of the city. This book investigates the intersection between space and authority: how Antioch as a place and the Antiochians as a community were shaped by different governmental bodies within the wider Hellenistic and Roman empires. This objective is accomplished by integrating old evidence with new methodologies. Specifically, I argue that an innovative look at coins and their synthesis with other material related to Antioch can enhance our perspective of the city, its citizens, and the various powers that claimed them both. Using digital tools to explore the coinage helps to nuance traditional portrayals of Antioch’s static importance as a capital by revealing true ebbs and flows in imperial use of the city. This approach also draws out the distinct identity and far greater agency of the local civic body than previously considered, and how it was both cultivated and called upon by the larger powers at work there and within the broader region. Dio was right to portray Antioch as an important city, but we must be careful in defining for whom, when, and why. One undeniable factor contributing to Antioch’s status as a consequential cosmopolitan center was its geography (see Fig. 0.1). Now known as Antakya in southern Turkey, the ancient city sat in a prime corner of northwestern Syria, nestled along the left bank of the Orontes River and partially built into the side of Mount Silpius. This position guaranteed Antioch’s exposure to the full extent of Syria’s landscape and the major thoroughfares running between the Mediterranean and territories further east as well as north and south through the Levant.2 The Orontes River and the westward valley through which it flowed gave Antioch direct access to the Mediterranean and its coastal cities roughly a day’s travel away.3 An upward land route also connected the city to the sea via a plateau where its suburb and sanctuary of Daphne lay. To the south, the Orontes River linked Antioch to territory further inland toward Apamea in the upper Orontes Valley. To the northeast, the Orontes River fed into the Lake of Antioch, which watered the fertile Amuq Valley. This area provided the necessary agricultural land to supplement the less productive land directly 2

3

For the environment of Antioch, see Downey 1961, 15–23, 46; Leblanc and Poccardi 1999, 91–93; Casana 2003, 33–44. See Str. 16.2.7; Lib. Or. 11.34, 41.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Fig. 0.1 A map of Antioch in its geographical context.

3

4

Introduction

around Antioch. It also served as a major “gateway” for commercial and military traffic to and from inland Syria around Beroea (modern Aleppo) and further east. Access northwest to Cilicia and Asia Minor was somewhat limited by the Amanus and Taurus mountains, but the nearby Syrian Gates (Belen Pass) provided the major thoroughfare on the Syrian side and granted entry to the west.4 According to the opinion of Antioch’s native son Libanius writing in the fourth century CE, one could not find a place better situated or endowed.5 In his famous encomium about the city, he remarks upon the fertility of the local plains and hills (Or. 11.13, 15, 19–24, 174–175), the fullness of the streams (Or. 11.27, 240–248), and the secure proximity to the sea (Or. 11.34–41, 258). The sea and the lake nurture this prosperity as well as create a transportation route to and from Antioch (Or. 11.260–265). The overhanging mountains provide natural resources and shade without disturbing the levelness of the actual city (Or. 11.25–26, 196–202). These combined features made Antioch a choice location and accommodation for both eastern and western conquering powers seeking to rule the region (Or. 11.84–130). The prominence of Antioch for these royal and imperial authorities has occupied much of the ancient and modern writings about the city. From its very foundation in 300 BCE by Seleucus I, Antioch was designed to serve as a military and administrative center for the general-turned-king as he established an empire stretching from Asia Minor to the borders of India.6 The city was not yet an exclusive seat of power, but it instead shared this responsibility in the northern Levant with three other Syrian cities collectively known as the Tetrapolis. A hundred years later, as the limits of the larger empire realigned, Seleucid reliance upon Antioch now elevated the city above its neighbors to the status of capital.7 At this point, the geographer Strabo justifiably designated Antioch as a royal residence and emphasized its power as equal to two other Hellenistic capitals, Seleucia on the Tigris and Alexandria in Egypt.8 The Greek historian Polybius – a contemporary of the period – marveled at the royally

4

5 6 7

8

The Syrian Gates as well as the Cilician Gates further to the west remained important passes throughout antiquity. See Xen. An. 1.4.4–5; App. Syr. 11.54. Cic. Fam. 15.4 mentions two narrow entries into Cilicia from Syria; the passage to Cappadocia was far more open. The Greek grammarian Athenaeus also considered the city beautiful; see Ath. 1.36. Str. 16.2.4; App. Syr. 52–55. See also Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 8–20. Notice how often the Seleucid administration returns to Antioch in Joseph. AJ 12.315, 12.367, 13.33, 13.42, 13.86–87, 13.113–115, 13.133–142, 13.209. Str. 16.2.5.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

sponsored games, spectacles, and parade hosted there and how many eager visitors were drawn to the suburb of Daphne.9 During the late second and early first centuries BCE, the shrinking borders of the Seleucid Empire into Syria promoted Antioch still further as the final dynasts and usurpers fiercely contested for its control.10 When the Roman general Pompey conquered a substantial portion of the eastern Mediterranean in 64 BCE and annexed it to the western empire, the ancient accounts are clear in Antioch’s continuing value to the new imperial administration.11 From the beginning, governors of the Roman Republic took up residence within Antioch even while the contenders of the Civil Wars camped within its walls.12 The Parthians aimed to capture Antioch as well as they invaded Syria in efforts to extend their own eastern empire, but were eventually pushed back by Roman forces.13 By the time of the Principate, Antioch had become a central city for the administration of the Roman province of Syria, acting as both a headquarters for the governor and metropolis (meeting place of the provincial koinon or regional assembly).14 The Roman historian Tacitus deemed the city the provincial caput or head of Syria, akin to Caesarea Maritima in Judea.15 The Jewish historian Josephus echoed this appraisal along with highlighting Antioch’s magnitude and prosperity as the third largest city in the Roman Empire.16 Antioch’s prominence attracted Roman emperors and usurpers as well, either to support their own bids for the imperial seat or to use as a home base for launching military campaigns further east.17 In the third century CE, foreign invaders from the expanding Sasanian Empire also targeted Antioch, as did Queen Zenobia who helmed the newly arisen Palmyrene Empire.18 By the late antique period, a gamut of provincial, military, and imperial officials resided and ruled from Antioch, thereby returning the city to its original status of imperial center or even capital.19

9 11 12 13 14

15 17

18 19

10 Polyb. 30.25. See Downey 1961, 126–136. On games at Daphne, see Ath. 5.210, 12.540. On Pompey’s annexation, see App. Mith. 118; Cass. Dio 36.45–37.20; Plut. Pomp. 39. E.g., Cass. Dio 40.28–29, 48.24–25, 51.7; Cic. Fam. 12.14, 12.15; Joseph. AJ 15.8–10. Cass. Dio 40.28–29, 48.24–25. On provincial capitals generally, see Haensch 1997. On the Syrian koinon, see Sartre 2005, 58–60; Vitale 2013. 16 Tac. Hist. 2.78. Joseph. BJ 3.29, AJ 17.132. E.g., Cass. Dio 72.22–23; SHA Marc. 25; SHA Avid. Cass. 9; Downey 1961, 211–214, 220, 226–227, 244–261, 587–595; Pollard 2000, 278–279. Frye 1984, 291–303; Isaac 1990, 275. Liebeschuetz 1972, 110–118; Harries 2012, 282–283; Brands 2016, 8–15.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

5

6

Introduction

Overall, the ancient sources make clear that for much of the Hellenistic, Roman, and late antique periods, controlling Antioch was imperative for those seeking to rule the Middle East. In fact, so many powers made use of the city over time that the historical account written by the sixth-century CE chronographer John Malalas reads as a veritable museum catalog of commemorative monuments and sculptures erected at Antioch by these authorities.20 More than a political center or strategic location, however, the ancient sources are also keen to point out other aspects of Antioch’s prominence that drew visitors into its walls. The Roman orator Cicero noted the city’s illustriousness, wealth, and learned studies and scholars in residence there.21 The Antioch-born Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus claimed the whole world knew of his hometown, as it lacked a rival in the richness of its local and foreign markets.22 Antioch played constant host to a number of festivals too with the Greek historian Herodian noting celebrations almost every day of the year in the large and flourishing city.23 Strabo lauded in particular the festival located in the glorious suburb of Daphne near the sacred grove and temple of Apollo and Artemis.24 Coexisting with the worship of Greco-Roman gods were the practices of other faiths. Josephus emphasized Antioch as a place that offered both hospitality and hostility to the Jewish component of its population.25 The writer of Acts and many later theologians emphasized the centrality of the city for the development of Christianity, even claiming that the word Christianos was coined there.26 It was this Antioch with its political distinction and legacy, size and economic prosperity, and beauty and culture that the earthquake in 115 CE rattled and the ancient texts memorialize. Given the strength of this portrayal, the challenge for modern scholars of ancient Antioch has never been in broadly characterizing the city. Ever since Carl Müller assembled the first modern account of the city in his Antiquitates Antiochenae in 1839, Antioch has been repeatedly described as a cosmopolitan city both Greek and eastern, a royal capital turned provincial hub turned imperial capital, a religious center, an economic crossroads, a campaign headquarters, and a resort location. In the introduction to his seminal 900-year history of Antioch, Glanville Downey especially underscored this unique combination of attributes as a constant attraction for powerful imperial rulers.27 Archaeological evidence gathered 20 24 27

21 E.g., Malalas 8–13. Cic. Arch. 4. 25 Str. 16.2.6. Joseph. BJ 7.41–62. Downey 1961, 11–12.

22 26

23 Amm. Marc. 14.8.8. Herodian 2.7.9. Acts 11.19–27; Downey 1961, 272–288.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

since the first joint expeditions of Princeton University and several French and American museums in the 1930s only confirmed this prominence both in terms of the stunning artifacts uncovered and in the breadth of the city’s borders established through survey.28 While the general importance of Antioch cannot therefore be doubted, both the ancient and modern portrayals can give the impression that the city held the same static prominence throughout its lengthy lifetime in antiquity, even though it endured several significant transitions of power from one empire or authority to another. Additionally overlooked or minimized is the fact that Antioch was more than a provincial or imperial capital. At its core was a Greek polis or city-state made up of civic magistrates and self-governing institutions like the boule (“council”) overseeing the demos (“citizen body”).29 This civic community had an agency of its own in orienting toward overarching rulers, taking the occasional subversive action, setting policy, sponsoring local festivals, and overseeing the multiethnic population within its substantial walls and territory.30 Integral to Antioch is the dynamic between the internal authority of its citizens and the outside forces making use of the space, and yet too often the city is characterized only according to the latter half of this equation. These assumptions and omissions are understandable given that actual and perceived limitations within the textual and archaeological evidence make it difficult to follow the long-term evolution of the Syrian city, especially in regard to its administrative roles and the internal municipal structure of its citizens and population.31 Among the textual evidence, no connected history of Antioch written before the fourth century CE has survived.32 Contemporary texts for the Hellenistic period are notoriously sparse, although Polybius, papyri, and inscriptions do contribute some details.33 In the written sources of the early Roman Principate, the situation at Antioch emerges only from indirect references and short anecdotes like those cited above about the city’s function as a provincial center for the

28

29 30 31

32 33

E.g., Elderkin 1934; Stillwell 1938; Stillwell 1941; Levi 1947; Waagé 1948; Waagé 1952; Lassus 1972; Kondoleon 2000; Yener 2005; Redford 2014; Brands 2016; De Giorgi 2016. On this structure generally, see Butcher 2003, 224–227; Millar 2006, 118. For a lengthy exploration of these characteristics of the city, see Haddad 1949. This problem is generally noted for ancient Syria (e.g., Grainger 1990, 3; Millar 1993, 15, 230; Sartre 2005, 375–376, n. 6). See Downey 1961, 6–8, 35–44. This is the case for northern Syria as a whole: see Cohen 2006, 3–13; Millar 2006, 29. See also Saliou 2012a, 25–42.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

7

8

Introduction

Roman governor and its continuing prominence within the civic hierarchy of Syria. Authors offering the few extended glimpses of the city include Strabo, Josephus, and Tacitus. A few later writers on the second and third centuries CE occasionally feature Antioch including Herodian and the author of the Scriptores Historiae Augustae. As helpful as these accounts are, they lack a full description of Antioch, the people and authorities making use of the city, and the change experienced by all over time. The textual record for Antioch substantially improves in the late antique period due to a large body of both sacred and secular texts. The most comprehensive information and continuous histories about Antioch come from Libanius and Malalas, both of whom resided within the city. In addition to his encomium, Libanius left a vast corpus of speeches and letters remarking on the full spectrum of activity in Antioch.34 The sermons of Libanius’s contemporary, John Chrysostom, offer an equally helpful perspective of daily life in the city.35 Malalas provides the fullest chronology for Antioch in his Chronicle, in which he focuses especially upon imperial building and the intervention of the Seleucid and Roman governments within the city.36 These writings are valuable not only for their detail but also because presumably Libanius and Malalas had access to city records of previous centuries when constructing their historical accounts. That said, these narratives are overshadowed by Antioch of the late antique period and cannot provide a completely reliable or thorough description of the city’s earlier development.37 The archaeological record for the evolution of Antioch is equally complex. The eight seasons of the Princeton excavations – the only major systematic excavation of the city – yielded a wealth of archaeological material, such as stunning mosaics, coins, and pottery sherds.38 However, political complications and shortcomings in the research agenda constrained the expedition and left many areas, historical levels, and public structures unexcavated.39 Furthermore, the original five-volume publication of this project was neither comprehensive nor complete, thus prompting the formation of a current committee of Princeton and

34 36 38

39

35 Liebeschuetz 1972, 1–39; Norman 2000. E.g., Chrys. Hom. de Stat. 37 Downey 1961, 38–40; Liebeschuetz 2004, 143–153. Brands 2016, 1–7. See De Giorgi 2016, 27–33, for an overview of the excavations and complications faced by the project. A recently published exhibition through Koç University also provides a stunning presentation of these archaeological excavations (see Redford 2014). See Sandwell 2004a, 2–3.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

international scholars laboring to make this material available.40 Archaeological survey of the city and region – dating back to the early twentieth century – as well as periodic salvage excavations continue to expand the topographical picture of Antioch, but the layers of sediment, the modern city of Antakya on top, and the current Syrian war have hindered this work.41 Finally, as Andrea U. De Giorgi reminds in his 2016 examination of Antioch’s landscape, much remains unknown about the city’s urban configuration and how it developed across the city’s lengthy history.42 The challenges presented by this evidence have in no way diminished interest in Antioch, as demonstrated by recent museum exhibitions and publications (Cimok 2000; Kondoleon 2000; Redford 2014), conference and workshop proceedings (Cabouret, Gatier, and Saliou 2004; Sandwell and Huskinson 2004; Saliou 2012b), topographical studies (Shepardson 2014; Brands 2016; De Giorgi 2016), religious examinations (Zetterholm 2003; Soler 2006; Sandwell 2007), and even popular histories and guides (Cimok 1994; Christensen-Ernst 2012). Although Downey’s 1961 synthesis of the literary, numismatic, inscriptional, and – to some extent – archaeological material remains unmatched in its depth and breadth, many of these latest studies have successfully offered new perspectives and methodologies to the sundry and uneven evidence.43 The topographical approaches are especially promising in capturing the evolution of the landscape in and around the city. Even so, trying to follow the long trajectory of Antioch’s historical and political development resembles chasing someone down the street, only to have that person repeatedly disappear into the crowd or around corners and out of sight. What seems to evade our grasp is a consistent standard by which to visualize and evaluate how such a clearly renowned city changed over time in its local, regional, and global contexts via the different authorities and communities – local, regional, and imperial – making use of it.

40

41

42

Elderkin 1934; Stillwell 1938; Stillwell 1941; Waagé 1948; Waagé 1952; Lassus 1972. For information about current work on Antioch by the New Committee for the Excavation of Antioch and Its Vicinity, see http://antioch.princeton.edu. Among the earliest survey projects are Braidwood 1937 and Tchalenko 1953–1958. Recent survey projects include the Amuq Valley Regional Projects (AVRP) and the Orontes Delta Archaeological Project. See Leblanc and Poccardi 1999, 91–126; Casana 2003; Yener 2005; Pamir 2012, 259–270. On survey and rescue excavations, see Pamir 2014, 80–112; see also Gutzwiller and Çelik 2012. 43 De Giorgi 2016, 8. See also Bowersock 1994, 411–427.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

9

10

Introduction

But one such red thread for this labyrinth already exists in the historical record for Antioch: the coins. The literary testimony is intermittent and the archaeological record uneven, but from its foundation and continuing into Late Antiquity, the city’s mint or mints continued to strike coins.44 These coins were produced in base and precious metals for three tiers of administration or authorities: the civic government of Antioch and occasionally other cities of the region; the provincial Roman government of Syria and sometimes other eastern provinces; and the royal and imperial governments of the Seleucid kings and the Roman emperors. There was much overlap and interplay among the authorities in terms of the policies prompting the issue and imagery of these coins, and yet enough distinct characteristics emerge from the material to support their examination according to the three categories of local, provincial, and royal/imperial administrations.45 Likewise, although these coins exchanged many hands throughout their circulation, the varying quantities in which they are found can reveal idiosyncratic patterns testifying to how they functioned as currency, the policies governing their movement, and how the different authorities guaranteeing their value were received within and beyond the city by the people participating in the economy.46 Altogether, the numismatic evidence has the potential for providing a more consistent standard by which to measure the change of Antioch in its internal and external contexts.47 This does not mean that the coins constitute a perfect set of evidence for the city or even the ancient world.48 Frequently, the only testimony to the circumstances and structures around their production are the coins themselves. Their iconography often indicates when they were minted and whose authority guaranteed their value as currency, but certain design elements may offer opaque or misleading witness.49 The textual record occasionally yields brief statements about when, why, or under whom coins were struck at Antioch, while the general historical context or comparison to other mints provides further clues to the prompts behind an issue.50 44 45 46 47 48

49

50

Compare with Grainger 1990, 170; Sartre 2001, 371–372, 379. See Waagé 1952, ix; Butcher 2004, 15–22, 239–245; McAlee 2007, 1–2. Casey 1986, 12; Williamson 2005, 19. See also Howgego 2005, 1–17. Kemmers and Myrberg 2011, 88–89; Meadows and Gruber 2014. For a full critique of numismatic material in historical studies, see Casey 1986; Burnett 1987; Casey and Reece 1988; Butcher 2001–2002, 21–41; Howgego 1995. For example, how to interpret the appearance of the imperial Roman portraits or governors’ names on civic coins has been the subject of great debate within scholarship. See Chapter 4 for further discussion. E.g., Tac. Hist. 2.82; Julian. Mis. 355d, 368a.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Otherwise, no extensive written accounts currently exist for the personnel, funding, or operations of the city’s workshops or the broader fiscal policies of the authorities at Antioch. It equally remains unknown how many coins were produced at a time, even though scholars have proposed controversial calculations for reconstructing relative output.51 Questions additionally stand about how representative decisions made by an elite administration are for the larger population. It is also important to acknowledge the degrees of separation between the archaeological find of a coin and the agents who lost it, used it, and minted it.52 Authorities issued coins for a specific purpose, but this does not mean their use was exclusively defined by it. While indications on the coins themselves or where they are discovered sometimes help indicate who exchanged them, all the agencies and environments shaping their journey are unfortunately irrecoverable. How long a coin remained in circulation presents another challenge as a century or more may have passed before it lost its value as currency.53 The stratigraphy of coin finds can provide context, and yet this still needs to be assembled and published for the finds recovered at Antioch and many other deposits.54 Certain watershed moments are identifiable in the archaeological record, but we are not guaranteed that distribution patterns are completely representative of the period or purpose for which a coin was produced. Further complicating comparison and aggregation of archaeological data is the inconsistency in how coin finds are recorded.55 For example, publications of hoards do not always describe the minting date of the individual coins, but rather the likely date when the hoard was deposited.56 In contrast, as single coins discovered through excavation are often published without stratigraphic detail, these finds are dated by when they were originally minted. This discrepancy forces studies like the current book to keep the two datasets separate and acknowledge the possibility of distortions in the historical picture (see Appendix 1). Finally, anyone drawing upon numismatics must inevitably wade into major academic debates about the nature and significance of coins in the ancient world. These debates include questions about the monetary role 51 52 53 54 55 56

See Esty 1986; Buttrey 1993, 1994, 2011; Duncan-Jones 1999; Reece 2003. Compare with Butcher 2001–2002, 23–41; Syon 2015, 31–39. Cole 1976; Casey 1986, 105. On current efforts to reconstruct the stratigraphy of coin finds at Antioch, see Stahl 2017. See Lockyear 2007. This is the case with both the IGCH and the CH volumes. Individual publications of hoards can offer more detail.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

11

12

Introduction

and function of coins within the wider economy compared to their symbolic value as conveyers of identity or sovereignty.57 Compelling arguments exist, but there are no simple answers. Nevertheless, tremendous potential remains in applying the numismatic material to the study of Antioch. The very act of minting embodied in the coins reflects administrators at work both economically and politically.58 We are therefore provided with one comparable manifestation of the different internal and external authorities making use of Antioch, against which other evidence for their decisions and interactions can be viewed. The civic coins are particularly valuable as they offer a visualization of the agency of the Antiochians themselves. We are not always granted a full view of financial or political policies and operations inside the city, but we can at least note when changes in the coinage occur and work back from there to their implications. As the coins were not pure bullion but marked with symbols and statements of political and cultural significance, they additionally serve as an expression of an authority’s identity or self-definition.59 Care must be taken not to overstate the propagandistic role of the coins, especially considering the conservative quality of certain images on the Antiochians’ own civic issues. However, these designs nonetheless extended from choices made by these authorities, and it is worth considering the factors and relationships potentially influencing their decisions. Lastly, even if many of the details are obscured, the evolving patterns over time of where and in what quantities these different coins moved can nonetheless testify to the activities, policies, and relationships of the different peoples issuing and using them. The varying ranges in distribution help to define the authority behind a coin’s issue as well as expose clues about its original purpose and general function.60 Even though a much broader series of agencies and environments contributed to the shape of the data, not all of which can be explored in the current study, this information in turn can shed further light on how Antioch was used by the local, provincial, and royal/imperial administrations. Likewise, by establishing the changing makeup of the coin assemblage at Antioch, we have a model against which to compare other cities and regions of the Hellenistic and Roman empires and determine where Antioch was unique or aligned to a

57

58 60

Compare the approaches of Duncan-Jones 1994; Harl 1996; Meadows 2001; Howgego, Heuchert, and Burnett 2005; Thonemann 2015. 59 Casey 1986, 12. See Wallace-Hadrill 1986, 70. See Jones 1963; Wallace-Hadrill 1986, 72–73.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

larger system. Uncovering these patterns offers a better contextualization of the remaining evidence for Antioch, leading to more nuanced questions about the city’s role or position in the ancient world, as well as the people and communities within it. Despite the potential for this line of research, the numismatic evidence has held a slightly perplexing place within Antiochene scholarship. On the one hand, the coins are some of the most consistently available materials for the city and thereby appear in many histories referring to Antioch. On the other hand, the coin data from the city still await full exploration, as does the comprehensive integration of that evidence into the history of this important urban metropolis.61 This is not to say that the coins of Antioch lack any analysis. In the last century alone, scholars have provided important catalogs detailing different types and periods of coins minted at Antioch, including Georges Le Rider (1999) and Arthur Houghton, Catharine Lorber, and Oliver Hoover (2002, 2008) for the Seleucid age and Kevin Butcher (2004), Richard McAlee (2007), and the editors of the Roman Provincial Coinage volumes (1992–) for the period under Roman control. These works build upon and update earlier research into these coins by scholars such as Edward Newell (1918 [1978], 1919, 1941 [1977]), Otto Mørkholm (1959, 1991), and Michael Grant (1946, 1953). Henri Seyrig’s numerous publications also explore both the types and the historical/archaeological contexts of Syrian coins (e.g., 1950a, 1950b), whereas the metrology of silver coins minted at Antioch has received more thorough study by D. R. Walker (1976, 1977, 1978) and Butcher and Matthew Ponting (2014). Even the distribution of the coins has found introductory treatment within larger studies of Syrian coinage, most notably by Frédérique Duyrat (2004, 2015, 2016) for the Hellenistic period and Butcher (2002, 2004) for the Roman period. Additionally, by virtue of being one of the largest numismatic datasets from the Middle East, the coin find assemblage from excavations at Antioch originally published by D. Waagé (1952) has regularly featured in other examinations of coin circulation and loss (e.g., T. B. Jones 1963; MacDonald 1976; Noeske 2000; Evans 2006). The value of each of these studies cannot be emphasized enough, and they provide an important foundation for this book. However, more can be

61

Snapshots of the historical application of coins struck at Antioch can be found in studies such as Butcher 2002; Hoover 2007; Noreña 2016. A very promising roundtable of numismatists and historians of ancient Syria also yielded several of the works cited within this book; an overview of the original proceedings is recorded in Callataÿ 1999, 467–471.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

13

14

Introduction

done to incorporate this wealth of numismatic information into the long history of Antioch. A thorough distribution study – one of the last and most difficult analyses of the coins – is needed both geographically and chronologically.62 Furthermore, a contextualization of the patterns revealed by these coins – in terms of production, circulation, and reception – and what they mean in a quantitative and qualitative sense for the city and its populations has yet to be published.63 Both are daunting tasks, but recent trends within digital humanities and quantitative analysis have opened up new conceptual models and tools for channeling the numismatic evidence from ancient Antioch.64 Digital humanities – as both a methodology and an ethos – enhances our examination of the coins by inviting creative and interdisciplinary applications of computers and other digital technologies to the material.65 Computers have played an instrumental role in the broader study of antiquity since as early as the 1950s, but recent projects have demonstrated how a digital approach can bring a fresh perspective to long-standing historical questions and debates by aggregating, visualizing, and integrating evidence in new ways.66 Due to the rise of open-source and public software as well as user-friendly visualization platforms, more researchers and general audiences are also able to interrogate bigger and better datasets than ever before.67 For coins in particular, digital technologies make it possible to collect and curate large and disparate datasets in addition to providing a platform for visualizing, exploring, and analyzing this material.68 Most centrally, I apply Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) to the numismatic material. Pioneered by the statistician John W. Tukey in the 1970s, this methodology emphasizes a systematic and yet commonsense analysis

62 63 64 65

66

67

68

See the calls for such a study by Butcher 2004, 266–268. Compare with the approach proposed by Kemmers and Myrberg 2011. See Neumann and Wallrodt 2017, 37–60. For a general introduction to Digital Humanities, see Schreibman, Siemens, and Unsworth 2004; Gold 2012; Schreibman, Siemens, and Unsworth 2016. See Crane 2004; Eiteljorg 2004; Bodard and Mahony 2010. For a more informal survey of ongoing digital projects for the ancient world, see “The Digital Classicist Wiki” [http://wiki.digitalclassicist.org]. On the democratization of history cultivated by a digital approach, see Ayers 2001. On the rise of “big data,” see Gattiglia 2015. The CHRE Project provides an excellent example of how digital technologies can enhance the use of coins in historical inquiry. Other projects include Britain’s PAS and FLAME: Framing the Late Antique and Early Medieval Economy. Meadows and Gruber (2014) discuss other digital coin projects in terms of both the potentials and pitfalls.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

of datasets through graphical and other visualization techniques as a way of revealing patterns and outliers in their distribution.69 This approach has found favor in other archaeological projects for its flexibility and rigor in handling complicated material, but has yet to be applied to the study of Antioch.70 Along these same lines, available new technologies and digital platforms provide interactive and intuitive spaces to map and analyze the evolving distribution patterns of civic, provincial, and royal/ imperial coins minted at Antioch.71 Lacunas still surface and care must be taken when drawing conclusions, but the hope is that collating and publishing what is currently available will inspire future studies to remedy these gaps. In forging this new ground, this book offers the first comprehensive study of the distribution of coins produced at Antioch from the reign of the Seleucids into the late antique period. Chapter 1 presents the theoretical models and methodologies used in preparing coin finds for such an examination. This chapter should be read in conjunction with Appendix 1, which provides a more technical description and examples of how the dataset was collected and examined digitally. Each chapter thereafter introduces a new coin type or types minted at Antioch by following a chronological division stretching from the foundation of the city in 300 BCE to the early centuries of Late Antiquity up until 450 CE. The coins’ movement and probable circulation are determined by mapping and visualizing the distribution of finds of these types gathered from around 80 published excavations (Appendix 2) and over 300 hoards (Appendix 3). In total, around 315,000 coins were considered, of which over 33,000 coins originated from the mint at Antioch.72 The aggregate maps and visualizations are then used to establish patterns of presence, absence, and intensity.73 The analysis of the coins produced at Antioch should not stop at establishing their distribution. Rather, the primary goal of this book is to encourage a better integration of material often left to specialists into a

69 70

71 72

73

Tukey 1977; see also Hoaglin, Mosteller, and Tukey 2000. On archaeological applications generally, see Drennan 1996, vi; Wheatley and Gillings 2002, 142–145; Baxter 2003, 7; Conolly and Lake 2006, 112–148. For possible numismatic applications, see the assessment of Lockyear 1996, 67–72, toward Reece’s work as “in the spirit of exploratory data analysis, if not using the methods suggested by Tukey.” For more discussion on the technologies applied to the coin data, see Appendix 1. The majority of this data was collected between Spring 2012 and Spring 2017. Several excellent coin publications and online projects have made available additional material since this point, which unfortunately could not be included in the current study. See Casey 1986, 68–113; Butcher 2004, 149–151.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

15

16

Introduction

deep and comprehensive history of the people at and in relationship with the ancient city. It is tempting to use the shorthand of “Antiochene” to describe the coins manufactured at the city’s mint(s). But again, the issues point to distinct authorities making use of the city. Likewise, always employing the place name Antioch as the collective identifier obscures the many overlapping peoples and powers within the city – whether local or foreign. In this study, I draw detailed attention to these authorities and agents – especially the understudied Antiochians often eclipsed by focus on the imperial forces within the city – and how their agency, interactions, and identities developed over time and space. This book embraces the idea of “discrepant” identities and experiences, in that individuals or whole groups could take on different, multifaceted, and evolving values, expressions, and behaviors depending on the situation.74 Moreover, just as Christopher Howgego framed his study on the movement of countermarked coins, the distribution of the coins presented here represents “an aggregate of the movement” of people in and out of Antioch – not only the administrative bodies issuing the coins but also the divergent communities and individuals engaging in social, political, and economic activity.75 To this end, in addition to discussing the coin evidence itself, each chapter also brings together other textual and archaeological evidence that helps to characterize and supply qualitative texture for the collectives within and connecting to the city of Antioch. While relying upon numismatic data, this book does not seek to offer a complete monetary history or study of the health, wealth, or monetization of Antioch and its economy through coin finds.76 The maps and patterns presented in this study will contribute to further research on these topics and our understanding of this region. Yet, it is political, financial, and social change – not ancient money itself – that this study predominately interrogates. Coin evidence is understood here as a significant index of political, financial, and communal policies that reveal the transformation of imperial power and subject relationships in Antioch over time and space. In other words, both the production and distribution of these coins tell us as much if not more about people and places as they do about money itself.

74

75 76

As adapted from Edward Said, see Mattingly 2011, 26–30, 203–245. For Syria in particular, see Andrade 2013, 1–33. GICM 33. E.g., Duncan-Jones 1994; Harris 2008a; Bowman and Wilson 2009; Katsari 2011. See the critiques of van Heesch 2011, 311–328.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

In particular, the coins open an opportunity to move beyond general statements about Antioch’s status. Analysis of Antioch’s “prominence” must be more nuanced, identifying for whom and for what reasons this was true, making sure to not conflate the Antiochians with the importance their city held for provincial, royal, and imperial administrations. More specifically, I explore how the Antiochians as a polis and a diverse community or communities – people with shared identities, interactions, and activities – responded to and evolved under the various powers laying claim to them.77 Finally, the distribution patterns allow for an examination of how the Antiochians and the space of Antioch were connected to the region of Syria – here defined in a more narrow sense as stretching between the Amanus and Taurus mountain ranges in the north, the Euphrates River to the east, the Mediterranean to the west, and Phoenicia and the region around Damascus in the south – and the wider empires.78 I argue that while royal/imperial and provincial authorities like the Seleucids and Romans capitalized upon the location, structure, and amenities of Antioch throughout its history, the city and the citizens themselves were not always as prominent or prominent in the same way as scholarship has commonly assumed. Chapter 2 traces Antioch’s gradual promotion to Seleucid capital and the degree to which this role and the policies of the kings shaped life within the city and its status and connections in the wider region and empire. The civic population developed alongside in both its agency and identity, but only emerged from the shadow of the Seleucids intermittently. However, as discussed in Chapter 3, it was the civic body that outlasted the fall of the Seleucid Empire and weathered Roman annexation. For much of this transitional period, the dysfunction of the final Seleucid kings and the subsequent hands-off attitude of the Roman generals and governors present within the city and Levant allowed or forced the Antiochians into managing their own internal affairs. In the early years of Roman rule in particular, it is difficult to claim that Antioch served as a provincial capital, because so much of the city was defined by the far more restricted authority of the citizens themselves. This state of affairs soon changed with the beginning of the imperial Roman age. As examined in Chapter 4, the rise of the Principate ushered in a series of significant restructurings of the Middle East, which elevated the place of Antioch into a provincial role and forged new ties to the city. 77 78

Compare with Syon 2015, 17–18. See Bikerman 1947, 256–268; Butcher 2003, 11–15; Sartre 2005, 1–2.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

17

18

Introduction

Although these Roman activities are often portrayed as eclipsing the municipal structures, operations, and identities of the Antiochians, far more complex exchanges both divided and drew together the established civic population and the Roman administration. Chapter 5 investigates the outcome of these negotiations between the citizens and their imperial overlords, as the balance of Roman involvement in Antioch shifted from provincial to imperial in an increasingly unstable climate. Antioch was not yet a completely imperially governed city, as the civic administration retained a visible degree of agency and still presented itself as a distinct body. Even so, the Antiochians were forced to adjust under intensified Roman rule as the imperial government exploited the city’s resources and interrupted civic operations. With the inception of the late antique period, Antioch finally transformed fully into the role of imperial Roman city and capital. As explored in Chapter 6, even this status did not end the expression or boldness of the Antiochians, but the civic structure as a whole continued to evolve under the now formalized imperial presence and the Christianization of the empire. Antioch and its people were integrated into the Roman imperial system to a greater degree than ever before. Ultimately, this study demonstrates the efficacy of applying new perspectives and methodologies to old material, exposing in the process that Antioch should continue to be seen not only as a prominent eastern center but also as an essential point of enduring historical inquiry. In contrast to both classical and contemporary assessments, the dynamic patterns revealed by the coin evidence and their integration into the larger story of the city and its people highlight the complexity of Antioch. Neither the city nor the people show themselves to be static objects or passive pawns for external forces. Instead, this book demonstrates that municipal authorities consistently asserted themselves over the city’s long history, both partnering with and resisting external influences. This remarkable testimony for local agency proves that Antioch is still fertile ground for further investigation and revaluation of ancient imperialism and the civic populations falling under Hellenistic and Roman rule.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

1

|

Counting Change

The first concern of the war was to make a levy and call the veterans back to service. The strong communities were appointed for operating workshops for weapons; gold and silver was coined at Antioch, and all things were hastened, each in their proper place through the right officials. —Tacitus, Histories 2.82

At the beginning of his bid for the Roman emperorship, the general Vespasian took stock of Syria and the allegiances pledged to him by both the people there and the ones in the surrounding provinces.1 Berytus hosted a war council. Troops poured in from Judea. Client kings of the region offered their support. Antioch-minted coins. This was neither the first nor the last time that the mint or mints at Antioch would manufacture struck money for an outside conqueror. Indeed, from the earliest of the Seleucid kings to the Roman emperors of Late Antiquity, the operations within the city repeatedly put forth the coins of these ruling authorities. Some of the coins mimicked the designs of those produced elsewhere in the empire; others bore idiosyncratic symbols of Syria. When Antioch’s mint(s) and workshop(s) were not consumed with manufacturing issues for these rulers, they created coins for the citizens themselves and celebrated values integral to this population. Whoever the authority, these coins passed through the hands of people within and outside the city. Some remained local to the city’s urban space and hinterland, while others moved great distances in the purses of traders, travelers, soldiers, and officials. The wealth of evidence inherent to these objects both in their craft and movement makes them a valuable resource for reconstructing the history of Antioch over time and space. This book begins to synthesize the myriad of historical, political, cultural, geographical, and fiscal data contained within the minted coins of Antioch through the methodologies of Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA); 1

Tac. Hist. 2.80–82.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

19

20

Counting Change

this flexible approach and its emphasis on graphic techniques reveal aggregate patterns and anomalies in the distribution of the numismatic evidence, thus exposing the activities of both the separate political authorities issuing the coins and the different people and communities using them. Such a study not only confirms and challenges patterns previously assumed without such visualizations but also opens up new perspectives of ancient Antioch and its inhabitants by creating a qualitative and quantitative standard by which change to the city can be assessed in its chronological and spatial contexts. Extolling the virtues of coins as historical evidence is one matter; wading through the minefield of theoretical and methodological problems they present is quite another. Previous studies have thoroughly dealt with both the promise and pitfalls of analyzing ancient coins; there is no need to repeat their arguments en masse here nor deconstruct the ancient economy and monetary systems.2 More specifically, a precedent has already been established in scholarship for carefully addressing larger historical problems through the distribution of coin finds.3 Nevertheless, the range of methodologies employed in these studies has created a hazy medley of guidelines for historians on how to make the most appropriate use of this evidence. What has worked well in analyzing one dataset does not necessarily apply to another, especially as the conditions governing each assemblage can vary widely. Additionally, the challenges presented by any coin dataset may be exacerbated for the Middle East by uneven excavation and publication, political unrest, rampant looting, lack of local museum funding, and economic conditions encouraging market sales without coin provenience.4 This chapter thereby outlines the terminology, principles, assumptions, methods, and decisions fundamental to the approach of this book and its numismatic data, both in terms of what coins actually represent for the historical record and what practices are employed to handle them as a dataset. Defining the character of numismatic data is needed in order to 2

3

4

E.g., Casey 1986; Burnett 1987; Casey and Reece 1988; Howgego 1995. Butcher (2001–2002, 21–41) provides an excellent summary of using coins and coin finds as historical evidence. E.g., Jones 1963; Barag 1980; GICM; Davies and Gregory 1991; Bauslaugh 1997; Hobley 1998; Evans 2006; Kemmers 2006; Noreña 2011; Duyrat 2016. See also Beliën 2009; Kemmers and Myrberg 2011, 87–88. More circulation studies are available for the West than for the East (see Syon 2015, 48). Another subgroup of these studies focuses specifically on the presence and quantity of coin finds as indicators of the health, integration, and operation of the Roman economy (e.g., Hopkins 1980, 2002; Howgego 1992, 1994, 1996; Duncan-Jones 1994; Katsari 2011). E.g., Duyrat 2016, 207–217, 270–285.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Counting Change

avoid demanding information that coins are ill-suited or unable to provide.5 Like any other textual or archaeological dataset, an assemblage of coins did not develop within a vacuum.6 It must therefore be asked what processes led to the formation of a coin dataset, what is meant by coin finds, and to what extent such finds relate to their ancient use and significance. As all coins do not equally survive the vagaries of time, it is also important to decide what criteria qualify a coin as a reliable piece of historical evidence and what collections and publications of coin finds meet this standard. Having defined which coins can be studied, a need exists to identify the best practices for analyzing them as a dataset. Specifically, we need to consider which statistical and visualization techniques will provide the soundest and most straightforward evaluation of the material. Finally, while this chapter focuses on the broader parameters of this study, readers interested in a more technical explanation of how the dataset was collected and digitally examined should see Appendix 1. Ultimately, no perfect answer exists to any of these questions, and any methodology will need to wrestle with the ambiguity remaining even in a quantitative study. All the same, making plain the strengths and weaknesses moves us closer to a reliable method for handling such a complex body of evidence. Gaps should not be hidden, but clearly exposed in order to present opportunities for further studies and publication. Aggregate patterns and outliers should be welcomed as offering new and alternative perspectives to the ancient world, even in the absence of absolute numbers.7 Possible explanations for these patterns and outliers should be entertained within a context of other historical evidence, even if definitive answers are lacking.8 For these reasons, the techniques of EDA were not only preferred for this study, but they were necessary, since they allow the data – however fragmentary and frustrating at times – to govern the methodology and make the most of what evidence does exist in a transparent and commonsense manner.9 In the end, each decision made in this book focuses on the primary goal of understanding better the changes that occurred for Antioch and the people making use of this city throughout antiquity.

5 7 8

9

6 See Howgego 1995, 88–90. Kemmers and Myrberg 2011, 89–91. Noreña 2011, 23–24. Compare with Howgego 2014, 308: “We need to approach the question contextually, rather than seeking universal rules.” For a similar argument about the simplicity and yet layered usefulness of EDA, see Cohen 1994.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

21

22

Counting Change

Defining Coin Finds Before discussing what to do with the coin finds, we must first engage with the nature of the artifacts themselves and the assumed life cycle they experienced before becoming part of an assembled dataset.10 Such an outline helps to determine which variables – numerical and categorical – are available for study, as well as which are beyond the scope of the current evidence. More specifically, as a full distribution study of coins minted at Antioch has yet to be published, it is important to point out what is and is not known for the operations and issues of the mint(s) within this city.

Stage One: Production The coins examined in this study are struck pieces of metal produced at an official mint (a contracted workshop or factory) on the initiative of an issuing authority (e.g., city/community, provincial/regional, or royal/ imperial administration) that guaranteed their value as money (a measure of value, a store of wealth, and/or a medium of exchange).11 This guarantee was important because both the Greeks and the Romans partially adhered to a fiduciary monetary system in which the nominal value ascribed to an ancient coin – in bronze and increasingly in silver – was divorced from the intrinsic value of its metallic content.12 In other words, for certain coins to work as a form of money, the users of these coins needed to trust the guarantee of the issuing authority.13 To make such a guarantee clear, these coins were marked at the mint with some identification of the issuing authority, whether an image and/or a legend. Their design or type also included cultural symbols, figures, or events important to that issuing authority or the community it represented.14 10 11

12

13

14

Compare with Butcher 2001–2002, 23–41; Syon 2015, 31–39. Paulus, Sent. 5.25.1. For definitions of money and coinage, the degree to which coins functioned as a medium of exchange, and alternative sources of money, compare Crawford 1970, 40–48; Howgego 1992, 16–22; Howgego 1995, 1, 12–18, 26–30; Andreau 1999, 1–2; and Christiansen 2004, 14–15. The jurist Paulus (Dig. 18.1.1 pr.) discusses the transition to a fiduciary system. See also Verboven 2007, 246–247; Harris 2008b, 199–201. The Seleucids also used bronze as a token coinage (see Aperghis 2004, 223–226). The overvaluation of coins was used to cover production expenses and possibly to create a profit for the issuing authority (see GICM 92; Katsari 2011, 212–215). See Kemmers and Myrberg 2011, 94, 99. This statement brushes alongside the highly charged debate of metallism versus chartalism/nominalism, which is not the major focus of this book. For further discussion, see Lo Cascio 1996, 273–287; Katsari 2011, 244–253. Williamson 2005, 19–27; Millar 2006, 120–121.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Defining Coin Finds

For Antioch in particular, little is known explicitly about the minting processes beyond what the coins themselves offer.15 These coins, however, make clear that at least three different yet overlapping tiers of administration made use of the city’s mint(s): royal/imperial, civic, and provincial.16 Under the royal/imperial authority, the Seleucid kings originally established the mint(s) at Antioch and eventually relied upon it as one of their most important production sites (Chapters 2 and 3).17 Their successors – the administrators of the Roman Republic and the subsequent Roman emperors – made only intermittent numismatic use of Antioch on an empire-wide level until the early third century CE, when they expanded production greatly with new imperial forms (Chapters 4–6).18 Bronze, silver, and gold coins manufactured for these rulers proclaim their power through royal and imperial portraits, titles, and iconography. Despite the lack of exact details as to how their oversight worked, any minting of coins within this category would have been under some form of supervision by the royal or imperial state.19 In producing such coins, the workshop(s) at Antioch acted as an agent of these powers and thereby engaged on a level far beyond the immediate concerns of its own city and territory.20 The civic coins minted at Antioch for the Antiochians themselves reveal far more intimate ties to the city.21 At first, production was irregular and infrequent under the Seleucid Empire, but with the fall of the kings, the Antiochians struck their own coins fairly steadily through to the third century CE according to the needs and purposes of the local government (Chapters 2–5); one final issue of civic-like coins was even minted in the fourth century CE (Chapter 6). Predominately made of bronze, these coins usually advertised the issuing city and collective ownership of the citizens with the genitive plural: ANTIOXEΩN, or “of the Antiochians.” This ethnic was joined with other civic legends and iconography celebrating Antioch’s

15 16

17 18

19 21

See Burnett 1987, 24–32. I have chosen these divisions according to both the general categories established by numismatists for ancient coinage and the idiosyncrasies of the coins minted and/or issued at Antioch; see Waagé 1952, ix; McAlee 2007, 1–2. The ancients may not have recognized such definitions, but specific characteristics of the coins support such a division for the purposes of this study; see RPC I, 5. See Newell 1918 [1978], 2. See also Mørkholm 1984, 94; SC I.1, xvii; SC II.1, xviii–xix. See Butcher 2004, 17–18, 95–109, 123–125, 148. Mark Antony may have minted silver coins at Antioch, but the attribution is highly debatable (see Chapter 3). Otherwise, the first definite use of Antioch’s mint for Roman imperial coins occurred under Vespasian (see Chapter 4). 20 See Howgego 1995, 26–30. See Burnett 1987, 17–20. A full catalog can be found in McAlee 2007; see also Butcher 1988b, 35–36; Butcher 2004, 20–21.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

23

24

Counting Change

history, mythology, and status within the region. Elites of the city presumably played a dominant role in shaping how the “Antiochians” were presented, rather than the poorest or minority communities of the city.22 Still, comparison with other evidence demonstrates that several of the images or messages expressed on the coins reflect civic identities celebrated by the city’s population at large.23 Even the inclusion of royal and imperial portraits on the coins did not undercut the identity or agency of the municipal authority.24 Given this local focus, civic coins provide one of the clearest extant representatives of the collective, civic body of the Antiochians. Finally, in between the two extremes of royal/imperial and civic coinage lies the murkier middle ground of “regional,” “provincial,” or “provincial imperial” coins (Chapters 4 and 5).25 Minted at Antioch exclusively during the Roman imperial period, the coins in this category include the longestablished silver issues inherited from the earlier Hellenistic kings and new bronze coins introduced within the recently created province of Roman Syria. Apart from the initial silver issues still bearing an image of a posthumous Seleucid king (see Chapter 3), both bronze and silver provincial coins eventually bear a portrait of the emperor and usually lack a civic ethnic and city-specific iconography like the imperial Roman coins. That said, they sometimes also feature Greek legends as well as Latin and adopt images traditional to greater Syria.26 Instead of being defined by one city, the generally broad appeal of their type and explicit connection to the Roman government may have fostered their wider use in the region, albeit not quite as far as imperial coinage.27 Occupying a liminal space between civic and imperial issues, these provincial coins provide a useful reflection of the negotiations between local and imperial authorities in the region. In none of these categories is it currently possible to accurately calculate how many coins were originally produced at the mint(s) of Antioch, despite heavily debated proposals for extrapolating this information from coin finds and die-studies.28 Even the more creative approaches to

22 24 25 26

27 28

23 See Mattingly 2011, 41. See GICM 89–91; Heuchert 2005, 40. Harl 1987, 21. See also Millar 1993, 257; Metcalf 2008, 147. RPC I, 13–14; Butcher 2004, 18–20; Heuchert 2005, 30. Butcher 2004, 216–218, 240–241. Compare with Alexandrian tetradrachms, silver cistophori from Asia Minor, or the provincial coins minted at Caesarea in Cappadocia. RPC I, 4. E.g., Esty 1986; Duncan-Jones 1999; Callataÿ 2011b; compare with the criticisms of Buttrey (1993, 1994, 2011). On the use of coin hoards, see the qualified approval of Christiansen 2004, 22. See also the cautions of Howgego (1992, 2–4) on over-interpreting coin finds.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Defining Coin Finds

Antioch’s production history are only suggestive at best.29 Ancient mints never produced at a constant rate or quantity but rather according to the requirements of the issuing authority. Outside factors such as political events and economic circumstances could also influence production and at times resulted in vastly different outputs of coinage from issue to issue.30 For example, in the quotation at the start of this chapter, Vespasian minted imperial gold and silver at Antioch to fund his imperial bid. This was an exceptional circumstance driven by political needs, as the mint during this period focused mainly on provincial and civic issues. Given the variability of factors governing an issue, what may be true for one mint or a single issue may be highly suspect for another. Therefore, while we must acknowledge where possible the probable effect that the original production size had on the representation of coin finds within any site or hoard, this information is often irrecoverable or only approximately estimated.31

Stage Two: Circulation Once minted and issued, these coins entered the next stage of their life cycle: circulation. Through various public and private channels, these coins were exchanged among users (both individuals and greater entities) who recognized their value as currency (a coin in general use).32 The activities causing a coin to change hands from one party to another varied, from taxation and military movement to commerce and ritual activity.33 Unlike the narrow body of issuing authorities which shaped decisions in iconography and production size, people from all corners of ancient society could make use of these coins in their day-to-day transactions and larger payments.34 The quotidian bronze coins especially traversed regularly through 29

30 32 33

34

Die-studies for both bronze and silver coinage are generally lacking for Roman Antioch and the wider region of Syria (see McAlee 2007, 22–23), although Bland 1991a on Gordian III’s production at Antioch is an exception. Butcher (2004, 134–142) attempted a rough bronze die-study for issues from Philip to Valerian but noticed problems in the correlation between the proportions produced by his study in comparison to actual finds. Potentially more useful for identifying relative dips and peaks in minting is his weighted count based upon the issue date of extant bronze coins in museum collections and excavation reports; large denominations of bronze coins were counted as one whole unit, whereas smaller bronze denominations were recorded as half a unit. Hoover (2007, 283) estimated the fluxes in production for the late Seleucid kingdom at Antioch but stressed the “hypothetical” nature of the work. 31 Casey 1986, 72–73. See the helpful discussion in Butcher 2001–2002, 31–36. Christiansen (2004, 15) calls this a “confidence” exchange between coin issuer and coin user. See the models described by Burnett 1987, 94; Howgego 1995, 91–95; Harl 1996, 242–246; Kemmers 2009, 139–140, 153–156. Kemmers and Myrberg 2011, 92.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

25

26

Counting Change

all the social classes, although even the humble would have periodically used silver coins like the elite. The journey that a coin took as it circulated can sometimes be determined through countermarks or stamps applied to it during various stops – such as those seen on the many provincial Antioch issues found at Dura Europos (see Chapter 4) – but is oftentimes unrecoverable. Explicit testimony about individuals within or outside Antioch handling coins from the city’s mint(s) is limited, but – as each chapter will discuss – it is certainly possible to suggest prospective coin users or at least groups of users. Even though market and economic exchange occurred throughout the ancient world, not all coins circulated everywhere due to natural, manufactured, and enforced limitations.35 One of the goals of this study is to determine circulation patterns for the different Antioch-minted coins, as well as the potential factors shaping their movement. As will be seen in Chapter 6, geographical features such as a mountain range or sheer distance could divide two regions to such an extent that coins minted at one place would not naturally circulate at the same levels somewhere else, even if the coins were guaranteed as money throughout the empire.36 Metallic content could also limit where a coin could be circulated. For example, the intrinsic value of a silver coin could propel it to a wider circulation than a bronze coin, while intentionally overvaluing a silver coin – as was the practice in Egypt – could limit its usability too far from its issuing authority.37 The persistence of different or incompatible denominational systems presented yet another barrier to free circulation within the ancient world, perhaps because of the confusion caused in the marketplace when business was conducted according to too many dissonant systems.38 These last two scenarios can be seen at work especially in Chapter 4, where they contributed to the lack of mixing among the cistophori of Asia Minor, Egyptian tetradrachms, and Antioch-minted silver. Governmental agents at differing levels also regulated and even enforced what circulated. According to a later description by Cicero, an internal monetary crisis in the early first century BCE had created a situation where

35

36

37 38

On the topic of economic and monetary integration, see Woolf 1992; Harris 2008a; Bowman and Wilson 2009. Harris (2008b, 198–199) argues that the ancients tried to avoid transporting large amounts of coin over long distances because of the risks involved. See also Howgego 1994, 15–16. Christiansen 2004, 40–46. RPC I, 30–34; RPC II, 28–29; Duncan 1993, 2–3; Houghton 2004, 64–65. See Jones 1963, 309; Crawford 1985, 270.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Defining Coin Finds

“no one knew what he had.”39 The Edict of Gratidianus was thereby passed by the Roman government in 85 BCE as an effort to restore confidence in the currency and establish an exchange rate by threatening a penalty for refusing “a token bronze coinage.”40 Evidence of selectivity toward circulating currency also appears in the form of countermarks applied by civic, provincial, royal/imperial, or military officials to discrete bodies of coins.41 For example, a noticeable portion of the provincial coins discussed in Chapter 4 bear legionary countermarks. A city or state could also appoint moneychangers to screen for worn pieces, forgeries, or even particular coin issues, in addition to encouraging the circulation of coins from one authority over another.42 A second-century CE inscription from Pergamum details moneychangers contracted exclusively by the city to charge a fee on the exchange of local bronze coins for Roman silver denarii; the moneychangers dealt with merchants and shopkeepers, who were required by the city to accept the local type of coin as payment for their wares.43 Not all authorities were equal. On a royal or imperial level, the administration could restrict foreign coins from circulating within their territory, as has been proposed generally for the Roman Empire.44 Even within a single empire or kingdom, a bronze or silver coin backed by the royal or imperial authority was more likely to circulate widely, whereas a coin guaranteed by the far more circumscribed political entity of a civic authority could be less useful as a medium of exchange far from the city.45 A second-century CE tax law from Palmyra somewhat reflects this difference, as even in the far Syrian Desert, taxes were reckoned according to Roman denominations of denarii and asses.46 Even if the evidence is not strong for these coins physically circulating within the city, the law itself reveals the far reach of the imperial currency system.47 According to the inscription, the tax law was enacted through a decree of the local council after a dispute between the merchants and the tax collectors, but the oversight of the Roman

39 40

41 42

43 44

45 47

Cic. Off. 3.80. Crawford 1985, 187–191; see Lo Cascio 1981, 77–78; Verboven 1994, 117–131. For examples from the Greek world, see P. Cair. Zen. 1.59021; SIG 218, 525; Stroud 1974; Burnett 1987, 86. GICM 7–8, 32; Buttrey 1970. On the moneychangers, see Burnett 1987, 102–103; Harl 1996, 238–239; Andreau 1999, 36–39. See also OGIS 515, which describes penalties for illegally exchanging coins in third-century CE Mylasa. For the Levant, see Syon 2015, 33–34. OGIS 484; Macro 1976, 169–179. Burnett 1987, 86–87; Katsari 2011, 186. Compare with Frankish efforts to control circulation (McCormick 2001, 379). 46 See Jones 1963; Wallace-Hadrill 1986, 72–73. Matthews 1984, 157–180. See Butcher 2004, 193–194.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

27

28

Counting Change

government is made clear through references to the original pronouncement by Germanicus to reckon taxes according to Roman denominations (l. 181).48 As further evidence of the long reach of the imperial government, we might also compare the extensive quantities of Roman imperial bronze coins found in the assemblage at Antioch during the Roman imperial period against the relatively few civic coins of Antioch’s own neighbors (Chapter 4). These instances already imply some attention of nongovernmental people toward coin types or issuing authorities, whether engaging in business in the market or paying taxes. Beyond this general awareness, we move to less firm footing regarding the public’s notice of differences in metallic content or changes in iconography.49 As long as a coin’s face value was accepted during market exchange or governmental payments, there would have been no need of knowing its intrinsic value. Miscellaneous finds among otherwise homogenous groups of coins suggest that physical similarity could cause an out-of-place coin to circulate alongside the regular currency. Christopher Howgego notes a few such exceptions where certain silver issues “looked sufficiently like denarii to circulate alongside them.”50 Like Canadian quarters occasionally passing as currency within the United States, it is to be expected that bronze coins of similar size and color would escape the notice of the general public. On the other hand, the attention to coin iconography and the rapidity with which it could change testifies to some expectation on the part of the issuing authority that the visual scheme would be received by an audience with a minimal degree of understanding.51 For certain, a few individuals did notice these coin types. Suetonius – moving around in imperial circles – comments twice in his biographies on the images appearing on the emperors’ coinage.52 A scene in the New Testament Gospels also suggests that laymen paid attention to at least the issuing authority.53 In this account, Jesus answers a question about the legality of paying taxes by pointing to the emperor’s portrait and saying that Caesar is owed what

48

49 51

52 53

The inscription also mentions several other Roman officials overseeing trade at Palmyra (see Matthews 1984, 178–179). 50 See Duncan-Jones 1994, 102. Howgego 1995, 102. Elkins 2009, 25–46; Noreña 2011, 22. The “user’s point of view” toward these coins has been imagined anywhere from high susceptibility to a coin’s propaganda to completely outside the conversation waged by the elites minting the coins. Compare Crawford 1983, 47–59; WallaceHadrill 1986, 67–70; Harl 1987, 31–37; Levick 1999, 44–45. Suet. Aug. 94.12, Ner. 25.2. Mark 12.17; Matthew 22.21; Luke 20.24. See Wallace-Hadrill 1986, 68.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Defining Coin Finds

belongs to him. We can have a reasonable expectation, therefore, that whoever issued a coin played a role in its circulation. As important as each of these natural, manufactured, and enforced limitations were in defining where coins circulated, these objects were not necessarily restricted to this range in their movement. The agency of individuals such as a traveler or trader keeping foreign money in his or her pouch or special circumstances like troop movement could also move a coin over far distances. For example, Roman denarii and aurei have been found as far east as India and way beyond the northern Roman frontier.54 At these intervals, the coins may have held no value as money, or they may have become a store of wealth or token dependent upon their intrinsic or cultural value. Even as coins differed in where they moved or circulated, how long they remained active as currency also varied with some estimates stretching as long as several centuries after production.55 A host of factors influenced the longevity of a circulating coin.56 On one end of the spectrum are the actions of an individual person, who accidentally or intentionally removed a coin from use. A single coin’s qualities could also have an effect. A coin worn beyond recognition could have limited value and thereby pass out of circulation. A lost bronze coin might not be worth the effort of recovery, whereas another coin could be selected for hoarding because of its high value. On the other end of the spectrum is the influence of governmental policy. A coin could be taken out of circulation through demonetization, whereby a coin was officially devalued and then withdrawn for remelting or discarded; both political and economic factors could be behind this decision.57 Alternatively, an older or worn coin could be reissued after its original circulation through the application of a countermark, which added a new guarantee of its value.58 A coin could travel beyond the territorial limits of a guaranteeing authority, possibly rendering it valueless and causing it to be cast aside.59 Rising distrust either in the value of a coin or the political authority behind its issue could also affect the longevity of circulation. For Syrian coins in particular, Kevin Butcher studied hoard data in conjunction with countermark evidence to estimate the longevity of

54 55 56 57

Turner 1989, 6–24; Howgego 1995, 102–105; Berger 1996, 55–61. Casey 1986, 105; Lockyear 2007, 218–219. Compare with Cole 1976. See the summaries in Butcher 2001–2002, 24–40; Katsari 2011, 20–23. 58 59 Burnett 1987, 33; Butcher 2004, 150–151. GICM, 4–14. Butcher 2001–2002, 40.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

29

30

Counting Change

specific coins as currency.60 For instance, reforms in the silver content of coins at the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and at the outset of Severan rule appear to have gradually driven out earlier issues from circulation (Chapters 4 and 5). The longevity of bronze coins in circulation proved more difficult to appraise since few bronze hoards before the third century CE have been recorded. The meager evidence for the region does suggest a general pattern of first-century CE coins disappearing from the circulating currency pool by the reign of Trajan and second-century CE material absent from hoards of the third century CE. Rough though this estimate is, it could mean that individual coins struck at Antioch continued circulating for at least a century at a time. It is equally possible, however, that other coins from the mint – for reasons of demonetization or recycling – had a much shorter window of movement.

Stage Three: Loss At some point during or after use, these coins became lost to the archaeological record. A coin reached this stage through either intentional or unintentional deposition by the owner.61 One person might ritually deposit coins at a temple or bury a stash in a hoard during a moment of crisis and subsequently fail to recover it. An individual or a family could build up a stash of coins over time as a savings hoard.62 Another person might discard a stray coin after it had lost its value through demonetization.63 A coin could fall accidentally out of a bag or hand and not be recovered until modern discovery. Only in certain exceptions do we know the exact circumstances of a coin’s loss.

Stage Four: Recovery Once lost, coins are recovered through systematic excavation or by accident and as a single find or within a larger hoard. The quantities retrieved through these methods vary widely, from a handful of isolated finds to assemblages numbering in the thousands. The quality of these recovered coins also ranges. As an active part of day-to-day life, coins often wore through use and circulation before being discarded or lost.64 Even if in 60 61 62 64

Butcher 2004, 180–190. Reece 1993, 343–344; Butcher 2001–2002, 31; Kemmers 2006, 136–141. 63 See Casey 1986, 51–57; Christiansen 2004, 15–16. Butcher 2004, 150–151. E.g., Duncan-Jones 1994, 180–192.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Defining Coin Finds

mint condition when lost, years encased in dirt render many coins illegible or only partially legible even after cleaning.65 Each stage of this life cycle and taphonomy – from production through recovery – affects the data available for study.66 Although this project is ultimately concerned with the circulation of coins, like most numismatic projects, it actually studies the distribution of coin finds. Archaeological techniques, research goals, and coverage differ from site to site and potentially affect how many coins are recovered in which context and condition.67 Most sites are never completely excavated, leaving open the possibility that further work will dramatically alter the recovered assemblage.68 The majority of hoards are found by accident or through looting and often sold with little to no information about their original location or environment.69 Whatever the means of their recovery, these coins represent an unknown fraction of what was originally lost to the archaeological record.70 This in turn is a fraction of what originally circulated in the ancient world, which is tied to the uncertain quantity originally minted by the issuing authority. It is impossible to know what exactly happens to individual coins within each stage or to fully counter the effect each circumstance might have on the archaeological record. However strong the temptation is to count coin finds as a direct and exact measurement of the ancient economy, this survey should cause significant hesitation. Pointing out the realities of an imperfect artifact class shaped by imprecise behaviors and conditions still does not render any analysis of coin finds futile. Quite the contrary, the coins can be analyzed according to metal content, issuing authority, iconographical type, issue date, coin origin, where a coin was finally found, and the size of assemblage in which a coin was discovered. This information alone can suggest a great deal about the decisions of the issuing authorities and the nature of the movement of these coins, especially against a backdrop of other evidence from the ancient world. Furthermore, if we remain open to alternative possibilities and comfortable with the absence of absolute numbers, even more information can be cautiously inferred from the aggregate patterns both large and small. For example, several previous studies recommend that a relationship does exist 65 66

67 69 70

See Katsari 2011, 21. For an excellent discussion of observable data vs. unobservable data in regard to coin finds, see Collis 1988, 190–194. 68 Reece 1993, 341–345; Wheatley and Gillings 2002, 84–86. See Kemmers 2006, 14–15. Christiansen 2004, 17–18; Duyrat 2016, 261–270. In his study of the fort at Corbridge, Casey (1986, 84) estimated a recovery of only 0.003% of the original body of Roman coin.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

31

32

Counting Change

between what coins have been found, what coins were lost, and what coins were available for loss.71 With few exceptions, strikingly similar assemblages of coin finds throughout Great Britain have led numismatists to hypothesize that the common factor at these sites is the body of coins once supplied to and circulating within the whole province.72 A more recent statistical analysis of modern, low-value coin finds gathered along the streets of Britain by Douglas Newton discovered a strong correlation between what he picked up and what was currently in circulation.73 Newton was greatly advantaged by modern records and controls over the original body in circulation; he also did not consider modern paper currency in higher values. However, if an analogy can be made to the ancient world without such records, then we should more confidently consider coin finds in most cases as qualified representatives of general patterns of ancient circulation.74 That said, the gaps in our knowledge about ancient Antioch and the coinage of the eastern Mediterranean have also made me hesitant to go far beyond an analysis of the aggregate distribution patterns and the significance of different issuing authorities and iconography for the history of this city. The following work is not intended to be a full monetary history, a discussion of the health and wealth of the Syrian economy based upon the coin finds, or even a study of the monetization of the Middle East. No attempt has been made here to calculate original production size of the Antiochene mint(s), nor has any die or metallurgy study been conducted.75 This may prove unsatisfying to certain readers, but a responsibility exists to respect and present the current state of the evidence, even with the hopes that future researchers will expand this knowledge. The goals of this book are instead to fulfill the need for a comprehensive examination of the distribution of coins produced by the different political authorities at Antioch during antiquity, as well as to tie this evidence into an integrated history of the people at and in relationship with the ancient city.

Defining a Methodology for Coin Finds Having established the nature of coins as historical evidence, we must now turn to the decisions made in assembling and analyzing the finds considered 71

72 73 75

For a survey of studies assuming this correlation, see Newton 2006, 214–215. See the cautions of Ryan 1988, 32–37. See Casey 1986, 68–113; Reece 1993, 342–343. See also Lockyear 2000, 397. 74 Newton 2006, 211–227. See Christiansen 2004, 22. On metallurgy, see Butcher and Ponting 2014.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Defining a Methodology for Coin Finds

within this book. Well over 300,000 coin finds have been entered into a database according to where each coin was recovered and originally minted, the political authority who issued the coin, the date range during which a coin was minted, the coin’s metal, the coin’s type (iconography, legends), the quantity of coins of a specific type at a particular location, and any other distinguishing features such as countermarks (for a detailed discussion of these variables, see Appendix 1).76 This total does not consist of only coins produced at Antioch, but rather a wide variety of issues minted by cities, communities, kingdoms, and empires, which were found in whole assemblages throughout the Mediterranean and the Middle East. These assemblages come predominately from official excavation reports and published lists of coin hoards (Figs. 1.1 and 1.2). In order to construct a comprehensive survey of coin distribution in the ancient world, at least two excavation reports represent most provinces and regions from the east to the west. Many more additional reports have been gathered for the greater Levant and for Syria in particular, given their proximity to Antioch (see Appendix 2). Because hoards are often found outside of such official archaeological projects, comprehensive lists gathered by other scholars detailing hoards from excavations, museum collections, and commerce have also been included with due care paid to their less than systematic acquisition (Appendix 3).77 The overall goal was not to put together an exhaustive list of every coin minted at Antioch ever found, but rather to compile as inclusive survey and representative dataset as currently possible. Both types of publications are important sources for the study of Antioch’s mint(s), as excavations most often recover isolated finds in base metals, whereas hoards – found within and outside of excavation – provide a better source for silver finds collected and deposited together.78 Other scholars have proposed methods using alternative collections, but these two sources most consistently deliver the information needed for a nuanced distribution study.79 Put another way,

76

77 78

79

This quantity does not quite constitute “big data,” but it has the potential to become part of such a set. See Meadows and Gruber 2014; Gattiglia 2015, 113–124. E.g., IGCH 1973; CH 1975–2010; CHRE; Britain’s PAS; Butcher 2004, Appendix 1; Duyrat 2016. Single finds found through excavation are more likely to be made of base metals, rather than silver or gold. As smaller coins of low value, base metal pieces were not only harder to see when dropped but were also not always worth the effort of recovery. Higher-valued coins did prompt searching, leading to far fewer of these coins succumbing to a “casual” loss. See Casey 1986, 70–72; Reece 1993, 341–342; Newton 2006. E.g., Wigg-Wolf 2009 advocates for casual finds above all other sources. Walton 2011 applied the data from Britain’s PAS, which records coin finds discovered by the general public. Hobley (1998, 1–2) did use museum catalogs, as did Butcher (2004, 151–173) and Katsari (2011, 31–33).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

33

34

Counting Change

(a)

(b)

(c) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Ain Sinu Alesia Alexandria Andriake (Myra) Antioch Apamea Aphrodisias Arsameia Athens Bath Berytus Bethsaida Caesarea Maritima Carthage Conimbriga Corinth Cosa Cyrene Dura Europos Elaiussa Sebaste En-Gedi Ephesus Gamla Gindaros /Tarsus Haltonchesters

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

Hama Hierapolis Histria Horvat 'Eleq Idanha-a-Velha Jaffa Jebel Khalid Jerash Jerusalem Karanis Kourion Masada Minturnae Nessana Nicopolis ad Istrum Niksar Nimrud Ordona Oumm el-Marra Palmyra Paneas Paphos Pella Pergamum Perrhe Qiryat Sefer Ras Shamra

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Reims Sabratha Sagalassos Samaria-Sebaste Sardis Segobriga Seleucia on the Tigris Seleucia Pieria Si Side Silchester Susa Tall amad Tel Anafa Tel Beth-Shean Tel Jezreel Tell Abou Tell el Hajj Tell Rifa'at Tille Troy Tyre Vindonissa Zeugma

Fig. 1.1 The location of excavation sites with coin reports examined in this study: (a) Full map of excavation sites; (b) close-up of Levantine sites; (c) map key. Each number corresponds with a site name. See also Appendix 2 for full details.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Fig. 1.2 The location of hoards containing Antioch coins with burial dates between 300 BCE and 450 CE. See Appendix 3 for full details.

35

36

Counting Change

excavation records and hoard lists allow a coin to be identified by who produced it, when it was minted, and in what context it was found. Having this last piece of information is especially key because it allows for a better determination of whether a single coin is an anomaly or a normal find for a particular locality or region. To this end, every effort has been made to include as many coins as possible from each of these publications according to guidelines further detailed in Appendix 1.80 Alongside the advantages of using these publications lie several challenges or cautions. Selection of excavation reports and hoard evidence is greatly constrained by what is available. Larger site assemblages of single coin finds were given preference, although much smaller collections had to be included from the eastern Mediterranean for the sake of coverage. Gaps persist – especially for Cappadocia, Galatia, and Cilicia – which future, detailed publication will hopefully correct. Furthermore, no standard system for coin reporting currently exists, which allows numismatists, archaeologists, and – in the case of many of the hoards – antiquities dealers to deviate greatly in how they publish their finds.81 It can be difficult to rectify this information, especially in light of confusing or outdated identifications and lack of specific detail.82 For example, as mentioned in the introduction to this book, individual coins are often dated by when they were first minted whereas hoards are given a single deposit date.83 Sometimes a precise date is provided in either case, but several publications provide only approximate periods. Additionally problematic is the reattribution of specific coins to new mints or issuing cities, which causes a discrepancy between old and new publications.84 As it was not possible to reexamine many of these assemblages, I was forced to rely upon these identifications rather than the actual coins themselves; mistakes are therefore likely albeit limited. Finally, even in a systematic excavation, the illegibility of some of the coins – such as lacking mint identification or date of issue – discounts them from further study. The general rule applied here is to include excavation reports only if they published all the coins recovered with details about an individual coin’s mint of origin/issuing authority and general find spot. Due consideration is 80 82

83

84

81 See also Neumann and Wallrodt 2017, 41–46. Guest 2012, 108. Where possible – especially for coins minted at Antioch – updates have been provided (e.g., Carradice and Cowell 1987). This is the case both with IGCH and the CH volumes. Individual publications of hoards can offer more detail. For example, see Chapter 4 for the reattribution of second-century CE silver from Tyre to Antioch.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Defining a Methodology for Coin Finds

paid to different site histories, both in terms of what function each space served (e.g., military, commercial, rural), activities that took place there, and how long they were occupied. The less-than-ideal condition in which hoards are often found and reported means that some of this data may be only partially provided.85 Still, considering all the potential factors uniquely shaping each assemblage, it is even more noteworthy when regional patterns do emerge. Once assembled, what to do with the data has been a subject of tremendous debate within scholarship.86 Questions abound including how to compare disparate assemblages of coin finds, how many coin finds are needed to constitute evidence of circulation, and how to deal with chronological divisions. A favored – albeit inconsistent and problematic – method is the Annual Average Coin Loss Equation, which purports to level assemblages of vastly different sizes and irregular time divisions.87 Other scholars have demonstrated the efficacy of applying more complex statistical models to numismatic data, such as correspondence analysis, regression analysis, or chi-square tests.88 Most scholars admit that each method has its own quirks and more work is needed to revise and improve these applications to archaeological data.89 Because of the complex and peculiar nature of the evidence examined in this study, I have chosen to follow the approach of Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA).90 Pioneered by the statistician John W. Tukey in the 1970s, EDA is a methodology that emphasizes open and assumption-free

85 87

88

89

90

86 See Duyrat 2016, 286–289. See Lockyear 2000, 397–399; Lockyear 2007, 216–218. Extended by Casey (1988, 41) from the original formula of Ravetz (1964, 206), the average amount of coins “lost” per reign is calculated by dividing the amount of finds of a certain time period by the number of years in that period. The equation then scales that “annual average coin loss” to the total amount of coins found on site to a hypothetical base of 1,000. The equation printed in Casey (1988, 41), however, is different from that printed in Casey (1986, 88–89); Casey’s 1986 textual explanation of the formula also differs from the illustrated example. Katsari (2011, 30) modified Casey’s first formula to a hypothetical base of 100 coins. Evans (2006, 63) accepted Casey’s second equation. With other recent publications, it is unclear which equation – Casey’s first, second, or adaptation of either – has been used (see Lönnqvist and Lönnqvist 2006, 128; Krmnicek 2008, 252). Beyond this confusion, there are deeper problems of effacing the reality of the evidence (coin loss vs. coin finds), scaling much smaller assemblages to a fictional base of 1,000 finds, creating the illusion of even minting, and misapplying Ravetz’s approach to more complicated datasets. Compare with the “per mill” calculation (see Reece 1995). E.g., Lockyear 2000, 2013; Evans 2006; Kemmers 2006; Walton 2011; Iossif 2016. For the application of statistics to archaeological material, see Orton 1980; Drennan 1996; Baxter 2003. See Lockyear 2000, 419–420; Evans 2006, 27. See also the critiques of Esty 2005 on the challenges of applying statistics to hoard data. A straightforward introduction to this approach is available at “Exploratory Data Analysis,” NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods, www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

37

38

Counting Change

exploration of a whole dataset and its underlying structure through alternative graphical and other visual techniques (e.g., histograms, stem-andleaf plots, boxplots, quantile-quantile plots) as the first step of analysis.91 Described another way, EDA can be viewed as “a return to the original goals of statistics, i.e. detecting and describing patterns, trends, and relationships in data.”92 Through exploration in multiple formats and from different perspectives, EDA generates a solid understanding of all the data first – even the unexpected, the problematic, and the outlying – which in turn refines questions posed and opens new paths of research. Unlike a Classical or Bayesian approach, the data – primarily in raw form and secondarily in summary form – generate hypotheses and determine which further statistical methods are most appropriate to apply.93 Likewise, new data can be safely added to the dataset without fear of breaking the model. EDA’s focus on flexibility toward datasets and visualization has found favor within certain archaeological circles, especially those working with GIS and spatial analysis.94 This statistical methodology does not merely confirm what is otherwise known, but rather forces detailed examination of the material in new and commonsense ways. The approach of EDA proved ideal for this current study because it supports the search for patterns, connections, and outliers within the assembled numismatic dataset as it currently exists. The flexibility offered by EDA’s techniques helps to mitigate what can be very frustrating material, taking into account all the different considerations outlined above. EDA does not misrepresent or hide the gaps and problems that remain. The approach may seem simple, but it nevertheless yields significant and robust conclusions. Additionally, the search for patterns without rigid parameters aligns well with the major goal of this project – to determine the distribution of different coins minted at Antioch over time with consideration of the distinct issuing authorities. The lack of documentary sources describing individual practices within cities and communities creates a great deal of ambiguity over whether the presence of a coin find at a particular site signifies circulation or movement due to other causes. On one end of the spectrum, a single coin has been considered “insufficient evidence” for circulation at a particular location, or at least not worthy of the “same

91 92 94

Tukey 1977; see also Hoaglin, Mosteller, and Tukey 2000. 93 Andrienko and Andrienko 2006, 3. Compare with Cohen 1994. E.g., Wheatley and Gillings 2002, 142–143. See also Drennan 1996, vi; Baxter 2003; Conolly and Lake 2006, 112–148.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Defining a Methodology for Coin Finds

weight as cities represented by two or more coins.”95 On the other end of the spectrum, the presence of “many coins” of a single issuing authority can be “reasonably assumed” to indicate circulation.96 How many coins in between a single find and many finds constitute sufficient evidence for circulation is thereby left open. EDA addresses this problem by not imposing a one-rule-fits-all standard for measuring circulation, but instead reveals zones where circulation is or is not likely as well as outliers whose movement may be attributed to other factors. Appendix 1 details the specific graphical techniques and tools applied to this material in addition to offering examples using the Hellenistic coin dataset. In sum, normal probability plots were used in order to uncover the distribution and spread of the material both in regard to overall assemblages and the presence of Antioch coins in each assemblage. Transforming raw counts of coin assemblages into their binary logarithms (logarithms using 2 as a base, instead of the common base of 10; 23 = 8 [(base) (power)= (raw count of coins)]) helped scale differently sized assemblages into a manageable range, both to test for normality and to determine the least amount of coins necessary per assemblage for a statistically relevant sample.97 In other words, this process identified how many finds in each assemblage are needed in order to make a worthwhile comparison for a particular dataset (e.g., Eight? Twenty?). The EDA approach and the many techniques under its umbrella do not set hard and fast rules to these parameters, but rather fluctuate according to the structure of a particular dataset.98 These graphical techniques also helped to determine what further, complex statistical models could be applied or if they could even offer new information; in many cases, the data studied here are too limited to go far beyond summary or descriptive statistics. Finally, EDA encourages a spatial examination of the dataset.99 Charting coin finds on a map according to the different variables cuts through the

95 97 98

99

96 Butcher 2001–2002, 40; Butcher 2013, 7. Syon 2015, 49; see also Howgego 1995, 89. See Drennan 1996, 51–61. Assemblage size has long been a matter of debate. Collis (1988, 192) considered the threshold point to be 1,500 coins. Casey (1986, 89) argued that at least 200 coins per assemblage were needed, whereas Walton (2011, 50) applied her statistical analysis only to assemblages of over 100 coins. Katsari (2011, 26–27) and Wigg-Wolf (2009, 116) both argued for the representative qualities of at least twenty finds, though Wigg-Wolf insisted these coins must be found randomly. Hobley (1998, 1) established a criterion of at least twenty coins per emperor. Duncan-Jones (1999, 64–65) set his minimum at fifty coins per emperor, but limited himself to only examining coin hoards. On the value of a spatial imagination, see Shennan 1997, 21; Bodenhamer 2008, 223–225; Knowles 2008, 18.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

39

40

Counting Change

noise created by a massive and complex dataset and highlights otherwise overlooked geographical patterns in their distribution. Digital visualization platforms improve this perspective further (see Appendix 1), as they provide a less restrictive space than a two-dimensional map to work through the data.100 While it is impossible to translate all of the virtues of these graphical techniques and interactive platforms to a print volume, the most notable visuals have been included in the following chapters.101 With exploration and the search for aggregate patterns at the forefront, the datasets in the following chapters are treated according to the following processes. Silver coin finds are predominately studied as a separate dataset apart from bronze finds to see whether their greater inherent value expanded their circulation. Given the different activities governing their loss, the contents of hoards are also generally examined as a dataset independently of single, isolated finds recovered through excavation. Additionally, after experimentation, the coins have ultimately been partitioned into chronological groupings of roughly 100–200-year periods in order to account for broader political, social, and economic events, as well as the complex minting histories of Antioch and, to a lesser degree, the eastern Mediterranean. This is an admittedly imperfect division, especially considering that the coin finds from excavations are dated by the year or period of minting/issuing rather than the date of loss like the hoards. As discussed earlier, lengthy circulation and residuality could potentially have kept coins struck at Antioch in use long past their minting date and the artificial periods of this study.102 To account for this possibility, where the information is available, the stratigraphic context of coin finds has been considered to see which issues may have circulated together.103 Where appropriate, the date range of coins found in a single hoard has also been 100

101

102 103

On tools, see Andrienko and Andrienko 2006, 163–165. The challenge to many distribution studies has been in the spatial representation (e.g., Duyrat 2016, 21). Syon 2015 represents an inventive workaround. On the complexities of translating large datasets and their graphical representation to print, see the models of Ryan 1988; Nicklas 1995; Hobley 1998. Noeske (2000) has one volume of commentary, one volume of listed site and hoard finds, and one volume of loose illustrations and graphs. See also Lockyear 2012, 195–196. Compare with Kemmers 2006, 23–28. Although stratigraphic information for coin finds was generally rare, it was included in publications from Jebel Khalid (Nixon 2002), Berytus (Butcher 2001–2002), and Caesarea Maritima (Evans 2006). For current work on the stratigraphy of coin finds excavated at Antioch, see Stahl 2017. Subsequent activity on site can still easily disturb a coin from its original stratum, which may not be recognized or noted by the excavation. This in turn somewhat tempers the reliability of using stratigraphy to date a coin’s use and loss (see Beliën 2009, 74).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Defining a Methodology for Coin Finds

taken into consideration in accordance with the pattern proposed by Butcher mentioned earlier.104 In the end, it must be assumed with good reason that more coins were available for loss closer to their minting date than later; even where residuality occurred, many coins for reasons of wear, loss, and reissue did exit the currency pool over time.105 Wide chronological periods will hopefully capture broad circulation patterns or “coinuse periods” reflected in the coin finds.106 Finally, in the chapters that follow, the data are presented both as raw counts and as percentages of the total assemblage dated to a particular time period.107 Both summary tables and maps have been provided. The maps depicting raw data have not been labeled according to individual excavation site or hoard in order to lend a clearer summary of the distribution. However, all mapped visualizations of the statistically relevant assemblages in percentage form have been individually labeled for further examination. Both visualizations in raw count and summary percentages are used to suggest where coins moved and where they presumably circulated. As a general principle, however, raw counts can show the presence or absence of a coin, but they cannot always define the significance of the find. For example, 10 coins struck at Antioch could have been found at both Site A and Site B, but their relative significance differs if Site A only yielded 30 total finds with Antioch coins representing 33%, whereas Site B yielded 300 with Antioch coins representing 3%. As such, the percentage represented by coins minted at Antioch within individual assemblages is strongly relied upon to help identify circulation. There are still no hard and fast rules for the percentage needed to indicate circulation, which is why larger regional patterns of distribution are also important as well as the wider historical context. Individual sites from province A may repeatedly reveal less than 10% of coins minted at Antioch within their assemblages, whereas sites from province B may show over 40%. While the nature of the evidence does not rule out circulation of Antioch coins in both provinces, it is possible to conclude that Antioch coins were a less important part of currency in province A and may have moved into the region for other reasons. In such circumstances, it also proves helpful to consider where the 104

105 106 107

In a few cases, a single hoard is considered twice: once as the end of a chronological period and once as the start of a chronological period. Collis 1988, 194; see also Cole 1976. See Lockyear 2007, 218–221; Lockyear 2012, 197–198. E.g., number of coins of single mint or type from time period T excavated at site S / total number of coins from time period T excavated at site S = percentage represented by coin type or mint.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

41

42

Counting Change

coins of other Syrian cities appear as a point of comparison to the issues minted at Antioch. Conversely, in certain periods, the Antiochians’ own civic coins may represent a minor portion of the overall assemblage at Antioch. It is highly unlikely that these civic coins did not function as currency within the city, but it is worth asking why their intensity is so low compared to other periods. No easy guidelines exist for evaluating any of the assemblages. However, exploring the data in their individual and regional contexts provides the best method currently available for understanding where coins struck at Antioch circulated and where they moved for other reasons.

Conclusion In the end, the main goal of this methodology is to identify aggregate patterns and not absolute numbers. Some of these patterns have been previously assumed, but not conclusively demonstrated or visualized. Furthermore, a need exists for opening new angles into studying ancient Antioch and its inhabitants. The coins offer both a qualitative and quantitative standard by which change for the city of Antioch can be measured over time and space. While this approach may leave some numismatists or historians unsatisfied, it provides maximum flexibility for the evidence as it currently stands with the full expectation that further publication will continue to refine the results presented here.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

2

|

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

Antiochus known as Epiphanes (“the Illustrious”) was also called Epimanes (“the Madman”) because of his actions . . . Sometimes after escaping his attendants and fleeing the palace court, he would be seen wandering here and there around the city [of Antioch] with two or three companions. But he was especially to be found among the silver and goldsmiths, arguing and chatting about the intricacies of art in the presence of the relief sculptors and other craftsmen. Afterwards, condescending to join together with common people, he would associate with whomever he happened upon, and would even drink with the lowest foreigner. And when he noticed any of the young men feasting together, without making a peep he would present himself by riotously bounding in with a horn and band, with the result that many ran away in terror because of his unexpected appearance. And many times, after stowing away his royal clothing and taking up a toga, he would go down to the agora and canvass as if for a magistracy, shaking their hands, and while hugging them, he would entreat them to vote for him, sometimes to become the overseer of the market, and sometimes to become an administrator of the people. —Polybius 26.1.1–5

According to the ancient historian Polybius, the Seleucid king Antiochus IV was wont to wander the streets of Antioch in the early second century BCE and mingle frenetically with a diversity of people. Polybius relays this ritual to illustrate the madness of the king, but in doing so, the historian also provides a tantalizing glimpse into the inner workings of the city and the everyday lives of its people during the Hellenistic period. Foreigners residing within Antioch are mentioned in this passage as well as musicians, silversmiths and goldsmiths, craftsmen, and locals in their workshops and at the agora.1 The operations of a civic government also manifest through their cooption by the king’s bizarre candidacy. Even though this passage was supposed to characterize Antiochus, its strange juxtaposition of king

1

Polyb. 26; see also Diod. Sic. 29.32.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

43

44

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

and citizens also serves to distinguish Hellenistic Antioch as simultaneously a Seleucid imperial center and city of the Antiochians. The first part of this characterization – being Seleucid – meant that Hellenistic Antioch was part of an initially vast eastern empire lasting from the early 300s BCE to Roman annexation in 64 BCE.2 In broad outline, the original boundaries of the Seleucid Empire stretched across diverse peoples and territories from modern Turkey through northern Syria into Afghanistan. The Macedonian general Seleucus I had battled with his rival generals to define these limits following the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE. In the 200-plus years that followed, Seleucus’s successor kings fiercely fought with neighboring kings like the Ptolemies in Egypt as well as among themselves to retain this empire. The boundaries reached their greatest extent under Antiochus III in the later third century BCE, as he not only reclaimed territory east and west previously lost, but even added, for the first time, southern Syria, Phoenicia, and Judea.3 His miscalculation against the Romans and their allies, however, resulted in the Peace of Apamea in 188 BCE, which abolished all Seleucid control west of the Taurus Mountains. By 129 BCE, the empire had contracted into Syria with losses to the Parthians in the east and the emergent Hasmonean state to the south.4 That Hellenistic Antioch was an imperial center for this empire – the second characterization prompted by Polybius’s account – meant that it offered a strategic location and the proper amenities for the Seleucid kings to administer effectively.5 Antioch’s position in northern Syria offered prime access to routes connecting the Mediterranean with Seleucid holdings further to the east and south.6 Internally, in addition to the natural resources provided by Antioch’s landscape, the kings also enhanced the city through multiple building and beautification projects.7 Although ancient and modern writers including Glanville Downey readily apply “capital” to Antioch soon after its foundation by Seleucus I in 300 BCE, the modern connotations of the word are not entirely appropriate either for the structure of the Seleucid state or for Antioch’s early history.8 Seleucid monarchs were largely itinerant and had a number 2

3 5 7 8

On the Seleucids generally, see Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993; Capdetrey 2007. For a concise summary of this period and territory, see Walbank 1993, 123–140; Kosmin 2014, 3–24. 4 Green 1990, 288–305, 422–424. See Sartre 2005, 11–16, 25–26. 6 See Martinez-Sève 2004, 21–38. Cohen 2006, 83; Kosmin 2014, 13, 142–147. Downey 1963, 29–63; De Giorgi 2016, 40–44, 54–64. See Strootman 2014, 66–70. On Antioch as “capital” initially, see Str. 16.2.5; Lib. Or. 11.104; Newell 1941 [1977], 383; Downey 1961, 56–66.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

of locations throughout their wide empire where they, their entourage, and the administration lived and operated.9 The mobile monarch moved not simply because of war and instability, but as a shrewd policy to engage and control an enormous empire. Furthermore, as will be explored in this chapter, Antioch only assumed special prominence over time as it outgrew its neighbors in size and grandeur and the shrinking borders of the Seleucid Empire necessitated the kings’ greater reliance upon it. More than just an imperial location, Hellenistic Antioch was designed by the Seleucids to be a city – the third characterization in Polybius’s narrative. When Seleucus and his successors claimed their empire, they inherited the Persians’ reliance on a varied system of different political statuses and adaptable organization rather than a completely unified or homogenous government to keep order.10 The challenge for the Seleucids was how to construct a stable structure within these borders, which would connect, govern, and exploit the heterogeneous population under their control while fending off looming powers at the edges.11 While the Seleucids ably maintained the Achaemenid system of oversight through satrapies governed by loyal agents either Greek or indigenous, they also embarked upon an “unprecedented” colonization project to build up a reliable network for the royal government’s political, military, and economic use.12 Extending both east and west along strategic routes, the early kings established some cities ex nihilo with a mixture of Greek, Macedonian, and local veterans and settlers, while other indigenous settlements were reorganized and even relocated. Seleucid cities were not monumental urban centers with prominent civic buildings, but were defined by their practicality.13 Small “fortified settlements” provided much needed security in strategic locations, whereas “large, grid-planned” cities had the additional function of placing both the administration and the western settlers into a more familiar urban setting.14 Municipal institutions – which in the western empire meant the magistrates, boule, and demos of the Greek polis – alleviated pressure on the Seleucid kings by largely governing the internal operations of the city, its

9 10 12

13 14

Martinez-Sève 2004, 26–29; Capdetrey 2007, 359–383; Kosmin 2014, 142–180, 222–223. 11 Tuplin 1987, 109–137, 157–158. See Grainger 1990, 47, 54–57. van der Spek 2007, 433. On colonization, see also Walbank 1993, 133–140; Aperghis 2004, 89–99; Kosmin 2014, 183–192. On Seleucid royal agents, see Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 40–52; Capdetrey 2007, 277–327; Sartre 2001, 165–186. Bowersock 1994, 168–170; Butcher 2003, 228. Kosmin 2014, 200–207; see also Sartre 2001, 127. Compare with Grainger 1990, 91–100.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

45

46

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

population, and its hinterland.15 In addition to managing people, these cities and their municipal institutions also served as economic focal points for the goods produced in the surrounding agricultural fields and villages.16 Because the framework of the Seleucid government allowed for this measure of internal governance, these cities developed into more than simple pawns feeding into the royal authority.17 Instead, as civic administrators cultivated their own communities, a local sense of identity and agency grew which was somewhat distinct from the operations of the royal government.18 Herein lies the fourth characterization of Hellenistic Antioch garnered from Polybius’s account: a city of the Antiochians. More than the king and his men occupied Antioch, as the available textual evidence portrays people continuing to move in, out, and around the city for both royal and nonroyal purposes. Merchant and craftsman, intellectual and religious, rich and slave, foreigner and local, filled the city and populated its different communities.19 The political demos – long in existence – materializes in forming intercity alliances, throwing its weight behind rival royal rulers, and celebrating its own identity as Antiochene.20 It is this body that remained in place at Antioch when the Seleucid Empire finally fell in the first century BCE (see Chapter 3). From Antioch’s very inception and continuing throughout the Hellenistic period, both royal and civic authorities coexisted within its walls. What remains to be established is the degree to which these two administrations of kings and Antiochians respectively shaped the operations within Antioch before the loss of significant Seleucid territory in the years leading up to 129 BCE.21 We must distinguish the development and influence of both authorities within this formative period, especially if we are to understand the city’s later history. In this chapter, I argue that such a reevaluation of Hellenistic Antioch is enhanced by an integration of the period’s numismatic data alongside other textual and historical material. This cumulative evidence first brings to light the slow maturation of the city into a capital or imperial center for

15

16 17

18 19 20

21

Local governmental institutions differed through the Seleucid Empire; see Capdetrey 2007, 209–224. On the Greek polis in general, see Herman Hansen 2006. van der Spek 2007, 414. See Ma 1999, 150–153; Andrade 2013, 41. Grainger (1990, 198) takes an unnecessarily negative view of Seleucid urban development. Kosmin 2014, 222. Polyb. 30.25–27; Malalas 10.235–236; Joseph. BJ 7.43–44, AJ 12.119–120; OGIS 244. Just. Epit. 35.1; Joseph. AJ 13.108–142; Diod. Sic. 32.9c, 33.4. See also Downey 1961, 119–126; Kosmin 2014, 242–248. For the cutoff date of 129 BCE, see Aperghis 2004, 27, 190.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Establishing Antioch

the Seleucid state. In particular, the evolution of royal coin production at Antioch reflects the larger formation of Seleucid policy and the eventual elevation of the city as essential to the kings’ rule. The influence of Seleucid rule is reinforced by a holistic study of the distribution and circulation of royal coins both within Antioch and throughout the vast territory of the ancient Middle East. These patterns represent a visual expression of the power and scope of the Seleucid kings and their changing imperial borders with Antioch and its mint increasingly at the center. Although care must be taken neither to overstate the intentionality of the Seleucids toward to their monetary policy nor to suggest a monocausal explanation for the movement of coins, the distribution of the finds nevertheless speaks again to Seleucid policies and governance of Antioch and the world of which it was a part. As the Seleucids progressively relied upon Antioch, the periodic issue of civic coins attests to the simultaneous development of the Antiochians as a distinct civic body with its own identity and agency. That said, the numismatic and other historical evidence equally manifests how much the inhabitants of Antioch were within the Seleucid administration’s political, economic, and social orbit. Seleucid policies and influence greatly overshadowed the citizens’ activities and connections to the region and wider world. This dynamic would set the stage for all future interactions between an outside imperial power making use of Antioch and the identity and agency of the Antiochians themselves within the city.

Establishing Antioch Although the ancient writers spun elaborate mythical backstories for the place that would become Antioch, the story of the city actually begins with Seleucus I in 300 BCE.22 According to legend, the king came to the Orontes Valley having just established his vast empire. Unsure of his next steps, he made two sacrifices to Zeus – the divine protector of the Seleucid dynasty – and prayed the god would direct him.23 Each time a request was made, Zeus sent an eagle down, which carried the sacrificial meat to where he should build a city. Upon the eagle’s second flight, Zeus made known the location where Seleucus would lay the first walls of Antioch. Omens also led Seleucus I to the nearby suburb of Daphne, so named after the maiden whom the god Apollo pursued until she transformed into a tree. The king dedicated the suburb as a sanctuary to Apollo, who served 22

E.g., Lib. Or. 11.44–76.

23

Downey 1961, 67–68.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

47

48

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

as another patron deity of the Seleucids.24 Both the beauty of the place and the king’s investment were enough to prompt contemporary references in the third century BCE to use the toponym Antioch near Daphne.25 Alongside Zeus and Apollo, the Hellenistic goddess Tyche also oversaw the fate of Seleucus I’s new foundation.26 She enjoyed vast popularity in the Greek East, where she frequently served as both a protective deity and personification of a city’s fortune with her head adorned by a standard crown made of city walls (aka mural crown). In Antioch, however, she took on unique form by way of a statue created by the Greek artist Eutychides during the reign of Seleucus I.27 Based upon later copies of the original work, Antioch’s Tyche sits on a mountainous rock – much like the city she represents – and holds agricultural goods in her hands as a symbol of fertility.28 The torso of a young man emerges from the stream of water at her feet and serves as a personification of the Orontes River. With such divine involvement, there could be no doubt to later Antiochians that the gods favorably guided and guarded their city’s foundation.29 Stepping away from legend and the divine, Seleucus I founded Antioch as part of his master plan for the colonization of Syria.30 This region was not devoid of settlement, but the king made a distinctive statement in the north with the establishment of four cities named after himself, his father Antiochus, his mother Laodicea, and his wife Apamea.31 Known collectively as the Tetrapolis, this quartet comprised Antioch in one corner joined by the inland city of Apamea and the newly created harbors of Seleucia Pieria and Laodicea ad Mare (see Fig. 0.1).32 As a unit, all four cities revolutionized the political and commercial landscape of northwestern Syria by opening up new ports and naval bases along the dangerous coast and capitalizing on the nexus of ancient transportation and communication routes running between Egypt and Anatolia as well as between the 24

25 26

27

28 30 31

32

E.g., Lib. Or. 11.94–100. On Apollo, see Golenko 1993, 85; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 27–28; Wright 2005, 69. Downey 1961, 62–63, 82–86; Habicht 1992, 50–51; Cohen 2006, 91–92. On the importance of the goddess Tyche to the Hellenistic age, see Pollitt 1986, 1–4; Kondoleon 2000, 116–120. Paus. 6.2.7; Malalas 8.201. On the dating of the statue, Pliny the Elder (HN 34.51) suggests the artist flourished in the 290s BCE. For a comprehensive treatment of the statue, see Meyer 2006. 29 See Stansbury-O’Donnell 1994, 50–63. E.g., Lib. Or. 11.64–68, 100. See Grainger 1990, 31–87; Cohen 2006, 24–35; Capdetrey 2007, 59–76. App. Syr. 57. On pre-Seleucid inhabitation of northern Syria, see Seyrig 1970, 290–298; Casana 2007, 198–204; De Giorgi 2016, 37–39. The Amuq Valley Regional Projects (AVRP) observed a massive change in the settlement across the Amuq Valley around 300 BCE as earlier tells were abandoned for cities, towns, and villages/farmsteads. Str. 16.2.4.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Establishing Antioch

Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf.33 As individual polities, each city also governed its own population and acted as a conduit for local resources.34 Tradition states that Antioch’s own community was drawn together from several thousand Macedonian and Jewish soldiers, descendants of early Greeks in the region, and native Syrians.35 Despite the importance granted to Antioch by the ancient sources and its later status in the region, the city did not act initially as the western Seleucid capital.36 Earlier scholars had suggested Seleucia Pieria briefly held the position of capital, but identifying any singular capital at this early stage overlooks two factors.37 First, as was previously mentioned in the introduction, Seleucus and the kings that immediately succeeded him regularly moved around the entire empire and thereby relied upon a number of locations to administer their empire. This prevented any one city from taking on the permanent status of a real capital. Additionally, it is difficult to argue from the current evidence that the early kings valued any city of the Tetrapolis more than the others at the outset. Military campaigns were launched from Apamea where the royal stud and elephant army were stabled, while the harbors at Seleucia Pieria and Laodicea acted as naval bases.38 Even though Strabo (16.2.5) later highlights Antioch as a royal residence, the other cities regularly hosted embassies, royal audiences, and the king himself.39 All four cities benefited from royal benefactions and buildings, and without more thorough archaeological excavation of the early Hellenistic levels, it is inadvisable to

33

34 35

36 37

38

39

Seyrig 1970, 298–307; Grainger 1990, 58–60, 67–72; Capdetrey 2007, 61–69. For the potential commercial aspirations of the Seleucids, see Golenko 1993. Cohen 2006, 80–101, 111–116, 126–135; Millar 2006, 12–13. Lib. Or. 11.91–92; Malalas 8.201–202; Str. 16.2.4; Downey 1958, 84–85. On the Jewish population, see Joseph. Ap. 2.39, AJ 12.119; Kraeling 1932, 131–132. For the presence of native Syrians, see Haddad 1949, 48; Downey 1961, 79–82. On Seleucid capitals, see Will 1990, 259–265. The argument for Seleucia Pieria as capital is based upon Seleucus founding this city first, naming it after himself, and being eventually interred there by his son; once Seleucia showed its weakness to invasion, this honor was transferred to Antioch (see Malalas 8.198–201; Downey 1961, 56–66; Cohen 2006, 128–130). Polyb. 5.58 also refers to Seleucia as a leading/founding city and the hearth of the Seleucids during the time of Antiochus III, but Capdetrey (2007, 359–362) argues this is part of the wider importance of the Tetrapolis. Part of the debate also centers on whether Antioch or Seleucia Pieria received the inhabitants of the dismantled Antigonia, the capital of Antigonus I. On Apamea, Str. 16.2.10; Polyb. 5.45, 50, 59; see also Stucky 1990, 25–26. On the harbors, App. Syr. 4; Grainger 1990, 58. Polyb. 5.61.1–2 mentions the presence of troops at Seleucia to secure the harbor, but this does not appear to be the navy. Martinez-Sève 2004, 23–26, 29. On the royal residence at Antioch, see Downey 1961, 640–641.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

49

50

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

weigh this munificence in favor of a single city.40 Rather, the best conclusion is that at the beginning, the Tetrapolis served as a dispersed and collective power center of the western Seleucid Empire. Further supporting this conclusion is how the Tetrapolis cities shared responsibility in the production of coins for Seleucus I.41 Antioch’s workshop(s) focused predominately on producing bronze coins for the emerging royal Seleucid state with only a few issues in gold and silver. Seleucia Pieria struck both silver tetradrachms and drachms, as well as bronze coins. Apamea only struck bronze coins, whereas Laodicea minted silver tetradrachms and drachms. Out of all four mints, some scholars speculate that Laodicea’s silver production initially held the greatest regional importance.42 Unfortunately, no explicit testimony exists for the organization of each mint or whether they were run and operated by local inhabitants, civic magistrates, Seleucid administrators, foreign die workers, or some combination of all four within the cities.43 What is certain is that the production of coins for the Seleucid state was not exclusive to these newly founded cities of the Tetrapolis, but rather part of a much broader array of mints across the empire. Other scholars have dealt in detail elsewhere about the creation of a Seleucid monetary system, but several points need to be reiterated here in order to contextualize Antioch’s mint as well as the role of coinage within this period.44 40

41 42

43

44

On Antioch, see Lib. Or. 11.121; Malalas 8.200–201, 212, 11.276. On Laodicea and Seleucia Pieria, see Paus. 3.16.8; App. Syr. 63. According to Str. 14.2.25, the kings also beautified Stratoniceia in Caria. On royal patronage, see Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 132–136; Kosmin 2014, 219. See SC I.1, 18–26. SC I.1, 3–5. This statement is based upon the number of obverse dies. Cf. Le Rider (1999, 27–30, 39) who argues that Antioch’s mint quickly surpassed neighboring Seleucia Pieria in prominence, but under Antiochus I, Laodicea’s production of silver likely succeeded Antioch’s. On cautions about overstating the importance of any of the Tetrapolis mints, see Le Rider and Callataÿ 2006, 272–273. See Golenko 1993, 79–80; SC I.1, xx–xxiv. For Antioch specifically, Newell (1941 [1977], 96, 109–111) thought that monograms appearing on the coins indicated individual magistrates, but there is no way of knowing who they were or in which level of government they served (see Callataÿ 2012a, 39–62). The editors of SC suggest that because certain monograms only appear on a single coin issue, this may indicate that some of the mint’s output was overseen by an annual civic office or supported by a civic liturgy when not subsidized by the royal Seleucid government. These magistrates may have fallen out of favor with the royal government, as evidenced by a strategic countermarking episode apparently intended to hide any trace of the magistrate “Them. . .” Antioch may also have exchanged magistrates with other Seleucid mints in Syria, Asia Minor, and Mesopotamia, as well as contributed dies to a workshop at Soli in Cilicia (see SC I.1, 129, 355–360, 387–388; SC I.2, 43; SC II.1, xxii–xxiii, 13). E.g., Golenko 1993, 71–168; Le Rider and Callataÿ 2006; Duyrat 2016, 329–366.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Establishing Antioch

When the Hellenistic kings first started minting their own coins, they largely inherited the practices of Alexander the Great.45 This included a currency system based upon the popular Attic weight standard, which at the time reckoned the silver tetradrachm at approximately 17.28 grams.46 Alexander had also established production in gold and silver at sites spread throughout his empire, which provided a start-up network of mints and supply of coins for subsequent adoption by the Seleucids and other Hellenistic kings.47 This widespread production and use of Alexander’s issues initially prompted Seleucus I, his fellow rulers, and even autonomous cities to replicate their predecessor’s model.48 For example, several of the succeeding kings continued striking Alexander’s silver tetradrachms, which feature the head of Heracles in a lion skin on the front/obverse and an enthroned Zeus holding an eagle on the back/reverse.49 One of the first two silver issues struck at Antioch was actually modeled after this type with the slight modification that Zeus now holds a small Nike and Seleucus’s own name is featured across the reverse (Fig. 2.1).50

Fig. 2.1 Royal tetradrachm of Seleucus I with Heracles/Zeus Nicephorus minted at Antioch (ANS 1944.100.75011. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

Eventually, each ruler of the different Hellenistic states introduced modifications to Alexander’s system.51 For Seleucus I, this initially meant expanding the number of production sites. In the decade before the establishment of Antioch’s mint in 300 BCE, the king had taken over 45

46 48

49 50 51

Mørkholm 1991, 41–54, 71–76; Thonemann 2015, 3–23; see also Callataÿ 2012b, 178–181. Seleucus’s inheritance also contained other local types and standards of coins, especially in the eastern empire where previous traditions existed (see Golenko 1993, 98–112; Houghton 2012, 235–236). 47 Mørkholm 1991, 8–11; von Reden 2010, 84; Thonemann 2015, 12. Golenko 1993, 73. Thonemann 2015, 18–22, 115–118. On the widespread use of the silver “Alexanders,” see Duyrat 2016, 326–327, 332–339, 347. SC I.1, 5; Callataÿ 2012b, 180. See Le Rider 1986, 4; SC I.1, 18–22. On the development of this type, see Ogden 2017, 111, n. 17. Bresson 2005, 46; Thonemann 2015, 18–19, no. 13.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

51

52

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

existing workshops further east such as at Babylon, Ecbatana, and Susa. He also added an additional mint at Seleucia on the Tigris, which became the premier workshop of the empire during his reign.52 After founding other mints in Syria, Seleucus soon added to the mints in the west, adapting production at Tarsus, Pergamum, and Sardis.53 Gold, silver, and bronze coins were therefore minted in all regions of the Seleucid Empire, but not consistently at every individual mint or with uniform outputs.54 The coins of the developing empire – whether struck at Antioch, the other Tetrapolis cities, or elsewhere – then began featuring new iconography specific to Seleucus I (Fig. 2.2).55 This included personal symbolism, such as the anchor supposedly featured on the king’s signet ring or his alleged ancestor and patron, the god Apollo.56 The coins also celebrated the king’s military prowess, such as Nike crowning a military trophy or different portrayals of his war elephants. More unusual was the Medusa/bull type, but this too may have served both as an apotropaic message and a symbol of the king’s power.57 The obverses of some of the coins may have even featured portraits of Seleucus I himself, although some debate exists over whether the helmeted figure is the Seleucid king, Alexander the Great, or even the god Dionysus.58 Whoever the individual, Alexander’s name was also replaced on many of the reverses with the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ or “of King Seleucus.” Both this legend and iconography celebrating the king define these coins as royal issues, meaning that the authority of the Seleucid kings guaranteed these coins and not that of the mint or city where they were struck.59 (a)

(b)

Fig. 2.2 Royal coins of Seleucus I minted at Antioch: (a) Bronze coin with Apollo/Athena and anchor; (b) bronze coin with Medusa/bull (ANS 1992.54.1252; 1944.100.75014. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

52 54 55 56

57 59

53 Mørkholm 1991, 71–74; Golenko 1993, 81; Le Rider 1999, 30. SC I.1, 3–4. See Golenko 1993, 81; Aperghis 2004, 214–217. For a full description of Seleucus I’s iconography, see SC I.1, 5–9, 18–22. On the legend of the anchor, see App. Syr. 56. On Apollo, see Golenko 1993, 85; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 27–28; Wright 2005, 69. Some debate exists over the contemporary connection between Seleucus I and Apollo (see Erickson 2009, 36–56). 58 SC I.1, 8–9. For a summary of the debate, see Ogden 2017, 61–63. For an iconographical overview of royal Antioch issues, see Newell 1941 [1977]; Le Rider 1999; SC I; SC II. Erickson 2009 provides an in-depth study on the significance of the Seleucid

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Establishing Antioch

As for what motivated Seleucus I to invest in this undeniably diffuse production, the answers are less clear. The ancient testimony for the Seleucid state is particularly sparse, and great debate exists generally over the topic of monetary policy within the Hellenistic world.60 On one end of the spectrum is the theory that the Seleucids minted coins primarily to meet the immediate needs of the state and not as part of a broader, welldeveloped plan of monetization.61 On the other end of the spectrum is the argument that the Seleucids actively controlled and maintained currency supplies in order to fulfill the range of fiscal obligations of their own administration and the people under their rule.62 Despite this lack of consensus as well as explicit evidence, a few general theories gathered from previous studies about what drove coin production can still be proposed at the outset without overstating the degree to which the Seleucid Empire was monetized or the intentionality of Seleucus or his successors. A primary motivation in minting precious metal coins was likely to help finance military campaigns and provide payments to the troops.63 After all, Seleucus I was constantly on the move during this period, relying upon a large army to help defend his growing empire from internal and external threats.64 Fragmentary evidence from inscriptions and literary texts also suggests that coins may have additionally contributed as a medium of state taxation and tribute under the kings, although the full Seleucid system itself is not completely understood.65 Finally, several scholars have argued that even though perhaps not the primary motivation for their issue, the precious metal coins may have served a secondary function in large-scale commercial and trade transactions.66 Possibly facilitating this activity was the coins’ initial adherence to the Attic weight

60 61 62 63

64

65

66

iconography (especially deities) within a political context. On Hellenistic types in general, see Mørkholm 1991, 25–37. See Bresson 2005, 44–72; van der Spek 2007, 416–419; Thonemann 2015, 111–127. E.g., Le Rider and Callataÿ 2006. See also Bresson 2005, 57–59; Thonemann 2015, 112–115. E.g., Aperghis 2004. Compare with Houghton 2012, 237. SC I.1, xviii–xx, 354–355; Le Rider and Callataÿ 2006, 271–277; van der Spek 2007, 417–418. In SC II.1, xvii, the editors propose that gold eventually transitioned to a more occasional issue for celebration or emergency, leaving the silver coins as the precious metal of choice for state payments. Aperghis (2004, 189–205, 220–221) attempted to calculate the overall expenses incurred by the military. Compare Aperghis 2004, 176–178, 220–221, 320–323; Le Rider and Callataÿ 2006, 261–268; Monson 2015, 188–194. Mørkholm 1991, 8; Reger 2003, 347–348; von Reden 2010, 84–85. On Seleucid interest in taxing trade, see Golenko 1993, 77–81.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

53

54

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

standard used by Alexander, with the tetradrachm only slightly dropping to approximately 17.2 grams.67 In contrast to these precious metal issues, royal Seleucid bronzes were token or fiduciary coins.68 Their lack of or limited intrinsic value has prompted scholars to wonder about their role within the Seleucid state, a task which is again complicated by the paucity of Seleucid financial records mentioning this metal and a minimal understanding of their denominations.69 Nonetheless, at least eleven mints struck royal bronze at some point under Seleucus I’s rule, four of which may have produced relatively substantial issues.70 This implies some purpose related to the state itself whether for military or other administrative payments.71 Without overstating any policies of monetization, it is also possible that the kings were partially prompted to mint the bronzes as everyday small change for both the authorities and the people of the Seleucid Empire72 Whatever Seleucus I’s exact motivations driving coin production, the fact that Antioch was part of this larger mint system reinforces the city’s general contribution to the Seleucid state at its foundation rather than its exclusive prominence. This is important to emphasize, as Antioch’s supposed capital status is commonly mentioned in scholarship alongside the establishment of its mint.73 In other words, there is an undercurrent in many studies that the Antioch mint struck coins for Seleucus I because of the city’s premier political status. However, it is difficult to tie any production of Antioch’s mint in this early period to the political prominence it would later assume. Antioch’s mint is instead more remarkable for a short-lived issue of bronze civic coins, which reveals the internal development of a civic

67

68 69

70 71

72 73

On the weight standard and the denominations of Seleucid coinage, see Mørkholm 1991, 8–12; Hoover 2009, xix–xx, lxiv. On the link between the Attic standard and trade, see Mørkholm 1984, 96, 105; Thonemann 2015, 115–118. Thonemann 2015, 128. See SC I.2, 1–36; SC II.2, 9–20, 45–52. Although bronze minted at Antioch bear no definitive value marks, based upon types, weights, and diameters, the mint may have produced anywhere from two to six different units depending on the king. See SC I.1, 5. Aperghis (2004, 223–225) offers several possibilities. For a comparison with Egypt’s bronze coins, see Mørkholm 1991, 10–11; Le Rider and Callataÿ 2006. Newell 1941 [1977], 399; von Reden 2010, 32–33. See also van der Spek 2007, 418. E.g., Newell 1941 [1977], 93–97; Golenko 1993, 128; compare with Le Rider 1999, 27–30. Downey (1961, 66) believed that mint output reveals Seleucia Pieria as capital first and the subsequent transfer to Antioch under Antiochus I. Cf. SC I.1, 18.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Establishing Antioch

body of Antiochians alongside the city’s service to the Seleucid king. According to Edward Newell’s description, the general design of the coins is not particularly distinctive: the obverse features Zeus and the reverse a thunderbolt, which could celebrate the god’s importance to the mythical foundation of the city as well as to the Seleucids generally.74 These coins also bear a similar monogram to the royal issues of silver and bronze described earlier, which could indicate some connection to the workshop, administration, or magistrate overseeing the coins struck for Seleucus I.75 Nevertheless, what almost certainly distinguishes these coins as civic is their very prominent legend ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ or “of the Antiochians” on the reverse in place of any royal name or title. This substitution of the city’s ethnic is usually understood to mean that these coins belonged to the civic administration, and it is this authority that guaranteed their fiduciary value instead of the royal government. The inclusion of the civic ethnic also suggests that the Antiochians themselves were the ones running the mint at Antioch or at least funding these civic issues.76 This civic minting did not last long, as the next known issue at Antioch came over a hundred years later (see below). Why the Antiochians issued their own coins so briefly is not known. Otto Mørkholm proposed that these civic coins of Antioch and four other civic issues at Seleucia Pieria extended from a temporary concession by Seleucus I in order to elevate the cities to the status of true Greek poleis.77 Under this interpretation, minting was a privilege gladly exercised by the poleis until Seleucus I redirected production in favor of his own royal bronze.78 Alternatively, it is possible that one of the initial responsibilities of the Tetrapolis cities was to meet local monetary concerns, which was then superseded or even relieved by royal support.79 Either interpretation needs more evidence, but for the purposes of this study, the very existence of these coins and their expression of a collective citizenry present at Antioch add an important layer to the foundation of the city under Seleucus I. Even from the beginning, there

74

75 76 77

78 79

Newell 1941 [1977], no. 910. On Antioch’s mythical origins, see Downey 1961, 67–68; Cohen 2006, 80–81. Compare Newell 1941 [1977], 96, 109–111, with SC I.1, xxi–xxii, 19–21. See Harl 1987, 26–27. Mørkholm 1991, 75; see also Downey 1961, 113; Golenko 1993, 128. For civic issues of Seleucia found at Antioch, see Waagé 1952, 3–4, nos. 13–15. For general doubts about this interpretation, see Meadows 2001, 53–62. See Thonemann 2015, 48–51.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

55

56

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

was some sense of being an Antiochian within the larger function of the city for the Seleucid state.

Antioch of the Early Hellenistic Period In 281 BCE, Seleucus I died and bequeathed both Antioch and his entire empire to his descendants. In the following century, many of these kings were occupied by the ongoing conflict with the neighboring Hellenistic kingdoms.80 The Ptolemies based in Egypt proved to be a special source of tension for the Seleucid kings, as they repeatedly clashed in the Syrian Wars over control of the Levant and the coast of Asia Minor. Internal dynastic squabbling among the Seleucid kings added to this conflict, as did the secessions of at least two eastern satrapies. By the beginning of the second century BCE when Antiochus III was king, the expanding Roman Empire added to the list of Seleucid problems and resulted in a substantial loss of territory in greater Anatolia. During this period, Antioch served the kings as Seleucus I had originally intended: as a royal strategic location of regular, but not exclusive royal use. Among textual references to the earlier kings, Antioch materializes as a place to where a king could retreat, as in the case of Seleucus II during his campaigns against the Ptolemies in the Third Syrian War (246–241 BCE).81 The city was also a place where foreign embassies and rulers could hope to find the king, such as when Hannibal sought a meeting with Antiochus III in 195 BCE.82 Usurpers to the Seleucid throne might also aim their attention toward Antioch. A passage in Polybius describes the rebellious Seleucid satrap Achaeus, who sought a favorable reception in the city and throughout Syria against Antiochus III in the late 200s BCE.83 The city also continued to mint bronze, gold, and silver coins for the Seleucid kings, presumably for the same fiscal purposes as discussed above. Other mints persisted elsewhere in the empire as well; yet based upon the estimated volume and range of iconography apparent in Antioch’s coinage, some scholars have suggested that it housed the principal mint for both the region and empire by the end of the third century BCE.84 At the very least,

80 82 83 84

81 See Kosmin 2014, 18–21. Just. Epit. 27.2. Livy 33.49. Antiochus III was not in Antioch upon Hannibal’s arrival, but in Ephesus (Polyb. 3.11–12). Polyb. 8.17; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 188–189. SC I.1, 327, 354–355. Being the chief workshop does not mean production was constant (see Houghton 2004, 53–54).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of the Early Hellenistic Period

production appears to have increased at Antioch with each king’s rule and eclipsed royal Seleucid minting at the other Tetrapolis cities.85 (a) (b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 2.3 Early Hellenistic coins minted at Antioch for the Seleucid kings: (a) Silver coin of Antiochus I/Apollo on omphalos; (b) bronze coin of Antiochus I with Zeus/thunderbolt; (c) bronze coin of Antiochus I with Macedonian shield/elephant; (d) bronze coin of Antiochus II with Apollo/tripod (ANS 1944.100.75027; 1953.171.1677; 1944.100.75028; 1944.100.75081. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

The coins carried over much of the imagery from Seleucus I, especially the prominence of Apollo and his attributes (Fig. 2.3). The precious metal coins also definitively began to display the royal portrait on the obverse under Antiochus I.86 The bronze coins still did not consistently feature the royal portrait on their obverse, but instead matched different combinations of deities – such as Zeus, Athena, Artemis, or Apollo – with symbols – like thunderbolt, tripod, omphalos, or prow – on the front and back.87 The bronzes featured other royal images as well, such as the Macedonian shield and elephant.88 On the whole, the coins continued to emphasize the strength and prestige of the king both in a religious and a military sphere, two important elements reinforcing Seleucid authority.89 Additionally, the coins made clear who guaranteed their value as money with ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ plus the king’s name scrolled across the reverse. More than simply a factory or fortress for the kings, though, Antioch benefited from this royal attention. Later literary sources document the 85

86 89

See the helpful summary provided by Duyrat 2002, 410–415; SC II.2, 291–318. Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006, 127–128) warn against exaggerating the overall volume of coin production at Antioch or any other Seleucid mint. 87 88 SC I.1, 115. E.g., Newell 1941 [1977], nos. 1015–1019, 1054–1066. SC I.1, 129. Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 53, 114–118, 129–132; Wright 2005, 67–82.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

57

58

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

kings’ continued benevolence to the city, from the addition of civic quarters to the construction of temples, a library, and public works like an aqueduct.90 A rare inscription from Antioch in 189 BCE even records a letter by Antiochus III appointing a man from his own entourage as the chief priest of the cults in Daphne.91 Antiochus III also named the Greek poet Euphorion of Chalcis as head of the royal library at Antioch.92 Although not quite as prominent as their royal husbands and lovers, at least five early Seleucid women are mentioned in residence within Antioch and are praised generally by Libanius for their generosity toward the city.93 In addition to the kings and their entourage, it is also likely that early Antioch housed regional administrators of the Seleucid Empire. The best evidence comes from the third-century BCE Gurob papyrus, which originated during the Third Syrian War (246–241 BCE).94 During the struggle over who would succeed Antiochus II following his death in 246 BCE, Ptolemy III came to Antioch in order to back the claim of his sister Berenice on behalf of her young son. The document mentions the presence of satraps or provincial governors among those receiving the Egyptian king within the city, which may mean that Antioch housed the seat of a provincial satrap.95 Much like neighboring Seleucia Pieria, a city of Antioch’s size presumably had an epistates or royal administrator also residing within its walls to serve as intermediary between the local municipality and the provincial official.96 Given this use of Antioch by the Seleucids, it is unsurprising that several native Antiochians also participated in Seleucid administration and even held high positions within the royal government. For example, several second-century BCE statues from Delos commemorate Heliodoros of Antioch as both syntrophos (“foster brother”) and tetagmenos epi tōn 90 91 93

94 95 96

Lib. Or. 11.94, 121; Malalas 8.200–201, 212, 11.276. See also Downey 1961, 91–107. 92 OGIS 244. Suda s.v. Euphorion; Grainger 1997, 89–90. Lib. Or. 11.128. Berenice, the Egyptian princess and second wife of Antiochus II, resided in Antioch with her son before meeting her untimely end in Daphne under the order of the king’s first wife Laodice (Just. Epit. 27.1; App. Syr. 65; Porph. Fr. 43). Antiochis, Antiochus III’s daughter and wife of Ariarathes IV of Cappadocia, was also buried at Antioch (App. Syr. 5; Polyb. 31.7.2). Stratonice, another daughter of Antiochus II, retired to Antioch after her divorce from the king of Macedonia and soon stirred up rebellion against Seleucus II (Plut. Demetr. 32; Joseph. Ap. 1.206–208). Seleucus II’s courtesan Mysta returned to Antioch after being accidentally sold into slavery upon capture in Rhodes (Polyaenus, Strat. 8.61). Antiochus III wed Laodice, the daughter of Mithridates of Pontus, and pronounced their marriage at Antioch, presumably bringing her along as well (Polyb. 5.43). FGrH 160; Holleaux 1942, 281–310; Downey 1961, 89–90, 113–114; Kosmin 2014, 152–153. Cohen 2006, 92, n. 26. See also Str. 16.2.4; Grainger 1997, 811–812. IGLS III.2 1183; on the office, see Grainger 1990, 62–63; Aperghis 2004, 284.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of the Early Hellenistic Period

pragmatōn (“minister”) of Seleucus IV.97 In another inscription from Tanagra in Boeotia from the end of the third century BCE, three Antiochians are honored as proxenoi (“formal friends”), which guaranteed them rights like asylia (“freedom from seizure”).98 Although not explicitly stated, the presence of these Syrian men on the Greek mainland has traditionally been tied to an embassy sent by Antiochus III to the Boeotians.99 As much as Antioch was a part of royal and provincial Seleucid administration, it also remained a city run by a local government. Contemporary references to the political organization of Antioch’s citizens reflect a traditional pattern of boule, demos, civic magistrates, and gymnasium.100 Antioch’s demos was even recognizable to authorities outside of the city. An inscription dating to 203 BCE records a grant of politeia (“citizenship”) to the demoi of Antioch, Laodicea, and Seleucia Pieria by the city of Teos on the western coast of Asia Minor.101 According to the inscription, the three Syrian cities were selected because they all were named for the ancestors of the current Seleucid king Antiochus III, who had greatly benefited Teos. What specifically the citizens of Teos hoped to gain from the Antiochians beyond celebrating their king is unclear, but the inscription itself records their hope for renewing an old friendship with the Syrian citizens and inspiring new zeal for their cities. Beyond these general indications of a civic government at Antioch, the actual identities of individual officials within Antioch often remain hidden for this period. However, a few exceptions do exist. The names of specific officials appear on early second-century CE civic weights used in the agora.102 In texts, two principes Antiochiae (“leaders of Antioch”) who were ultimately responsible for the death of Queen Berenice during the

97 98

99 100 101

102

IG XI.4 1112–1114; Gauthier 1985, 173. See also Habicht 2006, 190. IG VII 518; see Mack 2015, 23, 128. Another inscription dating to 182/1 BCE records the citizens of Delphi granting proxeny to an Antiochian by the name of Lamedon (FD III.4.429; Daux 1936, 29–30). Whether Lamedon received this honor because of his relation to the royal Seleucid government or through his own efforts is uncertain. Polyb. 20.2; see Herrmann 2016, 55, n. 13. FGrH 160; Polyb. 26.1. For an overview of the textual evidence, see Downey 1961, 112–118. Herrmann 1965, 36–48, 79–84; Gauthier 1985, 169–175. Both argue that the grant was aimed at the most influential of the Tetrapolis citizens, specifically those residents with ties to the inner court of the Seleucid kings. In IGLS III.2 1071B.f, an Agathokles is mentioned on a weight of Antioch dating to 192/1 BCE, whom Grainger (1997, 130) interprets as the agoranomos of the city. City weights also record other possible administrators, such as a Chairedemos (SEG 36.1282) and an Iphitos (IGLS III.2 1071B.g); see Grainger 1997, 306, 400.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

59

60

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

Third Syrian War are named: Icadion and Gennaeus.103 Magistrates like these individuals and the local government they served maintained Antioch while the Seleucid kings were active elsewhere in their empire.

Becoming a Capital As long as the general boundaries of the Seleucid Empire held firm, the purpose and character of Antioch remained the same: a city of Antiochians in service to the larger strategic plan and vision of the kings for their empire. By the second century BCE, however, as the limits of the larger empire changed, Seleucid use of Antioch elevated the city to imperial center, if not capital. The loss of Anatolia and the gains in the southern Levant under Antiochus III at the beginning of the second century BCE were the start of the geographical reorientation of the empire later culminating in the collapse of the empire into Syria alone (Chapter 3). For the Tetrapolis cities, the territorial gains in the south had diminished the importance of Apamea as a headquarters against the Ptolemies, whereas the vulnerability of the northern harbors during the previous century undermined their use as political centers.104 As northern Syria remained an important juncture for travels throughout the empire, Antioch alone still offered a strategic base for the Seleucids.105 Enter Antiochus IV, the king featured in Polybius’s account at the beginning of this chapter. After seizing the Seleucid Empire in 175 BCE, he needed a base from which to secure his tenuous claim against both internal rivals and external foes such as the Maccabees in Judea.106 He fixated on Antioch and incited what Downey deemed “one of the most brilliant periods in the history of the city.”107 This included a vast endowment to the city, as Antiochus IV and his successors continued construction through such projects as an aqueduct, bouleuterion, temples, and a fourth urban quarter.108 Most importantly for the purposes of this book, only under Antiochus IV does Antioch emerge as a special political center – even capital – of the Seleucid Empire.109 Now and hereafter, the Seleucid king appears to lead the royal government predominately from the city,

103 105 107 109

104 Just. Epit. 27.1; Porph. Fr. 43; Downey 1961, 87–90. Grainger 1990, 123–128. 106 Kosmin 2014, 143–147; see Maps 5 and 6 especially. Kosmin 2014, 131–133. 108 Downey 1963, 55. Downey 1961, 95–107; De Giorgi 2016, 57–60. Grainger 1990, 125–128; Martinez-Sève 2004, 30–38; Capdetrey 2007, 362.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Becoming a Capital

receiving foreign powers, launching military expeditions, and wrestling with dynastic rivals for its control.110 Contemporary literature highlights this political prominence of Antioch. Josephus and the first two books of the Maccabees regularly feature Antioch in the movements of the royal government with the king, his generals, and the military constantly marching to and from the city in their operations against Judea.111 This military prowess received special display at neighboring Daphne when Antiochus IV led a grand festival procession in the mid-160s BCE featuring Mysian, Cilician, Thracian, Gallic, and Macedonian soldiers, as well as horsemen from Nisa and Antioch itself.112 Prisoners and foreign embassies alike also met the king and his entourage at Antioch, including the senior Tiberius Gracchus and other legates from Rome and ambassadors from Greece.113 Archaeological evidence corresponds to this elevated position of Antioch. Recent investigation in the suburbs of the city shows that the late Seleucid city had already extended to where the future Roman walls stood.114 There is little doubt that Antioch had exceeded its fellow Tetrapolis cities and had taken on a place of special prominence within the royal Seleucid government. Perhaps most telling of Antioch’s growing importance to the later Seleucid kings is how fiercely they and their opponents argued over the city as the second century BCE progressed. In 163 BCE, following the death of Antiochus IV, Lysias – the guardian of the infant king Antiochus V – and a rival minister named Philip battled for control of Antioch and the government seated there.115 When Demetrius II arrived in the Seleucid Empire in 147 BCE as a rival to Alexander I Balas – the pretender son of Antiochus IV – the latter king hurried to Antioch to put the government in order and defend his rule.116 Just a few years later, Tryphon – the guardian 110 111

112 113

114

115 116

See Downey 1961, 119–136; Sartre 2001, 500. Joseph. AJ 12.315, 12.367, 13.33, 13.42, 13.86–87, 13.113–115, 13.133–142, 13.209; 1 Macc. 4.35, 10.68; 2 Macc. 5.21, 13.26. Polyb. 30.25–27; Downey 1961, 97–99. 2 Macc. 11.34–36, 14.27; Polyb. 30.27, 31.7, 31.33. See also SIG 474, an inscription from Athens which honors the scholar Aristocreon in 184/3 BCE partially because he aided Athenians within Antioch; Habicht (2006, 161–162) understands this text to indicate Athenian ambassadors to Antioch. Casana 2007, 205. Earlier expansion had occurred in the century and a half after the city’s foundation, possibly as an attempt by the Seleucids to strengthen their position against Ptolemaic control of Seleucia Pieria by settling veterans nearby. See Str. 16.2.4; Lib. Or. 11.119–120; Grainger 1990, 123–124. 1 Macc. 6.55–63; 2 Macc. 13.23–26; Grainger 2015, 36–40. Joseph. AJ 13.86–87. See also Diod. Sic. 33.3.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

61

62

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

of Alexander’s son Antiochus VI – established himself at Antioch against Demetrius II, who fled to neighboring Seleucia Pieria.117 These passages give the impression that he who ruled Antioch was the legitimate king. This jockeying for control of the city continued through to the end of the Seleucid government (see Chapter 3). All the while, the workshop(s) at Antioch continued to strike coins for the Seleucid kings. The mint retained and even increased in its importance both in terms of the estimated volume and the clear diversity of the royal coins produced there.118 The seated Zeus holding Nike was reintroduced as a reverse type to the silver tetradrachms under Antiochus IV, who famously lauded the god as his patron in other contexts (Fig. 2.4).119 The bronze coins of Antiochus IV also featured the Egyptian gods Serapis and Isis, perhaps in relation to the king’s Egyptian campaigns.120 By the reign of Demetrius I, an enthroned Tyche began appearing on the reverse of the silver, but the goddess is not joined with any of the aforementioned attributes specific to Antioch seen in Eutychides’s statue; she lacks a mural crown and holds a scepter and cornucopia, thereby likely symbolizing the general success of the king.121 The reoccurring portrayal of war elephants on the bronzes highlighted the military prowess of the kings, as did the rarer depictions of a panther with broken spear under Antiochus VI or the Macedonian helmet under Tryphon.122 If the royal portrait and these patron gods or other symbols were not enough to identify the issuing authority, the reverse of both the silver and bronze coins still featured the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ in conjunction with ever-lengthening epithets of the individual monarchs.123 These coins also provide an indication that Antioch was an important location from which changes to fiscal policies could be made. Around 173 BCE during the reign of Antiochus IV, the weight of the tetradrachms was reduced at Antioch’s workshop alone from approximately 17 grams to

117 118

119

120

121

122 123

Joseph. AJ 13.131–144; Livy, Per. 52.13; 1 Macc. 11.56. Newell 1918 [1978], 2. See also Mørkholm 1984, 94; Duyrat 2002, 410–415; SC II.1, xviii– xix, 44. Mørkholm 1963, 16–17; SC II.1, 48. On Antiochus IV’s dedications to Zeus, see Livy 41.20.9; Rigsby 1980, 233–238; Andrade 2013, 39, 65. On the importance of Zeus as a type under Seleucus I, see SC I.1, 8. The significance of the “Egyptianizing” bronze of Antiochus IV has been debated; see SC II.1, 68–69. SC II.1, 154–155. Tyche occasionally appears on coins from other mints with a calathus (“basket”) on her head (e.g., SC II.1, no. 1690). SC II.1, 317, 337; Erickson 2009, 199–203; Houghton 2012, 240–242. On Antiochus IV lengthening of the epithet with allusions to the ruler cult, see Mørkholm 1963, 68–74.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Becoming a Capital

63

(b)

(a)

(c)

(d)

(f)

(e)

Fig. 2.4 Second-century BCE coins minted at Antioch for the Seleucid kings: (a) Silver tetradrachm of Antiochus IV/Zeus Nicephorus; (b) bronze coin of Antiochus IV with Serapis/eagle; (c) bronze coin of Antiochus IV with Isis/eagle; (d) silver tetradrachm of Demetrius I/Tyche; (e) silver hemidrachm of Antiochus VI/panther; (f ) silver tetradrachm of Tryphon/Macedonian helmet (ANS 1908.115.38; 1948.19.2338. 1940.77.173; 1944.100.75312; 1944.100.76564; 1948.19.2380. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

around 16.6–16.7 grams.124 No scholarly consensus exists over why this reduction took place, whether it was due to financial pressure because of the Seleucids’ military campaigns or simply to align the coins to the slightly lighter issues of nearby Hellenistic states.125 Whatever the reason, what may have started as a limited order at Antioch appears to have eventually spread to other mints in the Seleucid Empire as well.126 124 125

126

Mørkholm 1963, 37–43; Le Rider 1999, 225–226; SC II.1, xxvi–xxvii; SC II.2, 1, 5–6. Compare Mørkholm 1963, 37–43; Mørkholm 1982, 302–305; Le Rider 1999, 225–226; Aperghis 2004, 226; Houghton 2012, 248–249. At least Bresson (2005, 60) downplays the change. Le Rider 2001, 273–274; Houghton 2004, 59; Le Rider and Callataÿ 2006, 124, 204.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

64

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

Antiochians in a Royal Capital Becoming such an elite center of the Seleucid Empire does not mean that the Antiochians as a general population or civic body were completely subsumed into this royal focus. As prominent as the Seleucids were in Antioch, the drama and operations of these kings and other royal figures cannot be used as a proxy for the experience of the city’s inhabitants.127 The Antiochene demos forged a collective identity, which wielded considerable political agency; this is clear from the citizens’ conflicts with Seleucid leadership. Early instances of the Antiochians taking politically independent action had been rare, perhaps because of the many veterans settled in Antioch or because the obligations to the king were distributed among several Syrian cities.128 This changed dramatically by the mid-second century BCE, as the Antiochians took advantage of Seleucid dynastic conflict to advance their own position.129 In the tumultuous period from the 160s into the 140s BCE, the hatred of the Antiochians toward Demetrius I led them into a pact with Orophernes, the brother to the king of Cappadocia.130 When this failed, the Antiochians turned to Alexander I Balas instead with the support of the kings of Egypt, Asia, and Cappadocia. This attempt was successful, but the relationship between the king and people soon soured, and the Antiochians gladly expelled Alexander I Balas in 145 BCE. When Ptolemy VI refused the Antiochians’ offer of kingship in that same year, they accepted his counteroffer of Demetrius II as king instead. The people of Antioch soon turned against Demetrius II, mocking him and laying siege to his palace before being defeated by the Cretan mercenaries and Jewish troops sent against them; many of the citizens fled Antioch for other regions of Syria because of this violence. The citizens of Antioch apparently never had the resources or even the desire to establish their own independent state, but they clearly wielded enough agency to choose from a growing pool of candidates seeking to rule the Seleucid Empire.

127

128

129 130

Although minimizing and overly orientalizing the civic element, Bouchier (1921, viii, 22–23, 26–27) does recognize this difference. See also Haddad 1949, 13–15. Martinez-Sève 2004, 33–38. In FGrH 160, the Antiochians welcome Ptolemy III into the city, possibly because of his ties to the Egyptian queen Berenice. Kosmin 2014, 242–244. Just. Epit. 35–36; Diod. Sic. 32.9c, 33.4; Joseph. AJ 13.108–142; 1 Macc. 11.13–19, 44–51. See Downey 1961, 119–126; Kosmin 2014, 242–251.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antiochians in a Royal Capital

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2.5 “Of the brother peoples” coins minted at Seleucia Pieria (c. 149–146 BCE): (a) Bronze coin with demoi/Tyche; (b) bronze coin with Zeus/thunderbolt (ANS 1944.100.74988; 1961.154.309. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

The coin evidence further suggests that the Antiochians could form their own alliances with other cities as well. During the reign of Alexander I Balas, the mint at Seleucia Pieria struck three denominations over three years bearing the legend ΑΔΕΛΦΩΝ ΔΗΜΩΝ (“of the brother peoples”) without any city’s ethnic or royal portrait (Fig. 2.5).131 Several obverses of these coins portray two bearded heads likely representing the demoi of the cities; others have a head of Zeus or Apollo. The reverses vary in type as well, including Zeus, Tyche, winged thunderbolt, and tripod. These coins were originally believed to have been struck for all four Tetrapolis cities, but the appearance of only two demoi on the coins, the iconography, and the lack of finds at Apamea and Laodicea led to the conclusion that the coins represented a connection between Seleucia Pieria and Antioch.132 Their monetary function is unknown, but A. R. Bellinger and Downey proposed that the issues celebrated a short-term political league formed in reaction to the general instability of the royal government.133 Kent Rigsby countered with the idea that the coins reflected the successful outcome of a united plea before the king not to restrict civic privileges.134 Either way, each interpretation points to the Antiochians taking a political stance for themselves. Other coin evidence reveals the Antiochians’ distinction as a civic body and possibly additional aspects of their agency. In the middle of the second century BCE, alongside production of royal bronze coinage for both Antiochus IV and Alexander I Balas, the mint at Antioch struck bronzes that replaced the standard legend of the king’s name and epithet on the reverse with the city’s ethnic (Fig. 2.6).135 The coins produced during the reign of Antiochus IV still feature the king’s royal portrait on the obverse, 131 132 133 134

135

SC II.1, 227; Hoover 2009, 293, 296–297. Str. 16.2.4 does consider all four cities adelphai (“sisters”). Bellinger 1949a, 60; Downey 1961, 121; for a full summary, see Cohen 2006, 132–133, n. 12. Rigsby 1980, 242–248. Houghton (1982, 158, n. 22) suggests a league initiated by Alexander I in the hopes of fostering the same allegiance at Antioch as exhibited within Seleucia Pieria. SC II.1, 45–46, 62, 221, 224; SC II.2, 44–45.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

65

66

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

but the reverse bears an image of Zeus with a wreath and the full legend ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΔΑΦΝΗΙ or “of the Antiochians near Daphne.”136 In comparison, only some of the coins minted during the reign of Alexander I Balas have the royal portrait on the obverse with Zeus or a tripod on the reverse alongside the shortened legend ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ.137 An additional subset of this series forgoes the royal portrait completely to feature instead Zeus on the obverse and a goddess – likely Athena – on the reverse. (a)

(b)

Fig. 2.6 Civic coins minted at Antioch during the second century BCE: (a) Bronze coin of Antiochus IV/Zeus; (b) bronze coin of Alexander I Balas/tripod (ANS 1967.152.609; 1959.187.12. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

These particular coins are unreliable sources to an extent, as it is still unclear about who actually operated the mint at Antioch or any of the other workshops in the empire. Antioch’s mint was of great importance to the Seleucid kings, but this does not preclude local individuals or a civic administration from running it or taking local orders. Likewise, these civic issues are often deemed “quasi-municipal” or partially civic because of the combination of royal portrait and city ethnic, but this nomenclature only hints at the complex question of agency.138 Antioch’s mint was not alone in striking these coins. During Antiochus IV’s reign, eighteen other city mints in Syria, Cilicia, and northern Mesopotamia produced their own versions of this coinage with royal portrait on the obverse and the reverse featuring an ethnic with either Zeus or a variety of local types and languages.139 Under Alexander I Balas, a smaller regional cadre joined Antioch including Seleucia Pieria, Apamea, Laodicea, Cyrrhus, and Sidon among other possibilities within Phoenicia.140 It is uncertain whether the royal administration initiated or 136 137

138 139 140

SC II.1, 69–70. On the extension of the ethnic, see Cohen 2006, 91–92, n. 24. SC II.1, 224; the editors consider the subset without a royal portrait to be “true municipal” coins. An unpublished coin of this type is part of the American Numismatic Society collection (ANS 1944.100.76491). See Hoover 2001, 21–34; SC II.2, 44, n. 6. Hoover 2004b, 488–491; SC II.1, 45–46; SC II.2, 44–45; Houghton 2012, 245. SC II.1, 228–231, 241–242, 245–247; the editors call many other issues “quasi-municipal” based upon local imagery, even though they lack the fully spelled-out civic ethnic (e.g., Tyre, Ascalon, and Gaza).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antiochians in a Royal Capital

coordinated the multicity production or merely allowed the individual civic communities to produce these coins.141 At least in the case of Antiochus IV, the coins of the different cities do appear to date to the same year, which may offer some indication of higher-level administration. Then again, the diversity of the types – many with local significance – and supposed denominational variance suggest local involvement. Equally debatable is the motivation behind these issues, as the coins themselves are the only evidence for their production. Scholars have presented both economic and political explanations, including Mørkholm’s suggestion that the kings wanted to infuse new life into the cities by granting them their own civic production and Bellinger’s idea that the kings wanted the cities to share in the profits from minting a fiduciary coinage.142 Underlying any of these interpretations is again the idea that minting one’s own coinage was a privilege granted from the royal state and actively sought by civic administrations (see Chapter 3).143 A less positive motivation would be that financial need either on the part of the king or the cities themselves drove this exceptional production, but this too is in need of additional evidence.144 Alternatively, perhaps these civic coins did not even serve as money, but were commemorative or even propagandistic. Oliver Hoover proposed that the citizens issued their own coins to coincide with a royal visit by Alexander I Balas possibly both to celebrate their choice of a new king and remind him to continue respecting “the traditional status and rights of the city” as his supposed father had.145 Ambiguity aside, these coins underscore the self-definition and activity of a civic body at Antioch beyond the importance granted to the city through its use by the Seleucid kings. After all, the Antiochians engaged in this production just like their fellow civic communities who did not inhabit capitals or imperial centers.146 Furthermore, like the Antiochians’ conflicts with Seleucid leadership, the coins can also be understood to

141 142

143 144

145

146

Compare Downey 1961, 96–97; Mørkholm 1984, 101–102; Meadows 2001, 59–62. Bellinger 1951, 61–62; Mørkholm 1965, 67. Bellinger is followed by Downey 1961, 106–107; SC II.1, 46. See Hoover 2004b, 489–490. E.g., Iossif 2014, 79. Other numismatic innovations occurred under Antiochus IV, which have been tenuously tied to larger monetary demands (see Mørkholm 1982, 302–305; Houghton 2004, 62–65; SC II.1, 44–45, 62). Cf. Bresson 2005, 60. Hoover 2001, 25; cf. Mørkholm 1984, 102. This is a similar suggestion to Rigsby (1980, 242–248) on the “of the brothers people” coins minted at Seleucia Pieria. At least the civic coins of Alexander I Balas lack control links to the royal issues, which could mean the Antiochians minted separately; see SC II.1, 219.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

67

68

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

testify – however vaguely – to the Seleucid kings engaging the civic body as a distinct entity.147 It is equally important to remember that more than political operations and engagements occupied the population of Antioch. Locals and visitors alike constantly moved in and out of the city. Besides Polybius’s account of the people encountered by Antiochus IV in their daily grind, the same king’s celebration of great festivities at Daphne in the mid-160s BCE invited an array of people into the city for thirty days of games, shows, and banquets.148 Polybius describes the eagerness of visitors from Greece because of this event. Conversely, individual Antiochians are also recorded winning glory for their city in athletic competitions throughout the Greek world.149 Antiochene athletes competed in the Panathenaic Games at Athens at least in the second century BCE, bringing home victories in the pankration and chariot racing.150 Antiochians abroad also contributed to local celebrations elsewhere. For instance, Hellenistic inscriptions from the Carian city of Iasos in western Anatolia list two Antiochians donating money for the performance of the Dionysia located there.151 At home, Antioch’s religious communities added to the city’s character. The best evidence for the leadership of the religious cults relates to the suburb Daphne.152 The sanctuaries and the chief priesthood overseeing them are mentioned in three, second-century BCE inscriptions from Antioch, Seleucia Pieria, and Athens.153 In addition to these cults, Greek, Cypriot, and Egyptian cults were likely worshipped at Antioch during this time period, which points to the cultural exchanges occurring between the city and the wider region.154

147 148 149

150

151

152 153

154

Andrade 2013, 50–53; Kosmin 2014, 238–239. Polyb. 30.25–27; see also Carter 2001, 45–62. This picture would be expanded if all the many references to an “Antioch” could be tied definitely to Antioch near Daphne and not one of the numerous other cities bearing the same name. IG II2 2314.31–32; Tracy and Habicht 1991, 188–189, I.4–5 and II.23. See also Grainger 1997, 348, 362, 545. I. Iasos 172.22–24, 184.8; see Crowther 2007, 294–334. Other “Antiochs” are mentioned, but only two specifically identify Antioch by Daphne. Grainger (1997, 316, 369, 589) erroneously describes these individuals as athletic competitors. E.g., Hadley 1858–1860, 550–555. OGIS 244, 245, 248. OGIS 248 is actually a copy of an Athenian decree found at Pergamum (see Kosmin 2014, 131–133). A fragmentary second-century BCE inscription with presumed provenience from Antioch also mentions a chief priest and theoroi (“sacred delegates”) (see Grainger 1997, 462; Millar 2006, 13). The honored agonothetes (“director of the games”) is from Seleucia Pieria, and it is unclear if the priests mentioned are from Antioch. See Norris 1982, 189–207.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Seleucid Power and Influence in the Distribution of Silver Antioch Coins

Practitioners of the public religion of the city and state were matched by the undeniable presence of a Jewish community in Antioch.155 Josephus writes of the wide dispersal of the Jews within Syria, but of a great multitude at Antioch especially because of its size and the political accommodations provided for them there by the Seleucids.156 Allowed to function as a distinct religious and political community ostensibly since Seleucus I, the intrigues and expeditions of the later Seleucids drew this group into conflict and connection with the city and the greater region. For example, in addition to Antiochus IV’s operations within Judea, Onias – an ousted Jewish High Priest in Jerusalem – retired to Antioch. He was later killed by the new high priest Menelaus after seeking refuge in one of the temples at Daphne.157 Admittedly, much of this evidence for the Antiochians still comes in the context of royal activity. In much of the drama and festivities of the Antiochians described above, the Seleucid kings are present in hosting events, fostering connections, or creating chaos. However, even as their city had become an elite center of the empire, this does not negate the individual and collective identities and agencies of Antioch’s peoples and communities. Such a distinction is reinforced by a passage in Diodorus about the last of the Seleucid kings considered in this chapter: following the death of Antiochus VII in 129 BCE after his failed attempt to recapture the Parthian East, Antioch’s inhabitants experienced not only the public loss of their ruler but also personal grief as every household mourned the death of a brother, husband, son, or father taking part in the campaign.158 As anonymous as these nonroyals may be, they should not be overlooked as a community in their own right. It was this community that both benefited from and buckled under Seleucid rule.

Seleucid Power and Influence in the Distribution of Silver Antioch Coins Keeping the Antiochians in mind is all the more important when we turn to the distribution of coins struck within Hellenistic Antioch. Although the Antiochians clearly developed as a distinct community while their city matured into an imperial center and capital, the coin finds provide almost 155 156 158

See Kraeling 1932, 130–160; Downey 1961, 107–111; Kasher 1982, 69–85. 157 Joseph. BJ 7.43–44, AJ 12.119–120. 2 Macc. 3–4.34; Downey 1961, 109–110. Diod. Sic. 34/35.17; Downey 1961, 125–126.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

69

70

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

no indication of the agencies and policies of the civic body. Instead, it is the power and influence of the Seleucid kings governing Antioch and the wider empire that emerge foremost from this evidence.159 The patterns here are not easily subdivided into chronological periods, but mapping out the holistic movement of these coins nevertheless underscores the degree to which the Seleucids defined the city and the world of its inhabitants during this era. Even as the distribution and circulation of coins struck at Hellenistic Antioch speak to the activity and broad horizons of the city’s people, visualizing the coin finds tells us most about the overarching imperial policies of the kings and how Antioch and its mint contributed to them. Such dominance would not always be the case for the city throughout the succeeding centuries, and thus establishes an essential pattern for later comparison. Immediately evident from the distribution of the silver is how the Seleucid kings’ open currency policy shaped which coins were available for use by the Antiochians and other communities within the empire.160 This policy allowed foreign Greek coins on a similar Attic standard to circulate within imperial borders alongside official royal issues. An investigation of the hoards found within Syria alone reveals how strongly the region relied upon nonlocal silver along with the Seleucid issues struck at Antioch. From Frédérique Duyrat’s list of almost seventy-five known hoards buried in the third and second centuries BCE and discovered in the greater Syrian Levant, only thirty-two hoards contain coins minted at Antioch (see Table A3.1). Some caution is necessary, as most of the hoards appeared on the market with nebulous find spots; only four were discovered through archaeological excavation. Nevertheless, while the percentage of Antioch silver ranges from 1% to 100% among the statistically relevant hoards (i.e., 12+ total coins in a single hoard), the median is on the 159

160

Although the current study is unique in its focus on the mint at Antioch, many previous scholars have undertaken similar examinations of Seleucid coins primarily to understand the monetary policies of the royal government (e.g., Seyrig 1973; Le Rider 1986; Golenko 1993; Aperghis 2004; Le Rider and Callataÿ 2006; Duyrat 2016). Finds of silver have received particular attention as evidence for estimating the original volume of production, the monetization of different regions, and the balance and flow of foreign issues compared to those produced for the kings. While the monetary economy is not the focus of this study, their observations and conclusions provide an important point of comparison and context for the material examined here. Houghton 2012, 240; Duyrat 2015, 368. Whether the Seleucids passively continued similar practices of the Achaemenid Empire and/or Alexander the Great or intentionally cultivated this system for diplomatic or financial reasons has been debated (e.g., Golenko 1993, 72–81, 87–88; Duyrat 2004, 408–410; van der Spek 2007, 416–418). Regional idiosyncrasies did exist in the vast span of the Seleucid Empire.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Seleucid Power and Influence in the Distribution of Silver Antioch Coins

lower end of the scale at around 16%. The balance of both these hoards and the others discovered within Syria originate instead from a range of Seleucid and non-Seleucid mints across the empire and beyond (Fig. 2.7). A strong link manifests especially to the western shores of Asia Minor and islands of the Aegean.161 Coins minted in Mesopotamia and further to the east are less prevalent, but a scattered variety of mints does appear. This pattern does not necessarily downplay the importance or output of the Antioch mint under the Seleucids. Rather, it suggests that because of Seleucid policies, neither the administrators nor the inhabitants of Antioch or Syria were limited to silver coins struck at official mints of the kings.162 Some risk existed in allowing foreign coinage to circulate so freely, but previous scholars have speculated that this policy may have reduced the burden of bureaucratic oversight and royal production at the start of the Seleucid Empire and/or helped to facilitate exchange with surrounding economic networks.163 On a more basic level, the silver coins provide a tangible reminder that Syria and therefore Antioch and the Antiochians were not isolated during the Hellenistic period.164 Because the open currency policy of the Seleucids allowed foreign coinage on the Attic weight standard to enter their territory and circulate widely, we are granted at least a partial indication of the connections binding Antioch and its region to territories far beyond it. Much like the inscriptions and texts referenced earlier in this chapter, the coins reveal the wider world of which the city and its inhabitants were a part. We are granted additional confirmation of this wider world by tracing out the distribution of specifically silver Antioch coins past Syria (Figs. 2.8 and 2.9; see Tables A3.1 and A3.2 for a full list of these hoards).165 By simply comparing the origins of the coins found within Syrian hoards with the distribution of silver minted at Antioch (Fig. 2.8), the horizons of the

161

162 163

164

165

Previous distribution studies have commented especially on the prevalence of the so-called Alexanders, which included both the silver coins minted during Alexander the Great’s reign as well as those of the later kings and cities that mimicked his types. Compare with Le Rider and Callataÿ 2006, 76–77. See Le Rider 1986, 33–36; Aperghis 2004, 297; Le Rider and Callataÿ 2006, 77, 114–117, 121–126; Thonemann 2015, 115–118. Several of these scholars even posit that royal Seleucid silver circulated at a slightly higher premium above other coins (see also Mørkholm 1982, 302). Foreign bronze coins also appear in the assemblage excavated at Antioch, though perhaps not in the diversity or range expected by Antioch’s position on the major trade routes. Nixon (2002, 298) casts the Antioch assemblage in a much more positive light. Of course, caution must again be exercised here as only a few of the hoards containing coins minted at Antioch originated through systematic excavation (e.g., Susa; Gordium).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

71

72

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Fig. 2.7 The origins of coins found within Syrian hoards buried between 300–129 BCE. Each circle is proportionate to the total quantity of coin finds from that mint or issuing city. See Duyrat 2016 for a detailed inventory of these hoards.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Fig. 2.8 The location of Hellenistic hoards with silver coins minted at Antioch between 300 and 129 BCE compared to the origins of all coins found in Syrian hoards of the same period. Black circles are proportionate to the quantity of Antioch coins found within each hoard; see Tables A3.1 and A3.2 for details. Grey circles are proportionate to the quantity of coins represented by each mint within Syrian hoards; see Fig. 2.7.

73

74

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

city stretched far to the east as well as to the west. Antioch was centrally located within this expanse, a testament to Seleucus I’s foundation of the city on the nexus of the ancient transportation and communication routes running between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. Of course, this is not to suggest that individual Antiochians, administrators, or visitors to the city were always the agents carrying the coins to the furthest extent in either direction. Instead, the patterns offer a suggestive glimpse of the vast commercial and political networks connecting Antioch to places far from it. Both the expanse and the limits of the coins’ movement and presumed circulation away from Antioch further reflect the Seleucid kings’ financial policies and their efforts to keep the empire intact. At least nineteen Hellenistic hoards containing silver Antioch coins have been attributed to a find spot somewhere within central and western Anatolia, much of which territory the Seleucids controlled before the Peace of Apamea in 188 BCE. Among the statistically relevant hoards with a specific find spot, none have over 10% of coins minted at Antioch; the median presence of Antioch coins is even lower at 4%. The remainder of the hoard contents consists of coins from a variety of mints across the Aegean, Asia Minor, and the occasional issue from southern Mesopotamia. With such a low representation, it is possible that Antioch silver coins moved westward through a specific agent or activity. One such mover may have been the Seleucid military. The burials of at least eleven of the hoards from Anatolia likely date to the late third and early second centuries BCE, the same period as Antiochus III’s campaigns into Asia Minor.166 If one of the motivating factors behind silver production was so that the Seleucid king could pay his soldiers – as previous scholars have suggested – it would make sense that the Antioch coins would follow the army westward on campaign.167 In this case, the presence of Antioch-struck silver to the west is another manifestation of the Seleucids making use of Antioch for their specifically military purposes. Alternatively, if commercial exchange along trade routes west of Antioch was mostly responsible for the movement of the silver coins, this too was still influenced by Seleucid activity and policy.168 The low yet evident presence of silver minted at Antioch arguably reflects the open 166 167

168

See Kosmin 2014, 19–21. Compare with Aperghis 2004, 229, 233. On other effects of Antiochus III’s campaigns on the currency of Asia Minor, see Meadows 2009. For a possible model of coin circulation in the early Hellenistic period, see Golenko 1993, 142–146.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Seleucid Power and Influence in the Distribution of Silver Antioch Coins

currency system of the kings and its fostering of the fairly free exchange of Attic-weight silver within Syria, Asia Minor, and beyond.169 Compared to the Syrian hoards, the slightly lower representation of Antioch coins in these western hoards may simply be due to the closer supply of Atticweight silver from non-Seleucid mints within and near Asia Minor.170 Significantly, even though trade to the west continued past the collapse of the Seleucid Empire, the circulation of Antioch silver appears to have ceased after Antiochus III’s losses in the area and the region’s move to a closed currency system under the Attalids (see Chapter 3).171 The political and denominational policies of the Seleucids governing the Antioch coins only extended so far. The spread of Antioch silver far to the east of Syria was also feasibly influenced by Seleucid administration and activity (Fig. 2.9). With a few outliers to the north in Armenia and as far east as Quetta, Pakistan, the majority of the predominately silver hoards cluster directly east of Antioch and then south through Mesopotamia along major trade and communication routes to the Persian Gulf.172 Much like in Syria, the median percentage of Antioch-minted silver in the eastern hoards hovers around 13%. Even in the most reliable hoards – the four hoards from Susa recovered through excavation – Antioch silver coins never exceed 25% of the individual assemblages; instead, the Antioch coins are mixed in with more prominent issues from the nearer Seleucid mints at Seleucia on the Tigris, Ecbatana, and Susa itself. Still, the silver Antioch coins are a consistent enough presence within hoards buried throughout the third and second centuries BCE to suggest circulation. Commercial activity and trade flowing from Syria down to southern Mesopotamia provide partial explanation, as neither weight differences nor differences in political control would have prevented their use.173 When the rise of the Parthians repeatedly called the Seleucid kings and their military to this territory, this too may have contributed to the eastward movement of Antioch silver.174 Although it is unwise to push the evidence too far, the presence of a few coins could even have directly resulted from Antiochene soldiers, as they

169

170 172 173

174

See van der Spek 2007, 423–424. Psoma (2013, 272–274) downplays the role of trade in bringing foreign silver into Syria, but does acknowledge the exchange of Attic-weight currency on the western borders of the Seleucid Empire. 171 Aperghis 2004, 233. See Callataÿ 2013, 218–219; Thonemann 2015, 77–81. Compare with the map in van der Spek 2007, 424. For a summary of the evidence for the trade and caravan routes connecting Syria to eastern regions, see Sartre 2001, 259–265. See Kosmin 2014, 22–23.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

75

76

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Fig. 2.9 The percentage represented by silver Antioch coins within individual hoards buried between 300 and 129 BCE. Hoards with less than twelve total coins, without a known find spot, or where Antioch coins represent less than 1% are excluded. See Tables A3.1 and A3.2 for details.

Seleucid Power and Influence in the Distribution of Silver Antioch Coins

definitely took part in at least the failed expedition of Antiochus VII that caused so much mourning in Antioch.175 As illuminating as the expanse of Antioch silver coin finds is, analyzing the limits to their movement also brings to light the evolution and influence of Seleucid policy. Both trade and military activity regularly brought administrators and individuals back and forth between Syria and the southern Levant, but the distribution map shows an absence of any finds of silver Antioch coins discovered south of Syria (Fig. 2.9).176 The lacuna has nothing to do with a general lack of hoard discoveries, as the hoard lists assembled by other scholars for this region are extensive.177 Neither is the problem one of transport. As the overlay in Fig. 2.8 demonstrates, plenty of coins minted in the southern Levant traveled into Syria during this period. Furthermore, as shown below, plenty of bronze coins traveled south from Antioch. The explanation to this pattern extends not from a lack of connection between north and south, but rather from a difference in currency systems between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. Many of the territories of the southern Levant – like Phoenicia – had been under Ptolemaic control. They had therefore used the Ptolemaic weight standard for silver, which was lighter than the Attic standard used at Antioch.178 Even after conquest by the Seleucids, both the mints and the cities of these regions remained under this lighter standard even though their coins now bore a Seleucid portrait.179 Despite the value of the silver Antioch coins as bullion, the difference in weight standards governing the currency of the two regions acted as enough of a barrier to the circulation of the northern coins – not unlike what occurred later for Asia Minor under Attalid control. Instead, based upon Duyrat’s 2016 list of hoards from the southern Levant, coins minted at Tyre – still on the Ptolemaic standard – make a much more frequent appearance in these deposits. This regional divide would set the pattern even for the succeeding centuries when the area was under Hasmonean rule (see Chapters 3 and 4). 175 176

177 178

179

Diod. Sic. 34/35.17. The Syrian Wars are well known, but on the trade connections, see Sartre 2001, 240–257; van der Spek 2007, 424. SC I; SC II; Duyrat 2016. Butcher and Ponting 2014, 540. Phoenicia had traditionally used a lighter standard than the Attic weight (see Sartre 2001, 232). Le Rider 1995, 391–404. See also Houghton 2012, 238–240; Syon 2015, 55–57; Duyrat 2016, 354. The decision to produce Seleucid silver on the Ptolemaic standard at the royal mints of Phoenicia rather than the Attic standard can be attributed either to respect for local preference or to encourage cross-border exchange.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

77

78

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

While this limit means that the distribution of silver coins struck at Antioch is neither a perfect nor consistent indicator of the full horizons, networks, and connections of the city and its rulers during the Hellenistic period, both the silver coins’ presence and absence within the Mediterranean and the Middle East speak to the larger questions of this chapter about the use and place of Antioch within the Seleucid Empire. The silver coins minted within the city for the Seleucid kings moved and circulated in specific ways strongly because of Seleucid policies and activity, even if other agents actually carried them. Military campaigns and administrative payments contributed to the silver coins’ movement, as did the kings’ allowance or encouragement of an overall open currency system. The connections of Antioch arguably spread wide in the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East past Seleucid control, but here we receive another indication of the degree to which they were dictated or shaped by the royal Seleucid government rather than the Antiochians themselves.

Seleucid Power and Influence in the Distribution of Bronze Antioch Coins Although the bronze coins minted at Antioch differ in important ways from the silver, Seleucid agency and influence over Antioch and its region can also be gleaned from their distribution and circulation. The first indication is the almost complete absence of the Antiochians’ bronze civic coins within the archaeological record, even among the finds excavated at Antioch. Excavations within the city revealed a total of 737 bronze coins that date between 350 BCE and 129 BCE and can be identified by at least the territory in which they were minted (Fig. 2.10).180 Only four finds are civic issues of the Antiochians, all of which were minted during the reign of Antiochus IV.181 One additional coin minted in Seleucia Pieria is a “brothers people” type minted during the reign of Alexander I Balas.182 The vast majority of the assemblage (over 86%) is made up of royal Seleucid coins minted at Antioch. Future excavations may yield more finds of the Antiochians’ civic coins, but other reasons can explain their extremely limited appearance. In 180

181

Only five silver coin finds date to this period, three of which originate in Antioch (see Waagé 1952, nos. 129–130). 182 Waagé 1952, nos. 116–118. Waagé 1952, no. 720.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Seleucid Power and Influence in the Distribution of Bronze Antioch Coins

79

general throughout Syria, civic coin experiments of the northern communities only slightly register in the assemblages of this period.183 One strong possibility is that the original issue size was small, especially in relative comparison to the output of royal Seleucid bronze.184 As discussed in Chapter 1, less coins produced generally meant less in circulation and available for loss and recovery. Besides production size, the purpose of these coins must again be considered, namely whether they really were to fulfill a monetary need, commemorate a special dispensation, and/or convey a message. The lack of any noticeable spread of the Antiochians’ civic coins outside of the city strongly supports a local function, while the paucity of finds even at Antioch calls into question their importance as currency during the Hellenistic period.185 This does not negate the significance of these coins as representatives of an active civic body within Antioch as argued earlier. However, in contrast to later periods, the assemblage does seem to indicate that the Antiochians predominately relied upon the currency of the Seleucids during the third and second centuries BCE rather than coins issued under their own authority.

Mint Site/ Territory

Total Bronze Coins

% Assemblage

Antioch Other Syria Ptolemaic Kingdom East Cilicia Anatolia Cyprus Balkans

640 76 10 4 3 2 1 1

86.8% 10.3% 1.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%

Total Bronze Coins

737

100%

Fig. 2.10 Bronze coins minted between 300 and 129 BCE and excavated at Antioch according to mint/ territory of origin; numerical data provided in the table. 183

184

185

See Duyrat (2016, 464–465, Fig. 9.9), who compares the overall proportion of royal Seleucid coins to civic issues found through excavation. To my knowledge, no die-study or estimate of production size has been performed for these civic issues. Cf. SC II.1, 62.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

80

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

The external distribution and likely circulation of royal Seleucid bronzes minted at Antioch demonstrate that the Antiochians were not alone in their reliance on this royal currency. The raw data reveal a wide spread of these finds in excavations from Cilicia, Cyprus, greater Anatolia, Greece, and further east of Syria (Fig. 2.11). The bronze coins even stretch into the southern Levant, where finds of contemporary silver Antioch issues are missing. The furthest finds likely resulted from other factors outside of regular circulation. For example, the five Antioch bronzes found within the Athenian agora in Greece were probably transported as part of the regular travel of merchants along the trade routes of the Mediterranean.186 Even so, when the distribution map is adjusted to show the relative importance of Antioch coins within statistically relevant sites (i.e., 9+ total coins within the period assemblage), a pattern suggestive of their broad use within the Levant materializes (Fig. 2.12).

Fig. 2.11 Excavations with bronze coins minted at Antioch between 300 and 129 BCE. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of Antioch coins at each location. See Fig. 2.12 for details.

186

On the commercial traffic from Syria to Greece, see Sartre 2005, 39. The five coins were issued under five separate Seleucid kings and range in date from the third to late second centuries BCE. While a military explanation is not impossible as certain kings did launch campaigns into Greece (see Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 21–22, 210–215; Kosmin 2014, 16–24, 79–92), the spread of the coins makes a commercial explanation more likely.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Seleucid Power and Influence in the Distribution of Bronze Antioch Coins

81

Region

Excavation Site

Total Bronze Coins

Antioch Bronze Coins

% Antioch

Syria

Tell Abou Danné

37

35

94.6%

Syria

Jebel Khalid

83

76

91.6%

Syria

Dura Europos

893

811

90.8%

Syria

Antioch

737

640

86.8%

East

Nimrud

14

11

78.6%

Syria

Seleucia Pieria

163

100

61.3%

Syria

Berytus

214

101

47.2%

Southern Levant

Caesarea Maritima

31

11

35.5%

Southern Levant

Qiryat Sefer

13

4

30.8%

Southern Levant

Horvat ’Eleq

44

10

22.7%

Cilicia

Gözlü Kule/Tarsus

100

20

20%

Southern Levant

Pella

21

3

14.3%

Fig. 2.12 The distribution of bronze coins minted at Antioch (300–129 BCE) according to their relative percentage per site; numerical data listed in the table. The area of each pie chart is proportionate to the total quantity of Hellenistic bronze coin finds at each site. Sites with less than nine overall coin finds for this period, only one Antioch coin find, or where Antioch coins represented less than 1% are not included.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

82

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

Southern Levant

Jerusalem

32

4

12.5%

Anatolia

Sardis

244

20

8.2%

Southern Levant

Tel Anafa

92

1

1.1%

East

Seleucia on the Tigris

97

1

1%

East

Susa

1133

11

0.9%

Anatolia

Pergamum

305

2

0.7%

Anatolia

Troy

144

1

0.7%

Cyprus

Kourion

283

1

0.4%

Balkans

Athens

6143

5

0.1%

Syria

Palmyra

8

5

n/a

Syria

Gindaros

5

5

n/a

Syria

Hama

6

4

n/a

Syria

Oumm El’Marra

4

3

n/a

Syria

Tell el Hajj

4

3

n/a

Syria

Tell Rifa’at

3

3

n/a

Anatolia

Çankırıkapı

5

2

n/a

Syria

Zeugma

3

2

n/a

Cilicia

Yüceören

6

1

n/a

Anatolia

Ephesus

3

1

n/a

Southern Levant

En-Gedi

1

1

n/a

Fig. 2.12 (cont.)

Even within this span, the maps do indicate that the monetary importance of royal bronze coins struck at Antioch differed from place to place. A graphical comparison of the percentages in which the bronze Antioch coins appear within individual assemblages confirms this impression; there is a noticeable difference in their representation between Syria and the regions surrounding it (Fig. 2.13). The strongest appearance of royal Antioch bronzes extends eastward along northern Syrian sites toward Dura Europos and Nimrud, where Antioch coins represent between 60% and 100% of the period assemblages. The lesser pattern runs south along the Mediterranean coast into the southern Levant, where – with the exception of Seleucia Pieria – Antioch coins represent between 1% and 50% of each assemblage.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Seleucid Power and Influence in the Distribution of Bronze Antioch Coins

Fig. 2.13 A comparison of the range of percentages represented by bronze Antioch coins minted 300–129 BCE according to region. Each line represents the percentage of bronze Antioch coins within an individual excavation; similar percentages overlap. Sites with less than eight total finds are excluded.

Several factors could explain these differences, all of which have the potential to add to our understanding of Seleucid agency at Antioch and the broader influence and activity of the kings’ administration during this period. As discussed above, the Seleucids established multiple mints across their empire.187 Given the likelihood that the coins minted there technically counted as currency throughout the empire because of the kings’ monetary guarantee, the distribution pattern may reflect the natural diffusion of bronze coins from their epicenter of production.188 The strongest concentration of finds appears near the mint itself and then gradually weakens further away, especially in areas where other mints struck coinage for the Seleucid state. That said, the kings and their administration did not strike coins evenly at all mints but were presumably driven by different needs and purposes. It is reasonable to assume that the archaeological record would somewhat reflect these differences in the original output and purpose, even if we lack a detailed understanding of the circumstances

187

188

For other mints within the Seleucid Empire, see the maps of mints in Newell 1941 [1977]; SC I; SC II. Compare with Duyrat 2016, 464–465.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

83

84

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

prompting each issue. Without presuming too great of governmental oversight or monetization, it is equally possible that some further coordination by the administration shaped the pattern of finds.189 In particular, Antioch-minted coins may appear in specific locations because authorities on either the royal or civic level organized their movement as part of a larger orchestration of currency supplies within the Seleucid Empire. These factors do not have to be mutually exclusive or always equally influential, but this study does make clear the weight of Seleucid agency and influence. Beginning with the epicenter of production, the assemblage at Antioch was arguably shaped most by the presence of a major Seleucid mint within the city. Most of the coin finds dating to this period were struck at places under Seleucid control, predominately guaranteed by the king’s authority, and therefore probably served as currency within the city.190 It is striking, though, that 86% of the finds are specifically royal Seleucid coins minted locally at Antioch (Fig. 2.10). As no conceivable reason exists in this period for any internal regulation giving preference to Antioch issues over other Seleucid bronze coins, the overwhelming dominance of locally minted coins likely reflects the strong output of the city’s mint under Seleucid control (compare with Chapter 6).191 Coins from elsewhere were not needed. This is not to say that no regulation of the bronze currency occurred. Visualizing the non-Antioch finds on a map according to their origins reveals that most of these coins came from neighboring Syrian cities and one of the Tetrapolis cities specifically, although which city is not clear in every case (Fig. 2.14). A small quantity of coins also originated from Phoenicia, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia.192 This pattern certainly lends further credence to scholarly hypothesis that bronze coins did not generally travel long distances like the silver.193 A comparison of the Antioch

189

190 191 192

193

Compare with Aperghis 2004, 245, with the caution that this model may assume too much sophistication on the part of Seleucid monetary policy (see also Mørkholm 1984, 93–97; Houghton 2012, 247). On rebuttals to Aperghis’s position, see Bresson 2005, 57–59; Le Rider and Callataÿ 2006, 262–277; Thonemann 2015, 112–115. Only fourteen of these coins are civic in nature, most of which are from nearby Seleucia Pieria. Compare with Callataÿ 2006, 184–187; Duyrat 2016, 463–468. Two silver coin finds at Antioch can be attributed to Phoenicia. Twenty additional foreign coins could not be clearly attributed to the time period considered in this chapter. The eleven definite Hellenistic coins include one from Cilicia, one Ptolemaic, two from Greece/Macedonia, three from Aradus in Syria, and two from Turkey. Denominational differences may have also played a role, but they are too poorly understood to examine for this period.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Seleucid Power and Influence in the Distribution of Bronze Antioch Coins

85

Fig. 2.14 The origins of non-Antioch coins minted between 300 and 129 BCE and excavated at Antioch. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of finds from each location. Coins without an identifiable mint are excluded.

Fig. 2.15 The origins of non-Antioch coins minted between 300 and 129 BCE and excavated within Syria, excluding coins excavated at Antioch. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of finds from each location. Coins without an identifiable mint are excluded.

assemblage to a map of non-Antioch coins excavated elsewhere within Syria (Fig. 2.15) further demonstrates that while a diversity of foreign finds entered the region, the greatest concentration comes from the Levant itself. Still, considering Antioch and greater Syria’s position on the major trade routes as well as the diversity of the silver coins in the regional hoards, we could perhaps expect a greater foreign mix of bronze coins simply because of people moving through the area. The possibility therefore exists that a larger Seleucid policy prevented foreign coins from circulating at Antioch or at least monitored what

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

86

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

counted as currency. No texts or inscriptions detail such a policy, but one hint comes from the coin assemblage at Antioch. Of the remaining nonAntioch and non-Seleucid coins found within the city, only ten Ptolemaic coins dating between 323–145 BCE represent any definable group. The mint is unknown – whether Egyptian, Cypriot, or otherwise – and it is indeterminable whether the coins entered Antioch through the agency of Seleucid soldiers returning from military operations during the Syrian Wars, through the short-lived operations of the Ptolemies within the city and region during the third century BCE, and/or as a by-product of commercial activity.194 Whatever the exact agent, these foreign coins signify some administrative oversight as at least three coins of Ptolemy VI bear a countermark in the form of a Seleucid anchor.195 The countermarks – whether added at Antioch or elsewhere – conceivably represent an acceptance of the foreign Ptolemaic coins as currency within the Seleucid Empire; without this mark the bronze was valueless.196 Additional evidence of Seleucid agency and influence can be found in the distribution of royal Antioch bronze coins outside of the city as well.197 At first, the gradually decreasing representation of Antioch bronze coins at sites along the Mediterranean coast seems to be the result of simple distance from the mint. After all, from 86% at Antioch, the presence of Antioch coins drops to 60% at neighboring Seleucia Pieria, slightly less than 50% at Berytus in Phoenicia, and to a maximum of between 20% and 35% at Caesarea Maritima, Horvat ‘Eleq, and Qiryat Sefer within the southern Levant.198 This pattern comes into even clearer focus if a possible hoard included in Seleucia Pieria’s catalog of single finds is discounted,

194

195

196 197

198

In SC II.2, 198, the editors discuss similarly countermarked coins found at other locations and suggest that they were brought to Syria as booty by Antiochus IV’s returning troops from the Sixth Syrian War. Waagé 1952, no. 982; see also Mørkholm 1991, 20. Two coins from Side (Waagé 1952, nos. 814–815), which could not be dated with greater specificity than 200–36 BCE, also bear a Seleucid anchor as countermark. The anchor countermark also appears on several contemporary Seleucid Antioch bronzes found at Dura (e.g., Bellinger 1949, nos. 14–15, 30.1, 31, 36.5, 85.1, 86, 89.1) and two royal Seleucid issues minted at Ai Khanoum and found in Cilicia (Arslan 2005, nos. 1–2). On the uniqueness of the Ptolemaic standard, see Lorber 2012, 212–213. The sample size of Syrian excavations with material for this period is limited, and so the pattern proposed here certainly bears reexamination once more material becomes available (compare with Duyrat 2016, 2). In the southern Levant, Bethsaida stands out from this pattern as no Antioch-minted coins appear within the Seleucid finds. However, as no mint information was listed for the coins of Antiochus III and twenty-three coins were unidentifiable, an Antioch origin is still possible for a small portion of the finds; see Kindler 1999, 250–251.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Seleucid Power and Influence in the Distribution of Bronze Antioch Coins

which increases the relative importance of coins minted at Antioch from 60% to almost 70%.199 Yet distance from Antioch cannot explain why only 20% of the coins excavated at nearby Gözlü Kule/Tarsus were minted at Antioch, while these same coins represent 90% of the period assemblage at faraway Dura Europos. The distribution pattern therefore must also reflect other influences on coin circulation, namely the political and numismatic policies of the Seleucids as they came to control the entire region. The assemblages along the Mediterranean coast illustrate this point well. As mentioned earlier, Phoenicia and the southern Levant were under Ptolemaic rule from 301 BCE through the third century BCE. The Ptolemies even temporarily held parts of northern Syria, which included Seleucia Pieria from 246 to 219 BCE.200 A distribution study by Georges Le Rider demonstrated that being part of the Ptolemaic kingdom meant that the currency system was closed, and the administration actively prevented foreign silver and bronze coins from circulating.201 Indeed, among the period finds at Berytus, only one of the twenty-four bronze Ptolemaic coin finds dates outside of this period of Egyptian control; almost no other coins – Seleucid included – accompany these finds (Fig. 2.16).202 Even at Seleucia Pieria (Fig. 2.16), the cluster of Ptolemaic bronzes within the excavation assemblage dates exclusively to the third century BCE and – along with hoards of Ptolemaic coins found nearby – may bear witness to temporary Egyptian rule.203 Antiochus III finally broke both Ptolemaic political control and their closed currency system when he conquered Phoenicia and the southern

199

200 201 202 203

The hoard (Waagé 1952, 75) contained thirteen bronze Cilician coins, which date to a single minting under the Macedonian king Demetrius I (306–283 BCE). A comparison to Seleucia Pieria can be drawn to coins found at Ras Ibn Hani outside of Laodicea ad Mare. Although no complete coin reports have yet been published for the Tetrapolis city proper, the total from Ras Ibn Hani shows an overwhelming dominance of royal Seleucid coins from Antioch (at least 140 dating to Antiochus III by the count of Duyrat 2016, 357). Cohen 2006, 127. Le Rider 1995, 391–404. See also Thonemann 2015, 119–124; Duyrat 2016, 359–366. Butcher 2001–2002, 44–47. See Duyrat 2016, 355–358. Duyrat 2016, 551, Map 10, reveals a “Ptolemaic enclave” of nonSeleucid coins around Seleucia Pieria. For other hoards at Seleucia Pieria containing Ptolemaic coins, see IGCH 1526, 1571. Waagé’s catalog of single excavation finds also notes a possible hoard of ten Ptolemaic coins – all silver tetradrachms of Ptolemies I and II (323–284 BCE) from the mints of Alexandria, Tyre, Sidon, Joppa, and Gaza (see Waagé 1952, nos. 961, 964–965, 969–974; see Duyrat 2016, 10, 95). Ptolemaic coin finds at Ras Ibn Hani are also numerous (around 170 dating to Ptolemies II and III and Berenice II), likely because of the Egyptian kings’ temporary rule in the region (see Duyrat 2016, 357).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

87

88

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

Seleucia Pieria

% Assemblage

Berytus

% Assemblage

Antioch Other Syria Cilicia Ptolemaic Kingdom Anatolia Cyprus East Balkans Western Europe

100 21 18 11 5 4 4

61.3% 12.9% 11.0% 6.7% 3.1% 2.5% 2.5%

101 74

47.2% 34.6%

24 12

11.2% 5.6%

2 1

0.9% 0.5%

Total Coins

163

214

100%

100%

Fig. 2.16 Bronze coins minted between 300 and 129 BCE and excavated at Seleucia Pieria and Berytus according to mint/territory of origin; numerical detail for each pie chart included in the table. The total for Seleucia Pieria includes one possible bronze hoard of coins from Cilicia.

Levant during the Fifth Syrian War (202–195 BCE).204 At this point, even though a difference in the weight standard blocked northern silver coins, the fiduciary Seleucid bronze coins minted at Antioch could and did move into the south.205 In fact, it is telling that among the excavations considered in this study, with only a few exceptions, all of the finds of royal Antioch 204

205

Ptolemaic control was not broken on Cyprus, which explains the lack of a significant quantity of Antioch coins (see Gordon 2012, 111, 117–119, 123–161; Lorber 2012, 210–229). See Schäfer 2003, 13–63; Duyrat 2015, 361–368. As Duyrat points out, the fiduciary nature of the bronze coins allowed for an easier introduction than the silver coins tied to a weight standard.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Seleucid Power and Influence in the Distribution of Bronze Antioch Coins

bronze at Berytus and at sites further to the south postdate Seleucid conquest.206 The coins of the Antioch mint are also the best represented of all the northern mints striking for the Seleucids, which further underscores the workshop’s importance to the kings by the late third century BCE.207 Beyond merely signaling the opening of political and numismatic borders, the southern presence of Seleucid coins minted at Antioch may have been far more intentional on the part of the royal administration. A strong majority of the Antioch coins found at Berytus and in the southern Levant dates specifically to Antiochus III’s reign.208 Kevin Butcher proposed that once Antiochus III conquered the region, Seleucid coins were imported to fill the currency void left by the Ptolemies as well as contribute another reminder to local inhabitants that the territory was under the new king’s control.209 While downplaying the propagandistic side of Butcher’s argument, Duyrat agreed that supplies of Seleucid coins were imported from the north.210 While compelling – especially considering the larger questions of this chapter – it bears pointing out that royal Antioch bronze coins dating to the reign of Antiochus III are the best represented of Antioch issues not only at Berytus and the southern Levant, but throughout the eastern Mediterranean (Fig. 2.17). Numismatic catalogs and economic studies often suggest a general uptick in coinage production under Antiochus III, which may actually explain their majority.211 Much like suggested for the silver above, the many military campaigns of Antiochus III could have then spread these bronze coins geographically further than what would have happened naturally.212 An additional administrative influx of the Antioch coins to the south of the city is not necessarily ruled out, but must remain a tentative hypothesis without further evidence. 206

207

208

209 211

212

The exceptions include two possible bronze coins of Antiochus I found at Caesarea Maritima (Evans 2006, nos. 8, 13). Compare with Butcher 2001–2002, 47; Duyrat 2016, 359. Among the finds considered in this study, only a single bronze coin minted at Apamea appeared in the southern Levant at excavations within Jaffa (Meir 2000, 127). Compare with Syon 2015, 149–150. Butcher 2001–2002, 47–49; Butcher raises the possibility that the ninety-one poorly preserved “Antioch” coins of an Apollo/Apollo type were actually imitations based on the “Antiochene prototypes” either minted at Ptolemais (Ake) or locally. Duyrat (2016, 365–366) appears more certain of an Antioch attribution; see also SC I.1, 404. 210 Butcher 2001–2002, 47, 54. Duyrat 2016, 362–366. E.g., Newell 1941 [1977], 138–140; SC I.1, 354–355. Although many of the bronzes noted by Newell for Antioch have since been reattributed (see SC I.1, 394), Antioch remained an important mint for the Seleucid Empire and for Antiochus III specifically. Compare with Houghton 2012, 238–239; Duyrat 2016, 364.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

89

90

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

Fig. 2.17 The total quantity of finds of bronze coins minted at Antioch (300–129 BCE) according to excavation region and minting period. Note the changed scale for Antioch and Syria.

Even if the Seleucid administration arranged for the import of northern currency supplies into territories formerly held by the Ptolemies, this policy does not appear to have lasted past the reign of Antiochus III. Soon after the conquest of the south, local mints in the region began producing royal bronze coins for the Seleucids. Based upon the coin assemblages excavated here, issues from Phoenician mints at Tyre, Aradus, Sidon, and Ptolemais (Ake) quickly superseded those from other Seleucid workshops in circulation.213 After some time, civic issues minted locally joined the coins of the Seleucid kings. For example, by the reign of Antiochus IV, the citizens of Berytus began minting their own coinage with a Seleucid royal portrait; seventeen examples appear in the city’s own assemblage. This evidence does not mean that the Antioch mint lessened in importance to the Seleucids or that Antioch coins ceased circulating (Fig. 2.17), but it does indicate the influence of other mints on the currency pool as the Seleucids controlled this territory. Only at the tail end of this time period, after the Maccabean revolt in the 160s BCE, does a rival to Seleucid coinage of Phoenicia appear as an independent Hasmonean state slowly separated

213

See Butcher 2001–2002, 49–52, 56; Tal 2012, 261–270; Syon 2015, 139–145. Compare with the coin finds from Ptolemais (Ake), which Syon argues served as an auxiliary mint of the Seleucids (Syon 2016, 205–206); at least eleven coins minted at Antioch appear within the period assemblage. Conversely, at Tyre, although only five coin finds date to this period, none is from Antioch; Tyre’s own mint accounts for four of the finds.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Seleucid Power and Influence in the Distribution of Bronze Antioch Coins

from the Seleucids and its leaders began issuing their own currency for circulation (see Chapter 3).214 The Seleucid system of mints affected other assemblages besides those in Phoenicia and the southern Levant. Closest to Antioch, Seleucia Pieria served as an intermittent mint of the Seleucid kings in addition to the citizens issuing their own civic coinage under Seleucus I, Antiochus IV, Alexander I Balas, and Antiochus VII; at least eleven coin finds reflect this production.215 Slightly to the west, the Seleucids did control Cilicia for much of the Hellenistic period, but rather than relying on coins minted at Antioch, excavation suggests that local Cilician mints and mints further west met the region’s currency needs, at least in terms of bronze coins. For western and coastal Anatolia, the few finds from Antioch registering within the assemblage hardly provide evidence of steady circulation; on the level of individual assemblages, coins from Antioch never exceed 10% (Fig. 2.13). The Seleucids had seized this region as early as 281 BCE, but the presence of local mints in addition to the loss of most of Anatolia by Antiochus III limited the circulation of bronze from Syria as a whole.216 Recognizing all these factors affecting the distribution of Antioch coins to the south and west of the city makes the pattern east of Antioch stand out all the more. The coin assemblages at Jebel Khalid (a military post), Tell Abou Danné (a rural site), and Dura Europos (a city under Seleucid control until c. 113 BCE) bear a striking resemblance to the assemblage at Antioch (Fig. 2.12). The overall quantity of Hellenistic coins varies widely from site to site, but regardless, royal coins minted at Antioch represent over 90% of each assemblage.217 These coins range in minting date across the third and second centuries BCE. Their presence is thus less likely to be the result of a particularly large issue or a single action of the administration as was partially the case for the western and southern spread of Antiochus III’s coins.218 Additionally, although not statistically significant, it is worth pointing out that the few coin finds excavated at the neighboring Syrian sites of Tell Rifa’at, Hama, Tell el Hajj, Oumm El’Marra, and Gindaros 214 215

216 217 218

Sartre 2005, 12–16; Gitler 2012, 485–486. Newell 1941 [1977], 86–92. At least one of the civic coin finds is of the ΑΔΕΛΦΩΝ ΔΗΜΩΝ type (Waagé 1952, no. 721). Compare with the assemblage at Ras Ibn Hani: on a civic level, the nineteen coins of Laodicea ad Mare outweigh those of Antioch (at least eight) and Seleucia (at least five) (see Duyrat 2016, 357). See Ma 1999, 162–163; Callataÿ 2012b, 183–184. Compare with the numbers in Duyrat 2016, 350–351; see also Mørkholm 1984, 104. In contrast, a hoard found at Dura Europos is better explained by a single instance (Bellinger 1949b, 178–179; Duyrat 2016, 130). From a total assemblage of 207 coins mostly dating to the reign of Antiochus III, 203+ are bronze coins minted at Antioch.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

91

92

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

were predominately minted at Antioch as well.219 Even beyond Syria, of the fourteen bronze coins for this period found at Nimrud, twelve were minted at Antioch by the royal Seleucid government.220 The dominance of royal bronze coins minted at Antioch over coins from important eastern mints like Seleucia on the Tigris surprised the original publishers of the numismatic evidence from both Jebel Khalid and Dura Europos.221 Antioch was the closest major mint of the royal government to the military outpost of Jebel Khalid, but C. E. V. Nixon was curious at the lack of coins from more eastern Seleucid mints considering the proximity of the site to major crossing points over the Euphrates River.222 Dura Europos likewise lies at an equal distance between Antioch and Seleucia on the Tigris, but here too the latter mint has relatively little importance within the assemblage. Nixon and Le Rider both favored the explanation that the coins naturally entered these sites over a long period of time primarily through trade and other activities of the site’s inhabitants. As discussed above with the silver, communication routes did run through Antioch all the way to the Indian Ocean, which facilitated commercial exchange as well as the movement of soldiers on campaigns for the Seleucids. Small quantities of bronze Antioch coins appearing past these sites at Susa and Seleucia on the Tigris likely resulted from either of these agents. After all, the whole southern region had local access to official bronze coins from Seleucid mints at both Susa and Seleucia on the Tigris and, based upon the assemblages excavated there, did not rely upon western issues.223 While general commercial and military activity contributed to the movement of Antioch bronzes out of the city, neither agent provides a completely satisfying explanation for the marked alignment of the coin assemblages stretching along the route from Antioch to Dura Europos. The possibility therefore must be raised that these locations were actively supplied with currency minted at Antioch through a more intentional administrative arrangement, after which commercial activities spread the

219

220

221

222

The identification of Antioch coins at Hama is not explicit, but likely based upon reference to SNG. A hoard of seventeen bronze coins discovered in Iran reportedly contained at least two royal Seleucid coins minted at Antioch (see IGCH 1802). Le Rider 1998, 80: “remarquable.” Nixon 2002, 298: “striking” and “somewhat surprising.” Bellinger 1949b, 196–197: “the orientation of Dura in monetary matters is therefore clear.” See also Duyrat 2016, 350–351. 223 Nixon 2002, 298–230. See Le Rider 1965, 307; Le Rider and Callataÿ 2006, 129–130.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Conclusion

coins into the wider region.224 Without more evidence, it is difficult to define further what this arrangement entailed or for what purpose. Depending on the monetary model accepted for the Seleucid Empire (see “Establishing Antioch”), the royal administration could have orchestrated supplies or the local communities could have connected with the relatively prolific Antioch mint in lieu of their own workshop. At the very least, royal Antioch bronze was clearly the major currency across northern Syria all the way to Dura Europos, which yet again reinforces the importance of this mint under Seleucid control. The total pattern and individual idiosyncrasies in the distribution of Antioch bronze coins highlight the dominant influence of the Seleucid administration over the region, the Antioch mint, and the civic authority of the Antiochians. Even though civic coins were occasionally produced at Antioch for reasons significant to the citizens themselves, they have almost no presence in the archaeological record both within and outside of the city. Instead, the royal Seleucid state manifests in the strong regional pooling of bronze in northern Syria, in the introduction of the coins to the southern Levant upon conquest, and in the absence or diminished presence of bronze Antioch coins once other royal Seleucid mints were introduced.

Conclusion Given these perspectives provided by the textual, numismatic, and other historical evidence, Antioch of the Hellenistic period must first be characterized as an imperial center of and for the Seleucids. The fingerprints of the royal Seleucid state are all over the city and its regional and international connections. The reach of Antioch in this capacity was wide, stretching throughout the eastern Mediterranean, but also extending to the limits of the Middle East. When Seleucid policies and politics changed, so too did the horizons of the city. When the kings undertook military campaigns, Antioch was an instrumental part, whether providing men and currency to fuel the march outward or serving as a haven of retreat. The sociocultural environment of the city benefited from this attention as well, as religious and intellectual activities flourished.

224

This was the initial thought of Nixon (2002, 299). Bellinger (1949b, 195–196) is more certain of administrative involvement.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

93

94

Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE)

None of this discounts the emerging civic element within Antioch. Although the Antiochians had been established within the city to serve the strategic efforts of the kings, the historical record reveals that their distinct identity and localized agency developed as the Hellenistic period progressed. From the earliest settlers minting local coins for themselves through to the belligerent citizens seeking a replacement for their king, the agency of the civic body cannot be denied. It is also these citizens who would endure at Antioch after the Seleucid Empire encompassing them fell. For the time being, however, the civic body of the Antiochians remained in the shadow of the Seleucid state.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press

3

|

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

With all other matters set aside, Caesar thought that he should pursue Pompey wherever he had fled, so that the latter might not be able to collect resources again and renew the war. And every day Caesar kept advancing as much of the journey as he was able to accomplish with the cavalry, and he ordered one legion to follow with shorter marches . . . And in a few days, Pompey arrived at Mytilene, and after being detained there for two days because of weather, having added other swift ships, he continued on to Cilicia and then to Cyprus. There he learned that by the consensus of all the Antiochians and the Roman citizens, who were doing business there, the fortress had been captured for the purpose of excluding him and messengers had been sent toward those who were said to have escaped to neighboring cities, so that they would not come to Antioch. If they were to try, great danger hung over their heads . . . And now the rumor of Caesar’s arrival was being carried toward the cities. —Caesar, Civil Wars 3.102

Around 47 BCE, Antioch’s inhabitants waited for the arrival of yet one more general from the West. Over fifteen years earlier in 64 BCE, another commander – Pompey the Great – had swept into Syria in the name of personal glory and Roman hegemony, raining down honors on Antioch and many other eastern cities as he annexed new parts of the Levant into the Roman Empire.1 In response, at least on one occasion, the citizens of Antioch had prepared a pomp-filled parade in expectation of his entourage.2 A few years prior to Pompey, other Roman governors and leaders had visited the city as the puppet rulers of the Seleucid state failed to balance the local and foreign powers emerging from the void of their crumbling eastern empire.3 But now, the citizens of Antioch prepared for the coming of Julius Caesar. According to Caesar’s own testimony in The Civil Wars, he turned toward Syria in pursuit of his former ally and present foe.4 Pompey, still 1 2 4

Diod. Sic. 40.4; Plut. Pomp. 38–39; Just. Epit. 40.2; Malalas 8.211. See also Sartre 2005, 31–44. 3 Plut. Cat. Min. 13, Pomp. 40. Downey 1961, 139–142. Caes. BC 3.102; see also 3.105.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

95

96

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

stinging from defeat at Pharsalus in 48 BCE, had fled south and east from coastal city to island seeking safe harbor. Pausing on Cyprus, he contemplated a return to Syria possibly in an attempt to find refuge with the Parthians further east.5 The Antiochians did not welcome this pending visit. Instead, Caesar describes the citizens and resident Roman businessmen taking up weapons to block Pompey from entering Antioch. These same citizens then sent messages to Pompey’s supporters who had escaped to neighboring cities, warning them away from Antioch if they valued their lives. Upon hearing of the Antiochians’ resolve against their previous liberator or captor, Pompey abandoned Syria and headed to Egypt. The inhabitants of Antioch resumed their watch for Caesar. Although describing events well into the period covered by this chapter, this account captures two important developments for Antioch during its transition from Seleucid to Roman rule. Chronologically, the previous chapter had concluded with the vast Seleucid Empire starting to shrink into the territorial limits of Syria, while internal dynastic bickering over the throne intensified. Both factors contributed to the elevation of Antioch into a uniquely important administrative center, if not capital.6 The situation did not improve from 129 BCE to 64 BCE, when the final Seleucid kings fell from power. The rivalry among the related monarchs escalated further, which weakened their control and left the empire vulnerable to foreign invasion by the Egyptians, the Armenians, and the Parthians. By the end, whatever organization of the Middle East had been previously gained through Seleucid colonization and satrapal administration fractured with the decline of any royal order.7 The fall of the Seleucid Empire did not leave Antioch vacant. Herein lies the first important development revealed by Caesar’s account: the agency of the Antiochians. As I argued in the previous chapter, this element was present from the very founding of Antioch but greatly overshadowed by the activity of the Seleucids and their use of the city. With the fragmentation of the Seleucid Empire over the course of the second and first centuries BCE, many citizens within Syria found a greater voice for the internal independence they already held.8 The Antiochians were no exception as they threw their support behind one ruler or another and expressed their displeasure. When the Seleucid kings finally lost their power, it is the

5 6 7 8

See Plut. Pomp. 76. Compare with Grainger 1990, 170–171; Kosmin 2014, 242–243; Chrubasik 2016, 184–188. See Sartre 2001, 371–372; Kosmin 2014, 251. Kosmin 2014, 238–251. Grainger (1990, 170–177) is less positive.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

Antiochians who met and endured annexation by the Romans in 64 BCE, exercised agency despite a revolving door of western administrators, and refused Pompey in favor of Caesar. Caesar’s account is also helpful in highlighting the consistent presence of both Roman officials and private businessmen now within Antioch. A precedent for Roman involvement in Antioch’s world had been established earlier in the Hellenistic period, primarily through the medium of Roman ambassadors seeking an audience with Seleucid rulers residing in the city.9 On a more fundamental level, Rome had also curtailed the attempts of kings like Antiochus III to expand their eastern empire into the territory of Rome’s allies.10 As important as these interactions were, they existed on the periphery of Antioch while the Seleucids held the city as their capital.11 Once Seleucid control over the Middle East waned and experiments with client kings failed, the Romans found their opportunity for more overt force through the annexation of the whole region into their western empire.12 Given the complexity inside Syria and the wider region, this process was a far more fluid “experiment” than the ancient sources imply.13 Rome did send governors, a small bureaucratic entourage, and even legions to the new, nebulously defined provincia of Syria to oversee matters of finance and security.14 Additionally, client kingdoms persisted throughout the region and were entrusted to take care of their own territory and respect Roman interests.15 Complicating the progress of this new administrative structure, however, were repeated intrusions by Rome’s own civil wars throughout the first century BCE, which spilled competitors into Syria.16 The Parthians periodically invaded as well, adding to the instability.17 Rather than holding an organized and unified province, the Romans loosely grasped an area potentially as tumultuous as it had been under the final, failing Seleucid kings. Arguably the greatest asset in the region for the Roman administrators was the network of poleis predating their arrival and once cultivated by the Seleucids. Other political forms persisted and were even encouraged, but

9 11 13 14 15 16

17

10 2 Macc. 11.34–36; Polyb. 30.27, 31.33. See Gruen 1984, 611–671. 12 Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 218–223. See Sartre 2005, 26–30; Engels 2011, 181–194. Sartre 2005, 31. See also Freeman 1994, 178. E.g., Joseph. BJ 1.157, 164–166, 179–182. See Sherwin-White 1983, 271–321. See Jones 1971, 256–259; Butcher 2003, 87–98. E.g., Anon. B.Alex. 65.4; Joseph. BJ 1.216–242; Plut. Ant. 54.4, 74. See Millar 1993, 27–28; Sartre 2005, 50–53. Sherwin-White 1983, 290–321; Sartre 2005, 44–50.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

97

98

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

the cities granted the Roman administration an ideal power structure to implement Roman rule.18 As autonomous and self-sufficient institutions, they could act as a conduit for imperial directives while also generating taxes and serving as military bases.19 They thereby alleviated the burden on the small Roman bureaucracy.20 As the preeminent city of the former Seleucid Empire, Antioch is often assumed to have gained a special place under the conquering western state. From Glanville Downey’s perspective, the Romans immediately recognized Antioch’s legacy as Seleucid “capital” and gave it the “position of honor” it deserved by naming it a provincial capital.21 His words echo those of Libanius in the fourth century CE, when the orator declared that the Antiochians lost no honor as the conquering Romans welcomed all aspects of the Seleucid city as their own.22 This characterization is problematic both in definition and in chronology. Although the term “provincial capital” often appears within scholarship, what this status actually meant for the Roman Empire has been contested. Fergus Millar did not believe the Romans had provincial capitals as the governors were peripatetic like the previous Seleucid kings.23 Conversely, Rudolf Haensch argued that while the Roman governors moved around their provinces, this did not deny them a regular place of residence which they or we might consider a capital.24 Haensch still cautioned that we must be careful in assuming all modern connotations of this word as a singular, prosperous administrative center. The provincial residence of a governor could vary from one administrator to the next, and the presence of the governor in one city did not ensure that all Roman provincial officials in his entourage resided or governed there. Roman use of a city as a center also did not guarantee its prestige or prosperity. In the case of Antioch, the Romans clearly did appreciate and take advantage of its location and other amenities. Its use by the governors and other Roman leaders does indeed reveal movement toward its eventual role as a centralized point for Roman control in the region.25 However, too quickly defining the city as “provincial capital” does not give enough consideration to the immediate circumstances governing this period and 18

19

20 22 25

See Garnsey and Saller 1987, 27–28; Woolf 1997, 3–4. On other communities, see Sartre 1991, 318–321, 328–335. Pollard 2000, 35–67; Butcher 2003, 190–191. See also Sartre 2005, 156–159; Salmeri 2011, 197–214. 21 Butcher 2003, 224–225. Downey 1961, 144. See also Baldus 1987, 146. 23 24 Lib. Or. 11.129–130. Millar 1993, 94, see also 123. Haensch 2007, 266–267. See the longer study of provincial capitals by Haensch 1997, 20–21, 244–245.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Defining Late Seleucid Rule at Antioch

may actually create a false impression of static prominence for both Antioch and the position of the Antiochians. It equally runs the risk of implying that Roman use of the city overshadowed the Antiochians, as had been the situation under the Seleucid kings. The following chapter therefore re-examines the characterization of Antioch and its people during this significant transitional period from the end of Seleucid rule to the beginning of Roman imperial governance. The coin evidence plays an instrumental role in this analysis, as the ebb of royal coinage and the now abundant civic issues testify to the evolving agency of the region’s inhabitants and rulers. Antioch remained a major Syrian city that continued to attract both the Seleucids and the Romans. However, the coins help to visualize how the political fragmentation of the region and the general rise of civic independence in Syria at the end of Seleucid rule created a vastly different environment than what had existed previously under the height of the Hellenistic period. The final Seleucid rulers focused on Antioch as a prize to be won, but their constant warring destabilized both city and region and either forced or allowed the Antiochians to exercise greater agency. As such, Antioch ultimately converted from a city run by kings to one largely directed by the citizens themselves. It is with these civic agents that the Romans ultimately chose to engage, taking a far more laissez-faire approach than is implied by the term “capital.” Indeed, much continuity can be found between the last dysfunctional Seleucids and the early Romans in their use of the city. As a result, although the new imperial government was clearly present within Antioch, the activity and authority of the civic government continue to surface, especially in the production of civic coins. Like in other cities of the region, the Antiochians emerge as an active municipal body, not fully autonomous and yet still seeing to internal needs and taking a political stance when necessary.

Defining Late Seleucid Rule at Antioch Compared to the previous chapter, the ancient sources are far more grudging on Antioch and its inhabitants at the end of Seleucid rule and transition to Roman control.26 Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that so much of what defined the city’s flourishing community at the height of the Hellenistic age continued through the first century BCE. In a later 26

See the complaints of Downey 1961, 126.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

99

100

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

speech by Cicero (Arch. 4), Antioch of the late second century BCE is described as “a populous and abundant city filled with the most learned people and the noblest studies.” Based upon Strabo’s comparison of the city to Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch’s population was already growing toward several hundred thousand inhabitants.27 Inscriptional and textual evidence also proves that the Antiochians kept flowing into the outside world, bringing their homegrown talents and trade with them. One early first-century BCE inscription from Boeotia in central Greece names at least two individuals from Antioch near Daphne achieving victory as poets and flute players in the Charitesia, a musical festival at Orchomenos.28 One of these individuals – Ergeas, son of Ergeas – also won a competition as a flutist in a festival at nearby Ptoïon around the same time.29 Inscriptions from Delos attest to Antiochians making dedications to Syrian gods on the island and presumably taking part in the wealth of commercial activity there.30 A passage from Malalas mentions a wealthy Antiochene man living at Athens, who bestowed a library and a temple of the Muses to the people of Antioch.31 If these elements remained unchanged for Antioch, the same cannot be said about the Seleucid Empire at large. While much of Anatolia had already been lost by the Seleucids following the Peace of Apamea in 188 BCE, the aggressive movement of the Parthians from further east resulted in a substantial loss to the empire beginning in the 140s BCE.32 In 129 BCE, Antiochus VII died following a tremendous defeat of the Seleucid army in his last effort to recapture the East.33 In the southern Levant, the Maccabean revolt in the 160s BCE developed into a Hasmonean state slowly separating from the Seleucid Empire, first as semi-autonomous and then completely independent by the end of the second century BCE.34 Other kingdoms and tribes within and around the border also 27 30

31 32 34

28 29 Str. 16.2.5. See Downey 1958, 86. IG VII 3196. Bizard 1920, 249–261, no. 10.18. At least seven different inscriptions roughly dating between 188–129 BCE reference individuals associated with Antioch making dedications to the gods (ID 2256, 2263, 2268, 2280, 2281, 2285, and 2355). None of these inscriptions mentions Antioch by its full title “near Daphne,” but ID 2355 does reference Antioch as a metropolis. Other inscriptions record individuals, fathers and daughters, wives and husbands from Antioch making dedications specifically to Syrian gods such as Hadad and Atargatis (see Grainger 1997, 286, 314, 349, 367, 557, and 573), which could mean the Antioch referred to is the Syrian city. The widespread acceptance of Syrian gods somewhat undercuts this identification (see Will 1985, 139–149; Scott 2015, 235–237). On commercial activity drawing Antiochians and other Syrians to Delos, see Downey 1961, 135–136; Reger 2007, 477. Malalas 10.235–236; Downey 1961, 132–133. 33 See Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 223–225. Green 1990, 536. Sartre 2005, 12–16.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Defining Late Seleucid Rule at Antioch

sought independence.35 The branches of the Seleucid family tree were left to fight bitterly over what remained in Syria and Cilicia.36 Fight they did with Antioch often at the center. Although other cities could function as administrative headquarters if necessary as the number of royal contenders multiplied, Antioch had long matured into a place of residence for the rulers and their families, a venue for elaborate games and banquets, a strategic location for directing the state, and an object of contention for warring dynasts with only occasional periods of respite.37 Historians have struggled to delineate the different lines of conflict among the various family members, but Antioch’s importance within this discord cannot be disputed.38 Within a period of less than thirty years at the end of the second century BCE, the city was so pivotal that Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX ousted the other from Antioch’s walls on as many as five separate occasions.39 The contest over Antioch only intensified in the first century BCE as several of the kings held double and even triple reigns there as a result of multiple evictions. The sequence of power related by a passage of Josephus reinforces Antioch’s prominence, as Philip Philadelphus set out straight to Antioch after a fight with his brother in the early 80s BCE, took the city over, and then ruled Syria.40 The continued production of royal coins at Antioch reflects both the focus of the Seleucid kings upon the city and the dysfunction that strained their rule. In fact, as so many of the rival kings relied upon Antioch as their principal mint, their successive issues of coins provide one of the best resources for untangling the chronological mess left by dynastic struggle.41 The Seleucid kings still minted royal coins mostly in silver and bronze, much of which was presumably to fund their near constant civil wars in addition to supporting campaigns against external menaces and making other official payments as in previous periods.42 Antioch was not the only mint to produce coins for the rival Seleucids in this period, though it was the only royal mint to endure through to the reigns of the last kings. This reinforces the larger importance of Antioch to the Seleucid state.43

35 37 38 40 42

43

36 Butcher 2003, 90–98. Grainger 1990, 170. See Downey 1961, 126–136; Kosmin 2014, 21–24. On games at Daphne, see Ath. 5.210, 12.540. 39 On the chronology of this period, see Hoover 2007, 280–301. Kosmin 2014, 243. 41 Joseph. AJ 13.386. Hoover 2007, 281; see also SC II.1, 483–485, 499. See Bellinger 1949a, 58–80; Sartre 2001, 371; SC II.1, xxvi–xxviii. Rival kings ousted from Antioch either continued or started production in other cities. Newell 1918 [1978], 132–133; Houghton 2004, 66; SC II.1, 617–619. Only one series of tetradrachms at Antioch has been attributed to Antiochus XIII. No certain issues can be tied to Philip II.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

101

102

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

Along with political instability came financial insecurity for the Seleucids. Despite sporadic periods of peace for the city and even generosity on the part of the kings, the evidence from Antioch suggests they increasingly suffered fiscal woes.44 On the level of individual kings, later texts record a defeated and penniless Alexander II Zabinas fleeing to Antioch around 123 BCE and attempting to rob the temple of Zeus in order to pay his troops.45 On a collective level, the most telling sign of the instability generally experienced by the Seleucid rulers is the steady drop in the weight of the silver coins minted at Antioch.46 Only once before 130 BCE had the weight of the tetradrachms been significantly reduced at Antioch, from around 17 grams to 16.6–16.7 grams. At the end of the second century BCE, the weight standard began a rapid decline before finally leveling off at around 14.7 grams after the end of Seleucid influence over the city.47 As continuous warfare plagued the region – especially among the contending rivals – the kings were forced to meet their financial obligations by debasing their own currency.48 The evident political and financial instability undercutting each rival dynast’s control within Syria was somewhat belied by the consistency in the iconography on the coins minted at Antioch (Fig. 3.1). As before, the silver coins made the guaranteeing authority clear by always featuring a royal portrait on the obverse, and either a god or royal symbol on the reverse alongside the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ and the king’s name and epithets. The general depiction of Tyche holding a cornucopia reappeared, having originally been introduced as a type at most western mints in the early second century BCE.49 By far the most persistent reverse type was a seated Zeus holding Nike otherwise known as Zeus Nicephorus. This type had appeared on the first issues of Antioch silver in 300 BCE (see Fig. 2.1)

44 45

46

47

48

49

See Downey 1961, 126–136. Just. Epit. 39.2; Diod. Sic. 34.28; see also Downey 1961, 127–128. Only a few years earlier – if the dating is correct – Alexander II Zabinas had been able to issue a rare gold issue in celebration of his victory against a rival (see SC II.1, 449–450). Mørkholm 1963, 37–43; Le Rider 1999, 225–226; SC II.1, xxvi–xxvii; SC II.2, 1–6. It is difficult to gauge how much the purity of these silver Antioch coins dropped during this period. Butcher and Ponting (2014, 540–542) estimate the fineness of Antioch tetradrachms for Philip Philadelphus to average around 77% in the early years of the first century BCE, whereas Houghton (2012, 249) suggests that this level had dropped to 60% by 60 BCE. 16.2 grams under Antiochus VIII c. 110s BCE, then 15.7 grams under Antiochus IX c. 96 BCE, 15.6 grams under Philip I sometime after 94 BCE, and 15.4 grams under the final definitive Seleucid issues of Antiochus XIII between 69 and 67 BCE. See SC II.2, 2–3. Duncan-Jones (1994, 104) points out that at least in the Roman period, debasement is often accompanied by increased mint output. E.g., SC II.1, 155, 500, 570. On the coins of Antiochus VIII, Tyche may allude to the queen; see SC II.1, 437.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Defining Late Seleucid Rule at Antioch

and remained in use through the first century BCE.50 In fact, by the time the last silver Seleucid issue was minted at Antioch under Antiochus XIII, only the Zeus Nicephorus type was used on the reverse.

(a)

(c)

(b)

(d)

(e)

Fig. 3.1 Royal coins of the Seleucid kings minted at Antioch c. 129–64 BCE: (a) Silver drachm of Antiochus X/Tyche; (b) silver tetradrachm of Philip I Philadelphus/Zeus Nicephorus; (c) bronze coin of Alexander II Zabinas/cornucopiae; (d) bronze coin of Antiochus VIII with Artemis/Apollo; (e) bronze coin of Antiochus VIII/eagle. (ANS 1944.100.76916; 1948.19.2406; 1944.100.76750; 1992.54.2273; 1992.54.2196. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

The bronze coins showed more diversity than the silver with a mix of old and new symbols (Fig. 3.1).51 Like the earlier Seleucid coins, traditional gods like Zeus, Apollo, Artemis, Athena, and Tyche sometimes replaced the king’s portrait on the obverse. The reverse of the coins also depicted images of these gods, as well as an eagle, cornucopiae, thunderbolt, or the Seleucid anchor among other religious and military symbols. In order to confirm the royal government’s guarantee for these issues, all coins still featured the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ plus the king’s name and epithets. Care should be taken not to push the propagandistic purpose of the silver or bronze coins too far as other factors certainly shaped their design, but it is 50 51

Compare SC I.1, 18–19, with SC II.1, 503, 603, 619, 621–626; McAlee 2007, 67–71. See the summary in SC II.2, 355–360.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

103

104

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

still tempting to see the continuation of images from earlier Seleucids as a way of evoking a degree of legitimacy in each king’s claim to rule.52 Seleucid control was nevertheless weakening throughout Syria, which broadly created a need or opportunity for civic communities to exercise greater agency and self-expression.53 It is difficult to determine whether this was a burden or a boon for the citizens, especially as the evidence is inconclusive about the situation of individual cities or even the degree of their separation from the kings.54 The textual evidence reveals that this period was marked by civic revolt, such as when the citizens of Apamea rebelled against Demetrius II or when the people of Mopsuestia in Cilicia killed Seleucus VI over a monetary levy.55 Laurianne Martinez-Sève and Maurice Sartre have argued that while some citizens gladly took advantage of a weakened Seleucid state to improve their situation or replace a hated ruler, these successive revolts can also be explained as a protest to the kings’ oppressive demands for supplies and troops.56 The citizens acted independently, but were driven at least in part by concerns for self-preservation within an unstable state. How to interpret the proliferation of special civic titles during this period is equally ambiguous. In a few instances, cities such as Seleucia Pieria (c. 109/8 BCE) and Tripolis (c. 105–95 BCE) boldly celebrated the status of autonomos, which implies an extra degree of independence compared to earlier Seleucid control.57 Then again, at least in the case of Seleucia Pieria, Antiochus VIII appears to have granted the status as a reward for the city’s loyalty with no definite practical benefits.58 Between 146 BCE and the end of the second century BCE, several cities within greater Syria also attained the title of hiera kai asylos (“sacred and inviolable”).59 This title presumably had religious, military, and possibly 52 54 55

56

57

58

59

53 Compare with Kushnir-Stein 2001, 41–52. See Chrubasik 2016, 188–192. E.g., Grainger 1990, 170–176; Meadows 2001; Sartre 2001, 372–380; Kosmin 2014, 238–251. On Apamea, see Just. Epit. 39.1; Grainger 1990, 164–165. On Cilicia, see Joseph. AJ 13.368; App. Syr. 69; Kosmin 2014, 245. Sartre 2001, 379–380; Martinez-Sève 2004, 36–37. This trouble plagued many other Greek cities at this time; see Millar 2006, 109–111. On Antiochians trying to replace their ruler, see Diod. Sic. 33.4–4a; Joseph. AJ 13.35–36, 108. If an analogy can be drawn to the “autonomous” cities of Asia Minor under the earlier Seleucid Empire, these statuses might have freed cities from paying tribute or housing garrisons (see Ma 1999, 162–165). The title autonomos did not always coincide with these privileges. A Cypriot inscription (OGIS 257) records the king declaring Seleucia Pieria eleutheros (“free”) in 109 BCE. Rigsby 1996, xiii, 27–28, 481–518. This included Tyre by 141/0 BCE, Seleucia Pieria by 139/8 BCE, Ptolemais (Ake) by 126/5 BCE, and Berytus (known at the time as Laodicea in Phoenicia) by 110/9 BCE.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Defining Late Seleucid Rule at Antioch

economic connotations, but it is again unclear what practical exemptions it bestowed from the king beyond honor.60 Rather than dismissing any of these titles as empty declarations, in the context of the crumbling Seleucid state, each extension speaks to a royal wooing of supporters in a climate of contested supremacy and movement toward legalizing or institutionalizing the independence and latitude already expressed by the citizens.61 The most tangible expression of increasing municipal agency comes in the form of civic coins produced by the cities at astounding new levels. In the previous era, the majority of coins had been minted for the Seleucid government with the exception of a few bronze issues tied to the civic authority. Now, the increasing loss of control by the Seleucid state over the region opened the opportunity or need for other political powers – including city governments – to issue their own bronze and even silver coinage.62 As the impetus behind the production is not known, significant debate exists over the interpretation of the civic coinage both as fiscal instrument and medium of self-expression.63 Some historians have argued that much like civic titles, the warring Seleucid rulers allowed this civic production either to give thanks to loyal cities or desperately woo supporters by further extending their autonomy.64 According to this perspective, minting was a royally granted privilege for cities to strive after and then employ in order to proclaim their newfound independence.65 The coins may have an economic purpose here, but their significance is political. Other scholars propose a more practical reason for the production of these coins: the cities began to issue their own coins not as a celebration of increasing autonomy and civic rights, but because of sheer financial need.66 According to this view, the breakdown of Seleucid control created a situation in which cities no longer received enough royal coins to cover their local and regional needs, and so the civic governments had to produce their own silver and bronze to make up the deficit.67 This explains why

60 61 63 64

65

66 67

Rigsby 1996, 1–25, 486; see Reger 2007, 474–475. 62 Grainger 1990, 162–164; Kosmin 2014, 244–245. See Duyrat 2016, 397, Table 7.9. See Meadows 2001, 58; Houghton 2004, 54. E.g., Newell 1918 [1978], 117–118; Rigsby 1996, 496–499; Kosmin 2014, 244–245. According to 1 Macc. 15.6, Antiochus VII granted the Jews permission to mint their own coins. Although from outside of Syria, a late second-century BCE decree from Sestos (OGIS 339) may lend support for this view, as it details the interest of citizens in minting civic coinage after Attalid rule both to celebrate their own city’s types and to gain a profit from its production and use (ll. 44–49). See Howgego 1995, 41; Ashton 2012, 202; Thonemann 2015, 130–131. E.g., Kushnir-Stein 2001, 41–52; Meadows 2001, 53–63. By the early first century BCE, few mints produced royal coins for the Seleucid state (see SC II.1, 551–619). Both Houghton (2012, 249–250) and Duyrat (2016, 393–394, 471–472) also suggest

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

105

106

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

civic silver coins were not always struck immediately upon a grant of autonomy, but several years later; when silver production did occur, it appears to coincide with another regional mint ceasing production of a required coin.68 Rather than an honor, this production could entail additional burdens if the citizens had to supply their own bullion and cover the cost of production.69 Furthermore, as François de Callataÿ contends, the kings could still have a hand in mint operations.70 After all, a city’s mint might occasionally produce royal Seleucid bronze or silver following a grant of civic autonomy or production of local coins.71 I agree that fiscal need within a crumbling Seleucid state drove the production of civic coins and not sheer autonomous pride, but necessity did not prevent the civic communities from using the coins as a medium of self-expression.72 Significantly, these issues reflect a guaranteeing authority to some degree distinct from the Seleucid state. Local patron gods replaced the royal portraits, such as Heracles-Melqart at Tyre.73 On other coins, the dates no longer reflected the Seleucid calendar, but an era determined by an individual city.74 We know of a civic community’s gain of a special title like autonomos or hiera kai asylos primarily because the coins proclaim it.75 Oliver Hoover even proposes that certain Syrian cities used civic coins as platforms for intercity rivalry.76 For example, when Tyre’s civic government minted coins with the legend “of Tyre, mother [city] of the Sidonians,” Sidon’s mint asserted in response “mother [city] of Cambe, Hippone, Citium and Tyre.” Minting one’s own currency may not have

68

69 71

72 74 75 76

that the closing monetary systems of the Seleucid Empire and the surrounding territories meant that Syrian cities could not rely on foreign silver; despite increased production by the royal government (and even debasement of the silver), it was not enough to cover local and regional need. Consider the civic production of silver coins at Seleucia Pieria and Tripolis. See Mørkholm 1983, 99; repeated in Meadows 2001, 57. Kushnir-Stein (2001, 47–48) also emphasizes the almost seamless continuation of silver production at Tyre after the end of Seleucid production and suggests local need demanded it. 70 See Harl 1987, 26–27. Callataÿ 2002, 71–91. E.g., consider Seleucia Pieria (see SC II.1, 582, 588), although the editors state that the autonomous city “allowed” the king to produce these coins. 73 Kosmin 2014, 241–242; see Houghton 2004, 54. Hoover 2004b, 495–496. Seyrig 1950a, 5–56; Hoover 2009, lxv–lxvi, 281–315. See the cautions of Meadows 2001, 55–56. See Seyrig 1950a; Kushnir-Stein 2001. Hoover 2004b, 490–492. There are other examples of intercity rivalry, such as when the people of Aradus bribed a royal viceroy to approve its takeover of nearby Marathus (see Diod. Sic. 33.5; Grainger 1990, 158–159). Posidonius fr. 54 also depicts the people of Apamea and Larissa marching against each other in the early second century BCE (see Edelstein and Kidd 1972, 78). The quarrel between Tyre and Sidon continued into Roman times (Str. 16.2.22; Cass. Dio. 54.7.6).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Defining Late Seleucid Rule at Antioch

been the primary goal of every Syrian city, but the coins nevertheless testify – whether positively or negatively – to the expanding agency of the local government. Although minimized or overlooked because of Antioch’s importance to the Seleucids, the civic body of the Antiochians was not left out of this moment of growing independence and self-expression. The citizens amplified their participation in the greater political sphere, collectively declaring their objection or support for one Seleucid contender or another, even as individual Antiochians still served within the inner court.77 For example, Justinus records that in 128 BCE, when Demetrius II headed to Egypt on campaign, the Antiochians initiated a revolt against the detested king.78 Just a few years later, when Alexander II Zabinas attempted to plunder the temple of Zeus in order to pay his troops, the people of Antioch violently objected.79 Like other Syrian civic communities, the Antiochians also began minting their own bronze coinage to a greater degree than ever before. Beginning in 92/1 BCE – slightly later than several other cities in the region – the Antiochians produced at least one bronze issue most years down to 69 BCE.80 These coins bear neither the portrait nor the legend of any king, but rather the ethnic ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ, which implies that the Antiochians, and not the Seleucids, were responsible for their guarantee.81 The date of the first civic issues suggests that their production was somehow linked to the complete cessation of royal Seleucid bronze coins minted at Antioch in 94/3 BCE. Unfortunately, the historical record offers no further testimony as to exact circumstances motivating the Antiochians to mint regularly their own civic bronze coinage. Downey and others thought that this civic production was a royal concession of partial autonomy to the Antiochians as a way of winning their support.82 According to this interpretation, perhaps the citizens had learned of civic production

77

78 80

81 82

See Martinez-Sève 2004, 33–35. A late second-century BCE inscription from Delos (ID 1547; OGIS 256) is dedicated to Crateros of Antioch, the tutor of Antiochus IX. According to Euseb. Chron. 257, Crateros fled with the royal family to Cyzicus out of fear of Demetrius II, where he then raised the future king. 79 Just. Epit. 39.1. Just. Epit. 39.2; Diod. Sic. 34.28. See also Downey 1961, 127–128. Downey (1961, 130) references a single municipal issue in 103 BCE, but this has been refuted (see Rigsby 1996, 497, no. 90; SC II.2, 45). E.g., Waagé 1952, 24; Butcher 2004, 307. Downey 1961, 143; see also Newell 1918 [1978], 117–118; Butcher 2004, 307. A similar argument was made for the unusual civic production under Antiochus IV; see Downey 1961, 96–97; Mørkholm 1984, 101–102.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

107

108

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

within neighboring cities and sought similar control for themselves either for economic purposes or reasons of civic pride.83 Of course, such a privilege was still incomplete as the Seleucids retained their royal silver production at Antioch. Interpreting civic minting as a royally granted privilege cannot be completely ruled out, but it is important to consider a less positive situation for the Antiochians. The Seleucids – driven by their own pressing concerns discussed earlier – may have finally been uninterested or unable to continue minting royal bronze coins at Antioch.84 Indeed, only Damascus struck royal bronze coins of any substantial quantity after Seleucid bronze production ended at Antioch.85 Like other cities, the Antiochians could therefore have been forced into their own production to meet the demands of their city for small change.86 Some citizen leaders may have welcomed greater local control in the midst of an unstable Seleucid state, but others could easily have balked under the financial or administrative responsibilities no longer sustained by the kings. The rather conservative quality of the civic Antiochene bronze favors a practical economic explanation, although the evidence is vague.87 Instead of a completely unique iconographical program, several of the featured images recall Seleucid iconography (Fig. 3.2).88 The large denomination depicts the bust of Zeus on its obverse with a Zeus Nicephorus on its reverse.89 The small denomination has a bust of Artemis on its obverse with Apollo on its reverse.90 These gods were significant to local cults and mythology (see Chapter 2), and it could be argued that they were chosen as images for the new civic coins because of their importance to the Antiochians.91 Still, their persistent use on previous royal coins should not be overlooked or minimized. Even the absence of the king’s portrait on the obverse is not without precedent, as certain earlier royal bronze issues lacked it as well. If the Antiochians minted their bronze purely out of need or fiscal motivations, they may have intentionally continued Seleucid imagery to match what was already in circulation or at least familiar as currency.

83 86 87 88 89 91

84 85 Compare with OGIS 339; SC II.1, 45–46. See SC II.1, 577. SC II.1, 579, 607, 614. On the possible function of bronze coins in making larger payments, see Duyrat 2016, 453–454. Compare with Meadows 2001, 58–59. See BMC Galatia, 153–154, nos. 12–25; Butcher 2004, 307–312. 90 Compare with SC II.1, nos. 1912, 2373. Compare with SC II.1, nos. 2301, 2424. Hoover 2009, 286.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Defining Late Seleucid Rule at Antioch

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 3.2 Civic coins of the Antiochians minted c. 92/1–31 BCE: (a) Bronze coin of Zeus/Zeus Nicephorus; (b) bronze coin of Tyche/tripod; (c) bronze coin of Artemis/Apollo ((a) and (b): ANS 1948.19.1983; 1971.193.19. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society. (c): gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques, Fonds général 46).

The middle denomination is more of a departure from what had existed under the Seleucids, but regional trends may have also dictated the choice (Fig. 3.2).92 The tripod on the reverse is standard, but the bust of Tyche on the obverse is no longer the general Seleucid type holding a cornucopia with either a bare head or one adorned with a calathus (“basket”).93 This Tyche now wears a mural crown and is clearly in the guise of a protective civic goddess.94 Pausanias comments that the people of Antioch greatly valued their sculpture of Tyche by Eutychides even centuries later, so it would be understandable if they chose to feature it on their civic coins.95 Then again, the coins do not feature any of the sculpture’s attributes specific to Antioch. Instead, if the dating is correct, the Tyche actually resembles a similarly turreted bust of a civic goddess that had already appeared on earlier civic silver of Aradus, as well as on contemporary coins of Apamea, Laodicea ad Mare, and Seleucia Pieria.96 Here, too, the Antiochians may have matched their coins to what was already circulating. The fact that the Antiochians likely minted out of financial need and followed the iconographical trends of the Seleucids or neighboring cities in 92

93 95

96

During the Pompeian era, this middle denomination was replaced with a Zeus/common Tyche and cornucopia type, which is reminiscent of a previous Seleucid type (see Butcher 2004, 312; McAlee 2007, 80). 94 See SC II.1, nos. 2232, 2264, 2314, 2315, 2370. E.g., BMC Galatia, 153; Butcher 2004, 307. Paus. 6.2.7; see also Stansbury-O’Donnell 1994, 50–63. More artists of the city – Timon and his brother Timaios – are possibly named in another inscription from Antioch (IGLS III.1 831; Grainger 1997, 607). See BMC Galatia, 233, 242, 247, 270; Mørkholm 1983, 90.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

109

110

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

no way undercuts the larger point about their growing agency and identity as a distinct body. The mere existence of these civic coins underscores the presence and activity of a civic community at Antioch, even within a Seleucid center.97 Furthermore, the coins reveal that whatever the driving forces behind their minting, the Antiochians still took the opportunity to celebrate a new status for their city. By at least 92 BCE, the Antiochians could boldly proclaim on their civic coins not simply ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ, but actually ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ / ΤΗΣ ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΛΕΩΣ (“of the metropolis of the Antiochians”).98 The term metropolis had different meanings across the span of GrecoRoman history. In the fifth century BCE, writers like Herodotus and Thucydides used this word to indicate the “mother-state” of a colony.99 In the fourth century BCE, Xenophon appears to use it to refer to the dominant city of a region.100 In the Roman imperial period, metropolis likely signaled the place where the provincial koinon or assembly met (see Chapter 4).101 In Late Antiquity, it could refer to a city’s administrative role, both secular and religious (see Chapter 6).102 For late Hellenistic Antioch, the best interpretation of metropolis is Haensch’s proposal that the title directly referred to the size, centrality, economic role, and social power of the city in the region.103 Antioch had no colonies of its own and was not yet involved in a provincial koinon. It also appears to be the only Seleucid city in the Levant to hold the civic title of metropolis during the first century BCE, which suggests some primacy in the term’s use.104 Although it is not completely certain that this title extended from the kings, its exceptionality makes it likely that one of the warring Seleucid kings granted it to Antioch’s citizens while seeking or rewarding their support.105 The city probably held other titles such as hiera

97 98

99 102 103

104

105

Compare with Downey 1961, 134. E.g., Waagé 1952, 24; Butcher 2004, 307–312. The coins provide the earliest evidence of this title (see Waagé 1952, 24), followed by an inscription from Delos (ID 2355). 100 101 E.g., Hdt. 7.51; Thuc. 6.82. E.g., Xen. An. 5.4.15. Haensch 2007, 269. Bowersock, Brown, and Grabar 1999, 577. Haensch 1997, 24. Compare with Tarsus, which also held the title metropolis on the basis of its size and importance (see Str. 14.5.13; Dio Chrys. Or. 34.7–8). Tarsus received this title at least by the reign of Augustus, as it appears on tetradrachms from the city; see Prieur and Prieur 2000, 90. Rigsby (1996, 499) calls it “unprecedented” in 92 BCE; compare with the list in Kindler 1982– 1983. The “quasi-municipal” coins of Sidon and Tyre minted under Antiochus IV do feature a legend referring to the city’s status as a mother of colonies, but the Phoenician word for mother is used and not metropolis. See SC II.1, 86; Hoover 2004b, 491. Hoover (2007, 290) suggests that Antiochus X gave Antioch the title “in gratitude for loyalty during the conflict with Philip I and Demetrius III.” Rigsby (1996, 496–499) suggests that Demetrius III bestowed the title metropolis and the right to mint civic coinage upon the city as a way of trumping his rival Antiochus XI. Only a year earlier, Antiochus XI had proclaimed the

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Transition to Roman Rule

kai asylos, but the uniqueness of metropolis presumably superseded these and helped elevate the Antiochians above their neighbors.106 Most important is the value the Antiochians clearly had for this title as they continued to claim it on their coinage long after the Seleucids disappeared.107

Transition to Roman Rule Even as the Antiochians developed as a vocal, self-identified community, they and their neighbors still suffered under the breakdown of the Seleucid Empire. Alongside monetary burdens, Seleucid campaigns against the Parthians also took a human toll on the population. In addition to the grief expressed by the Antiochians at their slain family members discussed in the previous chapter, Josephus mentions a group of Antiochians forced to surrender to the Parthians after a siege of Demetrius III’s encampment in the early first century BCE; they were temporarily taken captive, but later returned.108 Unhappy and exhausted, the residents of Syria collectively looked for relief from a non-Seleucid power sometime between 83 BCE and the mid70s BCE.109 Although not explicitly stated in the ancient record, scholars often identify the “long-suffering” Antiochians as a driving force behind this decision.110 The winning candidate was Tigranes II of Armenia, who promised security through his alliances with both Parthia and King Mithridates of Pontus. Uncertain as the evidence is for his rule in Syria,

106

107 108

109

110

Temple of Apollo “inviolable” in 93 BCE. Posidonius fr. 31 does record other celebratory gifts from the king to people within Antioch during games held at Daphne. Rigsby 1996, 499. See also Seyrig 1950a, 7; Haensch 1997, 24. No evidence currently exists that Antioch definitely held the title hiera kai asylos before 50 BCE. However, both Seyrig (1950a, 7) and Rigsby (1996, 34) argue that cities could choose which titles to proclaim, so the Antiochians may have been selective in which titles to proclaim. See Seyrig 1950a, 13; Butcher 2004, 306; McAlee 2007, 60–64. Diod. Sic. 34/35.17; Joseph. AJ 13.385. A problematic passage in Plin. HN 35.199 may suggest that not all Antiochians escaped enslavement during this period of upset, although it cannot be certain whether this fate extended specifically from Seleucid warring or other reasons. Pliny mentions several slaves coming to Rome from abroad in the early first century BCE, which includes a Publilius or Publius – a mime usually understood as Publilius Syrus – and his cousin Manilius – an astrologer. The transmitted text has been corrected by some to read Antiochium next to the names, which could suggest an origin at Antioch in Syria (e.g., Bouchier 1916, 205). However, alternative corrections are possible (see Manuwald 2011, 276–277, n. 212). Just. Epit. 40.1. For the traditional account of Tigranes’s entrance into Syria, see Grainger 1990, 188–190; Sartre 2005, 27–30. For suggestions of a revised chronology, see Hoover 2007, 296–298; SC II.1, 595–596. Green 1990, 553; see also Grainger 1990, 176, 188; Grainger 2015, 188–189. Malalas 8.211 suggests that Tigranes first captured Antioch and then honored the inhabitants because of their descent from the Athenians.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

111

112

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

little seems to have changed under his tenure. Civic communities continued to assert themselves, some refusing to acquiesce to his rule and others seeking out titles and honors.111 Overall, the Syrians chose wisely, as this period offered a brief moment of peace for the region after the considerable turmoil that ended the Seleucid Empire.

Fig. 3.3 Silver tetradrachm of King Tigranes/Tyche minted at Antioch (ANS 1944.100.76963. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

Like the Seleucids before him, Tigranes probably used Antioch as a home base while he was in Syria. It is in this city that a Roman embassy waited for the Armenian king to return from Phoenicia.112 Additionally, while the Antiochians continued to issue their own civic bronze in the same types as before with metropolis prominently featured, the silver tetradrachms produced in the city affirmed the new king.113 The obverse depicted his royal portrait crowned and ornamented in Armenian style (Fig. 3.3). Most striking is the reverse, as it – for the first time at Antioch – bore a full representation of Eutychides’s statue of Tyche with the turreted goddess seated on a rock as the river god Orontes swims at her feet.114 Although it is tempting to interpret this symbol through the lens of Antiochene agency – especially as this type would reappear later on civic coins – the king’s authority cannot be doubted with the accompanying legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΤΙΓΡΑΝΟΥ (“of King Tigranes”).115 Clive Foss further proposes that Tigranes selected the Antiochene statue to underscore his

111 112 113

114 115

E.g., Eutr. 6.14.2. See Downey 1961, 137, n. 87; Grainger 1990, 175–177. Plut. Luc. 21.1–2; Downey 1961, 139. For Antioch’s civic coins, see Downey 1961, 138; Butcher 2004, 309–312. On Tigranes’s issues, see Foss 1986, 19–66. Although Damascus is the only definitive mint of Tigranes in Syria, the style and type of most of the silver tetradrachms strongly suggest Antioch as the mint of origin. See MacDonald 1902, 193–201. E.g., Downey (1961, 138) concluded that the use of such a specific Antiochene symbol on a foreign king’s coins demonstrated that Antioch had not been “wholly orientalized” under Tigranes’s control. On some of the coins, the eastern title “king of kings” also appears, but it is not clear from the description of Foss (1986) whether this is the case with the Antioch coins.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Transition to Roman Rule

accomplishment in conquering the famous metropolis.116 So important was this imagery to the king’s agenda that it was even replicated on silver and bronze coins minted outside of Antioch for Tigranes. Unfortunately, Tigranes could not stabilize the region sufficiently, especially from the perspective of the western Roman Empire lingering on the periphery of Syria. By 69 BCE, the Romans stepped in. First, they tried a brief experiment by replacing Tigranes with the successive installation of two final rivals to the Seleucid throne – Antiochus XIII and Philip II – as client kings.117 The Antiochians were not pleased by these events, and so after the initial installment of Antiochus XIII as king, some of the citizens attempted a coup by proposing Philip II as their new king.118 According to a much later text by Porphyry of Tyre, the Antiochians may have even offered a bribe to Roman officials to avoid the reinstatement of Antiochus XIII within their city.119 During this attempted Seleucid restoration, the mint at Antioch seems to have changed course. Production of civic bronzes – which had been minted fairly consistently for the Antiochians since 92/1 BCE – ceased for several years beginning in 69 BCE.120 Notably, no Seleucid bronze was produced at the mint either. In contrast, at least one issue of royal Seleucid tetradrachms was minted in Antioch, which featured Antiochus XIII’s portrait on the obverse and Zeus Nicephorus once again on the reverse.121 Downey believed that Antiochus XIII directly ordered the end of Antiochene civic bronze as soon as he gained control over the city, but it may have been that the citizens had enough in circulation to meet local demands or were experiencing a temporary lack of resources.122 In either case, given the lack of any new royal bronze by either monarch, this production does not seem to have been a priority during their brief tenure. When no eastern candidate proved effective, Pompey finally ended Seleucid rule and conquered greater Syria around 64 BCE. Annexation by

116

117 118 119

120 122

Foss 1986, 34–35; see also Newell 1918 [1978], 134; Duyrat 2012. The “Tyche of Antioch” may have taken on new meaning in non-Syrian contexts. Downey 1951, 149–163; Sartre 2005, 31–37. See the revisions of Freeman 1994, 162–163. Diod. Sic. 40.1a. See also Downey 1961, 139–140. FHG III, 716, fr. 26: Ὁ δὲ λαβὼν παρὰ τῶν Ἀντιοχέων χρήματα, τοῦ μὲν οὐκ ἐφρόντισεν, αὐτόνομον δὲ τὴν πόλιν εἴασε (“And upon taking money from the Antiochians, he did not bother with it, but let the city be autonomous”). Downey (1961, 144–145) deemed the story “malicious.” See Freeman 1994, 153–154. 121 Butcher 2004, 312. SC II.1, 617–619. Downey 1961, 139. Civic bronze production in Syria was not consistent, and the individual issues are not always easily dated; a possible gap in production may still exist at least for Seleucia Pieria (see Butcher 2004, 416–417).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

113

114

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

the Romans did not immediately transform Syria into an organized, unified province with Antioch at the head. Rather than overhauling the governance system, Pompey nurtured the fragmentation of the newly created provincia of Syria through maintaining client kingdoms and individual city-states with legates and governors overseeing them all.123 While this loose system worked initially – minus an invasion of the Parthians in 51 BCE – the tenuousness of this control was revealed once the civil wars of the Roman Republic spilled over into the region. A quick outline of the events in Syria during the later first century BCE illustrates this point well. After Pompey’s defeat in the second civil war, Caesar came through Syria in 47 BCE and attempted to win over the province through gifts to several cities and individuals.124 That same year, the new Syrian governor and relative of Caesar was killed by Pompey’s ally Caecilius Bassus, who subsequently incited Apamea’s rebellion with the support of Rome’s client states in the region.125 Following Caesar’s assassination in 44 BCE, the conspirator Gaius Cassius Longinus came to Syria and was able to raise support, money, and troops after wresting control from the legitimate Roman governor.126 As the Roman state wrestled under this internal discord, the Parthians successfully invaded Syria again in 40 BCE and held on to the province for over a year.127 Mark Antony regained Roman control, only to prepare to turn over many parts of the Levant to the Egyptian queen Cleopatra and their children.128 His death in 31 BCE stifled these plans and signaled the end of the Roman Republic. Such an unstable central government and the competing interests of individuals extended, rather than ended the regional turmoil of the earlier first century BCE.129 Within this fragmented and uncertain environment, Antioch certainly had much to offer to the Roman administration. Even aside from its previous political status under the Seleucids, its location and amenities alone were enough to prompt close consideration.130 Indeed, according to Plutarch, the Republican statesman Cato the Younger traveled to Antioch precisely to examine it.131 However, there is no strong indication from the historical record that the city was made a primary provincial seat at this point. Much of the administrative prominence traditionally assigned to the city during this period comes from an unavoidably heavy reliance on late

123 125 128 130

124 Sartre 2005, 37–44; see Jones 1971, 256–260. See Anon. B.Alex. 65.4. 126 127 Str. 16.2.10; Joseph. BJ 1.216. See Joseph. BJ 1.218–242. Sartre 2005, 52. 129 Plut. Ant. 54.4. On the effect this turmoil had on individual cities, see Sartre 2001, 380. 131 See Haensch 2007, 273–274. Plut. Pomp. 40; see also Cat. Min. 13.1.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Transition to Roman Rule

antique sources like Malalas or an over-interpretation of the first-century BCE coin evidence (see below). A rereading of texts cited by Downey reveals that Antioch is only occasionally named among contemporary sources and not as a capital or even exclusive center.132 Instead, throughout the course of early Roman control, Antioch emerges most often as a convenient fortress and as a city run by the Antiochians. Immediately after annexation, if the later sources can be believed, Pompey’s first action toward Antioch was not to declare it provincial capital, but rather autonomos (“autonomous”).133 It is unclear whether this declaration was the equivalent to the formal Latin status civitas libera (“free city”), which would signify tax exemption, or rather part of a general restoration and repair of cities attributed to Pompey.134 Either meaning would give the Antiochians plenty of reason to prepare their pomp-filled parade in expectation of Pompey’s entourage.135 The Antiochians also resumed minting their bronze civic coins around 63 BCE, with no attempt by the Romans to introduce standard imperial types or denominations of contemporary bronze within the city or greater Syria.136 Many of the Antiochene coins repeated earlier designs, including the bust of Zeus on the obverse with a Zeus Nicephorus on the reverse as well as the Artemis/Apollo combination.137 Tyche also reappeared, both as the city goddess with the mural crown on the obverse and the generic Tyche of the Seleucids standing and holding a cornucopia on the reverse.138 These bronze issues continued to celebrate the city as the metropolis of the Antiochians (ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ / ΤΗΣ ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΛΕΩΣ).139 Glen Bowersock follows Downey in assuming that Pompey authorized Antioch to keep using the title metropolis, but this assertion is based only on the coins themselves.140 Given Pompey’s general confirmation of the city’s agency and the overall conservative quality of the bronze, the Antiochians – much like their neighbors – seemed to have simply resumed the production of their small change as before. Based upon Kevin Butcher’s account, this 132 134

135 136 137 138 139

140

133 See Downey 1961, 143–162. FHG III, 716, fr. 26. On immunity from taxation, see Garnsey and Saller 1987, 28. On general restoration, see Joseph. BJ 1.155; Sartre 2005, 42–43. On Pompey’s building in Antioch, see Malalas 8.211; Downey 1961, 145, n. 8. Plut. Cat. Min. 13, Pomp. 40. Butcher 2004, 26. For a possible exception, see Sartre 2005, 44–45. Newell 1919, 89–90; McAlee 2007, 70–82. E.g., Butcher 2004, 313; McAlee 2007, nos. 74, 83. For a full chronology of the different titles on the civic coins of Antioch for this period, see Seyrig 1950a, 13. Downey 1961, 145; Bowersock 1985, 79. See also Haensch 1997, 24, n. 33.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

115

116

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

bronze production was almost annual with only a few gaps down to 31 BCE.141 Too little is known about the administration or resources of the mint at this time, but both the imagery and the relative consistency of the issues strongly point to the civic government at work as before.142 The silver coinage at Antioch adds another layer to this picture, but the evidence is subtle. The production of civic silver had continued at several cities within Syria, presumably in part for similar economic reasons as when the citizens first started striking.143 While virtually no effort was made to introduce standard types or denominations of contemporary Roman denarii at any mint in Syria, this does not mean that the Romans were absent in the process or had no effect on a city’s operations.144 A study by Callataÿ on Syrian civic silver minted during the first century BCE at cities like Laodicea, Aradus, Ascalon, and Tyre notes intense activity from 64–62 BCE, which he thinks was tied to Pompey’s presence in the region with his troops.145 Limited textual sources also indicate that the Romans made arrangements at some point early on in the eastern empire for the collection of taxes.146 This may have stimulated local production, though the use of provincial Syrian silver for this purpose is not entirely understood.147 In either case, Callataÿ argues that die-studies, overstrikes, and technical features of the silver produced in Syria and elsewhere within the Greek East collectively reveal active Roman influence and manipulation of conquered systems rather than the Romans passively causing the production because of their presence.148 For the silver tetradrachms produced at Antioch under the new Roman conquerors, no textual evidence has survived which explicitly describes the oversight of the Antioch mint during this period or the motivation behind the different issues. The iconography, the truncated monograms, and other control marks provide the only, ambiguous indication as to which authority managed the mint. An argument can nevertheless be proposed for the same

141 143 144 145 146

147

148

142 Butcher 2004, 53. See RPC I, 16–17. Crawford 1985, 201–203; Baldus 1987, 121. See the list of Syrian mints in Callataÿ 2002, 82. See Howgego 1995, 56–59; RPC I, 12. For a possible exception, see Baldus 1987, 123, 146. Callataÿ 2002, 71–91. See Sherwin-White 1994, 269–270; Morrell 2017, 79–82. Pompey and taxation are also mentioned together in App. Syr. 50, but the text may actually discuss tax practices of the second century CE (see Pollard 2000, 172–173). See RPC I, 7–8; Butcher 2002, 147. The best evidence for the collection of taxes in provincial currency comes from Egypt; see Harl 1996, 231–241; Butcher 2004, 257–258. See also Lönnqvist 2008, 73–88. Callataÿ 2011a, 55–86; see also Carbone 2014, 16–24. The editors of RPC I, 1, downplay extensive Roman intervention in local production.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Transition to Roman Rule

themes as before; the Romans capitalized upon the resources of Antioch in an unstable environment, but neither overhauled the internal system nor significantly deprived the Antiochians in their operations within the city.

Fig. 3.4 Silver tetradrachm of posthumous Philip Philadelphus/Zeus Nicephorus minted at Antioch with monogram of the Roman governor Aulus Gabinius (57–55 BCE) (gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques, Babelon 1550bis).

The remarkably conservative iconography of the tetradrachms provides the first clue. Whereas other cities retained their civic types, the tetradrachm series starting at Antioch soon after Roman annexation revived the portrait of the long-deceased Seleucid king, Philip Philadelphus (Fig. 3.4).149 The reverse depicted the typical Zeus Nicephorus as on the civic bronzes, but the silver significantly differed in that the ethnic of the Antiochians did not likewise appear; instead, the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ plus the king’s name and epithet was scrawled across the reverse. This type remained steady for the Antioch tetradrachms down to 13 BCE. The posthumous use of Philip Philadelphus’s portrait has traditionally been explained as a Roman administrative choice with both political and economic significance. Some scholars claim that this type was the Roman conquerors’ recognition of Philip as the last “legitimate” Seleucid king; by allowing the coins to draw their guarantee from a local ruler – even one deceased – the Romans could maintain at least the appearance of a political “status quo.”150 Other scholars argue that such a revival was simply to match the coins still circulating and thereby ensure some semblance of economic stability.151 Philip Philadelphus is believed to have produced an immense body of tetradrachms at Antioch, to which quantity his son Philip II may have added by resurrecting the image of his father during his short reign in the city after 69 BCE.152 By allowing the minting of a past 149 151 152

150 SC II.1, 621–626; McAlee 2007, 67–71. Butcher 2004, 51; see also RPC I, 606. Newell 1919, 78–84; Harl 1996, 196; SC II.1, 622. Newell 1919, 80; Hoover 2007, 300; SC II.1, 603, 621. Tigranes’s tetradrachms are rare finds within Syria (see Duyrat 2012).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

117

118

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

“familiar” type, the Roman state could help cultivate a smooth transition of eastern regions into the empire.153 Whether for political or economic reasons – or some combination of both – other examples do exist throughout the ancient world of newly issuing authorities attempting to piggyback on the weight of an earlier authority by continuing a traditional type on their coins.154 That the mint at Antioch played a role in this transition is natural, as it had been an important silver production site for the Seleucids in the past and had the proper structure still in place. If this explanation is correct, the Romans intentionally extended trends of the last kings, rather than ending them. Despite scholarship’s strong acknowledgment of Roman agency, the changing monograms that appear alongside King Philip’s portrait recommend caution in ascribing the entire production – administration, bullion, and design – consistently to the Romans at Antioch. Many numismatic studies attribute the first issue of Roman-era silver at Antioch to the reforms of Aulus Gabinius, who served as governor in the region from 57–55 BCE and – according to the ire he earned from Cicero – actively intervened in the region’s finances.155 Although the textual record does not explicitly state he supervised the region’s mints, the silver Antioch tetradrachms dated to his tenure do bear a small monogram construed from his initials in Greek (Fig. 3.4).156 Monograms also appear for the next two governing officials, the triumvir Crassus (55–53 BCE) and the future assassin of Caesar, Cassius (53–51 BCE).157 Based upon other studies of Roman administrators’ marks on eastern coins, this could mean that these governors secured the raw metal for the issues in addition to overseeing production.158 The governor could also have reminted earlier Seleucid silver on a slightly lighter standard.159 The Roman governors’ monograms may not have been the first to appear on the silver of Antioch during this period. Hoover, followed by Richard McAlee, dates a rare series of tetradrachms to 64–58 BCE – before the silver of Gabinius.160 These coins bear two, side-by-side monograms 153

154 155

156

157 158 160

According to Baldus (1987, 127), the Syrian people may have been too accustomed to the overvalued silver of the last Seleucids to handle the introduction of new types by the Romans. See Meadows 2001, 56–59; Thonemann 2015, 10–11. E.g., Crawford 1985, 203–205; Baldus 1987, 127–128; Butcher 2004, 51; SC II.1, 622. On Gabinius generally, see Sherwin-White 1994, 273; Sartre 2006, 44–46. McAlee 2007, 61, 67, no. 1. Based upon the large number of dies used for these issues, McAlee believes production was rather substantial. Prieur and Prieur 2000, 2–3; Butcher 2004, 51–52; McAlee 2007, 67; SC II.1, 622. 159 Callataÿ 2011, 59–64; see also RPC I, 1. See Butcher 2004, 51–52. Compare Hoover 2004a, 31–35, and McAlee 2007, 61, 67. This series appears to be missing from the list of SC II.1, 621–626.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Transition to Roman Rule

consisting of several, overlapping Greek letters that once unfurled may represent some variation of ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ.161 It is certainly possible to pick out the letters Α, Τ, ν or Υ, and occasionally Χ, which could be abbreviations for a city newly declared autonomous by Pompey. This pair of monograms was exclusive to the coins of Antioch, lending extra support for their local significance.162 At least one of these monograms would be resurrected on a later series after 49 BCE (see Fig. 3.5), but Hoover argues that stylistic features distinguished the silver with two monograms and thereby recommends an earlier date. Such a reconstruction is compelling first because it would mean that an almost decade-long gap did not actually exist at the mint after the last definite issue under Antiochus XIII. The traditional explanation has been to assume that silver minting did not take place because the Romans expressly prohibited any civic silver minting at their new provincial capital.163 The immediate problem with such a conclusion is that it overlooks more politically innocuous explanations: silver production was not consistent, and the Antiochians could have relied upon the coins already in circulation.164 More importantly, as discussed earlier, such assumptions overemphasize Roman restructuring and ignore the agency the Antiochians clearly had within their city. As such, there is a possibility that the Antiochians were not explicitly prevented from minting their first issue of civic silver. Instead, if these coins are properly dated, the Antiochians joined several of their neighboring Syrian communities in undertaking production in both silver and bronze during a period of turnover. It was their choice to continue minting with the image of a posthumous Philip Philadelphus in order to match the new silver issues to those already in circulation. Instead of furling out a full civic title like on their contemporary bronze, the Antiochians kept their mark to a monogram in an effort to keep the king’s legend on the reverse intact. Gabinius and the succeeding two governors then followed the minting practices of the Antiochians by keeping the Philip Philadelphus type intact and only substituting in their own monograms. The Romans

161 162

163

164

MacDonald (1904, 110, n. 11) is doubtful about this reconstruction. The uniqueness of this monogram is based upon an examination of the list of control marks in SC II.2, 469–519. A coin of an unknown mint produced at the time of Antiochus IV (no. 1559.9) does have an AT, as does an Antioch tetradrachm dating to Antiochus V (no. 1575.3). E.g., Downey 1961, 147–148; see also Newell (1919, 81), who believed the Romans could be threatened by the Antiochians producing their own silver. See RPC I, 7.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

119

120

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

were unquestionably involved at Antioch, but not to the degree assumed within Antioch’s static status as capital. Even if the dating of these issues is wrong and Gabinius was the first to mint silver at Antioch after the end of the Seleucid Empire, the evidence after his governorship still does not strongly indicate a Roman administrative takeover of Antioch and disenfranchisement of the Antiochians. Contemporary writings of Cicero mention that the Roman governors after Pompey used Antioch as an excellent fortress against the invasions of the Parthians in 51 BCE. While governing Syria, Cassius used Antioch as a stronghold to rebuff the Parthian invasion; his successor Calpurnius Bibulus presumably followed the same policy.165 Even so, Cicero’s words do not suggest a greater political role for Antioch. Twice Cicero calls Antioch an oppidum (“town”), albeit one that was incredibly well fortified and supplied; it is difficult not to read these words as a bit of a demotion for Antioch from Cicero’s earlier comments about the city’s elevated status.166 This occupation of Antioch did not disarm the Antiochians of their civic government. A contemporary inscription referenced by Malalas reveals the “demos of Antioch the Great” sending statues to Rome as a favor to the governor Bibulus.167 When Rome’s second civil war broke out in 49 BCE, the Antiochians were quick to transform their city from a Roman fortress against the Parthians to a blockade against Pompey in 48 BCE.168 Caesar writes that a short while later, the Antiochians, upon hearing a great supernatural noise, armed themselves again and ran to defend these same city walls.169 According to Malalas, Caesar’s response to the Antiochians for their support was to send a formal proclamation of the city’s freedom in 47 BCE. This declaration confirmed Antioch’s position as metropolis along with hiera kai asylos, autonomos, and both ruling and presiding over the region.170 Malalas – many years removed – may have expanded this title in the last portion, but a contemporary inscription from Antioch or Daphne dating to 42/1 BCE corroborates Antioch’s status as metropolis, sacred and inviolable, and autonomous.171 The civic bronze coins also expressed the full title of ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΛΕΩΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ

165

166 168 171

For Cassius, see Cass. Dio. 40.28–29; Cic. Fam. 2.10, Att. 5.20, 5.21. For a possible bias in the evidence for Bibulus, see Downey 1961, 151, n. 39. 167 Cic. Fam. 12.19.3, 15.4.7. Malalas 8.211–212. See Downey 1961, 151, n. 41. 169 170 Caes. BC 3.102. Caes. BC 3.105. Malalas 9.216. See Downey 1961, 152–153. IGLS III.2 1071B.i; Rigsby 1996, 498–499.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Transition to Roman Rule

ΑΣΥΛΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ (“of the sacred, inviolable, and autonomous metropolis of the Antiochians”).172 Much like the Hellenistic kings earlier, the extension of each title reads as a hazy bid for support by the Roman leader from a recognized civic body.173 Eventually, these extra legends disappeared from the bronze coins: hiera kai asylos did not appear on civic coins after 41 BCE, whereas autonomos lasted only into the earliest decades of the first century CE.174 Why the citizens then chose to include all the titles – however briefly – under Caesar may be because he added to an original status, but as I suggested above, it is unlikely that Caesar’s grant introduced these titles completely anew rather than confirming what the Antiochians had already gained earlier under the Seleucids and then Pompey. We might look instead for a more locally generated motivation. Antioch remained the lone bearer of the title of metropolis in the region, thus preserving some of its legacy as chief city under the Seleucids. Perhaps the Antiochians experienced a newfound albeit temporary drive to reinforce this status by placing it alongside the more common titles of hiera kai asylos, which they shared with their neighbors.175 That these titles persisted at all throughout the first decades of Roman rule gives us a small glimpse into how the citizens at Antioch viewed and celebrated their city in this period. As for the contemporary silver minted at Antioch, one of the original civic monograms returned on a slightly lighter standard c. 47 BCE (Fig. 3.5). Like before, this monogram has been understood to signify ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ, ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ on its own, or ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΑ or ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ.176 It remained on the tetradrachms down through the end of the first century BCE and made an appearance on the silver and at least a few of the bronze issues under Augustus (see Chapter 4).177 It is possible, though not verifiable, that the Antiochians themselves resumed striking silver for their own payments and purposes. If so, Roman oversight and involvement at the mint may again have been either more passive or exceptional than usually stated. At the very least, the Antiochians likely held some oversight, as two rare issues of silver drachms explicitly identify the city with a turreted Tyche as an obverse and the long civic legend ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΗΣ 172 174 175

176

177

173 McAlee 2007, no. 45. See also Sartre 2005, 185. See Ma 1999, 173; Millar 2006, 113. Newell 1919, 94; Butcher 2004, 221–222, 306. Compare with Seleucia Pieria, Laodicea ad Mare, and Apamea (see Rigsby 1996, 486–487, 501, 503). Compare Newell 1919, 71–72, 91; Hoover 2004a, 34; McAlee 2007, 68, nos. 4–28; SC II.1, 623–626. McAlee 2007, 90, 111.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

121

122

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΛΕΩΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ on the reverse.178 The similarity of this type to contemporary bronze civic issues implies that a partial connection existed between smaller denominations of silver and civic bronze production.

Fig. 3.5 Silver tetradrachm of posthumous Philip Philadelphus/Zeus Nicephorus minted c. 47–46 BCE. This coin bears the monogram of the Antiochians near the foot of Zeus (ANS 1999.2.1. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

Without further imperial stability, the Antiochians would have good reason for seeing to their own needs. Caesar’s assassination in 44 BCE brought both his assassins and avengers to Antioch, each of whom rendered the city into a convenient location for his own personal ambitions. According to Cicero, the conspirator Cassius returned to Antioch as his base and drew from the city’s resources; the legitimate governor of Syria, Cornelius Dolabella, camped out at Laodicea instead.179 Josephus writes that when Mark Antony arrived at Antioch in 41 BCE, he restored property to the Jews, which had been previously confiscated by Cassius.180 From this point on, Antony appears to have used Antioch as one of his administrative centers. In one instance, he ordered Herod’s rival for Judea – Antigonus – to be brought to Antioch and beheaded.181 Native figures also came to Antioch (and Daphne) in search of the Roman leaders, such as Herod and other Jewish leaders seeking out Antony on at least two separate occasions.182 Given Mark Antony’s greater plans to convert the eastern empire into a kingdom for his heirs, his use of Antioch was more as a personal center than as a truly provincial capital of the Roman Empire. Even the contemporary coins struck in the city or elsewhere by Antioch’s mint workers may support Mark Antony’s self-centered aims. A gap in the production of the silver, posthumous Philip Philadelphus 178

179 182

Prieur and Prieur 2000, 4; McAlee 2007, nos. 29–30. Butcher (2004, 54) considers these “anomalous” and perhaps not genuine. 180 181 Cic. Fam. 12.14–15. Joseph. AJ 14.301–323. Joseph. AJ 15.8–10. Joseph. BJ 1.243–245, 328; AJ 14.440, 451.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Transition to Roman Rule

tetradrachms occurred between 38/7 and 31/0 BCE.183 It is possible, though heavily debated, that Mark Antony directed the mint’s staff and resources instead toward the creation of large quantities of silver tetradrachms featuring his portrait on one side and Cleopatra’s on the other (Fig. 3.6).184 Though the authenticity is questionable, Mark Antony may have additionally directed at least one series of drachms with his portrait as the obverse and the turreted bust of Tyche as the reverse.185 Butcher even notes that stylistic similarities between the tetradrachms and denarii minted for Mark Antony could mean the same mint struck even imperial silver to fund his objectives, but the attribution of any of these coins to Antioch is precarious.186 Each of these silver productions would be a radical departure from anything else struck at the mint during this period. If verifiably from Antioch, these issues would underscore the individualism of Mark Antony’s rule over the city rather than any larger Roman administrative program.

Fig. 3.6 Silver tetradrachm of Cleopatra/Mark Antony questionably attributed to the Antioch mint (ANS 1977.158.621. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

While Roman officials like Mark Antony came to Antioch, the Antiochians remained within the city and continued looking out for their own interests and needs. The second invasion of the Parthians in 40 BCE certainly recommends paying attention to their agency within the city. The Roman governor Saxa had initially fled to Antioch to avoid the Parthians, but he abandoned the city when the Parthians approached.187 While this may have forced the Antiochians into an irreparably vulnerable position, Cassius Dio still writes that Syrian civic communities could decide whether

183 184

185

See Butcher 2004, 53; McAlee 2007, 64–66; SC II.1, 624. For a full summary of the debate, see Butcher 2004, 55–58; RPC I, 601–602. Mark Antony’s tetradrachms may be on the same weight standard as the later posthumous Philip Philadelphus issues (see McAlee 2007, 108). 186 187 See McAlee 2007, 110, no. 177. Butcher 2004, 58. Cass. Dio 48.24–26, 49.20.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

123

124

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

to resist the invaders. The Antiochians chose to acquiesce to Parthian control and remained occupied until Roman forces drove the invaders out. All of this evidence thus far challenges any notion that Roman annexation of Antioch meant that the city and its citizens were governed with the same imperial control as had occurred during the height of the Seleucid Empire. To this, the coins add one final piece of cryptic testimony. On both silver and bronze issues minted at Antioch, the old Seleucid dating system was reinstated several times under the new Roman rulers.188 The first reset of the calendar counts the years back to 66/5 BCE.189 Henri Seyrig and Downey attributed this change to Pompey, but as Butcher points out, the so-called Pompeian era began at different times at different places.190 This suggests civic initiative at each location, rather than uniform Roman policy. The entrance of Julius Caesar restarted the calendar once more, this time to the year 49 or 48 BCE.191 This system of dating was temporarily disrupted by the Parthian occupation of Antioch around 40 BCE, during which the dates on the coins reverted to the Seleucid era. It is hard to tell if these changes extended from a directive by the Parthians or the action of the citizens.192 The expulsion of the Parthians a year later is reflected in the return to the Caesarean dating system. However unhelpful these changes are for the question of mint authority, they do speak to the larger, evolving circumstances within the city during this period and provide a subtle reminder of the instability or at least impermanence of early Roman rule. From both the general historical record and the perspective of the production of coins minted at Antioch, the following picture thereby emerges. In the transition from the end of Seleucid rule and in the early years following Roman annexation, the city was no longer a capital of a vast imperial state. Instead, it provided a strategic center of an immensely fragmented region whose leaders could not or would not unify it. Although the city continued to serve the purposes of an imperial administration – Seleucid king and Republican official alike – as well as the personal ambitions of these leaders, this use no longer completely overshadowed the operations of the Antiochians themselves. Like their fellow civic communities, the Antiochians had seized the opportunity – or were forced out of necessity – to act for themselves and tend to the needs of their own community. It was to these people that the imperial rulers directed

188 190 191 192

189 For other calendars of Syria, see Butcher 2003, 122–127. Butcher 2004, 302. Seyrig 1950a, 11; Butcher 2004, 26. See also Baldus 1987, 123–125; Freeman 1994, 160–165. Butcher 2004, 302–303; McAlee 2007, 21. Compare Downey 1961, 159–160; Rigsby 1996, 498; Butcher 2003, 37, 123.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Royal and Imperial Authorities and the Distribution of Coins

their attention – not a hollow urban core. Antioch was no longer a Seleucid capital and not quite a Roman provincial seat, but the Antiochians themselves were certainly now in a position to be recognized on their own terms.

Distribution and Circulation of Antioch Coins These conclusions are both confirmed and enhanced by a distribution study of the various coins minted at Antioch.193 The pattern of finds further substantiates the fragmentation of the region’s political structure and currency system, both under the last of the Seleucids and continuing under the first Roman conquerors. Within this upheaval, the coin finds also grant a fuller perspective of how the Antiochians and other civic communities stepped up to take care of their own needs and exercise agency over fiscal matters. Even though the Antiochians and the coins minted within their city closely align to the general trends of the eastern Mediterranean, exceptional patterns nevertheless indicate other activities and legacies connecting Antioch and its inhabitants to the wider world. Some justification must be made for not separating the distribution of Seleucid-era coins from those produced under the new Roman conquerors. Due to the general absence of stratigraphic information for the single excavation finds, as well as the overall lack of detail in hoard publications, it is presently impossible to determine when either the silver or bronze coins produced during the Seleucid period stopped circulating after Roman annexation. Considering the clear effort of the different authorities in control of the Antioch mint to replicate Seleucid forms even after the Romans conquered Syria, no watershed moment may have actually occurred for this period as the goal was to maintain currency circulation as before.194 It is therefore reasonable and necessary to examine all the coin finds minted during this period as a whole, while still looking for noticeable changes within the data where possible.

Royal and Imperial Authorities and the Distribution of Coins The distribution of both the silver and the final royal Seleucid bronze coins minted at Antioch confirms how radically the region had changed from the 193

194

Some of the coin finds studied in this chapter are nebulously dated to the first century BCE. However, they have still been included in order to provide a stronger overall picture of this transitional period. Compare with Duyrat 2016, 463.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

125

126

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

height of the Hellenistic period. At least twenty-five hoards buried during the late second and first centuries BCE contain Antioch-produced silver, twenty with an actual provenance (Table A3.3). Because of the lack of detail in the publication of many of these hoards, it is often difficult to tell the date, type, and markings on these coins; finds of the last silver issues of the Seleucids cannot therefore be divided from those that followed Roman annexation. Still, mapping where they collectively appear in the archaeological record reveals that silver issues minted at Antioch are no longer present in many areas of the former Seleucid Empire (Fig. 3.7). Instead, when these silver Antioch coins are weighted against the rest of the hoard data for this period, the overall pattern exposes the strongest cluster of Antioch silver within Syria itself (Fig. 3.8). The silver coins produced at Antioch – both the last of the royal silver of the Seleucids and the silver minted after the Romans annexed Antioch – undoubtedly circulated within a more constrained territory than ever before.

Fig. 3.7 Hoards with silver coins minted at Antioch and buried c. 129–31 BCE. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of Antioch finds within each hoard. For details, see Table A3.3.

This concentrated distribution and circulation are significant first because they provide a physical representation of the Seleucid state’s political boundaries shrinking into Syria and sections of Cilicia. As discussed earlier, the kings no longer controlled any part of Anatolia to the west, the southern Levant where the Hasmonean state had emerged, or regions further to the east after the conquest of the Parthians. Noticeably absent are hoards of Antioch silver west of the city, beyond a single hoard from Cilicia and one with an unknown provenance. In the southern Levant,

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Royal and Imperial Authorities and the Distribution of Coins

127

Fig. 3.8 The percentage represented by silver Antioch coins within individual hoards buried c. 129–31 BCE. Hoards with less than sixteen total finds, without a known find spot, or where Antioch coins represent less than 1% are excluded. For details, see Table A3.3.

where denominational differences had previously blocked silver minted at Antioch, the coins do not generally appear outside of a single hoard found at Haifa. To the east, gone is the connected line of finds from Antioch to the Persian Gulf. A similar loss of Seleucid political control is revealed by the distribution of the final issues of royal bronze minted at Antioch for the kings (Fig. 3.9). The bronzes had never circulated as widely as the silver issues, but their distribution still reveals a far more concentrated presence than before (see Chapter 2). Particularly noticeable is the absence of any finds of Antiochminted Seleucid bronze north and west of Syria. The representation of Antioch bronzes had not been strong previously, but the now complete absence of finds is undoubtedly due to the end of Seleucid political reach or military campaigns in this direction. The lack of royal Antioch coins in nearby Cilicia may be corrected with future excavation, but much of this region had its own supply first from local Seleucid and then later civic mints from the second century BCE onward (see the next section).195 Bronze Seleucid coins minted at Antioch simply were not needed or even wanted by this period.

195

Jones 1971, 200. See also MacDonald 1976, 44–45; Polosa 2010, 179–181.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

128

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

Fig. 3.9 Excavations with finds of bronze royal Seleucid coins minted at Antioch c. 129–94/3 BCE. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of Antioch coins at each location. For details, see Fig. 3.16.

The distribution pattern of the bronze to the south and east of Syria also reveals a diminishing influence of the royal Seleucid state (Fig. 3.9). Even though Antioch-minted Seleucid bronze coins appear on many sites in the southern Levant, their raw count is even lower for this period than previously in the High Hellenistic period (see Figs. 2.11 and 3.16). Partially diluting their impact is the fact that they circulated alongside other royal Seleucid coins still produced at nearby mints. Over time though, even Seleucid coins were replaced either by the prolific output of the emerging Hasmonean state or by local civic issues minted at Phoenician cities such as Sidon and Tyre (see below).196 Even at Tel Anafa in northern Israel, where royal Seleucid coins minted at Antioch represent over 20% of the finds dated to this period, civic issues produced at Sidon and Tyre dominate at 60%.197 Four bronze hoards from the region reinforce a similarly waning influence (Fig. 3.10), as royal Seleucid coins minted at Antioch barely register within the deposits. The Seleucid coins which do appear in the southern Levant may therefore reflect individuals crossing the

196

197

See Gitler 2012, 485–486; Duyrat 2016, 395–396. According to the report from Syon (1992–1993), late royal Seleucid coins from Antioch continued to appear at Gamla in the western Golan Heights, but their presence is far outweighed by Hasmonean issues. The city was abandoned after 71 BCE, hence the lack of Hasmonean coins until the city was reoccupied in the first century CE; see Duyrat 2016, 246.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Royal and Imperial Authorities and the Distribution of Coins

fragile borders rather than any official policy of open exchange between the Seleucid government and the emerging powers of the south.198 Find Antioch Territory Find Site Burial Date Contents Coins % Antioch

Reference

Southern Northern 121/0 BCE 329 bronze Levant Israel Southern Ascalon 100 BCE 1 silver; Levant 47 bronze

19

5.8%

Duyrat 2016, no. 275; CH 10.319 Duyrat 2016, no. 294; CH 9.548

1

2.1%

Southern Megadim 100 BCE 7 bronze Levant Southern Golan 100–75 BCE 40 bronze Levant

1

14.3%

Duyrat 2016, no. 298

1

2.5%

Duyrat 2016, no. 300; IGCH 1613

Fig. 3.10 Four bronze hoards from the Southern Levant, which contain royal Seleucid coins minted at Antioch.

The distribution pattern east of Antioch also reveals the diminishing authority and reach of the Seleucid state. At Dura Europos, the assemblage shows bronze royal Seleucid coins minted at Antioch representing over 50% of the finds (Fig. 3.11). Among the bronze finds minted before 113 BCE – around the time when the Seleucids lost control of Dura Europos to the Parthians – royal Antioch coins dominate at over 70% of the coins. This is akin to the pattern of the previous period, during which either governmental supply or strong commercial ties connected the eastern city to Antioch. After the Parthian conquest, at least fifteen more bronze royal Antioch coins dating down to the late 90s BCE appear in the assemblage, but these stragglers are importantly not the only or even dominant coins from cities to the west. A whole range of other Levantine and eastern mints are represented including twenty-six coins from Tyre, at least thirty-two from Jerusalem, eight from Damascus, thirteen from Seleucia on the Tigris, and even six civic Antiochene coins (see below). Such a robust variety is a significant change from the strong homogeneity of the earlier Hellenistic period and points to the fragmentation of western Syria. Gone was the dictate of Seleucid control linking Antioch to Dura. Despite the clear ramifications of political factors, the Seleucids’ loss of hegemony over the Middle East only partially accounts for the shrinking distribution of coins minted at Antioch. After all, as demonstrated in Chapter 2, the Seleucids had encouraged an open currency system which included use of coins from areas beyond their control. Additionally, although their presence is diminished, finds from east of Syria may indicate 198

As at least two of the hoards reveal a unique mixture of coins from coastal Anatolian cities and the mints of Cyprus, individuals traveling along the Mediterranean coast also could have contributed to the continued appearance of royal Antioch issues to the south. See Gitler and Kahanov 2002, 265.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

129

130

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

Mint Site/ Territory

Total Coins

% Assemblage

Antioch Royal Antioch Civic Other Syria Southern Levant East Cilicia Anatolia Commagene

137 6 43 36 16 5 2 1

55.7% 2.4% 17.5% 14.6% 6.5% 2% 0.8% 0.4%

Total Bronze Coins

246

100%

Fig. 3.11 Bronze coins minted c. 129–31 BCE and excavated at Dura Europos according to mint/territory of origin; numerical data listed in table.

Mint Site/Territory

Total Coins

% Assemblage

East Antioch Anatolia Cappadocia Other Syria

55 19 4 1 1

68.8% 23.8% 5% 1.3% 1.3%

Total Silver Coins

80

100%

Fig. 3.12 Silver coins minted c. 129–31 BCE and excavated at Dura Europos according to mint/territory of origin; numerical data listed in table.

that circulation of Antioch-minted coinage persisted beyond any political boundaries established by either the late Seleucid kings or the Romans.199 At Dura, the continued presence of silver Antioch coins – including fourteen posthumous Philip Philadelphus issues – suggests movement of these silver Antioch coins even after the Parthians took over the city and the Romans annexed Syria (Fig. 3.12). Antioch silver also appears in three hoards from northern Mesopotamia (Midyat, Mardin, Diyarbekir; see Table A3.3), with many of the coins minted after Roman annexation of Antioch. Georges Le

199

Duyrat 2015, 381.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Royal and Imperial Authorities and the Distribution of Coins

Rider also noted several late first-century BCE Antioch-minted tetradrachms in the Museum of Baghdad with provenances including cities like Nineveh and Hatra; at least those from Nineveh came from controlled excavation.200 The coins may simply be residual from military confrontations and invasions of the Parthians into Syria, especially as Parthian coins do appear within Syrian hoards as well.201 Then again, this array could equally indicate the circulation of Antioch silver – however diminished – within at least some areas of the Parthian Empire. The Parthians did have their own mints, but compatibility in weight and fineness to Parthian coins may have encouraged the enduring movement and use of Antioch coins, especially if Parthian supplies were low in the north.202 Royal Seleucid bronze coins struck at Antioch may also have served as currency in northern Mesopotamia, though the evidence is debatable. At Dura, Parthian finds are rare, and so aside from countermarking a few Seleucid issues, the Parthians may have allowed Syrian coins to circulate as before.203 Lending a bit of support for this hypothesis is a large bronze hoard from Nisibis to the north, which displays a similar assortment of mints and authorities from greater Syria including 141 royal Antioch coins.204 As the nature of a hoard deposit differs greatly from a site assemblage, caution must be exercised in equating the two assemblages. Even so, if circulation of the bronze and silver coins struck at Antioch endured past political boundaries, this could provide a strong reminder of the commercial networks and caravan routes still linking Antioch to Mesopotamia and beyond – despite imperial regime changes.205 If political boundaries could be ignored, it follows that the Seleucids’ loss of hegemony cannot completely explain the general shrinking distribution 200 202 203

204

205

201 Le Rider 1965, 445. Duyrat 2016, 402; see also Foss 1986, 62–63. See Bellinger 1949b, 200–201; Mørkholm 1991, 179–180. Seyrig 1955, 101–103. Bellinger (1949b, 112–113) wondered if necessity initially forced the Parthians to maintain the currency already circulating within the city. In contrast, Antiochminted coins did not circulate in southern Mesopotamia, where Parthian coins represent a majority of finds from Susa (almost 100% of the 960 period bronze finds) and Seleucia on the Tigris (almost 100% of the 377 period bronze finds). Antioch coinage is noticeably absent from the later bronze hoards at Susa, which contain a majority of Parthian coins. Italian excavations at Seleucia on the Tigris yielded one bronze hoard buried around 84 BCE; all finds were civic issues from Seleucia on the Tigris (Le Rider 1998, 68). IGCH 1788; Seyrig 1955. The hoard of 624 coins – all bronze excepting one denarius from the Roman Republic – reveals a variety of mints and authorities including royal issues of the Seleucids minted at Seleucia on the Tigris, Antioch, and other Syrian mints; royal issues from the kingdoms of Commagene, Parthia, Judea, and Nabataea; and a scattering of civic issues from Syrian cities such as Apamea, Laodicea, Seleucia Pieria, Aradus, Damascus, Sidon, and Antioch. Raschke 1978, 642. See also Young 2001; Butcher 2002, 146. Bellinger (1949b, 195) thought some sort of diplomatic or political action through a banking system moved these coins to Dura to supply local merchants, but this seems unlikely.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

131

132

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

of silver and royal Seleucid bronze coins struck at Antioch. We must therefore also consider a numismatic explanation. In her 2016 examination, Frédérique Duyrat wrote that the political disintegration of the Middle East in the late second and first centuries BCE allowed for the introduction of unique weight standards on a local and regional level, which in turn fragmented the circulation of coins into increasingly closed “currency zones.”206 While it is difficult to gauge the full impact of these changes for the bronze coins due to our poor understanding of their different denominational systems (see below), the effect on the circulation of silver struck at Antioch is undeniable.207 The currency systems to the west and the south allowed little access to the increasingly debased tetradrachms minted at Antioch. To the west, idiosyncratic currency systems that had developed after the Seleucids lost this territory – such as the cistophori of western Asia Minor weighing less than an Attic tetradrachm – blocked Antioch silver.208 To the south, where the Hasmonean state emerged, autonomous Tyrian silver coins were preferred in lieu of the state’s own issues.209 Several scholars have proposed that strict Temple requirements for the silver content of coins disqualified the use of Antioch issues in favor of the finer and purer Tyrian coins (see Chapter 4).210 Larger denominational differences between the northern and southern Levant may have played a role as well, as certainly the coins had other uses besides just a Temple tax.211 In the two late second-century BCE hoards where silver Antioch coins do appear, they may be either residual from the earlier period, a modern addition, or the result of ship travel for military or commercial purposes.212 206 208

209 210 211 212

207 Duyrat 2016, 403. On bronze denominational systems, see Harl 1987, 18. Callataÿ 2012, 183; Callataÿ 2013, 218–219; Thonemann 2015, 77–82, 177–182. As for possible exceptions, the late second-century BCE hoard from Cilicia (IGCH 1435) originated in one of the only regions within greater Anatolia still held by the Seleucids after 188 BCE. The thirtyfive silver coins from Antioch are matched by Seleucid issues from Damascus (32 coins), Tarsus (28 coins), and Ptolemais (Ake) (30 coins). Cilician mints continued to produce coins for the Seleucids through the reign of Philip Philadelphus; see SC II.1, 596. The other hoard (IGCH 1454) without a specific find spot is harder to interpret, as it contains 102 New Style tetradrachms from Athens dated from 187/6 BCE to 158/7 BCE in addition to sixteen tetradrachms from Antioch, Tyre, and Damascus. The editors of this hoard posited that this assemblage actually represents two hoards that were later combined. Meshorer 2001, 73–78; Duyrat 2016, 396, 400–401. See Butcher 1996, 105, no. 23; Hendin 2001, 422–427. See Butcher and Ponting 2014, 546–548. For IGCH 1610, the editors suggested the single Antioch issue was residual from an earlier period or was a modern addition to the hoard. The other silver hoard from Haifa (IGCH 1605) was actually recovered from the sea by a fisherman (see Ringel 1974, 43). At least fifteen tetradrachms were from Antioch, but most importantly, all the other coins are also on the Attic weight standard (Duyrat 2016, no. 281). This is hardly evidence for circulation in the south, but

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Royal and Imperial Authorities and the Distribution of Coins

These closing currency boundaries around Syria also meant that foreign silver was less likely to circulate within the region.213 A map of the origins of coins within Syrian hoards clearly reflects this new environment (Fig. 3.13).214 Unlike Syrian hoards dated to the previous period, whose contents drew heavily from western Asia Minor and Greece in addition to the wider Levant, most of the coins in these later hoards originated from within Syria and Phoenicia. Likewise, among the Syrian hoards where Antioch silver appears (Fig. 3.8), the median percentage represented by the Antioch mint is far higher than before at almost 50%. These evident changes in the political circumstances and numismatic systems of the region have broad historical implications worthy of further study, but they also add an important layer to the story of Antioch during this period. Duyrat argues that because the Seleucid kings could not rely upon foreign silver currency as before, they were forced to invest in greater production of their own.215 The focus and pressure placed on the mint at Antioch yet again emerge, as it was one of the last to strike coinage for the Seleucids. This production was still not sufficient in the region, and so civic mints arose to supplement local and regional needs. The entrance of the Romans did little to modify the political or numismatic fragmentation of the Middle East. Even if publication of the hoards does not allow for the differentiation of silver coins minted at Antioch after annexation, the absence of any noticeable change from the concentrated distribution or even the exceptional eastward movement reinforces the restraint or inconsistency of Roman provincial policy during the early years. Roman issues – signs of the region’s new conquerors – are noticeably absent from Syrian hoards as well. The different currency systems of the region were thus affirmed, rather than overhauled by the new conquerors. In such a context, we might find further proof that it was the Antiochians – finally freed from Seleucid focus – who took over the silver mint at Antioch. Of course, the Romans could and did influence local production of civic silver at Antioch and elsewhere for their own purposes in the Middle East. Still, the clearly concentrated circulation of the Antioch silver does not preclude the possibility that the Antiochians – like their neighbors – minted silver for their own local and regional use during this period.

213 214

215

instead some form of ship travel either for military or for commercial purposes. Duyrat suggests the coins are related to the dynastic struggle between Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX at the end of the second century BCE. See Butcher and Ponting 2014, 541. This list comes from IGCH 1567 and Duyrat 2016, nos. 256, 261–262, 273, 276–277, 279–280, 286, 288, 301, 303–304, 306, 308, 311, 313–315, 317, 325, 329, 332–333, 335–336, 340, 345, 347–348, and 353. Duryat 2016, 379–383, 473–474.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

133

134

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Fig. 3.13 The origins of mostly silver coins found within Syrian hoards buried c. 129–31 BCE. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of coin finds from that mint or issuing city. See Duyrat 2016 for a detailed inventory of these hoards.

Civic Authorities and the Distribution of Coins

Civic Authorities and the Distribution of Coins Far more telling signs exist for the activity of the city’s inhabitants. Already mentioned throughout the previous section were communities who clearly replaced or at the very least supplemented Seleucid bronze coin supplies with local, civic issues. A closer examination of the coin assemblage at Antioch confirms that the Antiochians took part in this same practice as well. Coin finds dating to the late second and first centuries BCE reflect the continued local use of royal Seleucid issues, but the approximately 200 Antioch-minted coins are now evenly split between the royal bronze issues of the Seleucid state and civic bronze issues of the Antiochians (Fig. 3.14).216 This balance seems to indicate that Antiochene civic issues assumed a local importance similar to their royal Seleucid predecessors, which reinforces earlier discussions about the Antiochians minting their own civic coinage to meet the needs of their city for small change. Beyond these fiscal ramifications, the clear shift in the assemblage offers yet another piece of physical evidence for the Antiochians taking ownership of their own city at the breakdown of the Seleucid Empire.

Mint Site/ Territory

Total Coins

% Assemblage

Antioch Royal Antioch Civic Other Syria Southern Levant

104 93 23 3

46.6% 41.7% 10.3% 1.3%

Total Bronze Coins

223

100%

Fig. 3.14 Bronze coins minted c. 129–31 BCE and excavated at Antioch according to mint/territory of origin; numerical data listed in table. This total excludes two silver coins.

216

Duyrat (2016, 464) charts the proportion of royal Seleucid coins vs. civic issues in excavations.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

135

136

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

Fig. 3.15 Excavations with finds of bronze civic coins minted at Antioch c. 129–31 BCE. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of Antioch finds at each location. For details, see Fig. 3.16.

Further confirmation of the civic quality of the Antiochians’ own coins may be interpreted from their overall distribution outside of the city. A map of the raw data reveals the coins’ movement in an extended territory within the Levant (Fig. 3.15), not unlike the distribution of the royal Seleucid coins examined earlier. However, once the coin finds are weighted within their individual assemblages (Fig. 3.16), it becomes clear that significant quantities of civic Antiochene coins are absent from many of the places where royal Seleucid bronzes struck at Antioch were discovered. True enough, as examined above, the circulation of the royal bronzes of the Seleucids was already weakening in the southern Levant, but it is unlikely that the civic coins of the Antiochians ever circulated there or even in southern Syria where local Phoenician and even Hasmonean sources of coin were readily available.217 Even the concentrated and anomalous presence of bronze civic Antiochene coins at Samaria-Sebaste in the southern Levant may have

217

The circulation of Antioch coins within southern Syria is more difficult to recreate due to minimal data points. For example, at Berytus, of the twenty-one finds dating to the late second and first centuries BCE, no one mint is represented by more than four coins including the royal Seleucid mints at Antioch and Berytus and the civic mints at Chalcis, Ascalon, Byblus, Dora, and Sidon. Still, outside a lone halved coin at Berytus and three civic issues in a hoard of 244 bronze coins (CH 10.349; Duyrat 2016, no. 323), no evidence currently exists for their southern circulation. No coins have yet been published for Damascus, but a nearby hoard (IGCH 1620; Duyrat 2016, no. 302) contains a region-specific mix with the most prominent coins from Tyre. Compare also the distribution maps of Hasmonean state issues and civic coins of Tyre, Sidon, and Ptolemais (Ake) in Duyrat 2016, 567, 569, 571–572.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Civic Authorities and the Distribution of Coins

137

Region

Excavation Site

Total Bronze Antioch Royal % Antioch Antioch Civic % Antioch Coins Bronze Royal Bronze Civic

East

Dura Europos

246

137

55.7%

6

2.4%

Syria

Tell Abou Danné

12

6

50%

5

41.7%

Syria

Antioch

223

104

46.6%

93

41.7%

Syria

Seleucia Pieria

81

32

39.5%

2

2.5%

Syria

Gindaros

9

3

33.3%

6

66.7%

Syria

Hama

47

13

27.7%

6

12.8%

Syria

Jebel Khalid

35

9

25.7%

21

60%

Southern Levant

Tel Beth-Shean

8

2

25%

0

0%

Southern Levant

Tel Anafa

128

30

23.4%

0

0%

Syria

Berytus

21

3

14.3%

1

4.8%

Fig. 3.16 The percentages represented by bronze Antioch coins minted c. 129–31 BCE within individual excavations; numerical data listed in the table. The area of each pie chart is proportionate to the total quantity of late Hellenistic/early Roman bronze finds at each site. Sites with less than eight total period finds, only one Antioch coin, or where Antioch coins represent less than 1% are excluded.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

138

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

Southern Levant

Horvat ’Eleq

10

1

10%

0

0%

Southern Levant

Caesarea Maritima

26

2

7.7%

0

0%

Southern Levant

Pella

40

3

7.5%

1

2.5%

Southern Levant

Jaffa

35

2

5.7%

0

0%

Cyprus

Kourion

121

1

0.8%

0

0%

Cyprus

Paphos

309

2

0.6%

0

0%

Southern Levant

SamariaSebaste

167

1

0.6%

26

15.6%

Balkans

Athens

3272

0

0%

1

0%

Balkans

Corinth

8

0

0%

1

12.5%

Southern Levant

Jerusalem

583

0

0%

1

0.2%

Southern Levant

Masada

98

0

0%

1

1%

East

Seleucia on the Tigris

377

0

0%

1

0.3%

Syria

Palmyra

4

1

n/a

0

n/a

Southern Levant

Tel Jezreel

3

3

n/a

0

n/a

Syria

Tell el Hajj

4

0

n/a

4

n/a

Syria

Tell Rifa’at

6

2

n/a

4

n/a

Syria

Zeugma

2

2

n/a

0

n/a

Fig. 3.16 (cont.)

resulted from factors outside of circulation.218 Published stratigraphic detail indicates the coins were lost throughout the site during the first century BCE.219 Given the general paucity of these civic coins elsewhere in the region, someone or multiple persons may have carried the coins south 218

219

See Reisner 1924, 252–253. Syon (1992–1993, 44) considered the five civic Antiochene coins at Gamla “a rather unusual find”; see also Duyrat 2016, 226–227. Reisner 1924, 253; Kirkman 1957. Eleven of the coins were found during the Joint Expedition of the 1930s and fifteen civic coins were gathered during the earlier Harvard Excavations. The Antiochene coins from the Joint Expedition range in date approximately from 85 BCE to 30 BCE; those from the Harvard Excavation are more limited in date (49 to c. 37 BCE). The stratigraphic detail comes from the Harvard Excavations (see Reisner 1924, 52–53, 75–84, 265). Antiochene coins were found under Herodian streets, cisterns, Herodian floors, and in pre-Herodian rooms. Several of the contexts include coins of the 40s and 30s BCE.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Civic Authorities and the Distribution of Coins

to Samaria as part of travels from Antioch.220 It is also conceivable that the activities of the newly arrived Roman military were behind the movement of these coins. In 38 BCE, the Roman commander Ventidius Bassus defeated the Parthians at Gindaros, the satellite settlement within Antioch’s hinterland. According to Josephus, this defeat freed up Roman troops to aid Herod’s bid for the southern Levant.221 At one point, Herod sent a portion of the Roman troops to winter in Samaria. If soldiers had picked up bronze civic Antiochene coins as currency while in Gindaros and the territory of Antioch, perhaps they discarded or lost them once in Samaria. Either explanation is conjecture, but both offer a better explanation than regular circulation for such an isolated appearance and serve to emphasize Antioch’s use by outside authorities rather than any exceptional quality inherent to the Antiochians’ civic coins. Indeed, the strongest concentration of the civic Antiochene bronzes appears in the north near Antioch. At the most basic level, this pattern demonstrates that the Antiochians’ bronze coins – however much their design recalled earlier Seleucid issues and whatever Antioch’s importance to the late Seleucid kings, Tigranes, and the early Romans – were not the exact equivalent of the royal bronzes. This is not surprising if the Antiochians were minting their own coins for their own local needs, rather than those of the region as previously. Where the Antiochians’ own bronze coins did and did not circulate can offer additional testimony to the political and numismatic fragmentation of the Middle East as well as to the exercise of civic agency at Antioch and throughout Syria. A previous study by Butcher on the circulation of coins within the Orontes Valley argued that from the first century BCE onward, as many communities began minting their own coins in lieu of royal bronze, magistrates of individual Syrian cities exercised greater selectivity over which coins counted as legal tender within their walls.222 Instead of solely screening for forgeries, city officials or

220

221 222

Butcher 2001–2002, 58. A little understood countermark appearing on first-century BCE civic Antiochene coins excavated at Antioch may offer support for travelers regularly moving from the city through to the southern Levant (see Waagé 1952, nos. 274, 284; McAlee 2007, 23, 108–109; the countermark is not in GICM). Waagé identified the mark as the head of Apollo, but other scholars have proposed that the head actually depicts Cleopatra VII and therefore served to validate the civic coins within Ptolemaic territory, before their transport back to Antioch. The appearance of this same mark on the civic coins of Chalcis, Damascus, Seleucia Pieria, and Laodicea may support this hypothesis, but too few coins have been found in situ to determine their circulation. Joseph. AJ 14.434–464; Smallwood 1976, 56–57, 77–78; Isser 1999, 572–573; Schäfer 2003, 86. Butcher 2002, 145–152. See Chapter 1 for other examples of local regulation of circulating coinage.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

139

140

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

moneychangers could deny nonlocal coins because of denominational differences or because the authority guaranteeing the monetary value of the coin was not recognized. Elsewhere Butcher suggested that cities might have also promoted primary use of their own coins for a small financial benefit or to keep local economies afloat.223 According to the data considered in the current study, a case can be made that civic regulation by local administrators increased during this period, which further refined already narrowing currency pools. In the assemblage at Antioch, of the 223 identifiable bronze coin finds dated between 129 and 31 BCE, 88% were minted within Antioch itself (Fig. 3.14).224 True, this percentage is almost the same as that of the previous period, which I explained as the natural result of a prolific mint rather than any regulation. However, the loss of Seleucid hegemony and the development of a variety of civic currencies now meant that a single authority no longer guaranteed the monetary value of the bronze coins. The dominance of local coins at Antioch cannot be so easily explained as before. Of the far more limited group of foreign, non-Antioch coins dating to this period, only eleven civic coins minted at Seleucia Pieria represent any noticeable cluster (Fig. 3.17). Such a small quantity can only reveal that Seleucia Pieria and Antioch were close to one another, and not that civic currency was regularly exchanged between their inhabitants. Overall, although the number of minting cities increased during the first century BCE, their issues have a minimal presence within the Antioch assemblage and, presumably, the original body of currency circulating within the city. It is possible that so few of these nonlocal coins were found in Antioch simply because their original production and issue were relatively small, but the assemblage at Antioch also supports the conclusion that the Antiochians felt little impetus, need, or ability to draw in civic or royal coins from elsewhere.225 Thus, while the Antioch mint may have been relatively prolific in its output of civic coins, it is not unreasonable to follow Butcher and propose that that the citizens intentionally monitored and possibly even restricted what circulated as currency within their city’s territory.

223 224

225

Butcher 2004, 145–146; see also RPC I, 16–17. A small, late second-century BCE hoard from the territory of Antioch contains five or more bronze coins, all Antioch in origin. See IGCH 1565; Duyrat 2016, no. 270. Compare with Butcher 2002, 148.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Civic Authorities and the Distribution of Coins

Fig. 3.17 The origins of non-Antioch coins minted c. 129–31 BCE and excavated at Antioch. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of finds from each location. Coins without a definable mint are excluded.

If the Antiochians monitored their own currency, the evidence outside of Antioch suggests that they were not alone in this practice. Antioch’s own neighbor Seleucia Pieria provides a prime example (Fig. 3.16). Almost half of the city’s period assemblage is made up of Seleucia Pieria’s own civic coins. Enough royal Seleucid bronze coins minted at Antioch appear in the assemblage to indicate their continued circulation within the city alongside the civic issues. In contrast, only two civic coins of the Antiochians dating to this period were discovered on site, which is hardly convincing evidence of their use within Seleucia Pieria. The overall assemblage thereby mirrors the pattern at Antioch and likely confirms that little exchange of civic coins occurred between these geographically close cities. As distance was not a problem, the most convincing argument is that both cities not only minted their own coins but also regulated what constituted currency within territorial limits.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

141

142

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

Even among civic communities which did not issue their own coins, some selectivity may still have occurred out of what circulated regionally. For example, Hama (ancient Epiphanea), just south of Apamea, only minted a small issue of coins sometime during the late second or first century BCE.226 According to finds excavated there, the city instead relied upon royal Seleucid bronze – some minted at Antioch – in addition to issues from Aradus in Phoenicia – predominately in the second century BCE – and then Apamea – represented by twenty-four civic issues dated to the first century BCE.227 Despite Hama’s proximity to Antioch and past use of royal issues from its mint, the local circulation of civic Antiochene coins is less than certain. Besides the six civic Antiochene coins within the assemblage, the only other evidence for potential circulation is a single bronze hoard dating to c. 50 BCE which was excavated at Hama. Out of fifty-one total coins, forty-one are civic Antiochene coins predating 52 BCE.228 Civic Antiochene bronzes could certainly travel up the Orontes River, but it is unclear whether this indicates circulation or simply the movement of individuals from Antioch.229 If local regulation limited the use of the Antiochians’ civic bronzes to the south of the city, such selectivity may have actually favored their use at sites east of Antioch (Figs. 3.15 and 3.16). In the previous period, these sites showed a strong reliance on royal Seleucid bronze coins minted at Antioch. This dependence on Antioch-minted coinage persisted at Jebel Khalid, Tell Abou Danné, Tell Rifa’at, Gindaros, and Tell el Hajj into the first century BCE, even after the Antiochians turned to civic production. The numbers are small, but the collective pattern is compelling, especially as many other Syrian civic issues are not well represented. Civic Antiochene coins continue to make a strong showing at least at Tell Abou Danné through the early first century CE when the site was neglected; at least seventeen of the twenty-one coin finds dating to the reign of Augustus are civic issues minted at Antioch.230 A majority of Antiochene coins at Gindaros is to be expected, as the site was well within Antioch’s hinterland, but the

226 227

228 229

230

See Butcher 2002, 148–149. The finds from Hama yielded twenty-nine coins minted at Aradus, but they cannot be definitely dated between the second and first centuries BCE. IGCH 1580; Duyrat 2016, no. 337. See Butcher 2002, 148. It is unfortunate that the pre-Roman finds from Apamea were not published within the coin report, as the proximity of the city to Hama and the latter’s reliance on coins from Apamea may shed further light on the local circulating currency pool (see Callu 1979; on the mint at Apamea, see RPC I, 631–632; Hoover 2009, 303). Doyen 1987, 103–108.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Civic Authorities and the Distribution of Coins

limited movements of the civic coins elsewhere in Syria makes their eastern circulation surprising. How far to the east this pattern extended is unclear due to conflicting evidence: the excavations from Dura have only yielded six civic Antiochene coins, but the aforementioned hoard from Nisibis contained 214 Antiochene issues, which represent over 30% of this one deposit.231 More than the vagaries of survival, several possible explanations exist for why Antiochene civic coins circulated far east of the city. None of the Syrian sites in this region had the civic infrastructure for producing or issuing their own coins, which meant the inhabitants relied upon what was available. As partially suggested for the Antioch assemblage, the Antiochians may have minted so many of their own civic bronzes that they overwhelmed circulation of any other community’s issues. Additionally, the financial policies of the municipal government at Antioch could have acted as a type of currency filter. If the Antiochians regulated their internal currency, perhaps this control filtered the circulating currency to such a point that the coins traveling eastward to Beroea (modern Aleppo) and beyond were mostly Antiochene in origin. Then again, other trade and communication routes connected eastern and western Syria besides the path through Antioch.232 The coins of other cities had alternative paths on which to move, as demonstrated by the diversity of bronze coins reaching Parthian Dura Europos further to the south. We therefore have to consider the possibility that the dominant presence of the Antiochians’ own coins in this eastern region was the result of intentional selection. I suggested in the last chapter that royal Antioch coins may have reached the region because of an active policy of the administration. The Roman government could have conceivably continued this policy, bringing Antiochene civic coins to supply military sites like the first-century CE fort at Tell el Hajj.233 The problem with this explanation is that while the Romans were clearly capable of influencing the production of coins for their own purposes (see above), only Tell el Hajj had an expressly military function under the Romans. It remains unclear why the Roman administration would manipulate the coinage in this particular area while leaving most settlements to their own regulation. If not the Romans, the prominence of the civic Antioch issues could indicate that some quality about the coins made them the preferred choice of the region’s inhabitants. Availability of these coins in sufficient 231 233

232 IGCH 1788; Seyrig 1955. See the map in Sartre 2001, 1011. See GICM 20–21; Ziegler 1996.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

143

144

Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE)

quantities might be one reason, but it is also conceivable that Antiochene civic coins were somehow more legitimate among the people of this region because of their iconography. The featured images mimic earlier Seleucid types and the legend clearly identifies the premier city of Syria. The Antiochians had started to produce these coins even while the Seleucid kings controlled the city, which may have initially contributed to their eastward movement. Assuming the inhabitants or traders of the eastern region paid attention to which coins circulated, the fact that the civic coins continued to appear through later decades may be related to an established precedent or their explicit ties to a prominent city. At the very least, even if the finds do not reflect the coins’ use as currency at this distance, they do testify to a greater spread within northeastern Syria than the coinage of any other issuing city. These regional ties lingered for political and commercial reasons past the end of Antioch as Seleucid capital. Overall, the distribution and likely circulation of the civic bronze coins of the Antiochians reflect how tremendously the region had changed since the height of the Seleucid Empire. Any political or numismatic cohesion – to whatever degree it had previously existed – was gone, as many civic communities including the Antiochians relied upon their own issues or a selection of what they deemed currency out of the various coins exchanged throughout the fractured region. Whether the citizens welcomed this oversight of fiscal matters or chafed under these apparently new responsibilities is unknown, but it is important to underscore that the Antiochians were not excluded despite their city’s importance first to the late Seleucid kings and then to the conquering Romans. Even though the legacy of the city might have elevated the circulation of the Antiochians’ coins to the east of Antioch, they were generally viewed and used as another civic issue no longer bearing the guarantee of any royal authority.

Conclusion The picture of the late second and first centuries BCE to emerge from the coins and other historical evidence is one of diminishing Seleucid authority over a fracturing Middle East, growing civic independence out of necessity or opportunity, and a laissez-faire attitude or at least less overt manipulation on the part of the subsequent Roman conquerors.234 For Antioch in 234

Very similar conclusions were proposed during the roundtable discussion recorded by Callataÿ 1999, 470–471.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Conclusion

particular, this evidence creates an image of a city continuously used by outside authorities during this tumultuous period, but not defined solely or overwhelmingly by their activities as is implied by the static application of the term “capital.” After serving as an important center for the Seleucid government, it is the Antiochians who – much like their neighbors – exercised noticeable agency throughout the first century BCE. The entrance of the Romans brought small and subtle changes to the city, but on the whole – for better or for worse – confirmed the Antiochians in their authority over Antioch’s internal operations. This is not to say that the overall change in authority from royal to civic control did not influence Antioch. The loss of its capital status held earlier in the High Hellenistic period meant that the horizons of the Antiochians significantly contracted as Seleucid control over Syria and the Middle East diminished and the city’s inhabitants were less entrenched in the machinations of the Seleucid state. The Antiochians alone celebrated a civic status of metropolis, but other cities also gained their own independence and titles. On a regional level, then, while evidence exists for the persistent, broader movement of individuals and coins connected to Antioch, increasing divisions limited the stretch and scope of the city. Nevertheless, some legacy of the Seleucid capital remained in certain enduring eastern connections, even as Antioch was conquered by a western empire.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

145

4

|

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

Marcus Aurelius pardoned both the communities, who had united with Avidius Cassius, and the Antiochians, who had said many things against Marcus in favor of Cassius. The emperor had previously taken away their shows and public assemblies and every type of meeting, and had issued the harshest edict against them. Furthermore, as recorded by Marius Maximus, a speech of Marcus delivered in front of his friends had declared them rebels. Finally, he was unwilling to visit Antioch when he traveled to Syria. For neither had he been willing to visit Cyrrhus, where Cassius grew up. For all that, he did finally visit Antioch. —Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Marcus Aurelius 25.8–12

Around 175 CE, the Antiochians joined in the rebellion of the Roman governor of Syria – Avidius Cassius – and quickly suffered the consequences of an enraged emperor. Earlier in the year, Cassius had aimed for the imperial seat after receiving false information that the current ruler Marcus Aurelius had died.1 As a native Syrian from Cyrrhus, a cultural Greek, a proven military leader, and a capable administrator, it is not entirely surprising that he found popularity for his three-month revolt throughout the eastern empire even after news arrived that the emperor still lived.2 The Antiochians heartily supported their governor’s bid and denounced the reigning emperor with words so harsh that Marcus Aurelius singled them out as rebels.3 Upon his arrival in Syria after the death of Cassius, the Scriptores Historiae Augustae reports that Marcus Aurelius released his anger at the Antiochians by ending all local games, canceling all public meetings and assemblies, and even refusing to visit the city. He eventually relented and pardoned the citizens, but the Antiochians had to wait for a successful petition before Commodus to regain their festival rites.4

1

2

146

3

Cass. Dio 72.22–23; SHA Marc. 24.6–7, Avid. Cass. 7. The Scriptores Historiae Augustae is problematic, but the account of Cassius’s rebellion has been deemed sound (see Birley 2012, 18–26). Eastern support for Avidius Cassius can be inferred from Cass. Dio 72.25; see also Haddad 1949, 132–133; Millar 1993, 115–118; Dąbrowa 1998, 112–117. 4 SHA Marc. 25.8–12, Avid. Cass. 9.1; Downey 1961, 227–228. Malalas 12.284–290.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

Considering where the previous chapter ended, it may seem odd to begin a discussion of Roman rule at Antioch with an incident that occurred over 200 years after Augustus turned the Republic into a Principate. This account, however, serves as an important reminder of the Antiochians in contrast to traditional characterizations of the city during the Roman Principate. Too often for this period, Antioch is defined solely by its role as provincial capital and the increasing use the emperors made of it. For example, Glanville Downey declared that from the moment Augustus took office as emperor, the western Roman government “overshadowed all the activities of the municipality.”5 After all, the emperor’s own legate used Antioch as a headquarters to govern the imperial province of Syria. Other scholars have echoed this sentiment either explicitly or implicitly by emphasizing the city’s development toward becoming a “secondary Imperial ‘capital’” as the Roman emperors spent more and more time within the Middle East.6 It is undeniable that the place of Antioch assumed a prominent status as the provincial head for the Roman imperial administration during this period. By the late first century BCE, the nebulous stretch of the Roman province of Syria across the Levant proved untenable, as too many political entities under this umbrella complicated Roman efforts to maintain domestic stability and control the frontier.7 The emperors therefore abandoned their laissez-faire approach and used their legates to consolidate and control a better-defined province. Whatever doubts arose for the previous period, Tacitus now clearly refers to Antioch as the caput or “head” of this Syria just as Caesarea Maritima was the caput of Judea.8 From Josephus’s perspective, even if the Roman governor moved around the province, he often returned to Antioch from conflicts in the south; this suggests the city acted as an official residence and central location per Rudolf Haensch’s definition of capital (see Chapter 3).9 Furthermore, occasional visits to the city by the Roman emperors extended into long-term residencies as they turned their attention to the Parthians still lurking along the eastern boundaries.10 Antioch held a prime location in the region and enough 5 6

7 8

9 10

Downey 1963, 81; see also Downey 1961, 163–164. Millar 1993, 105, see 117. See also Ball 2000, 155–156; Butcher 2003, 49, 101; Sartre 2005, 189–190. See Butcher 2003, 40–44, 79–82; Sartre 2005, 70–87. Tac. Hist. 2.78. Haensch (1997, 244–245) argues that Tacitus had specifically Roman administration in mind rather than a more general importance. On the importance of Caesarea Maritima to Rome and its strategic advantages over Antioch, see Beebe 1983. E.g., Joseph. AJ 17.89–18.126; see 17.132 especially. Isaac (1990, 436–438) has assembled all the evidence for Antioch as military headquarters and imperial residence.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

147

148

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

natural amenities and urban infrastructure to suit the administrative and military activities of the Roman state. It is therefore not surprising that both Roman magistrates and emperors would focus on the city. Nevertheless, allowing Antioch’s people to be “overshadowed” or subsumed by yet another imperial power making use of the city robs us of the opportunity to explore the complexity of the relationship between the Antiochians and the Roman administration and how it developed throughout the first and second centuries CE. Herein lies the importance of the account about the Antiochians and the emperor Marcus Aurelius. Contrary to traditional narratives, the agency and civic institutions of the Antiochians are still at the forefront of Antioch even after several centuries of Roman rule. Therefore, instead of viewing the account solely through the lens of an emperor threatened by the disloyalty of a provincial or second imperial capital, we should also consider why – after centuries of Roman rule – removal of the Antiochians’ civic activities still constituted a significant punishment by an angered emperor. To do this, we must first step back to examine Roman imperial strategies for handling civic communities of the eastern empire. Already existing cities were still a great administrative resource for the small Roman provincial bureaucracy as these communities managed their own territories and acted as conduits for imperial military and economic directives.11 Leaving this extant urban network alone, however, was no longer Roman policy. In the three centuries of the Roman imperial period, Syria experienced sweeping investment through the foundation, expansion, and enhancement of its cities.12 Beginning in the first century CE, but culminating within the second and early third centuries, both imperial and local civic investors transformed the urban landscape along the ideological vision of the Roman Empire with the addition of long, colonnaded avenues, amphitheaters, hippodromes, baths, and aqueducts among other buildings.13 Not simply a monumental facelift, these buildings were accompanied by new forms of government and economic opportunities both locally and within the wider Mediterranean.14 Of course, not all cities experienced the same growth or success. Instead, the extension of special titles, benefits, and privileges by the imperial government enhanced the

11 12 13 14

Garnsey and Saller 1987, 26–40; Millar 1993, 18, 237–238, 256. Butcher 2003, 106–121, 229–234; Sartre 2005, 151–156, 185–187; see also Sartre 1991, 123–126. See Will 1989, 232–244; Segal 1997, 1–2, 5–10, 55–67, 151–168; Sartre 2005, 163–183. See Bowersock 1994, 172; Alcock 2007, 678–696.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

civic hierarchy and led local administrators and elite actively to seek out Roman officials, bring requests, and jockey for favor.15 Roman enhancement of these cities does not mean that the connection of the inhabitants to their past heritage somehow disappeared. As many modern studies are quick to point out, the extension of the Roman Empire over the Middle East involved negotiation and navigation through complex, discrepant identities and extant structures.16 In fact, civic selfpromotion flowered within Roman Syria as citizens celebrated their own mythological foundations and civic cults.17 Civic festivals – events fairly rare in the evidence for the Seleucid period – provided an opportunity for citizens to honor their own history and identity. Even as the annexed inhabitants engaged with a new imperial system, they also maintained and were even encouraged by the Roman government to keep a connection to the past – real or imagined. This civic pride was neither a sign of increased autonomy nor reflective of a still hands-off Roman government. Instead, Clifford Ando argues that the imperial government maintained local diversity within the larger unifying administrative structure as a way of keeping people divided and preventing collective rebellion.18 A recent study by Nathanael Andrade suggests how this process worked in Syria specifically: focus on the individual Greek polis and collective Roman provincial identity integrated diverse ethnic groups into a competitive network oriented toward the emperor, which, in turn, encouraged traditional and new expressions of “Greekness,” “Syrianness,” and even “Romanness.”19 In other words, the communities of Syria retained and renewed their unique civic identity and heritage as part of an imperial strategy intent on cultivating a new westward political loyalty. Complex dynamics were at work. Regardless of Antioch’s previous status as capital under the Seleucids or its importance to the Romans, little justification exists to assume that the Romans overlooked the Antiochians as another distinct civic body to engage. After all, it was the citizens of Antioch with whom the conquering Romans ultimately dealt during the early transitional period. Centuries later, the Antiochians clearly cherished their own institutions and festivals enough to warrant their removal as a form of punishment by the Roman administration. Additionally, as convenient as it is to talk about a single 15

16 17 18

Ando 2000, 61–63; Andrade 2013, 129–136. See also Millar 1977, 363–463; Woolf 1997, 9; Sartre 2005, 183–188. On Tyre vs. Sidon and Antioch vs. Laodicea, see Cass. Dio 54.7.6; Herodian 3.3.3. E.g., Woolf 1994, 116–143; Ando 2010, 17–45; Mattingly 2011, 26–42, 203–218. Butcher 2003, 101–106, 224–229; Klose 2005, 125; Butcher 2012, 471. 19 Ando 2010, 18–19; see also Noreña 2016, 294–295. Andrade 2013, 94–136.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

149

150

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

civic population, the historical record for this period reveals multiple subgroups within the city’s territory; the Romans had to contend with this complexity. Finally, although Antioch became a provincial capital for the Romans, this does not necessarily mean that the civic body of the Antiochians was equally elevated or that their authority held greater sway within the region. All in all, one must be careful about equating the agency and experience of the Antiochians as a civic body with the purposes of the Roman administration in their city. This chapter therefore argues that even though Antioch the place served as a provincial caput and was well on its way to becoming an imperial capital, the Antiochians continued to engage as a civic body that was neither consistently eclipsed nor always promoted by the Roman administration. Both authorities instead navigated through traditional Seleucid, civic Antiochene, and Roman imperial operations, structures, and identities. For the Antiochians, some situations brought forth the independence of this civic body as its members tended to internal business and interacted with imperial representatives and the surrounding communities. At other times, the Antiochians’ traditional structures and identities blended with Roman expectations as the citizens reoriented toward the western power at work within the city and the region. On the part of the Romans, their administration certainly manipulated Antioch and the region as they adjusted political, social, and economic boundaries and cultivated both civic diversity and cohesive loyalty toward the imperial state. When necessary, they modified the operations of the Antiochians to suit their purposes. This is especially evident with Roman restructuring of the city’s mint, in which the previous dichotomy of royal and civic issues dissolved into a blurred mixture of civic, provincial, and imperial issues. This activity still did not yet “overshadow” the Antiochians but rather reveals the intricate negotiation of both authorities active within Antioch. The time period covered in this chapter is much longer than in previous chapters, which may seem inappropriate given all the developments within the Roman Principate from one imperial dynasty to the next. However, from the perspective of Antioch and the Antiochians, these broad chronological limits provide a dataset more attuned to the city and its people, thereby allowing for a much richer analysis and comparison. This is especially the case with the coin evidence, as these limits encapsulate significant changes and additions from Augustus’s reign through to the extended pause in bronze and silver production at the end of the second century CE.20

20

Compare with the chronological divisions of Butcher 2002.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Roman Antioch of the Antiochians

Roman Antioch of the Antiochians By the time of the Roman Principate, the space and place of Antioch was neither small nor homogenous. Based upon Strabo’s comparison of the city to Seleucia on the Tigris and Alexandria in Egypt, modern estimates of Antioch’s population range between well over 100,000 inhabitants to possibly as many as half a million in the greater territory of the city.21 Not only was Antioch on an equal footing with the largest urban spaces of the Mediterranean, it also dwarfed other Syrian cities in the physical extent of its walls.22 More than an urban core, Antioch’s territory encompassed its suburb Daphne and an expanding rural settlement in the greater landscape.23 When disaster struck this area, Cassius Dio writes that “the whole world under Roman rule suffered loss” because of how many regions and peoples were represented in the stricken population.24 Even with this physical breadth and diversity, Antioch still maintained the character of a polis with a strong civic agency and identity of the Antiochians. An early inscription at the end of the Republic mentions both the boule and demos of the Antiochians, as well as the maintenance of public records.25 According to contemporary historians of the Roman imperial period, both boule and demos regularly gathered within the city’s theater for public deliberation.26 Josephus also reports that the Antiochians were devastated when fire destroyed their agora, the offices of the magistrates, the city archives and records office, and their basilica or lawcourts.27 Individual magistrates also occasionally appear, such as a bouleutes (“civic councilor”) named Marcus Aemilius Marcianus Asclepiades, who was honored in an inscription from Palmyra.28 There is no reason to assume the Antiochians ran an impotent government, at least where internal matters were concerned. For example, two first-century CE inscriptions found in Antioch depict a labor force of Antiochians constructing a water channel for use by urban fullers.29 The beginning of the inscriptions names the emperor, as well as the governor 21

22 24 26 27

28 29

Str. 16.2.5. Plin. HN 6.122 estimates the population of Seleucia on the Tigris at 600,000 inhabitants. Diod. Sic. 17.52 places Alexandria at 300,000 free inhabitants. See Downey 1958, 86–87; Will 1997, 108–110. 23 Butcher 2003, 103–105. Str. 16.2.6. See De Giorgi 2007, 287–288; De Giorgi 2008, 71–80. 25 Cass. Dio 68.24.1–2. IGLS III.1 718; Roussel 1934, 34–36; Sherk 1969, no. 58. Tac. Hist. 2.80; Joseph. BJ 7.47, 107. Joseph. BJ 7.55, 61. According to Malalas 10.235, an earlier fire during the reign of Tiberius had also damaged the agora and bouleuterion. See also Downey 1961, 204–205. Yon 2012, 191–192, no. 196. See Millar 1993, 111; Young 2001, 149, 152, 193, 208. Feissel 1985, 77–103. For water use by the fullers and other commercial ventures in Antioch, see Leblanc and Poccardi 2004, 239–256.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

151

152

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

M. Ulpius Trajanus, and acknowledges the governor’s provision for or vague oversight of the project (I.12).30 Nevertheless, Denis Feissel argues that even if the Roman government backed a corvée, it does not necessarily follow that such a project of local interest was conceived of or organized by the governor.31 Instead, the text – written in the local language of Greek – serves as a microcosm of the political, economic, and cultural interactions among the civic elements of Antioch.32 It was the metropolis of the Antiochians that carried out the work (I.15) and the citizens who were instructed to maintain their section of the canal (I.21–28). At least twentyfour different individuals are named, whose nomenclature indicates mostly Greek origins with three Persians and one possible Thracian included. Additionally, the inscriptions reference a former gymnasiarch (“official overseeing the gymnasium”), as well as four religious, musical, and athletic associations of the city. Although not explicitly stated, scholars have proposed that the Antiochene civic council or magistrates erected these inscriptions in celebration of their community’s accomplishment.33 Even though production was inconsistent, the Antiochians also persisted in minting at least one issue of their own bronze civic coins under most of the emperors of the Roman Principate up until the reign of Commodus.34 As before, these coins bear the ethnic ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ on the obverse or reverse, thus indicating that the civic government was behind their issue and guaranteed their value as money (Fig. 4.1). Also like the first century BCE, the distribution of these civic coins by raw count reveals the highest quantities within Antioch itself, closest to the authority issuing them (Fig. 4.2; see also Fig. 4.17).35 This pattern aligns well with the distribution of other civic coins minted within Syria, such as those struck at Laodicea ad

30 32 34

35

31 See Millar 1993, 86. Feissel 1985, 85–86. Compare with Robert 1951, 255–256. 33 See De Giorgi 2016, 83, 167–168, 198, n. 30. Andrade 2013, 151–152. On the sporadic nature of civic minting, see Harl 1987, 19. No reason exists to tie this pause of the mint to a punishment of the city by Marcus Aurelius for its support of the usurper Avidius Cassius. The revolt was in 175 CE, but bronze production at Antioch continued at least two years afterward; see Butcher 2004, 218. Outside of Antioch, circulation is most likely at nearby Gindaros and Tell Abou Danné, where Antiochene civic coins represent the majority of coins found. Tell Abou Danné was abandoned early in the first century CE, so it is possible that these finds reflect the residue of the eastward circulation pattern noted for the previous period. At neighboring Seleucia Pieria, Butcher (2002, 149) thought the presence of Antiochene civic bronzes could indicate some circulation in the city. The seventeen Antiochene civic coins do represent almost 20% of the finds, but the assemblage supports a preference for civic coins minted in Seleucia. Circulation of Antiochene civic bronzes beyond this point is less likely, regardless of whether they bear the emperor’s portrait and other “Roman” signifiers; only in the small assemblage of Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad do these coins exceed 10%. The farthest-flung single coins instead testify to individuals traveling to and from Antioch.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Roman Antioch of the Antiochians

Mare, Seleucia Pieria, Berytus, and Tyre (Fig. 4.3). This evidence demonstrates that being from the Roman provincial caput of Antioch in no way elevated circulation of the civic coins of the Antiochians.36

Fig. 4.1 Bronze civic coin of the Antiochians minted at Antioch (54–68 BCE) with Tyche/ram and the Roman governor’s name (gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques, Vogüé 228).

The fact that these civic coins were struck at all further suggests the Antiochians still needed them for local expenditure in lieu of a unified imperial currency system.37 Instead of ending the diverse bronze currencies struck across the eastern Mediterranean, the Roman administration largely preserved this “patchwork” with civic minting even expanding throughout the first and second centuries CE.38 Practical reasons were presumably at the forefront. Sitta von Reden argued that imperial payments like tax collection and the economy at large did not require a unified currency system, and it would have placed too great and unnecessary of a burden on the limited Roman bureaucracy to regulate imperial coins across the empire.39 Kenneth Harl similarly proposed that from the perspective of the Roman state, it could be cheaper and less “cumbersome” for local 36

37 38

39

In the north, finds of civic coins minted at Laodicea ad Mare appear on more sites than those from Seleucia Pieria, but rarely in quantities indicating regular circulation. For southern cities, Berytus’s civic coins appear mainly in the city itself with mostly single finds appearing elsewhere in Syria. Seven coins from Berytus did appear in the finds from Kourion in Cyprus, possibly indicating trade. Tyre’s civic coins have the best representation, but mainly in the southern Levant where currency regulation differed; see Syon 2015, 176, 196, 201–202, 219–220. In contrast, studies for Anatolia suggest the regular circulation of civic coins outside their city of issue (MacDonald 1976, 40–47; Johnston 2007, 5–7). This means that city officials either easily recognized face values among the different issues or had some system of ready exchange (see Lo Cascio 1981, 77–78, n. 13). The territorial span in which a local coin was accepted as currency still varies, as does the proportion of local to nonlocal coins found in a single city. Compare with Harl 1987, 17–19; RPC I, 16–17; Butcher and Ponting 2014, 25–26. Butcher 2004, 266–267. On currency systems of the eastern empire, see Jones 1963; Harl 1996, 97–124. On the ending of civic coin production, see the summary in RPC I, 18–19, 52; Amandry 2012, 394–395. See also the imaginative situation of Cass. Dio 52.30.9. Von Reden 2012, 274–275.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

153

154

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Fig. 4.2 Excavations with finds of bronze civic coins minted at Antioch c. 31 BCE–192 CE. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of Antioch coins at each location. The single find from Raphanea is recorded in Nurpetlian 2013, 161.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4.3 Excavations with finds of bronze civic coins minted c. 31 BCE–192 CE at (a) Seleucia Pieria and Laodicea ad Mare and (b) Tyre and Berytus. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of each city’s coins found at each location. No coin report has yet been published for Laodicea ad Mare.

155

156

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

production to continue than for the Roman state to orchestrate consistent shipments of coins from an imperial mint – although occasionally this happened (see below).40 Other scholarship has also emphasized the “modest” impact of the low-value civic bronzes in the greater administrative and economic system, which perhaps did not justify a complete overhaul.41 Most importantly, the continued civic production signals that the Antiochians retained a measure of fiscal responsibility. The historical significance of this production is not limited to financial practicalities alone.42 The mere existence of these civic coins is tangible proof of the Antiochians’ agency as well as an acknowledgment of their authority on some level by the Roman administration. Although the debate over whether civic minting was a burden or a boon for the citizens still stands (see Chapter 3), allowing cities to mint their own bronze coins avoided unnecessary interference on the part of the Roman government into civic administration. Christopher Howgego and others have further argued that retaining the ability to issue one’s own coins could grant a civic body an important sense of independence, even if not technically autonomous.43 Roman elements do appear in the iconography of the Antiochians’ civic coins, but care must be taken when interpreting their significance for the operations and agency of the civic body. For example, from Augustus through Vespasian, certain bronze civic issues periodically featured the Syrian governor’s name.44 Unlike the first-century BCE monograms of the governors on the silver coins in Chapter 3, this new legend is always written out in Greek alongside the civic ethnic using the formula ΕΠΙ + governor’s name (e.g., ΕΠΙ ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟΥ [“under Trajanus”]) (see Fig. 4.1).45 On several of the reverses dating to Tiberius through Vespasian, the governor’s name and ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ appear surrounded by only a wreath for decoration, much like many of the provincial issues discussed below.46 On other issues during the time of Augustus and Nero, civic imagery appears beside the governor’s name. Given the general absence of named civic magistrates on coins throughout northern Syria, some scholars have concluded that this legend implies 40 41 42 44 45

46

Harl 1996, 88, 106–107. RPC I, 16, 53–54; Butcher 2004, 147–148; Amandry 2012, 395. See also Harl 1986, 19. 43 See Wallace-Hadrill 1986, 69–70. GICM 88; see RPC I, 16–17; Howgego 1995, 40. See GICM 3. E.g., McAlee 2007, nos. 85, 88, 98, 100, 214, 219, 249, 284, 287, 311, 317, 382. For a larger discussion, see RPC I, 3–4, 585. These coins belong to the category of “name and wreath” coins; see McAlee 2007, 2.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Roman Antioch of the Antiochians

these issues were produced under or through the authority and/or funding of the Roman governors.47 Proof does exist that the Roman administration was more actively involved than before in the minting of other coins at Antioch (see below). Furthermore, a similar formula or name of the governor occasionally appears on other Syrian coins too, which could indicate coordination beyond the civic level.48 Even so, this evidence may only signal the occasional provincial benefactor within the first century CE, rather than consistent oversight of the specifically civic issues. What little epigraphic and numismatic evidence exists concerning civic minting generally in the Roman provinces suggests predominately local control and funding with special civic magistrates supervising production following a vote of the boule.49 Asking the Roman government for permission to mint coins could have been part of the process, but all the evidence is from outside of Antioch.50 The possibility also remains that naming the current governor on the coins did not indicate his involvement, but simply served as an honorific device or another way of dating an issue, soon abandoned in the late first century CE.51 We should be similarly cautious in interpreting the introduction of the Roman imperial portrait first on a special archieratic issue under Augustus (Fig. 4.6) and then regularly on the traditional civic coins with ethnic during Tiberius’s reign (Fig. 4.4).52 Some scholars have interpreted this change as indicating that the Antiochians lost control over their internal operations; any coins not including the imperial portrait must have reflected a special dispensation from the imperial government.53 This again may overstate the involvement and oversight of the Roman administration in regard to civic activities.54 Ann Johnston proposed that the lack of an imperial portrait on civic coins minted elsewhere in the empire merely served as a denominational marker or could have allowed for the use of a

47

48 49 50

51 52

53

E.g., Grant 1946, 396–398; Downey 1961, 167; Bruun 1999, 30; Noreña 2016, 301. Monograms and symbols may still indicate civic individuals (see Butcher 2004, 241). E.g., RPC I, 585; Butcher 2004, 418; see also Dąbrowa 1998, 22–23. GICM 85–95; see also Harl 1987, 16, 18–19, 24–30; Katsari 2003, 37–38; Butcher 2004, 20–21. Meadows 2001, 54–55; Weiss 2005, 59. The legend permissus or αɩ̓τησαμένος with the name of an official (imperial or provincial) appears on certain non-Antioch coins from the Roman world (see Burnett 1987, 17–20; RPC I, 1–3). Lucian (Alex. 58) describes a fictional petition to the emperor for changing the design of a civic coin (see Harl 1987, 23–24). Absence of this legend may still mean permission was sought (Butcher 2004, 241–242). GICM 85; Harl 1987, 13–14. See McAlee 2007, 122. For the wider context of this introduction, see Wallace-Hadrill 1986, 70–73; RPC I, 582–585; Burnett 2011, 20–23. 54 MacDonald 1904, 105–135; Bruun 1999, 33–34. See Burnett 2011, 28–30.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

157

158

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

die beyond the reign of a single emperor.55 Part of this explanation may hold true for Antioch, as the imperial portrait tends to appear on the larger and middle denominations of the civic Antiochene coins whereas the smallest coins generally lack it.56 Alternatively, the addition of the imperial portrait could simply signal the citizens’ political reorientation toward and engagement with their new rulers and imperial culture.57 (a)

(c)

(b)

(d)

(e)

Fig. 4.4 Civic coins of the Antiochians minted at Antioch (c. 31 BCE–192 CE): (a) Bronze coin of Zeus/Tyche of Antioch (6/5 BCE); (b) bronze coin of Zeus/boule (128–129 CE); (c) bronze coin of Apollo/lyre (128–129 CE); (d) bronze coin of Tyche/altar (161–180 CE); (e) bronze coin of Tiberius/wreath with governor’s name (14–37 CE) ((a), (b), (c), (e): gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques, Vogüé 225; Fonds général 145, 420, 430. (d): ANS 1944.100.65906. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

Finally, even though not the main purpose for their production, the coins provided an additional space for the Antiochians to express local values, affirm themselves as a civic body, and celebrate their heritage (Fig. 4.4).58 The type with a bust of Zeus on the obverse and Zeus Nicephorus on the reverse persisted until the end of the first century 55

56 57 58

Johnston 1985, 104; RPC I, 41. Even the smaller denominations at Rome lack the imperial portrait; see Amandry 2012, 399. On coin denominations in Roman Syria, see RPC I, 587–590. Harl 1987, 34–37; Howgego 2005, 15; Noreña 2016, 302. Johnston 2012, 455–456, 464–465. See Noreña 2016, 294–296, 298–299.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Roman Antioch of the Antiochians

BCE. At least the bust of Zeus reappeared as an obverse in the second century CE, even as the busts of Apollo or Tyche wearing a mural crown became far more common as symbols of the city. On the reverse, Eutychides’s statue of a seated Tyche with the Orontes River flowing at her feet – once used on the silver coins of Tigranes – appeared on the civic bronze for the first time. Soon, lighted altars or laurel branches became frequent reverse types in addition to the ram Aries (Fig. 4.1), which possibly represents the zodiac sign for the year of Antioch’s foundation.59 On two occasions, the coins are so explicitly civic as to depict a personification of the city’s boule dropping a voting token into an urn.60 Civic and cultural values of the Antiochians found expression elsewhere in both public and private spheres. Artifacts like sculptures and mosaics excavated within city limits speak to the perpetuation of traditional GrecoRoman deities, as well as small influences from Syrian, Cypriot, Egyptian, and Persian rituals.61 Inscriptions from rural temples around Antioch testify both to the endurance of ancestral gods and the continuation of civic investment in maintaining these sites.62 Beyond buildings and artifacts, religious and cultural values took public form in contests and festivals at Antioch. According to Strabo, the Antiochians and neighboring peoples continued to celebrate the cults of Apollo and Artemis at their temple in Daphne.63 Inscriptions found in Anatolia, Delphi, and even as far as Naples and Rome record other festivals held at Antioch from the first century CE onward as well as the far-flung origins of victors alongside the Antiochians in these contests.64 Malalas reveals that some of these festivals were funded through the benefactions of local civic elite, such as an Antiochene official named Sosibios who donated his property to the city in the first century CE in order to support a regular set of games.65 The local civic treasury at Antioch also financed these games, at least after certain magistrates during the late second century CE were accused of pocketing earmarked funds.66 Clearly, the civic coins were only one vehicle through which the Antiochians could celebrate community values.

59 61

62

63 64

65 66

60 Butcher 2004, 301. McAlee 2007, nos. 112, 126. See Norris 1982, 189–207; Wallace-Hadrill 1982, 15–18; Kondoleon 2000, 170–180; Takács 2000, 198–203. E.g., IGLS II 465–474. See Millar 1993, 252–256; Steinsapir 2005, 47–63; De Giorgi 2016, 120–121. Str. 16.2.6. For a full discussion of these inscriptions, see Remijsen 2010, 420–428; Bru 2011, 248–254. For an Antiochian honored by performers, see Ascough, Harland, and Kloppenborg 2012, no. 266. Malalas 9.224–225, 10.248; see Downey 1961, 168. Malalas 10.249, 12.284; see Downey 1961, 231.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

159

160

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

Important as this civic expression was, Antioch’s population never expressed a monolithic set of cultural values. A Jewish community existed within the city environs since at least the Hellenistic period and exercised certain political rights.67 After Roman annexation, Josephus and other rabbinic sources speak of Antioch as a special assembly point for Jews because of the city’s size and precedent for tolerance.68 This acceptance did not last through the Roman imperial period. Josephus reports at least two occasions in the first century CE when the Antiochians turned against their Jewish neighbors, seeking to force them to sacrifice according to Greek practices or expel them from the city entirely.69 Later on the prominence of the Jewish population diminished, but religious and commercial reasons may have continued drawing eastern Jews to the city throughout the Roman imperial period.70 Another religious community also flourished in the city during the Roman period. Apostles of Jesus journeyed to the city around 40 CE partially to escape persecution in the southern Levant.71 While there, followers from Cyprus and Cyrene in particular converted many people including a group of Hellenists, which refers to either Greek-speaking Jews in the city or the culturally Greek component of the polis.72 This body of “Christians” grew to such an extent at Antioch that they were able to fund a substantial relief shipment to people suffering from famine in Judea during the later first century CE.73 Bishops of the emerging church at Antioch also maintained ties to the wider Christian community in Asia Minor and further south.74 These Antiochene Christians were still neither a homogenous nor completely assimilated group, suffering under internal divisions as well as persecution from nonbelievers at Antioch.75

67 68 69 70

71

72

73 74

75

See Kasher 1982, 69–85; Andrade 2013, 115. Joseph. BJ 7.43–45; Kraeling 1932, 135–136, 147–148. Joseph. BJ 7.41–62, 102–111. See Downey 1961, 204–206; Meeks and Wilken 1978, 4–5. Kraeling 1932, 132–134. Malalas 12.290 records a Jewish civic magistrate at Antioch by the reign of Commodus. Acts 11.19–30. Euseb. Hist. eccl. 2.1.8 records an earlier mission of Jesus’s followers directed to the Jewish population alone. The manuscripts add to the confusion of how to interpret Hellenists, as they record both Hellenas and Hellenistas. See Warfield 1883, 113–127; Andrade 2013, 118. See Meeks and Wilken 1978, 13–18. On bishops of Antioch, see Euseb. Hist. eccl. 3.22, 4.20, 24; Downey 1961, 292–299, 304; Harvey 2000, 39–42. See Gal. 2.11–14; Acts 15.1–21; Meeks 2003, 111–113. On Jewish elements within Christianity, see Ign. Magn. 10; Wallace-Hadrill 1982, 19–20. On persecutions, see Euseb. Hist. eccl. 3.36; Jer. De vir. ill. 16; Malalas 11.276.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch under Roman Imperial Rule

Beyond these political and sociocultural aspects of the polis, Antioch was also defined by its rural element and the activities that bound the hinterland to the urban space. Much like in the rest of Syria and the ancient world, agriculture formed the foundation of Antioch’s economy.76 Archaeological survey in the territory around the city revealed an increase in rural settlement in the Roman imperial period along the previous Hellenistic pattern, as well as an expansion in the production of olive oil, cereals, and wine.77 These goods – and the farmers who grew them – passed in and out of Antioch and were sold in urban markets alongside the products of local industries and foreign trade.78 According to Pliny the Elder, some of the goods – such as the oil of lilies – even gained international fame.79 Antioch had its economic shortages, but as the elite villas in Daphne and elsewhere in the city’s territory demonstrate, the local economy also had periods of prosperity and supported a wealthy local population.80 Although not as easily personified, the people working both within the hinterland and urban space were equally significant to the internal life of Antioch and exemplify the diversity and complexity of the polis.

Antioch under Roman Imperial Rule It is this Antioch – replete with an active civic body and multifarious communities – that must be at the forefront of our minds when we consider Roman imperial use of the city. For the first century or so after Augustus took power in 31 BCE, the Roman administration in the Middle East was largely concerned with restructuring what constituted the province of Syria.81 To the north, eastern Cilicia was joined to Syria during the reign of Augustus before becoming part of a separate province under 76 77 78

79 80 81

See Bowersock 1994, 165–189; Butcher 2003, 135–179; Alcock 2007, 678–682. De Giorgi 2007, 294–297; De Giorgi 2016, 80–82. Besides cloth production, other industries within the city may be inferred from the archaeological evidence (see Kondoleon 2000). The importance of local or regional pottery was noted within the excavation reports (see Waagé 1948, 39–42, 62–63). It is possible that a specific type of fineware – Eastern Sigillata A – was produced in the environs of Antioch, though no kilns or workshops have yet been found (see Lund 2003, 131). On trade, see Young 2001, 188–194, 198–200. Plin. HN 12.133, 21.24, 23.95. De Giorgi 2008, 68–69, 80–81. On the houses, see Stillwell 1961, 45–57. For a full overview of this time period, see Sherwin-White 1984, 322–341; Rey-Coquais 1989, 49–53; Sartre 2005.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

161

162

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

Vespasian in 72 CE. Following the end of a client kingship, neighboring Commagene regained independence twice under the Julio-Claudians before permanent annexation to Syria under the Flavians in 72 CE. Along the eastern border, Augustus entered negotiations with the Parthians, but the contentious issue of who controlled Armenia prolonged these talks into the reigns of many of his successors. To the south, the First Jewish War erupted under Nero and ultimately resulted in the separate province of Judea in 70 CE.82 The kingdom of Emesa was also annexed to Syria around this same time between 72 CE and 79 CE. Fergus Millar states that only at this point did Syria and the Middle East transform from a “bridgehead” for the Roman administration to an “integrated provincial and military system.”83 During this period of consolidation, Antioch served as a headquarters for the Roman governors. Josephus is the best source for the governors’ repeated comings and goings from Antioch because of the many times the officials left the city to deal with rebellious Jews in the southern Levant.84 The contemporary author makes explicit that the governors returned to Antioch because it was the capital of Syria.85 Josephus also details the governors’ involvement with Antioch’s own Jewish community. For example, late in the first century BCE, the governor Gaius Sentius Saturninus allowed a Babylonian Jewish leader named Zamaris to settle near Antioch with his 100 relatives and 500 bowmen; this group left when Herod gave them better terms of residence in the southern Levant.86 Governors also administered building projects within and around the city.87 In addition to his mention in the civic canal inscription, the governor M. Ulpius Trajanus is referenced once again by an inscription near Antioch discussing a second canalization project.88 This much shorter Latin inscription prominently features the labor of the Roman military and likely details a project directed toward imperial rather than local purposes. Even so, the governor also brought in a local contingent of Antiochene soldiers or civilians to contribute to the work.89 82 84

85 86 87 88

89

83 Sartre 2005, 127. Millar 1993, 80. E.g., Joseph. AJ 17.89–18.126. Cass. Dio 69.2 records Hadrian in Antioch while governor (Haensch 1997, 244). Joseph. AJ 17.132; see Haensch 2007, 267. Joseph. AJ 17.23–27; Kraeling 1932, 135, 141–142. For a full study of Roman governors in Syria, see Dąbrowa 1998. AE 1983, no. 927; van Berchem 1983, 185–196. Two milestones in Syria link the governor to road projects leading to Antioch; see Dąbrowa 1998, 52, 69. Millar 1993, 86–90. The Romans were involved in other major waterway projects nearby; see De Giorgi 2016, 138–139. On local contributions to imperial projects, see Mitchell 1987, 333–365.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch under Roman Imperial Rule

In this first century of the Roman Principate, only a few of the emperors appear to have visited Antioch.90 Of the Julio-Claudians, Augustus alone came to the city twice, once as part of his triumphal tour after the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE and a second time around 20 BCE as he negotiated with the Parthians.91 Visits by members of the subsequent Flavian dynasty are only slightly more frequent and center around 69/70 CE when Vespasian initially sought the imperial seat while on campaign during the First Jewish War.92 Importantly, according to Tacitus, the mint at Antioch was employed to support Vespasian’s bid with temporary production of imperial Roman aurei and denarii.93 These coins are distinctively not Antiochene or Seleucid as they bear Latin legends celebrating the Flavians, an imperial portrait of Vespasian on the obverse, and either Titus or personifications of Roman values on the reverse. Even the possible representation of a kneeling Tyche before the emperor underscores imperial conquest, rather than civic pride (Fig. 4.5).94 These coins also tend to be uncommon finds in Syria, further suggesting their extra-provincial purpose.95

Fig. 4.5 Gold aureus minted at Antioch of Vespasian/Vespasian reaching out to a kneeling Tyche (ANS 1944.100.39966. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

Later on, eastern and southern campaigns brought the emperors more consistently to Syria.96 The internal consolidation and definition of Syria during the first century CE had provided Roman officials with a strong base for launching aggressive military operations in and beyond imperial limits during the second century CE.97 The emperor Trajan made use of Syria 90 91 92 93 94 95

96

See the list in Bru 2011, 323–324. Downey 1961, 170. Germanicus also laid in state at Antioch; see Tac. Ann. 2.73; Suet. Calig. 1.2. E.g., Joseph. BJ 4.630, 7.100–111. Tac. Hist. 2.80–82; Metcalf 1982, 324–326; Butcher 2004, 96. Butcher (2004, 96) suggests the kneeling figure is a personification of the province. Britain’s PAS records five denarii and one aureus possibly minted at Antioch for the Flavians (Record ID NARC-563156; YORYM-720F45; SUR-DD4C5A; BH-9B08E2; FASAM-2CD627; SF-79F314); see also CHRE no. 7733; CH 7.234. A late second-century CE hoard from Sascut, Romania, also contained a denarius from Antioch minted under Vespasian (CHRE no. 5267). 97 Isaac 1990, 436–438; Pollard 2000, 277–279; Sartre 2005, 128–135. Butcher 2003, 44.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

163

164

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

during his Parthian campaigns, which culminated in the creation of the provinces of Armenia in 114 CE and Mesopotamia in 115 CE.98 Hadrian gave up both provinces in 117 CE, focusing instead on the continued development of Syria and extinguishing the Bar Kokhba Revolt in the southern Levant in 135 CE. In 161 CE, Parthian activity called the coemperor Lucius Verus and a substantial military presence back to Syria; his forces reclaimed both Armenia and Mesopotamia. These frequent visits to Syria translated into regular imperial residencies within Antioch. Trajan stayed in Antioch at least twice and even weathered an earthquake there.99 Hadrian was declared emperor at Antioch while still governor and may have returned to the city three additional times as part of his imperial travels and campaigns in the region.100 Once again, the mint at Antioch may have temporarily produced imperial denarii and aurei for this emperor, although the attribution is not certain.101 Lucius Verus settled into Antioch for the longest of his predecessors, remaining in the city for four years as he and his generals conducted their Parthian campaign; he earned a reputation for overly indulging in the city’s amenities.102 There was thus a strong precedent for the emperor within the city before Marcus Aurelius arrived to punish the Antiochians. At no point did any emperor replace the governors at Antioch. Instead, his presence within the city was to bolster administrative operations within and outside the province.

Romans and Antiochians at Antioch Although their objectives within the city of Antioch were distinct, the Roman administration and local civic government and populace constantly intersected throughout both centuries of the early Roman Principate. Several points of contact already emerged above, such as the Antiochians drawing upon a new visual program for their coins or the Roman governor utilizing local labor for imperial projects. Additional examples exist, which draw out how the multifarious bodies occupying Antioch interacted during this period of active Roman control over the region. One point of intersection can be seen in the urban development of the city.103 Like with other eastern cities, the ancient sources highlight imperial 98 100 101 103

99 Millar 1993, 90–99. Cass. Dio 68.24; Downey 1961, 213–214. Cass. Dio 69.2; see Downey 1961, 220. 102 See Metcalf 1980, 150; Butcher 2004, 98; RPC III, 797, 808. SHA Verus 7. See Will 1997, 101–106; Ball 2000, 152.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Romans and Antiochians at Antioch

benefaction toward the citizens. When earthquakes extensively damaged the city during the reigns of Caligula (37 CE), Claudius (c. 41–54 CE), and Trajan (115 CE), the respective emperors provided disaster relief to the Antiochians.104 Malalas records additional imperial gifts outside of crisis, including a new urban quarter, gateways, baths, temples, sanctuaries, aqueducts, a theater, stadiums, and a nymphaeum.105 Although the evidence is sparse, leaving the urban development of Antioch to this top-down benefaction overlooks the complex forces at work. Malalas’s liberal use of the word ktizein (“to build”) does not always make clear what form imperial action took, whether direct or indirect, or to what extent local elites were involved.106 Even if the emperors provided the impetus and supplies for the building projects, a local workforce must have contributed to the construction, like with the canal of M. Ulpius Trajanus.107 Other regional authorities also assisted in Antioch’s urban makeover. For instance, even though Tiberius would later rebuild it after a fire, Herod the Great is given credit for initially paving Antioch’s once muddy colonnade in the first century CE.108 It is likely that elite members of the city emulated such beneficial behavior as part of the expression of proper civic practice.109 Finally, lest it be overlooked, while imperial endowments enhanced the prestige of the emperor, they were also a part of a dialogue with his subjects.110 The Antiochians showed their appreciation at least once for the emperor’s benefactions by raising a statue of Tiberius in the middle of a public square.111 A civic and imperial relationship was also fostered by the festivals and agonistic contests hosted in Antioch. Although a crucial aspect of civic performance, these events did not take place outside of Roman knowledge.112 Malalas records the Antiochians petitioning the emperor directly either to reorganize or reinstitute certain festivities.113 Additionally, two of

104

105

106 107 108 109 110 111

112

E.g., Malalas 10.243–246, 11.275–276; see Tac. Ann. 2.47; Mitchell 1987, 345–352; BerengerBadel 2004, 45–47. Malalas 9.222, 10.232–234, 10.261, 10.263, 11.277–278, 11.282, 12.283. See Downey 1961, 169–271; Sartre 2005, 163–164. Downey 1938, 1–15; Haensch 1997, 248; Berenger-Badel 2004, 48. See Mitchell 1987, 343–349. Joseph. BJ 1.425, AJ 16.148; Malalas 10.232. See Roller 1998, 214–216; Netzer 2006, 238–239. See Butcher 2003, 223–227. See Malalas 12.285 for the civic generosity of Artabanes. E.g., Boatwright 2000, 4–6, 108–143. Malalas 10.233; see Downey 1961, 183–184. For the broader context of these actions, see Ando 2000, 303–313. 113 See Andrade 2013, 133. E.g., Malalas 12.283–290. See Downey 1961, 168, 230.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

165

166

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

the contests appearing in inscriptions were actually named after individual emperors – the Hadrianeia and the Commodeia.114 Other evidence demonstrates civic celebration of the emperor. One indication is a unique series of large civic bronze coins minted at Antioch from 5 BCE to 1 BCE only (Fig. 4.6). The obverse features the imperial portrait of Augustus with ΚΑΙΣΑΡΙ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΩ ΑΡΧΙΕΡΕΙ, whereas the reverse displays ΑΡΧΙΕΡΑΤΙΚΟΝ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΙΣ within an honorific wreath.115 Taken together, the legend appears to read “the Antiochians [bestow] the role/title of archiereus to the holy high priest Caesar [Augustus].” This may refer to the newly established provincial imperial cult at Antioch and/or an honoring of Augustus as either a high priest or head of a festival within the city.116 The style of the coins mimics the provincial coins of this period (see below), but the close association with the Antiochians ties these issues to the civic body posturing before the emperor.117

Fig. 4.6 Bronze archieratic coin minted at Antioch with Augustus/wreath (5–1 BCE) (gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques, Fonds général 102).

Several sources also point to the Antiochians and their metropolis taking on an esteemed position of provincial leadership for the imperial cult within Syria.118 During the Roman imperial period, the civic title of metropolis evolved in the eastern empire from a general designation of an elevated status to refer specifically to a city’s leadership over the provincial koinon (“assembly”), of which one purpose was to oversee the imperial cult.119 In addition to general references of contemporary civic coins and 114 115 116

117 119

Boatwright 2000, 137–139; Bru 2011, 248–254. E.g., McAlee 2007, nos. 198–204. On the wreath, see Sutherland 1965, 100–102. Butcher 2004, 29; Noreña 2016, 298. On the emperor as festival head (i.e., demiourgos), see Klose 2005, 132. 118 See Downey 1961, 167, n. 26. See Butcher 2003, 370–371; Bru 2011, 273–285. Rey-Coquais 1978, 47–48. In contrast to the Asian koinon, much is unknown about the Syrian koinon. On the overlap of religious and administrative oversight in Syria, see ILS 8819a; Gebhardt 2002, 305–310; Woytek 2011; Vitale 2013.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Romans and Antiochians at Antioch

inscriptions to Antioch as metropolis, an early second-century CE inscription from Jerash identifies the metropolis of Antioch as the residence of the high priest overseeing the subdivisions of the koinon known as eparchies and their festivities.120 More than oversight, at least two first- and secondcentury CE inscriptions also describe games of the koinon of Syria taking place at Antioch.121 Under Trajan, the Roman mint even appears to have struck a series of coins bearing the legend ΚΟΙΝΟΝ CΥΡΙΑC with an image of a civic Tyche wearing her mural crown (Fig. 4.7).122 Playing both orchestrator and host meant that Antioch and more specifically the Antiochians fulfilled an instrumental role in the unification of greater Syria toward patriotic worship of the Roman emperor.123 Simultaneously, they also gained a prominent place within the civic hierarchy of the province.

Fig. 4.7 Bronze coin of Trajan/Tyche minted at Rome for the koinon of Syria (gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques, M 5158).

Other cities of the region soon joined Antioch as holders of the title metropolis. Coins and textual evidence indicate that Tyre took on the title in relation to the imperial cult as early as 93/4 CE, followed by Damascus, Petra, and Samosata in the early second century CE.124 This may have been part of an innovative move by the Roman state to expand the number of cities leading the imperial cult from one per province, but from the citizens’ 120 121 122

123

124

Jones 1928, 157, no. 16; Welles 1938, 399–400, no. 53. See Sartre 2005, 58–60. I. Napoli I.50; IAph2007 12.716. See Remijsen 2010, 425. Butcher 2004, 148, 409; Woytek 2011, 153–167. A similar goddess appears on an earlier issue of Roman coins minted for Syria during the reign of Vespasian, but the reverse legend reads ANTIOCHIA, suggesting the goddess portrayed is specifically Antioch’s Tyche (e.g., McAlee 2007, nos. 374–375, 392, 417). Noticeably, the genitive plural “of the Antiochians” indicating the civic body is not used; instead, the legend seems to point to the place of Antioch where the koinon was presumably centered. Bru 2011, 278–279; Andrade 2013, 129–131; see also Ando 2000, 61–62. Antioch was also one of several major cities in which the city of Mytilene announced its own festivities for the imperial cult (see IGR IV 39). Kindler (1982–1983) provides a full list of civic titles in the eastern provinces mostly according to the coin evidence. Joseph. BJ 4.413 refers to Gadara as the metropolis of Perea. See also Haensch 1997, 252–254.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

167

168

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

perspective, holding this title was something to be sought. Texts from within and outside Syria indicate that citizens could petition the emperor to hold this title either exclusively or as a shared privilege by the second century CE.125 To what degree extending this title to other cities diluted or diminished the Antiochians’ status is difficult to gauge. In a complicated passage, the Scriptores Historiae Augustae does interpret this sharing of the title to cities outside of Antioch as an undesirable change for the Antiochians.126 Later on in 194 CE, removal of the title metropolis from the Antiochians was considered sufficient punishment by the emperor for their support of his imperial rival (see Chapter 5).127 How the messages on the civic coins evolved may offer further insight into the response of the Antiochians to Roman imperial rule. Under Augustus, in addition to the standard ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ, the legend read ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΟΥ (“autonomous”) and ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΛΕΩΣ (“metropolis”).128 This was a continuation of what had appeared earlier in the first century BCE. After the reign of Augustus, both legends disappeared from the coins for the rest of the first century CE even though inscriptions from other sources prove that Antioch did not lose the title metropolis. Since other cities continued to include titles like hiera kai asylos, these omissions at Antioch could have been due to lack of space or to give prominence to new legends – such as the name of the governor.129 By the reign of Hadrian, however, metropolis reappeared consistently on Antiochene civic coins with and without the imperial portrait. This renewal possibly indicates a revived need of the Antiochians for emphasizing this status and their role in the imperial cult as more cities gained this title and their citizens began celebrating it on their own coins.130 If so, this is proof of the competitiveness of the Antiochians toward other cities as they vied for status under the Roman Empire. Their prestige was not guaranteed despite Roman administrative use of Antioch.131 Likewise, being within a provincial capital did not deny the Antiochians a political voice. Although ancient and modern sources traditionally characterize the Antiochians as driven by simple fickleness, a few passages 125 126 127

128 130 131

See Bowersock 1985, 76–86. SHA Hadr. 14.1. For a reappraisal of this text, see Bowersock 1985. Compare with Sidon and Tyre during the reign of Elagabalus; see Ziegler 1978, 511–513; Butcher 2004, 220. 129 E.g., McAlee 2007, nos. 89, 93, 95. Butcher 2004, 221–222, 306. E.g., Damascus in 118 CE; see Kindler 1982–1983, 79–87. See Boatwright 2000, 106–107.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Romans and Antiochians at Antioch

indicate that the Romans did not automatically dismiss the political stances taken by the city’s residents.132 According to Tacitus, after Vespasian’s soldiers declared him emperor, the governor Mucianus hastened to the theater at Antioch to address the crowd in Greek and persuade them to support Vespasian’s bid.133 When Vespasian returned to Rome to claim the emperorship, his son Titus stopped by Antioch and was met by a multitude of men, women, and children who sought permission to expel the Jewish community from their walls.134 Josephus writes that Titus listened to the Antiochians about their complaints, even if not assenting to their request.135 Years later, Marcus Aurelius did not simply dismiss the Antiochians’ support for Avidius Cassius, but punished them severely. Evidence overall for their political involvement is not as extensive here as in the Seleucid period, but the voice of the Antiochians left its mark on the historical record, nonetheless. With increasing imperial attention on the city, the Antiochians may have had even more grievances to air as housing the emperor and his army on campaign was expensive and even a passing emperor could have an “immense impact.”136 This burden would have increased if the emperor actually resided within a city for an extended period with an enlarged military force, as has been suggested was increasingly the case for Antioch.137 The clearest evidence for the toll on Antioch actually comes from the fourth century CE, when the presence of an expeditionary force caused a food shortage within the city.138 A famine might not have occurred in the second century CE, but the contemporary experience of other cities proves the presence of the military and imperial court did burden a city. Although Benjamin Isaac overstates the “rapaciousness of the soldiers and the greed of officials” within Antioch, he may be right that “occasional munificence” to the city did not compensate for these new burdens.139 Still, care must be taken to not overstate this division between the citizens and inhabitants of Antioch and the military. According to Tacitus, when the governor Mucianus presented Vespasian’s bid before

132 133 135 136 137

138

E.g., Sartre 2005, 191. For a full critique of Antiochene fickleness, see Haddad 1949, 122–152. 134 Tac. Hist. 2.80. Joseph. BJ 7.100–111. See Kasher 1982, 75–85; Ando 2000, 124; Andrade 2013, 116–117. Millar 1977, 31–40. See also Ziegler 1996, 119–121, 126–129; Pollard 2000, 104–109. See Pollard 2000, 59–60, 277–279. Cass. Dio 68.24 mentions many troops present at Antioch with Trajan. Wheeler (1996, 231) overly relies on the negative evidence to argue for their absence. 139 Downey 1961, 353–354. Isaac 1990, 276.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

169

170

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

the Antiochians, he relayed the rumor that Vespasian’s imperial rival planned to transfer the legions of Syria to Germany and the German legions to Syria.140 The people objected because they had developed friendships and marriages with these soldiers and enjoyed their company. An early imperial inscription from Brundisium in fact identifies a woman from Antioch who was married to an officer of the navy.141 Additionally, survey work in the territory surrounding Antioch reveals that military veterans settled in the region in order to farm the land and take advantage of its prosperity.142 Starting in this period, Antiochians were also enlisted into the Roman military alongside their Syrian compatriots as both auxiliaries and legionnaires.143 The inclusion of Antiochians extended to the Roman administration as well. On a local level, the individual mentioned earlier – Marcus Aemilius Marcianus Asclepiades – served not only as a civic councilor at Antioch but also as a collector of customs duties levied by Rome on the goods entering the empire through caravan.144 As Roman citizenship slowly spread through the eastern empire, select Antiochians reached even higher levels within the Roman government.145 People from the Middle East had entered the Senate at Rome at least by the reign of the Flavians, but perhaps the most famous Antiochian to enter these upper echelons of government was Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus (c. second century CE).146 Not only did this Antioch native twice serve as consul and was stationed along the northern frontier, he was also the son-in-law of the emperor Marcus Aurelius through his marriage to Lucilla.147 Finally, although not part of the government per se, a native Antiochene by the name of Tiberius Claudius Patrobius entered Nero’s court largely due to his international athletic career and took on the role of organizer of games and personal trainer.148 These examples do not represent an instant integration of Antiochians within Roman government, but they do show that the Antiochians were not completely separate from or always in opposition to the imperial state.

140 142 143

144 145 146 147 148

141 Tac. Hist. 2.80; see Pollard 2000, 2–4. ILS 2819; Solin 1983, 735–736. De Giorgi 2007, 295–297; De Giorgi 2016, 130–131. Pollard 2000, 115–118; see Solin 1983, 629–633, 671, 673; CIL 3.6120; CIL 6.3644; CIL 6.20486. For Antioch recruits, see Kennedy 1989, 244. Young 2001, 149, 152, 193, 208. For an onomastic study of the spread of Roman citizenship in Syria, see Sartre 1996. Bowersock 1994, 142–145, 153, 155. See also Solin 1983, 668. Halfmann 1979, 181–182, no. 103; SHA Marc. 20.6–7. Gouw 2009, 415–423; SEG 14.613.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Provincial Coins Minted at Roman Antioch

If we look around the Roman world, other evidence surfaces for the continuing mixture of Antiochians within the Mediterranean world and the new empire ruling it. Although hyped in the context of a satiric poem, Juvenal writes that the Syrian Orontes had long flowed into the Tiber River.149 Inscriptions from Rome confirm the migration of Syrians to the city for military, civilian, and religious purposes, including an Antiochene banker in partnership with a Phrygian.150 Commercial activity propelled native Antiochians and Syrians elsewhere in the Mediterranean, along with goods produced within Syria.151 A cryptic dedicatory inscription from Olympia in Greece also mentions a rhetor from Antioch.152 In no way did a new imperial overlord restrain the Antiochians within their city. Overall, this evidence reveals the complex nature and use of Antioch during the Roman imperial period. The Antiochians – themselves a diverse body – did not have a uniform response to the now hands-on administration of the Roman state, but rather adapted along multiple channels while still retaining a unique civic body which exerted control over internal operations and acted as a collective when the need arose. The Roman administration recognized and engaged with this civic government and population even while making use of Antioch as a center for provincial control and as a military headquarters for internal operations and campaigns further east. This relationship entailed both privileges and costs for the Antiochians, but not necessarily more than could be expected for any other eastern community serving the purposes of the empire.

Provincial Coins Minted at Roman Antioch As illuminating as this evidence is, one final point of interaction between the various authorities making use of Antioch still needs examination: the production and use of provincial Syrian coins. Coins of this category occupied the middle ground between the civic and imperial coins. Unlike civic coins, the provincial coins lack an ethnic and usually city-specific iconography. Unlike imperial Roman coins, their legends could be in Greek or Latin and their images more appropriate for a region rather than empire. This blend of elements can make it difficult to determine definitively whose 149 151

152

150 Juv. 3.62. See Sartre 2005, 274–275. Noy 2000, 116, 120, 234–245, 318–321. Butcher 2003, 186. West (1924, 182–187) includes Antiochians in his list of Syrians residing abroad, but only a few of the inscriptions can be dated before 200 CE. See Sartre 2005, 264–267; Bowersock 1994, 184–186. Dittenberger and Purgold 1896, no. 463.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

171

172

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

agency or workshop was responsible for the coins from their bullion to design to final issue and supply.153 Even so, such developments required some form of negotiation among civic, regional, and imperial authorities, for which the coins stand as witness.154 At Antioch, provincial coins were minted in silver and bronze. Both metals point to an interjection of the Roman administration into the traditions and operations of the city and region. Scholarly discussion of how these coins fit into the currency system, however, has often stalled at the general characterization of their prolific presence in the Roman East.155 Despite consensus that the Romans helped regularize the region’s currency partially through a promotion of certain Antioch issues to a “wider circulation than any local city coinage,” the lack of a thorough distribution study has left much ambiguity about the limits of this standardization and ultimately the significance of these coins.156 A need also emerges for refining the characterization of coin finds emanating from a disembodied “Antioch.” Much like depictions of the city for this period, the production and distribution of coins from Antioch have been presented with too little discussion of what these particular coins signified for the people and agents at Antioch and their changing circumstances under Roman imperial rule. Instead of melding the coins minted at Antioch together, we must wrestle with the different authorities, traditions, and purposes behind these issues.

Minting and Circulation of Antioch Silver The silver coins minted at Antioch provide the clearest indication of Roman manipulation and interjection into the traditional systems of the city and region, but these changes only came after a century of Roman rule. Up until this point, even as production of autonomous silver ended at many places in Syria c. 30–17 BCE, both the mints at Antioch and Tyre continued striking silver well into the first century CE.157 No evidence exists that either the production or distribution of these coins were 153 154 155 156

157

See RPC I, 7–9; Butcher and Ponting 2014, 681–686. Noreña 2016, 297; see also Butcher 2004, 241. E.g., Grant 1956, 110–111; Harl 1996, 103–108, 115; Sartre 2005, 249–251. RPC II, 303. Compare Butcher 1996, 108; Butcher 2004, 176; Reece et al. 2008, 424. Butcher (2004, 257, 268) later suggests that a distribution study could draw out differences in the coins. Mørkholm 1983, 102. Harl (1996, 103) suggests that most cities were unable to sustain their civic silver issues due to lack of metal supplies. On Tyrian silver, see Butcher and Ponting 2014, 546–552.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Minting and Circulation of Antioch Silver

significantly modified from what had existed previously at the end of the Seleucid Empire.158 Although Tyre’s silver issues of this early period are more often called civic and autonomous, the persistence of certain civic elements at Antioch may indicate the continuation of local funding or some form of civic involvement here as well. Many of the coins bore legends honoring the Julio-Claudian emperors, but select silver issues from Antioch retained the legend ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΛΕΩΣ through 39 CE; the city’s monogram noted in the last chapter also appeared on certain issues of Augustus (Fig. 4.8).159 The imperial portrait replaced the image of the long-deceased Philip Philadelphus on the obverse of these coins around 5 BCE, but like the civic bronzes, the reverses continued with the Zeus Niceophorus type and even Eutychides’s seated Tyche with the Orontes River at her feet.160 Occasionally, the reverses also featured imperial family members alongside civic titles, such as Agrippina the Elder on silver minted during the reign of Caligula.161 While Roman involvement in this production cannot be ruled out, we do not have to assume a central directive implementing imperial imagery. As with the civic bronze, these additions may be a local choice and part of what A. Dieudonné deemed a transitional regime as imperial symbols mingled with those of local significance.162

Fig. 4.8 Silver tetradrachm minted at Antioch with Augustus/Tyche of Antioch. This coin also bears the monogram of the Antiochians near the legs of Tyche (ANS 1998.120.1. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

158

159 160

161

See Butcher 2004, 19, 58–63. Compare with the Roman approach to Egypt; see von Reden 2012, 274–275. E.g., McAlee 2007, nos. 187–189, 210–211, 221–226. See Butcher 2004, 59. RPC I, 606–607; McAlee 2007, 114–115. These coins are similar to contemporary silver coins minted at Tarsus, which also portray a Tyche on the rocks with a river god at her feet and the title metropolis on the reverse; see Prieur and Prieur 2000, 90. The chief difference is the monogram ΤΑΡ on the reverse, referring to the mint at Tarsus. 162 E.g., McAlee 2007, no. 221. Dieudonné 1909, 459. See Noreña 2016, 297–298.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

173

174

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

The evidence for the distribution of these early imperial coins is minimal, but what exists indicates a restricted or “cellular” circulation of silver from Antioch.163 At least three hoards contain silver from Antioch, all of which were found within Syria proper and were dominated by Antioch issues (see Table A3.4). Antioch silver is rare or completely absent in Roman-controlled territory outside these boundaries.164 For example, in the southern Levant where many hoards have been reported, strong evidence is lacking for the movement of Antioch silver in the first decades of the Roman imperial period. Instead, Tyrian silver or “shekels” appear with enough regularity to argue for their circulation in the southern Levant during these early years.165 This suggests that much like the previous period, Antioch silver was directed toward meeting local and somewhat limited regional needs.166 Again, Roman officials may have been involved, but not with the purpose of overhauling the existing monetary system.

Fig. 4.9 Silver tetradrachm minted at Antioch with Nero/eagle (ANS 1944.100.65582. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

The regional currency dramatically transformed with reforms instituted during the reign of Nero. The first striking change is in iconography (Fig. 4.9). Instead of themes traditional to the Antiochians, most tetradrachms now bear an eagle clutching a thunderbolt, club, or wreath on

163 164

165 166

Butcher and Ponting 2014, 541; see also 553. Excavations at Dura Europos – which yielded at least eighteen silver Antioch coins predating 5 BCE – suggest that Antioch silver could continue moving eastward beyond areas of Roman control. This was not a sign of Roman hegemony or manipulation, but rather reflects the inherent value of the silver. Documents from Dura dating 121–134 CE mention transactions with “good silver of the Tyrian stamp/standard” (P. Dura 20.6, 23.5, see 25.29). Bellinger (1932, 146–149) believed this actually referred to Antioch provincial silver with a Tyrian eagle circulating in Parthian Dura (see also Rostovtzeff, Brown, and Welles 1939, 442–444; Raschke 1978, 827, n. 758). Farhi et al. 2009–2010, 67–76. See also IGCH 1628; CH 8.551. On these needs, see Howgego 1992, 22–29; RPC I, 7–9.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Minting and Circulation of Antioch Silver

their reverse.167 This image does echo Antioch’s mythological foundations in which an eagle helped Seleucus I decide where to place his city.168 It also recalls the aquila used by the imperial Roman government and military. Nevertheless, this particular symbol had a more regional importance and history that influenced its selection for the issues minted at Antioch. Originally a Ptolemaic symbol, this type was preserved via the coins of Hellenistic Phoenicia and remained in use on Tyrian autonomous silver coins until the cessation of their production during the reign of Nero.169 At this point, the eagle appears to have been transferred to Antioch, thus fusing together the silver production for both northern and southern Syria into one chief, regional mint. The effect of this union between north and south is immediately apparent in the geographical distribution of hoards containing Antioch silver, which were buried after Nero’s reforms (Figs. 4.10 and 4.11). Even though hoards buried within Syria proper are generally rare for this period, Antioch silver coins are now found in at least twenty hoards of the southern Levant and represent between less than 5% to possibly as high as 100% of the contents (see Table A3.4). The median for the hoards from the southern Levant alone is low – around 10% – but any presence at all is a striking deviation from the pattern established for earlier centuries.170 Importantly, none of these hoards contains silver coins minted at Antioch which predate the reign of Nero (Fig. 4.12). The site finds from Masada and Gamla show a similar pattern, as all fifteen silver Antioch coins date to the reign of Nero; not one is from earlier, even though both sites were besieged during the First Jewish War.171 As a point of comparison, the first-century CE hoards in which Tyrian silver coins appear contain a wide chronological range of the autonomous issues dating to Nero’s reign and before (Fig. 4.13).172 Hoards buried during the second century CE contain none of these autonomous Tyrian silver issues, which indicates they were eventually withdrawn. The reforms under

167 169 170

171 172

168 E.g., McAlee 2007, nos. 255–268. Dieudonné 1909, 461–464. Walker 1976, 67–73; Butcher and Ponting 2014, 546–547. This percentage may be higher based upon the reattribution of certain silver issues to Antioch; see RPC III, 445, 498, 799–808. The brevity of the hoard publications did not allow a closer identification of the coins for this study. Silver coin finds also resume at Dura Europos with nine Neronian issues. Hoards include: CHRE nos. 7592, 7541, 9023, 7956, 8101, 6935, 7281, 7617, 7691, 7726, 7733, 8162, 8669; CH 1.118–119; CH 7.234; Butcher 2004, 272, no. 22a; Farhi 2009–2010.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

175

176

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

Fig. 4.10 The origins of hoards with silver Antioch coins, which were buried after Nero’s reforms (c. 59–192 CE). Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of Antioch silver coins within each hoard. For details, see Table A3.4.

Nero therefore acted as a “watershed” moment, both extending the distribution area and geographical range of Antioch silver and removing earlier silver issues from circulation.173 The extent and effectiveness of these reforms indicate it was not the Antiochians orchestrating these changes on their own initiative, but rather the Roman administration putting the mint at Antioch to work for provincial and imperial purposes as it reshaped the region and streamlined at least a portion of the currency. Roman denarii had begun circulating in the Levant as early as the first century CE, but evidence from throughout the eastern empire suggests that the Roman administration was not interested in overly upsetting familiar local systems by completely replacing local coins with imperial issues.174 Instead, scholars have explained the adjustments under Nero as part of a broader currency reform to align the denarius better to existing systems throughout the empire and establish a

173 174

Butcher and Ponting 2009, 60; see also Butcher 2004, 180–184. On the eastern circulation of Roman denarii, see RPC I, 587; Butcher 2003, 214.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Minting and Circulation of Antioch Silver

177

Fig. 4.11 The percentages represented by silver Antioch coins within individual hoards buried after Nero’s reforms (c. 59–192 CE). Hoards with less than twenty-two total coins or without a known find spot are excluded. For details, see Table A3.4.

Hadrian Trajan Nerva Domitian Titus Vespasian Otho Galba Nero

161 CE

140 CE

138 CE

136 CE

135 CE

135 CE

132 CE

128 CE

123 CE

118 CE

115 CE

114 CE

110 CE

70 CE

70 CE

70 CE

63 CE

12 CE

25 BCE

30 BCE

Claudius Gaius Tiberius Augustus Before Augustus

BURIAL DATE

Fig. 4.12 A comparison of hoards containing silver coins minted at Antioch according to the issuing period of individual Antioch coins (by reign of emperor) and the burial date of each hoard.

clear exchange rate.175 This measure would ease the collection of taxes and other fiscal operations, in addition to encouraging other types of transac175

Katsari 2003, 30–31; von Reden 2012, 273–276; Butcher and Ponting 2014, 678–681, 690–699. On the reforms at Rome, see Duncan-Jones 1994, 100.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

178

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

Hadrian Trajan Nerva Domitian Titus Vespasian

135 CE

135 CE

130 CE

130 CE

130 CE

130 CE

110 CE

110 CE

110 CE

79 CE

70 CE

70 CE

70 CE

69 CE

68 CE

65 CE

65 CE

60 CE

Autonomous (Nero and Before)

BURIAL DATE

Fig. 4.13 A comparison of hoards containing silver coins minted at Tyre according to the issuing period of individual Tyrian coins (by reign of emperor) and the burial date of each hoard. Many of the original publications attributed provincial Roman silver tetradrachms to Tyre during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian, hence their categorization here. RPC III has since reattributed these tetradrachms to Antioch.

tions. That the Romans would choose to use Antioch for these reforms is understandable, because of the city’s well-established mint and the many other reasons that attracted the Roman government to Antioch as a provincial center.176 Some scholars believe that the Roman reform of the mints was intended to accomplish even more in the eastern empire. Metcalf and others have proposed that the Roman administration deliberately preserved enough distinct, traditional and regional elements in design and content of the silver coins to allow for a measure of control over the precious metal and ensure enough silver currency remained within the region for imperial fiscal needs.177 In essence, the Romans sought to create closed currency systems like in Roman Egypt, where administrators actively restricted local coins to within provincial boundaries and forced the exchange of all foreign coin entering.178 This may go too far. The distribution maps do suggest that differences in currency systems bounded the silver Antioch tetradrachms within the eastern Levant, but it is difficult to say whether this was an active policy of the Romans or merely the result of the region’s long legacy under different systems.179 Likewise, Antioch coins found within hoards in Roman forts, outposts, and even on the bodies of soldiers do demonstrate

176

177 178 179

RPC I, 6–11; Harl 1996, 98, 103–104; Butcher 2012, 470. In such a scenario, the purity of Tyrian silver was too high for the reforms (see Levy 1995, 33–35). The eastern tetradrachms were compatible with the Roman system and valued as the equivalent of three or four denarii. See GICM 52–53; Butcher and Ponting 2014, 666–667, 672, 678. Metcalf 2008, 147–154. See also Katsari 2011, 186–190. See the summary of Geissen 2012, 561–578. Butcher 2002, 145–152. Nurpetlian (2013, 340–343) came to similar conclusions on coin circulation within the southern Orontes Valley; compare with RPC I, 53–54; Howgego 1994, 11.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Minting and Circulation of Antioch Silver

the silver’s use as funds for the military in the Levant, but other finds indicate that this was not their exclusive function or even the rationale behind their production.180 Finally, at least the hoards in the southern Levant reveal that Antioch silver was part of a regular mixture of not only coins from nearby mints of the southern Levant, but importantly denarii from Rome. As Constantina Katsari points out, if Syria was under a closed currency system, it clearly was “not as restrictive as the Egyptian one.”181 While the proposal that Rome intended to create a new closed currency system for Syria is attractive, the evidence is inconclusive. What is certain is that after the reforms under Nero, even though silver coins were produced periodically elsewhere in Syria, Antioch became the major silver mint for the province and struck tetradrachms under each emperor of this period except for Antoninus Pius.182 Production in the city had clearly moved well past civic orchestration to become a provincial tool of the imperial government. Die-links and stylistic aspects even reveal that the Antioch mint occasionally produced silver coins for Arabia, Cyprus, Asia Minor, and Crete; rather than Syrian denominations, these productions were according to the currency systems specific to each province, whether cistophori or drachms.183 Conversely, Syrian coins could also be produced at outside mints, such as at Alexandria in Egypt and even Rome.184 Although each mint could have conceivably been commissioned by a civic or provincial authority, these cross-regional exchanges and interprovincial cooperation of precious metal at the very least signal

180

181 183

184

One first-century CE hoard came a Roman fort near Tell el-Far’ah (Petrie 1930, 20–21), although the remains may be later (see Lehmann and Schneider 2000, 260–261). A secondcentury CE hoard from Masada has been linked to a Roman garrison posted at the site (Meshorer 1989, 77). A third hoard from Ptolemais (Ake) dated to c. 118 CE was found atop a mass grave of sixteen men (Tepper 2010, 35–36), who may have been soldiers. Other hoards buried during the Bar Kokhba Revolt can be tied to private caches or rebel strongholds (see Barag 1980, 32). For example, excavators believed an unpublished second-century CE hoard from Nahal Shalwa (CHRE 7617) contained emergency savings of a private individual. Three additional hoards from the western Jerusalem hills likely originated from refugees or fighters hiding in the caves (Zissu et al. 2009, 142, nos. 14–18; see also Zissu and Eshel 2013, 31–39). At least two hoards also contained overstruck Roman and provincial silver produced by the Jewish rebels (see Meshorer 2001, 137; Gitler 2012, 490–491). 182 Katsari 2011, 188. See Prieur and Prieur 2000, 6–30; Butcher 2012, 470, 474. Butcher 2004, 78–79, 240; see Metcalf 2008, 149–154. Die-links may mean an external mint sent an engraved die to the issuing city, an itinerant engraver arrived on location, or that full production took place there (see Burnett 1987, 30–32; Harl 1987, 16). On Antioch’s ties to Cypriot silver, see Amandry 1993, 9; Carradice 2012, 377–378. Butcher 2004, 240; Butcher 2012, 475.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

179

180

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

“centralised (if not central) knowledge” of this practice, and maybe even outright imperial direction.185 It is far more difficult to find the Antiochians within these grand modifications, but this does not mean they were completely absent while the Romans made use of their city’s mint. Based upon an examination of the silver coins for this period, Kevin Butcher and Matthew Ponting posited that the metal for provincial issues was generally procured locally rather than imperially supplied.186 They therefore tentatively suggested that local elites played a role in production alongside the Romans. This theory needs more evidence, but we can also look to the design of the silver for possible signs of local contribution. Despite the reforms under Nero, Antiochene imagery reemerged intermittently on the reverses of select issues, such as Eutychides’s Tyche during the reigns of Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius (Fig. 4.14).187 Richard McAlee even proposes that an animal thigh in the eagle’s grip – instead of a lightning bolt or other object – is an homage to Antioch’s foundation myth.188 It is hard to imagine that an Antiochian or Syrian did not play some role in such a choice. Even if preservation of these local and regional elements contributed to strategies of Roman imperialism, their design nevertheless reflects the endurance of Syrian and, more specifically, Antiochene heritage. Preference for traditional systems, heterogeneity, and fusion at Antioch’s mint as displayed in the provincial silver coins add to the complexity that characterized both Antioch and the region during the Principate as the Romans reshaped the Middle East.

Fig. 4.14 Silver tetradrachm minted at Antioch with Trajan/Tyche of Antioch (gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques, Chandon de Briailles 1848).

185 186 187 188

RPC II, 11. See also Howgego 1994, 16. Butcher and Ponting 2014, 681–682; compare with Gitler and Ponting 2007, 381. McAlee 2007, nos. 468–474, 531, 576–577, 629–630. McAlee 2007, 216, no. 531; see also De Giorgi 2016, 42–43. At least the obverse with eagle and animal thigh reappeared on tetradrachms of the later second and early third centuries CE.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Distribution and Circulation of Bronze Coins Minted at Antioch

Distribution and Circulation of Bronze Coins Minted at Antioch In contrast to the silver coins struck at Antioch, the so-called provincial bronzes minted within the city have proven more difficult to interpret due to their ambiguous type and the lack of a thorough distribution study. Scholars have described these issues anywhere from a supplementary currency “in the vast tract stretching from the Taurus mountains to the borders of Egypt” to “the official Roman bronze coinage of the far eastern provinces of the Empire.”189 Kevin Butcher refined this rote depiction in his seminal work on the coinage of northern Syria under Rome.190 Based upon both excavation finds and local museum collections, he developed a general impression that cast “Antiochene” coins as the dominant currency in northern Syria, the Middle Euphrates valley and Syrian Desert, and along the coast and Orontes Valley. Beyond this point, Butcher was more hesitant, suggesting a possible, but not significant circulation of these bronze coins within the southern Levant during the first century CE. Although it is generally held that these coins were introduced to the mint at Antioch as part of a larger attempt by the imperial Roman government to regularize currency throughout the eastern empire, the tendency in scholarship to describe these coins as “Antiochene” or even “an anonymous civic coinage” elides the distinction between Roman use of Antioch and the agency of the Antiochians themselves.191 In other words, not recognizing the difference between these authorities can lead to the misunderstanding that the Antiochians issued these provincial coins because of their elevated status as an eastern capital. However, much about the coins’ type, circulation, and likely use signifies that they are more than a prolific civic coinage produced under the authority of the Antiochians alone. Instead, these elements indicate a promotion and guarantee of the coins by the larger authority of the Romans. Once this is recognized, we are in a better position to analyze how the imperial and provincial administration’s purposes within Antioch corresponded to the activity of the city’s inhabitants. The provincial bronze coins were wholly an innovation of the Roman imperial period, first appearing during the reign of Augustus.192 Because of their lack of a civic ethnic or clear mark indicating mint of origin, their

189 191

192

190 Carradice 1983, 17; GICM 23, 84. Butcher 2004, 151–178. E.g., Brunk 1980, 67, 74–75; RPC I, 380–381, 602–603; Harl 1996, 107; Butcher 2004, 174, 258; McAlee 2007, 4. Many scholars link their introduction to Quinctilius Varus, who served as governor of Syria beginning in 7/6 BCE, but it is possible that their production started earlier. The titles for the emperor Augustus which appear on these coins only signify that the coins must have been minted after 23 BCE; see Butcher 2004, 28–29. The RPC editors suggest between 20 and 10 BCE (see RPC I, nos. 4101–4105).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

181

182

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

attribution to Antioch rests on stylistic similarities and die-links to other coins struck at the mint.193 Their types, though, are noticeably different than the traditional civic coins of the Antiochians and better align with other coins newly appearing in the eastern provinces (Fig. 4.15).194 The obverses consistently portray the image of Augustus with different legends in Latin, the language of the imperial power, within a standard Roman honorific oak or laurel wreath.195 Most of the legends appear to honor Augustus, whether through the simple AVGVSTVS or the allusion to his actions during the civil war with OB CIVIS SERVATOS (“for saving the citizens”).196 A third type has the letters C•A in a wreath on the reverse, which is best understood in a Syrian context to be an abbreviation for CAESAR AVGVSTVS or perhaps even CAISAR.197 (a) (b)

(d)

(c)

Fig. 4.15 Provincial bronze coins minted at Antioch c. 31 BCE–192 CE: (a) Bronze coin of Augustus/ob civis servatos in a wreath; (b) bronze coin of Augustus/CA in wreath; (c) bronze coin of Claudius/SC in wreath; (d) bronze coin of Hadrian/SC in wreath ((a) and (c): gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques, IMP-4662; Y 20263.Seymour de Ricci 866. (b) and (d): ANS 1995.87.2; 1944.100.65738. Courtesy of the American Numismatic. Society).

193 194

195 196

197

McAlee 2007, 12–13; Butcher 2012, 476. See also GICM 84, n. 5. An SC type was minted in Cyprus and a CA type in Asia Minor (see Grant 1953, 88–157; RPC I, no. 3915; Butcher 2004, 28–29). Burnett (2011, 9–11) recently added a similarly sized and designed coin from Egypt as well. See Ando 2010, 27; Themistius Or. 6.71c. The oak wreath is only used with the ob civis servatos type. Sutherland 1976, 16–17. The title also appears on coins from Rome (see Bruun 1999, 26, 31; RIC I, no. 329). Some doubt exists on the attribution of the ob civis servatos type, but see Butcher 2004, 321–322; McAlee 2007, 111. Butcher 2004, 236. Compare with Waagé 1952, 31, no. 319; this coin appears to be missing in the catalogs of Butcher 2004, 321–330, and McAlee 2007. An alternative reading is C(ommune)

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Distribution and Circulation of Bronze Coins Minted at Antioch

The most important of these provincial coins features an imperial portrait on the obverse and an SC in a laurel wreath on the reverse. While the other provincial types ceased to be minted after Augustus, the SC coins were struck at Antioch under every emperor excluding Caligula up through the joint reign of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (Fig. 4.15).198 Estimating the original output of these provincial issues has proven problematic, but production is often assumed to have been prolific, albeit varying from emperor to emperor.199 The imperial mint at Rome also appears to have contributed to this production during the reigns of Vespasian, Trajan, and Hadrian through striking coins which mimicked the provincial type.200 Whether struck at Antioch or Rome, this type endured into the third century CE with the only major modifications being a switch in the imperial legend from Latin to Greek during the second century CE and the inconsistent addition of an eagle or bust of a co-emperor next to the SC during the reign of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius.201 The general simplicity of this type belies the fierce debate over the significance of the letters “SC.” A comparison is often drawn to coins of the imperial Roman government, for which SC has been understood as SENATUS CONSULTO (“by the decree of the senate”) and in reference to the original decision of the Senate to mint during the Republic.202 Later in the imperial age, after the Senate was no longer the penultimate authority, the SC may have been a celebration of honors voted to the emperor by the Senate or still a mark of the authority or legislation behind the

198 199 200

201

202

A(siae) (e.g., Sutherland 1965, 96–99; Burnett 1977a, 47; Bruun 1999, 30), but this does not make sense on the Syrian issues. Grant (1946, 108) also suggested C(aesaris) A(uctoritate), but this too has been rejected (e.g., Salmon 1956, 459; Burnett 1977a, 47). See McAlee 2007. See RPC I, 582; Butcher 2004, 134–142, 267–268; McAlee 2007, 23. Carradice and Cowell 1987, 26–50; Butcher 2004, 85–86, 406–412; McAlee 2007, 12–13. Because these coins resemble the SC issues minted in Syria, they were once believed to have originated from Antioch. However, they are better assigned to the imperial mint due to the use of orichalcum instead of bronze, a rotation in the die-axis, and a finer design both in the portraiture and lettering; see Burnett 2002, 117. Butcher (2004, 406–412) posited that these coins were minted specifically for circulation in Syria, but recent finds in Cyrenaica and Italy may challenge this. See Butcher 2004, 356; McAlee 2007, 191–192. For the eagle and busts, see McAlee 2007, nos. 560–572, 586–589. The one major exception to this standard type has Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus shaking hands on the reverse (see Butcher 2004, 217). Bay 1972, 111, 116–118. See also Stevenson 1889, 721.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

183

184

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

production.203 If a comparison can be drawn to the Syrian issues, the SC could potentially refer to the original decree(s) from the imperial government to reorganize provincial coinage.204 Alternatively, Andrew Wallace-Hadrill argues that both western imperial bronze and the eastern provincial bronze struck at Antioch bore an SC to distinguish these coins from civic issues and to encourage their acceptability within circulation by making known that they were backed by the Roman administration.205 We also cannot completely rule out the possibility that the initial design choice came from either the provincial or civic officials overseeing the mint at Antioch, perhaps in reflection of honors at Rome, in reference to the original decree(s) authorizing the production, and/or in imitation of the imperial bronze to capitalize on the guarantee of the Roman authority.206 Additionally, even if the Roman administration originally dictated the design of the coins, this does not exclude a decision by the local authorities to continue using this design over the next few centuries. Still, such a break in the traditional designs minted at Antioch as well as the simultaneous appearance of similar coins in other eastern provinces points to a larger orchestration than what the Antiochians were presumably capable of as a civic government. The distribution of the provincial coins is also far wider than the civic issues produced at the same mint. Compared to the maps above (Figs. 4.2 and 4.3), an initial visualization of the so-called provincial coins reveals a broad dispersal of provincial Antioch coins with finds appearing throughout the entire length of the Levant as well as a few anomalies as far west as

203

204

205 206

For a summary of the debates, see Grant 1946, 101; Bay 1972, 111–122; Sutherland 1976, 11–22; Wolters 2012, 339–340. All discredit Mommsen’s theory of a dyarchy: a split of minting duties between Senate and emperor. Thus Burnett 1987, 18–19; Butcher 2004, 235. Many scholars are quick to point out that Syria was an imperial province rather than under senatorial control, but as Butcher argues, a practical division is debatable. Wallace-Hadrill 1986, 80–83. Bay 1972, 119. Some scholars have proposed the letters were thoughtless imitation of Rome’s coins (e.g., Crawford 1989, 245), but the longevity of these letters – extending to Antioch’s civic coinage and other coins in Syria – makes this a difficult argument to sustain (see Butcher 2004, 235). Weiser (1988, 9–12) suggests the citizens of Neokaisareia included an SC next to their own ethnic in a possible homage to Rome. The SC appearing on a second-century CE issue of Hierapolis (Syria) may have been “inspired” by provincial SC bronzes minted at Antioch (see Butcher 2004, 37). SC also appears on third-century CE coins of Philippopolis in Arabia (McAlee 2007, 3), but these were likely minted by Antioch for the city (Butcher 1986–1987, 73–77; Butcher 2012, 477).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Distribution and Circulation of Bronze Coins Minted at Antioch

Spain and Britain and as far east as Susa (Fig. 4.16).207 This certainly justifies the traditional description of these coins as “ubiquitous.”208 The probable circulation of these provincial coins was likewise wider than the civic coins yet more restricted than traditional scholarship has assumed (Fig. 4.17). If single finds of provincial Antioch coins are removed from consideration of the greater Levantine region and the remaining coins are weighted against the whole period assemblage at each site, the highest percentages of the provincial coins manifest in Syria itself with corners provided by Berytus in the south, Zeugma and Tille in the north (both annexed to Syria in the first century CE), and Dura Europos and Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad in the East (both annexed to Syria in the second century CE).209 A graphical comparison of eastern, southern Levantine, and Syrian sites confirms this impression (Fig. 4.18). Provincial Antioch bronze coins never exceed 10% of the total period assemblage on sites from the southern Levant, but they do represent a wide range of percentages on Syrian and eastern sites. In fact, in an otherwise potentially diverse currency pool, the provincial coins minted at Antioch are the one constant to appear in noteworthy quantities on most of the Syrian sites considered in this study (Fig. 4.19).210 Even the median percentage is high at 40%. These percentages correspond to the pattern of countermarks appearing on the provincial coins, as the most common stamps of a political authority originated from cities in Syria and Mesopotamia and not elsewhere.211 207

208

209

210

211

At least one provincial SC coin appears at Petra (Barrett 1998, 318, no. 97–C-33). A poorly published bronze hoard from Iraq contained 20+ provincial SC coins (see Walker 1958, 169; Raschke 1978, 828, n. 759). The coins date from Nerva to Antoninus Pius and could be related to military activity. Hatra appears to have attempted to mint imitations of the provincial SC issues starting in the reign of Antoninus Pius; see Slocum 1977, 43. Syon 2014, 124. Thanks to Syon’s kind sharing of data from the Galilee region, it is clear that one or two provincial SC finds regularly appear throughout the sites of this area. See also Syon 2015, 192, 207. Few coins from the excavations at Heliopolis/Baalbek have been published. According to the summary of Sawaya (2005, 149), at least six provincial SC bronze coins have been found, four of which were halved. Tyre and Tell Abou Danné can be justifiably discounted. In the case of Tell Abou Danné, the site was abandoned during the reign of Augustus, leaving little opportunity for this type of coin to accumulate. Tyre’s finds (Fulco 1996) come solely from the Shrine of Apollo, which may mean that some selection occurred for votive offerings – mainly in favor of the city’s own coins. The Fouilles de Tyr contain little information on mint or issuing city. The most common countermarks come from cities in Syria and Mesopotamia; see McAlee 2007, 392–395; GICM: Syria (Antioch: nos. 245, 378–379, 521–524, 546–547, 599–600; Berytus: no. 242; Palmyra: nos. 683, 694; Phoenicia: no. 132?) and Mesopotamia (Edessa: nos. 25, 26, 151?, 153?, 503?, 504, 695–696; Carrhae: no. 607?). GICM no. 408 may be from Nisibis, but Cyprus, Neapolis (Samaria), and Iskenderun have also been proposed. Only three countermarks appearing on this type of coin have been tentatively attributed to the southern Levant; see GICM nos. 133 (most likely), 352 (based solely on its possible comparison to the dove countermark in no. 319), 468 (highly unlikely); compare with Howgego 1982, 10. Burnett 2002, 116, n. 8, is more confident.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

185

186

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Fig. 4.16 Excavations with finds of bronze provincial coins minted at Antioch c. 31 BCE–192 CE. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of Antioch coins at each location. Sites outside of the eastern Mediterranean labeled. This distribution excludes – where possible – Roman-minted coins mimicking Syrian issues. For details, see Fig. 4.17.

Distribution and Circulation of Bronze Coins Minted at Antioch

Total Civic % Civic Antioch Coins

187

Region

Site

Total Bronze Coins

Total Provincial % Provincial Antioch Coins

Syria

Apamea

26

2

7.7%

21

80.8%

Syria

Gindaros

8

2

25%

6

75%

Syria

Tell el Hajj

11

0

0%

7

63.6%

Syria

Hama

26

0

0%

16

61.5%

Syria

Antioch

949

253

26.7%

505

53.2%

Syria

Palmyra

101

7

6.9%

48

47.5%

East

Dura Europos

1094

23

2.1%

472

43.1%

Syria

Berytus

181

0

0%

65

35.9%

Syria

Seleucia Pieria

89

17

19.1%

30

33.7%

Syria

Tille

19

0

0%

5

26.3%

Fig. 4.17 The percentages represented by bronze Antioch coins minted c. 31 BCE–192 CE within individual excavations; numerical data listed in the table. The area of each pie chart is proportionate to the total quantity of period bronze finds at each site. Sites with less than eight total period finds, where Antioch coins represent less than 1% of the total period finds, or where only one Antioch civic or provincial coin appeared are excluded. The two anomalous provincial Antioch coins at Çankırıkapı are also excluded. Six civic Antiochene bronzes did appear within the Gamla excavations, but they appear to date before 31 BCE. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

188

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

East

Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad

36

5

13.9%

8

22.2%

Syria

Zeugma

28

2

7.1%

6

21.4%

Anatolia

Çankırıkapı

13

0

0%

2

15.4%

Syria

Tell Abou Danné

21

18

85.7%

3

14.3%

Southern Levant

Jerash

68

0

0%

6

8.8%

Southern Levant

Qiryat Sefer

42

0

0%

3

7.1%

Southern Levant

En-Gedi

17

0

0%

1

5.9%

Southern Levant

Gamla

368

0

0%

11

3%

Western Europe

Idanha-a-Velha

35

0

0%

1

2.9%

Southern Levant

Horvat ’Eleq

42

0

0%

1

2.4%

Cyprus

Kourion

104

0

0%

2

1.9%

Syria

Tyre

54

0

0%

1

1.9%

Southern Levant

Caesarea Maritima

224

0

0%

4

1.8%

Cyprus

Paphos

88

1

1.1%

1

1.1%

Southern Levant

SamariaSebaste

166

0

0%

1

0.6%

East

Susa

228

1

0.4%

1

0.4%

Southern Levant

Jerusalem

268

1

0.4%

1

0.4%

Southern Levant

Masada

3698

1

0%

12

0.3%

Western Europe

Bath

1147

0

0%

3

0.3%

Balkans

Athens

4722

0

0%

1

0%

Balkans

Corinth

520

1

0.2%

0

0%

Syria

Tell Rifa’at

2

0

n/a

1

n/a

Syria

Jebel Khalid

1

0

n/a

1

n/a

Syria

Oumm El’Marra

1

1

n/a

0

n/a

Syria

Raphanea

1

1

n/a

0

n/a

Fig. 4.17 (cont.) https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Distribution and Circulation of Bronze Coins Minted at Antioch

Fig. 4.18 A comparison of the percentages represented by bronze provincial Antioch coins minted c. 31 BCE–192 CE according to region. Each line represents an individual excavation site. Sites with less than eight total period finds are excluded. Sites under “East” include Susa, Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad, and Dura Europos. For details, see Fig. 4.17.

Fig. 4.19 A comparison of the percentages represented by bronze provincial Antioch coins minted c. 31 BCE–192 CE within each Syrian excavation site. For each site, the white column represents the percentage of civic coins from that individual city. Sites with less than eight period finds are excluded.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

189

190

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

Such a distribution is hardly strong evidence of the provincial coins’ steady circulation throughout the entire Levant.212 Scholarly characterization of this type must therefore be modified from an eastern Roman bronze currency to specifically a provincial coinage circulating in a more narrowly defined Syria. Even within these limitations, the circulation of the provincial coins is still wider than any civic issue, thereby prompting questions about their use in the region and why they were originally introduced. One common proposal is that they served as standard small change for the military.213 Countermarks do demonstrate that the Roman military made use of these coins while in the Middle East. Legionary countermarks from the X Fretensis and XV Apollinaris appear on the first-century CE coins found at Dura, Qiryat Sefer, and elsewhere throughout the Levant.214 Both legions were in the region at various points already by the mid-first century CE, engaging in campaigns against Parthia and Judea.215 The spread of provincial coins from Antioch especially into the southern Levant has partially been attributed to these activities.216 Lending additional support is the countermark of Athena appearing on at least one of the provincial SC coins from Masada. If the countermark was applied at Antioch during the reign of Domitian as normally assumed, at least that coin would have been deposited on site after the First Jewish War, possibly when a small garrison of the Roman army was still stationed there.217 This does not necessarily mean the provincial coins were legal tender outside of Syria, but rather that the soldiers moving back and forth in the region

212

213 214

215 216

217

Bellinger (1938, 9, 11) and others (e.g., Augé 2002, 159) have suggested that circulation extended even further south to Jerash based upon six provincial finds dating to the reign of Nerva and earlier. Jerash was within the provincial limits of Syria during the first century CE and perhaps felt the impact of a standardized currency policy (see Millar 1993, 410–413). Then again, excavation at the nearby site of Tell Hesban yielded no Antioch coins for this period, so even the coins at Jerash may be stray finds reflecting the movement of individuals rather than circulation (compare with Bowsher 2007, 341). E.g., Howgego 1982; compare with RPC I, 14. E.g., Bellinger 1949b, 149, nos. 1604a, 1604b, 1604c, 1625d; see also Brunk 1980, 72–76. Carradice 1983, 17, is not clear about the source of his information for similarly countermarked coins, but an earlier study by Barag (1967, 119) did note sixteen Antioch coins with the legionary mark, all of which were reportedly found in the southern Levant and most of which date to the Julio-Claudians. Dąbrowa 1993, 12–17. It may be significant that the highest clusters of provincial SC coins within the southern Levant are from Masada (12 coins?) and Gamla (11 coins), both of which were heavily besieged by the Roman military during the First Jewish War; compare with Bijovsky 2004, 244, for the provincial SC coins at Qiryat Sefer. See Meshorer 1989, 77.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Distribution and Circulation of Bronze Coins Minted at Antioch

carried them along.218 Portions of the south such as Herod’s kingdom were also periodically under the supervision of the northern Syrian governor before the war, and the regular movement of officials may also account for some of the coin finds. The greatest period of legionary countermarking on provincial Antioch bronzes has been tied to the later Parthian campaigns of Trajan, because of the frequency of these marked coins and a Syrian hoard of 164 coins buried during his reign.219 Over 83% of the hoard’s contents are provincial Antioch coins dating from the reigns of Augustus through Domitian. More than half of these coins are countermarked, some with civic countermarks from cities like Antioch, but many with the stamps of at least four different Roman legions: Legio XII Fulminata, Legio III Cyrenaica, Legio X Fretensis, and Legio III Gallica.220 As many of these coins are worn, the usual explanation is that legionary countermarks were applied under Trajan to keep the first-century CE coins in circulation for use by Roman soldiers.221 Apart from countermarking, other subtle indications provide minor support for Roman military use of provincial coins from Antioch in the second century CE. At En-Gedi in the southern Levant, a provincial Antioch coin was found in a second-century CE hoard stuffed in the doorframe of a bathhouse likely servicing Roman soldiers.222 In addition, coins found at the remote site of Bath in England have been attributed to Roman soldiers returning from eastern campaigns of the second century CE.223 218

219

220

221 223

Once in the region, the coins may have been set aside. A second-century CE hoard from Qiryat Sefer contained coins dating from the fourth century BCE through to the second century CE, four of which were provincial SC issues (Bijovsky 2004, 244–246); Bijovksy suggested the hoard was specially collected because of the wide chronological range. Another hoard discovered at Gan Soreq (CHRE no. 7725) also contained a provincial SC coin of Antioch. Late secondcentury CE burials from Hurfeish yielded two provincial SC coins (Syon 2002, 168). Brunk 1980, 63–76. The concurrence of Trajan-era, provincial SC issues at Dura (42 coins), Susa (1 coin), and Seleucia on the Tigris (40 coins) is likely tied to the emperor’s Parthian campaigns (Jones 1963, 317). These coins may have been provincial issues struck at Rome for circulation in Syria; see Butcher 2004, 169. See Howgego 1982, 11; GICM 17–22. Brunk (1980, 76) believed the coins were countermarked within Antioch when the army wintered there. Compare with Gerson 2006, who describes a civic issue from Antioch dating to Otho as countermarked by the Legio V Scythica. At the town/fort of Tille in the Upper Euphrates, at least one of the coin finds has a legionary countermark of the III Cyrenaica. 222 Butcher 2004, 37–38. Bijovsky 2007, 160. Among the coins at Bath, Walker (1988, 289–290) tentatively attributed twenty orichalcum SC issues dating to the reign of Trajan to the Antioch mint; he suggested that the imperial government orchestrated their transport from Antioch for circulation throughout Britannia as

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

191

192

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

While the Roman military was therefore clearly one beneficiary of the provincial bronze coinage – especially as imperial bronze did not circulate within Syria – this use was not necessarily the sole or original purpose behind the coins’ introduction. Instead, considering the extent to which these coins appear and the absence of any civic identifiers on them, the provincial Antioch coins equally read as an effort by Rome to bring together an otherwise disjointed and disconnected province in the first century CE. As demonstrated in the previous chapter, the fracture of the Seleucid state and the increased agency of individual communities in both issuing and regulating coins within their territory had led to a separation of the region’s currency into individual pools. As several cities continued to issue their own coinage under Roman imperial rule for both economic and political reasons, this division had the potential of persisting, especially if internal oversight over circulating currency continued.224 By introducing a common currency to function in relation to rather than replacement of Syrian civic issues, the Roman administration could help encourage the collection of customs and other state taxes and/or even support a common unit of exchange among multiple cities for public and private purposes.225 Theoretically, Roman officials would not need to actively enforce this standardization or implement a closed currency system, but could promote acceptance by their own use of the provincial coins, ensuring the

224 225

well as Germany and Gaul. Walker’s comments predate the study by Carradice and Cowell (1987), which reattributed these issues to the mint at Rome for circulation within Syria. Still, countermarks do suggest that the coins traveled from the Middle East to Britannia. One coin from Bath bears a bucranium mark likely from the eastern empire (see GICM no. 294); Britain’s PAS also records two similarly marked coins (ID YORYM-FB45C5; NARC-B683C2). A laurel leaf countermark from Antioch sometimes also appears on these coins, as well as on second-century CE provincial SC bronzes minted at Antioch (see Butcher 2004, 358–359, 411). As soldiers returned from the Middle East, the coins likely came too (see Butcher 2004, 174; compare with Eshel, Zissu, and Barkay 2009, for finds of Bar Kokhba coins at Roman military sites in Europe). See Butcher 2002, 145–152. On tax purposes, see Harl 1996, 107–118; a second-century CE inscription from Palmyra (OGIS 629) states that any tax less than a denarius can be paid using local bronze (see RPC I, 13). On local uses, see Butcher 2004, 145–146, 256–257. Provincial bronze denominations are not fully understood and may have differed from community to community (see Butcher 2002, 147). GICM 54 leans toward complete Romanization of denominations in the eastern empire; Butcher (2004, 206–212) and McAlee (2007, 35–56) argue for the coexistence of Greek and Roman standards, but differ in the details. One small civic Antiochene coin minted under Nero is marked with ΧΑΛΚΟΥΣ, a reference to a pre-Roman denominational system (see McAlee 2007, no. 111). Value markers are generally absent, so differences in size and type likely indicated individual denominations (see Johnston 2007, 1–17).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Distribution and Circulation of Bronze Coins Minted at Antioch

availability of large quantities, and giving these issues the guarantee of the Roman government.226 Such Roman efforts would certainly help to explain why these coins not only are found throughout Syria, but even seem to be a preferred currency at several places. For some civic communities, provincial coins held an equal importance alongside locally minted civic coins. This is the case at both Seleucia Pieria and Berytus, where the citizens’ own civic coins and provincial issues combined represent over 70% of either assemblage.227 For other Syrian communities, provincial Antioch coins were the favored currency in lieu of internal civic production or the issues of a neighboring city. At Apamea, Hama, and Tell el Hajj, the finds are mainly provincial coins with only a scattered assortment of one and two finds from other cities, including the Antiochians’ own civic coins (Fig. 4.19).228 While we cannot rule out the possibility that the sheer quantities of provincial coins produced at Antioch overwhelmed other civic issues within individual cities and settlements, the compositions of the assemblages could also suggest that some local regulation encouraged the provincial issues, perhaps even to the extent that city officials ordered supplies directly from the Antioch mint.229 If the Romans were guaranteeing the value of these coins, as seems likely, these communities had good reason to include them in their currency either as a complement to their own civic issues or as the main coinage.230 Supporting evidence for the internal regulation of currency among these communities is provided through contrast to other sites within Syria, where inhabitants appear to have relied upon whatever was available in the region for currency. Provincial coins still comprise a noticeable component of the assemblages, but the rest is a medley of other coins from the area. For example, the Palmyrenes would later issue their own civic coinage at the end of the second century CE, but prior to this point, the excavation assemblage 226 227

228 229

230

The Roman state was capable of imposing such standardization (see Burnett 2011, 8–11). Both Seleucia Pieria and Berytus minted civic coins periodically in the first and second centuries CE (see Butcher 2001–2002, 63; Butcher 2004, 413–422). At Berytus, 23 of the civic coin finds (nos. 394–416) were broadly dated to the first through third centuries CE and therefore could not be included in this chapter’s metrics. Coin reports are still lacking for Laodicea ad Mare and Damascus, both of which could provide an important comparison. Apamea did mint its own coins until the reign of Claudius; see RPC I, 631–632. The period assemblages of four other major eastern cities – Sardis, Pergamum, Corinth, Athens – reveal a vast majority of local civic coins. For Athens, Kroll (1993, xviii–xxvi, 166– 170) argued civic regulation favored Athenian coins. Other scholars have noted that generally in Asia Minor, issuing cities often reveal a higher percentage of their own coin, normally at least 50% (see MacDonald 1976, 45; Johnston 2007, 5–6, n. 22). On other possible factors contributing to use of the provincial coins, see Butcher 2002, 149–150.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

193

194

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

indicates that they relied upon provincial Antioch issues in addition to civic coins from especially Damascus and other cities in the region.231 Availability of the provincial issues also promoted their use at sites along the Euphrates River, even before this territory was incorporated into Syria. In Commagene along the Upper Euphrates, although local mints provided the dominant currency, provincial SC coins were both countermarked by the kings and overstruck with types from Samosata.232 Butcher believed these coins were used because Syrian currency standardization brought steady supplies close to the kingdom’s borders.233 Further to the south, at both Dura Europos and Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad, higher percentages of provincial Antioch coins actually appear among finds dating before annexation than after (Fig. 4.25).234 While we cannot be certain that all these first-century CE coins arrived on site during this period rather than later during Roman campaigns, A. R. Bellinger thought the Parthians ignored the Roman iconography on the coins in order to supplement their own royal issues from Seleucia on the Tigris.235 Even if governmental agency was not involved, provincial coins could have continued to move along trade routes either through northern Syria or across Palmyra to the east; their ubiquity in the province of Syria may have even encouraged cross-border exchanges.236 Multiple civic countermarks indicate that at least the firstcentury CE provincial SC coins passed through other cities or places in Syria and Mesopotamia before they entered Dura.237 Importantly, the provincial Antioch coins are joined by a plethora of other coins in quantities likely indicating their use as currency as well (Fig. 4.20). 231

232

233

234

235

236

237

Krzyżanowska 2014, 15–16. The provincial SC coins may have provided a higher denomination for civic issues minted at Damascus. GICM nos. 373, 403. Countermarks appear on a coin at Perrhe, but not the anchor noted by Howgego. On overstruck civic Antiochene coins, see Erarslan and Facella 2006, 255–257. Butcher 2004, 129. Although published too late to be included in the current study, the coin assemblages from Assur do also contain provincial SC coins from Antioch; see Butcher 2017, 9–11. It would be easy to consider Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad a fluke because of the small overall quantity of finds (10 total coins for the first century CE; 25 coins for the second century CE), but this cannot be the case for Dura Europos (over 500 total coin finds for either period; of these, 363 provincial SC coins date to the first century CE. Of the 110 dated to the second century CE, over half can be attributed to Trajan’s campaigns). Bellinger 1949b, 202–203. A possible Parthian countermark appears on no. 1624e. See also Le Rider 1998, 80–81; Katsari 2008, 257. Imported Roman wares at Dura for this period certainly suggest such transactions occurred (e.g., Butcher 2003, 195; Pollard 2004, 119–144). It is impossible to calculate from Bellinger’s catalog (1949b) how many coins were countermarked, but see GICM nos. 26, 245, 403, 408, 504. Not all the countermarks are fully understood.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Fig. 4.20 The origins of coins minted c. 31 BCE–192 CE and excavated at Dura Europos. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of finds from each location. Coins without a definable mint are excluded, as is one coin from Tomis on the northwest coast of the Black Sea. For details, see Bellinger 1949b.

195

196

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

Taken as a whole, the type, distribution, and use of the provincial Antioch coins support their definition not as an “Antiochene issue” like the civic coins, but rather a Roman provincial issue for Syria produced at Antioch. That the mint at Antioch would be put to work in the important task of producing the provincial issues is understandable, both because of the mint’s successful operations as well as the city’s role as provincial caput; after all, the mint at Tyre does not seem to have been part of this standardization effort. This does not necessarily indicate a boost to the Antiochians; it instead reveals another example of how their city and some of their citizens were utilized by the Roman administration. Recognizing this difference within the currency of Syria puts us in a better position to examine the coin assemblage and situation at Antioch in detail. From a broad perspective, the assortment of coins fits within a regional trend. Like their neighbors, the Antiochians as a civic community persisted minting their own coins while also drawing upon the provincial Roman coins struck within the city (Fig. 4.21). No other civic coins of the region appear to have supplemented this currency within the city. A map of the origins of non-Antioch coins excavated at Antioch does show a slightly broader geographical distribution than the last period (Fig. 4.22), but other Syrian coins account for less than ten finds per city.238 The only body of regional coins to exceed ten finds at Antioch for this period are the twenty coins of the Nabataean kingdom. Both Nabataean and Jewish coins of the first century CE have a wide dispersal through the Levant – thus connecting Antioch to a regional trend – but none of these “foreign” finds indicates steady circulation of eastern coins within Antioch as is demonstrably the case at Dura Europos (Fig. 4.20).239 It is unlikely that the Roman administration regulated this aspect of the city’s currency. Instead, alongside use of provincial issues, the Antiochians presumably preferred their own coins to the exclusion of other cities. As much as the assemblage at Antioch fits within this regional trend, a closer examination of the finds reveals certain idiosyncrasies, which point

238

239

Only a few cities issued their own currency during this period, but Phoenician coins do not have strong representation at Antioch even in the previous century. See the maps in Jones 1963, 311–312; Butcher 2004, 177. Butcher (1996, 108) wondered if the Jewish coins of the procurators sans ethnic normally circulated more broadly than civic coins or if their wide distribution resulted from the spread of ethnic Jewish communities or associations. As for the Nabataean coins, it is worth considering the role played by traders and caravans moving through the region or perhaps even the military returning from campaign.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Distribution and Circulation of Bronze Coins Minted at Antioch

Mint Site/Territory

Total Coins

197

% Assemblage

Antioch Provincial Antioch Civic Antioch Uncertain Rome Rome for Syria Southern Levant Other Syria Egypt Cilicia Commagene Cappadocia East Anatolia

505 253 25 57 35 29 29 9 2 2 1 1 1

53.2% 26.7% 2.6% 6% 3.7% 3.1% 3.1% 0.9% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Total Coins

949

100%

Fig. 4.21 Bronze coins minted c. 31 BCE–192 CE and excavated at Antioch according to mint/territory of origin. This total excludes ten silver coin finds minted at Rome and one silver coin minted at Alexandria.

to unique circumstances within the city and the relationship of the civic community to the Roman authority. Over 80% of the 949 bronze coins dating to the Roman Principate were minted at Antioch (Fig. 4.21). This is somewhat similar to earlier periods in the city’s history, but now over half of these coins are provincial and only c. 27% are civic coins of the Antiochians. This dominance of provincial bronze coins was not immediate, but developed over time (Fig. 4.23).240 Among finds minted under the Julio-Claudians/Flavians, the provincial coins are fairly evenly matched by the civic coins.241 While this reveals a strong introduction of a provincial type of coinage into the city’s circulating currency, it also testifies to the continued importance of civic coins for the city. Such a balance is lost

240

241

Scholars predict much overlap in circulation for the first century CE (see Butcher 2004, 180–192). The division in Antioch countermarking also suggests that while Flavian countermarks kept Julio-Claudian coins in circulation (e.g., GICM 245), Nervan-Antonine countermarks did not (e.g., GICM 378–379). Provincial coins minted under Claudius may be underrepresented in the finds of Antioch, as over 160 of these coins were found at Dura Europos. Butcher’s (2004, 138–139) reexamination of Waagé’s coin catalog also suggests that many of the thirty-six undated provincial SC coins actually date to the reign of Claudius; as this revision was not published in detail, these results could not be included here. Additionally, fifteen civic coins could not be dated more precisely than the first and second centuries CE (see Waagé 1952, nos. 440–441).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

198

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Fig. 4.22 The origins of non-Antioch coins minted c. 31 BCE–192 CE and excavated at Antioch. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of coins from each location. Coins without a definable mint are excluded.

Distribution and Circulation of Bronze Coins Minted at Antioch

Fig. 4.23 A comparison of the bronze coins minted under the Julio-Claudian/Flavian and Nervan-Antonine periods and excavated at Antioch according to mint of origin.

among the finds dated to the following Nervan-Antonine Dynasty, as the count of provincial SC coins more than doubles, but the civic finds noticeably decrease.242 If the finds are further subdivided by the reigns of individual emperors, a similar pattern emerges with finds of Antioch provincial coins increasingly outnumbering Antioch civic coins (Fig. 4.24). Antioch’s assemblage presents an unusual pattern compared to other cities within Syria. When the percentages of provincial Antioch bronze coin finds are compared for Antioch, Seleucia Pieria, Palmyra, and Berytus – all cities minting their own civic coins at some point during this period – the representation of first-century CE provincial coins reveals a strong alignment around 40% (Fig. 4.25).243 This likely reflects the

242

243

The count of provincial finds may increase further if the ninety-seven undated, later provincial SC coins could be assigned to a particular period. See Waagé 1952, nos. 562, 687, 719. Stratigraphy reveals that provincial SC coins did circulate alongside local civic coins of Berytus during the early first century CE (Butcher 2001–2002, 63). The evidence becomes more complicated after this point. Countermarks of Berytus and a symbol dating to the reign of Hadrian appear on provincial coins issued under the Flavians, which may suggest that some of the earlier coins actually arrived at Berytus in the second century CE (see Butcher 2001–2002, 65, 69–70, 114; the countermarks appear on nos. 520–523). The possibility also exists that earlier issues were countermarked within Berytus in order to keep the coins in circulation in lieu of new Antonine issues. This latter suggestion seems more likely, considering that Butcher (2001–2002, 64–65, 73) proposes that some of the coins minted during Hadrian’s reign arrived far later on site due to their absence in second-century CE contexts.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

199

200

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

Fig. 4.24 A comparison of Antioch civic and provincial bronze coins minted c. 31 BCE–192 CE and excavated at Antioch according to the reigns of individual emperors.

standard introduction of this coin type to the entire region. By the second century CE, however, the representation of provincial coins deviates from site to site. For both Seleucia Pieria and Berytus, the decrease in provincial coins is accompanied by an increase in the presence of each city’s own civic coins.244 For Palmyra, the slight increase in the provincial coins was merely temporary as by the third-century CE assemblage, civic issues of the Palmyrenes outweigh them.245 A drop in both the raw count and relative presence of provincial coins is also evident at both Dura Europos and Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad. Neither city minted their own civic coins, but again drew upon coins from an expanding number of eastern issuing cities.246 Regionally, the steady drop in the representation of provincial coins suggests that already by the second century CE, the Roman standardization effort through a provincial coinage had weakened.247 Even if first-century CE issues continued to circulate, the diminished levels of second-century CE coins must be considered. Certain Syrian cities preferred their own civic issues – and were clearly not prevented from this preference – while other cities – especially on

244

245

246

247

Nurpetlian (2013, 169) leaves open a similar possibility for Emesa, whose citizens minted their own coins beginning in the mid-second century CE. Forty-two civic Palmyrene issues compared to seven provincial SC issues minted at Antioch; see Krzyżanowska 2014, 16. This includes coins minted at Laodicea and Hierapolis in Syria, Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Carrhae in Mesopotamia at both sites, and Edessa in Mesopotamia and Aradus, Zeugma, Tyre, and Beroea in Syria at Dura. See GICM no. 717. Only two coins of the SC series are known to have been countermarked after Hadrian’s reign; Howgego suggested this indicates an overall diminished importance of the coins as small change in the Middle East.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Distribution and Circulation of Bronze Coins Minted at Antioch

Fig. 4.25 A comparison of the percentages represented by bronze provincial Antioch coins within select Syrian sites according to period of issue.

the perimeter of Syria – relied upon the increasing availability of coins from neighboring communities. Clearly the Roman military continued to use the provincial issues at least in the first half of the second century CE; cities closer to Antioch certainly preferred this type as well in lieu of their own civic issues. However, it is increasingly difficult to make the case for a general promotion or imposition of this type from above. A changing Roman currency system may partially explain these patterns (see Chapter 5), as well as the greater structural unity of the province by the second century CE and evolving priorities of the Roman administration. Syrian cities overall appear to have used provincial coins on a more ad hoc basis. Importantly, none of the Syrian sites quite matches the situation within Antioch. The civic administration did continue to mint and prefer its own coins to those of other Syrian cities, but finds of these issues are nonetheless increasingly outnumbered by provincial coins. While this could reflect diminished output of civic coins, several additional possibilities arise to explain the difference. With Roman interest in the provincial coins as a standardized coinage ebbing, the Antiochians themselves could have assumed production of this type, partially for their own internal needs and partially for other cities to purchase if they could not mint their own; this was arguably the case later on (see Chapter 5).248 As the provincial coins were already in circulation within Antioch, civic authorities may not have felt a need to replace them

248

See Butcher 2004, 256, 268. The Antioch mint produced civic coins for other eastern cities beginning in the third century CE (see Butcher 1986–1987, 73–84; Butcher 2003, 219).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

201

202

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

with more explicitly civic issues, much like the continuation of Seleucid forms in the previous period. The denominational role served by the provincial coins may have also contributed to its continued use. For Antioch in particular, the size and weight of the Roman-era coins minted within the city suggest a breakdown of a unit, a half unit, a 1/3 unit, and a 1/4 unit, with the possibility of an even tinier 1/6 or 1/8 coin appearing under Nero.249 Originally, the SC provincial bronzes and occasionally larger civic bronzes served as the unit and the half unit, while the civic bronzes functioned as the smallest units. By the second century CE, however, civic coins were predominately produced in the smaller denominations while provincial coins tended to remain larger in size and weight.250 In this scenario, provincial and civic systems were too enmeshed in the currency at Antioch to justify an overhaul. Alternatively, the intensification of Roman use of Antioch may have favored the provincial type within city limits. If the Roman administration was centered in the city – tax collectors, legates, military officials, etc. – the parameters for what constituted currency may have expanded either with or without the approval of the Antiochians themselves. This was certainly the case in previous periods under the Seleucids (see Chapters 2 and 3) and, as explored earlier, to a certain degree under the Romans as the imperial authorities struck a few imperial issues and reformed the provincial silver. The question with the bronze is whether Roman intervention went beyond the introduction of a new type of coin at a mint to actually affecting the currency within the city itself. One interesting episode emerges during the first century CE, when a convergence of evidence suggests that the mint at Antioch was not producing enough bronze coinage for the demands of its population and – more importantly – the Roman administration. Civic coin production came to a halt after a small issue at the beginning of Vespasian’s reign. Focus was instead placed on provincial SC production; supplementary provincial orichalcum issues minted at Rome added to this supply.251 At this time, 249 250

251

See Harl 1996, 108; Butcher 2004, 206–212. According to the measurements provided by Butcher (2004, 321–398) and McAlee (2007), the provincial SC coins traditionally ranged in size between 13 and 39 mm and in weight between 4 and 19 grams with the occasional small coin weighing little more than 1 gram. The earlier civic coins also ranged in size between 10 and 28 mm and in weight between 1 gram to over 16 grams; later coins did not exceed 5 grams or 18 mm. None of the Roman ANTIOCHIA issues appears in the assemblage from Antioch, but based on die-axis and appearance, at least two of the Flavian provincial coin finds may be Roman in origin and were highlighted as different (Waagé 1952, no. 369; compare with Butcher 2004, 407, no. 5). An ANTIOCHIA issue does appear among the finds at Palmyra (see Krzyżanowska 2014, no. 1.219).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Distribution and Circulation of Bronze Coins Minted at Antioch

a countermark featuring Athena/Minerva began appearing on Antioch coins, which scholars propose was an imperial mark of Domitian applied at Antioch sometime between 83 CE and 96 CE.252 Its purpose was to keep earlier coins in circulation and perhaps make the guarantee of the Roman authority even clearer. In addition to countermarking, earlier civic and provincial coins minted at Antioch were cut in half in order to generate smaller denominations out of existing coins, much like cutting pieces of eight in the American colonies.253 Based upon halving elsewhere in the eastern empire around this time, this concentrated cutting of coins at Antioch may be tied to needs of the military and/or civic authorities wrestling with a coin deficit.254 Finally, evidence exists that coins minted before the Flavians were remelted and recycled at Antioch during this period.255 All these facets together – cessation of civic production, continuation of a provincial type, external production of a provincial type, countermarking, halving, and remelting – must be tied to some circumstance within the city itself. The evidence is oblique, but it is easy to imagine that in the wider historical context of the Flavian period with a strong imperial presence in the region consolidating the province of Syria and embarking on active 252

253

254

255

GICM no. 245 records at least 138 incidents of this countermark on provincial SC coins; see also Carradice 1983, 20, n. 11; Butcher 2004, 35. In the Antioch assemblage, at least ten of the provincial and larger civic first-century CE Antioch coins bear the countermark of a standing Athena (Waagé 1952, nos. 349, 353, 356, 359–360, 372, 374–375); the same countermark appears at Dura Europos (11+ coins; Bellinger 1949b, nos. 1612.a, 1615.a, 1620.a, 1621.b–c, 1624.b–c, 1625.a–c, 1626.a), Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad (1 coin; Oettel 2005, no. 30), Masada (1 coin; Meshorer 1989, no. 3820), and Berytus (1 coin; Butcher 2001–2002, no. 529). 50+ finds at Antioch (see Waagé 1952, 35); similarly halved coins of Antioch also appear at Berytus (9 coins; Butcher 2001–2002, nos. 483–485, 496, 503, 510–511, 513, 519) and at Masada (6 coins; Meshorer 1989, nos. 3847–3852). McAlee (2007, 24) identified several halved Antioch SC coins in his personal collection, which date from the Flavian period to the reign of Trajan. Leonard 1993, 363–370; see McAlee 2007, 24. Doyen (1987, 72–73) believed the halved coin of Augustus in the assemblage at Tell Abou Danné was contemporary with the abandonment of the site in 15–20 CE rather than from a later visitor. Waagé (1952, 35) thought the halving dated to Nero’s reign, but left open the possibility that these coins were cut in a later period. See also Sawaya 2005, 149; Sawaya 2011, 379. Compared to the provincial finds of Domitian, the Julio-Claudians, and the Nervan-Antonines, coins of Vespasian and Titus are poorly represented in the Antioch assemblage. This pattern is even clearer at Dura Europos: of the 148 Antioch coins of the Flavians, 125 (84.5%) have a portrait of Domitian (Bellinger 1949b, 75–76). Butcher (2004, 34–35, 141, 151) proposed that authorities in the later Flavian period withdrew earlier Antioch coins of Vespasian and Titus from circulation to recycle the metal for new issues of Domitian. Chemical analysis of six provincial SC coins dating to the reign of Domitian does indicate that at least some of the coins contained remelted metals, one of the sources for which may have been earlier coins (see Carter 1983, 28, 36–37).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

203

204

Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE)

military campaigns, Roman demand for provincial coins was so strong that the Antiochians’ own civic operations were temporarily overridden.256 Whether the Antiochians did this willingly is unknown. The presence and machinations of the Romans at Antioch are also reflected by actual Roman coins unearthed through excavations (Figs. 4.21 and 4.22). A negligible presence among finds dating to the first centuries BCE and CE, these coins make their strongest appearance as both bronze and silver within the Nervan-Antonine period (Fig. 4.23). Because D. Waagé’s report combines the imperial Roman finds from Antioch and Seleucia Pieria, it is possible that the number of Roman coins is slightly inflated. However, an additional thirty-five bronze coins originally assigned to the Antioch mint by Waagé are more likely to be Roman issues mimicking provincial Syrian coins, both the koinon of Syria type and the more common provincial SC type.257 All of these Roman-minted provincial coins date entirely to the reign of Trajan, and it is reasonable to link at least their presence to the emperor’s Parthian campaigns. After all, Antioch became the focus of Roman investment as a political and military center during this period. As the other Roman finds date past the reign of Trajan, these coins testify to the changing situation of the city, as the worlds of the Antiochians and the Roman state increasingly merged. It is difficult to say more about the monetary relationship between the Antiochians and the Romans due to the lack of additional documentation, but the coin evidence helps reveal the evolving status of Antioch under Roman hegemony. Civic agency and identity continued to manifest in the production of civic coins and the regulation of circulating currency, but the people within the city were progressively integrated into the role cast for their city by the Roman state. While the Antiochians’ own civic coins stayed local much like those of other cities, their mint also served the purposes of the Roman state within the region. Even after other Syrian communities opted for alternative sources of coin, the use of provincial coins within Antioch continued to tie the city’s population to the use of their city by the Roman administration. This was not yet a complete “overshadowing” of the civic population, but Antioch was on its way toward this status.

256 257

See Butcher 2003, 43–44; Sartre 2005, 121–128. See Waagé 1952, nos. 369, 390–401, 1016–1017. For bronze coins bearing the legend ΔΗΜΑΡΧ ΕΞ ΥΠΑΤ Β, Waagé (1952, 390–399) argues that the quantities found at Antioch reveal a local origin rather than their traditional attribution to Caesarea in Cappadocia; for their attribution to Rome instead, see Butcher 2004, 35–38, 406–12.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Conclusion

Conclusion Roman Antioch was defined by a far more complex relationship among civic, regional, and imperial forces than any fixation on its status as provincial caput or emerging capital normally allows. Antioch was indeed a place used by the Romans for a multitude of purposes – provincial and imperial administration, military campaigns, economic restructuring, sociocultural unity – and yet this did not eclipse the original inhabitants of the city. The Antiochians – in no way a homogenous group – retained their civic structure and identity, while offering discrepant responses to the more hands-on rule of the Roman emperors and their state. Sometimes they realigned individually and collectively toward the Roman government, but they were equally capable of resisting the latter’s policies and activities. At times, the Antiochians were elevated by the Roman state, yet they would also hover at the level of other Syrian cities or even suffer under Roman focus. Deconstructing the different categories of bronze and silver coins minted during this period strongly illuminates this complexity. The bronze civic coins are the most Antiochene and behave like the issues from other Syrian cities. Although eventually acting as small, subsidiary denominations of the provincial coins, they retained traditional images of import to the Antiochians and yet also incorporated overt homages to their new emperors and provincial officials. The bronze provincial Antioch coins were wholly an innovation of the Roman state and bound the Syrian province together, but over time revealed a greater focus upon Antioch – which may or may not have been to the Antiochians’ benefit. Finally, the silver coins minted at Antioch present an interesting composite of tradition and Roman manipulation, as the western power remade a fallen imperial system to better suit its vision. A single characterization of Roman Antioch fails; instead, the city enveloped a kaleidoscope of layers melding the worlds of the Antiochians and the Romans together.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press

205

5

|

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

The people of Syria are fickle by nature and always ready to overturn the established order. But they did love Niger, because he was a kind ruler to all, and celebrated a great number of festivals with them. Syrians are also naturally fond of feasts, especially the people of Antioch, the largest and most prosperous city. They celebrate festivals nearly the entire year long, both in their city and in their suburb. Accordingly, Niger ordered a whole series of shows for them, about which they are especially eager, and gave leave for them to feast and celebrate, and doing these popular things – obviously, he was honored. . . . After Niger had finished [speaking about his popularity at Rome], straightaway the whole military and the gathered multitude declared him ruler and addressed him as “Augustus.” Throwing the royal purple around him and slapping together the remaining tokens of honor out of improvised materials, they led Niger toward the temples of Antioch – carrying the fire before him in the procession – and then installed him in his own house. This they declared was no longer a private residence but rather a royal court and so they decorated the outside with all the imperial insignia. . . When the report of these happenings flew to every people in the East, everyone purposely rushed to submit to him, and embassies from all the people there set out to Antioch as if he was the official emperor. —Herodian 2.7.9–10, 2.8.6–7

As the last decade of the second century CE ebbed away, the Antiochians once again faced a dilemma.1 In 192 CE, the murder of Emperor Commodus – the last heir to the Nervan-Antonine Dynasty – had left the imperial throne without an official successor, but plenty of rivals willing to claim its power. The current governor of Syria, Pescennius Niger, had a strong influence over the eastern communities and sought to declare himself emperor within Antioch. He used the city as a base for his imperial bid, entertaining rulers, kings, and embassies; he settled into his own palace

206

1

See Millar 1993, 118–126; Southern 2001, 23–34.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

and minted silver denarii and gold aurei.2 Despite Niger’s proximity, the challenger Septimius Severus presented a viable second candidate to the citizens of the eastern Mediterranean. A previous legatus in Syria who was currently married to a woman from Syrian Emesa, Septimius had already outmaneuvered and eliminated several rivals to the imperial throne and was now poised to turn against Antioch. Like their neighboring civic communities, the Antiochians had a choice to make and ultimately decided to back Niger.3 Unfortunately, as with Avidius Cassius a few years prior, the Antiochians once again chose the wrong side, and the victorious Septimius Severus punished them severely when he arrived. Already perturbed because the Antiochians had previously mocked him for his poor management of the eastern provinces, he proceeded to shut down the civic government.4 The city lost its metropolis title and festival privileges, and – perhaps worst of all – Antioch as a municipality fell under the power of its rival, Laodicea ad Mare.5 It temporarily became a kome (“village”) of Laodicea, which may have forced the Antiochians to pay taxes to the other city.6 Antioch was soon restored to its earlier favored status supposedly through Caracalla’s efforts, but its citizens were clearly not immune from punishment if they exercised their autonomy in a manner unfavorable to Rome.7 2

3

4 5

6

Herodian 2.8.6–10; see also Cass. Dio. 75.8. Malalas 12.292–295 ignores the Antiochians’ support of Niger. See Herodian 3.1.4, 3.2.10, 3.4.1. Scholars have debated whether the Antiochians supported Niger willingly or under duress. Sartre (2005, 191) argued that the Antiochians had no other choice than to assist Niger, because he was governor and controlled the city; Herodian 2.7–8 adds that Niger was backed by troops stationed within Antioch and the region. Alternatively, although overusing a rhetorical trope about Syrian laxity (see Herodian 2.10.7; Wheeler 1996; Andrade 2013, 314–316), Herodian also suggests Niger gained the Antiochians’ loyalty through his generous sponsorship of games and his allowance of their freedom (see Dąbrowa 1998, 127–128). Haddad (1949, 134–135) further underscored that the Antiochians backed Niger only after he spoke publicly about his motivations and the support he already had in Rome. Other cities in the eastern Mediterranean certainly had a choice between either candidate, and the evidence suggests many made their decision based upon long-standing civic rivalries: Tyre vs. Berytus and later Sidon (see Herodian 3.3.3; Robert 1977, 23–24; Sartre 2005, 199–200); Nicaea vs. Nicomedia (see Herodian 3.2.9; Robert 1977; Burrell 2004, 164–165); Byzantium vs. Perinthus (see Herodian 3.6.9; French 1998, 481). SHA Sev. 9.4–5. Herodian 3.6.9; see Downey 1961, 239–243. Laodicea ad Mare began celebrating the title metropolis as early as 197 CE, while Antioch was under its control (see Kindler 1982–1983, 83). Herodian 3.3.3 states that the Laodiceans supported Septimius Severus because of their hatred for the Antiochians. Theodoret of Cyrrhus (Hist. eccl. 5.19) also comments on the long-standing rivalry between these cities. 7 Ziegler 1978, 494–495. See Haensch 1997, 251–252. See SHA M. Ant. 1.7.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

207

208

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

Even though this incident comes at the beginning of the time period considered by this chapter, it foreshadowed and even incited many of trends that would generally define Syria in the third century CE. Niger’s attempt to rally the eastern states behind his bid for emperor was only the beginning of the magnetic pull of the Middle East upon imperial attention during this period. Initially, Septimius Severus campaigned against the cities and client kingdoms on both sides of the Euphrates that had supported his rival.8 This operation morphed into an expansion of military activity along the eastern front as Septimius Severus, his successors, and the emperors following the Severan Dynasty battled the Parthians.9 The subsequent overthrow of the Parthians in the early 200s CE by the Sasanian kings renewed the threat to Roman holdings as they sought to reclaim the limits of the ancient Persian Empire.10 The city of Rome remained the capital of the Roman Empire, but these military conflicts regularly brought the emperor to the region and forced him to govern from Syria for long stretches of time.11 External threats were not the only draw, as the feud between Pescennius Niger and Septimius Severus marked only the beginning of the empirewide contest for the imperial seat. Although the Severan Dynasty suffered primarily under familial subterfuge, the later third century CE witnessed a series of military usurpations.12 Additionally, the internal weakness of the Roman government coupled with the external threat of the Sasanians paved the way for the secession of the Palmyrene Empire built by Queen Zenobia.13 Such conflicts coupled with empire-wide economic and social crises propelled Syria back into a level of instability not experienced since the fall of the Seleucids. In addition to armed conflict, the incident between Pescennius Niger and Septimius Severus also underscores continuous imperial intervention into local politics, civil administration, and social celebration. On a local level, the various emperors of the late second and third centuries CE continued cultivating eastern communities through bestowals of titles and honors.14 On a grand scale, besides adding new provinces to the empire, Septimius Severus split Syria’s administration into two provinces

8 11 12

13 14

9 10 Sartre 2005, 148–150. Pollard 2000, 17–19, 24–26. Herodian 6.2.1–2. Millar 1993, 121, 141–142. On the Severan Dynasty, see Southern 2001, 37–63. On the period generally, see Ziolkowski 2011, 113–133. Sartre 2005, 350–358. See also Bland 2011, 135, for a synthesized timeline of events. See Kindler 1982–1983, 79–87.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

to dissuade any future rivals hoping to harness the region’s resources.15 To the north, Syria Coele ran from Antioch and the coast all the way to Dura Europos and Zeugma. To the south, Syria Phoenice encompassed not only the territory traditionally known as Phoenicia but also Emesa, Damascus, and Palmyra further to the east. Even as the imperial government subdivided the region, they also further integrated it into the Roman Empire through Caracalla’s grant of citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire via the Constitutio Antoniniana.16 Much like the Antiochians with Pescennius Niger, eastern cities seized upon opportunities to celebrate the emperor in return, such as when he visited one of their temples or in thanks for his patronage.17 This celebration occurred within a wider context of the climax of urbanization in the region, when many places experienced their greatest development through the efforts of both Roman authorities and local elites.18 More and more cities also hosted civic festivals, especially as investment in municipal building projects finally waned in the later third century CE.19 As was true in the earlier centuries of Roman hegemony, these communities continued to be as much locally focused as oriented toward the imperial power. Unfortunately, the flip side of imperial investment, attention, and celebration consisted of imperial burdens placed upon these cities. Eastern communities suffered from the upheaval plaguing the imperial system, as they experienced increasing taxation, periodic invasion and destruction, and the strain of supporting Rome’s many military campaigns.20 These conditions and the overall evolution of the imperial system permanently transformed the routines and operations of the people and civic authorities within the provincial cities.21 Herodian’s passage not only exemplifies the situation of the wider period and region, but it also equally speaks to the specific situation of the Antiochians and other people inhabiting their city. Much like its fellow cities, Antioch as a place did not escape this period of transition, crisis, and the increasing centrality of the eastern empire.22 According to Glanville Downey’s historical survey, Antioch both suffered and thrived as successive

15 16 18 20

21 22

Bikerman 1947, 267; Millar 1993, 121–123; Butcher 2003, 84–85. 17 See Carrié 2005, 271–275. Harl 1987, 60–62. 19 Andrade 2013, 137; see also Liebeschuetz 1992, 3–4; Ball 2000, 206. Butcher 2003, 229. E.g., Potter 1990, 6–13; Pollard 2000, 85–86, 104–109, 203, 213; Sartre 2005, 343–344. See also Zos. 1.20.2; Downey 1961, 253–254. Harl 1987, 1. This chapter follows the definition of crisis offered by Potter 1990, viii: “a time of acute difficulty or danger.”

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

209

210

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

emperors and usurpers, Persian rulers, and representatives of the new Palmyrene Empire entered the city and made use of its resources – both human and otherwise – for their often military-oriented purposes.23 Unlike the previous period, calling Antioch an “imperial capital” is increasingly appropriate in the third century CE, however provisional Roman control might be at times.24 Antioch had thus arrived at the mirror image of the transitional first century BCE, only now it was ascending to capital status instead of declining from it. Such imperial focus upon the city could make it easy to overlook or minimize the civic community of the Antiochians, and yet this painful period opens another opportunity to examine how Antioch’s citizens and inhabitants weathered this transition. The historical record for the late second and third centuries CE can prove problematic for such an objective, as much of the textual evidence is late or questionable.25 Fortunately, this era also yields the greatest diversity of issues from Antioch’s mint, which offers valuable insights into the evolution of the city and its authorities as old traditions mingled with entirely new types.26 Bronze production resumed in the form of traditional SC issues and a revamped civic type.27 Silver production expanded to include not only provincial tetradrachms but also several issues of imperial Roman denarii and a regular stream of a debased silver coin new to the Roman Empire known as the antoninianus or radiate.28 The mint at Antioch was even responsible for the occasional issue of imperial gold aurei.29 Die-links further reveal that in addition to striking coins for the Antiochians and the various tiers of the Roman state, the moneyers at Antioch also minted for a number of other cities in Syria and at least one community in Arabia.30 This complexity led many previous scholars to separate the different authorities behind these coins into individual publications.31 However, when taken together alongside the fragments of other evidence, the many strands of the mint at Antioch help to reveal how intensely the city and its 23 25

26 28 29 30 31

24 Downey 1961, 236–271. See also Isaac 1990, 436–437. Millar 1993, 149, 163. Potter (1990, 70–94, 356–369) provides an excellent survey of the historiography for the third century CE. See also Alföldy 1974, 89–111. 27 See Butcher 1988a, 64, 72; Metcalf 2002, 175–180. McAlee 2007, 272–276, 288–290. Prieur and Prieur 2000, 31–84; Butcher 2004, 98–127; Bland 2012, 526–527. E.g., RIC IV.3, 34, no. 176. Butcher 1988a, 70–72; Butcher 2012, 477. On other die-links, see Johnston 2012, 458–459. E.g., McAlee (2007) does not deal with the radiates or the denarii; Butcher (2004) gives a general summary of the whole mint, but his catalog only focuses on the bronze of Antioch. The RPC and RIC volumes focus on only provincial coins or imperial issues, respectively.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of Emperors, Usurpers, and Invaders

people experienced this period of crisis, transition, and ever-increasing centrality within the Roman Empire. Antioch – for the time being – remained an imperially used city, rather than a completely imperially run city. The civic community retained a visible degree of agency and even expressed new formations of identity and pride.32 Nevertheless, as the imperial government exploited Antioch’s resources and interrupted civic operations, the Antiochians were forced to adjust under intensified Roman rule, burdens, and casualties, the pressure of which sometimes proved too much to bear.

Antioch of Emperors, Usurpers, and Invaders In past centuries of Roman rule, Antioch had served mainly as the headquarters for the provincial government with visits of the emperors becoming more frequent only in the second century CE as the eastern frontier demanded imperial focus.33 Following Niger’s failed bid for the imperial seat, a continuous line of members from the Severan Dynasty took up residence inside the city as they faced off against eastern invasions.34 After his initial punishment of the Antiochians, Septimius visited Antioch with his son Caracalla.35 When Septimius died, his other son Geta intended to make either Antioch or Alexandria a capital, since both were comparable to Rome.36 This plan was cut short by his assassination orchestrated through Caracalla, who in turn stayed within Antioch during his Parthian negotiations and even received villagers there.37 While he was away on campaign, his mother – Julia Domna – remained in the city and helped to administer the empire from its walls.38 She was then ousted from the city by Caracalla’s status-climbing praetorian prefect Macrinus, who next claimed the emperorship. Macrinus established Antioch as his base of operations with his son Diadumenian for the following year.39 Eventually, Macrinus was forced from both office and Antioch by a true Severan heir, Elagabalus.40 The day after his victory, Elagabalus bribed his troops not to sack Antioch with 32 33

34 37

38 39

See Ando 2010, 20–21. Antioch continued to house the governor of Syria: according to P. Euphr. 1, residents from Beth Phouraia traveled to Antioch to see the governor over a village dispute (see Ando 2000, 73). 35 36 Downey 1961, 239–252. SHA Sev. 16.8. Herodian 4.3.7. SHA M. Ant. 1.7; Cass. Dio 78.20, 79.7; Herodian 4.8.6. An inscription from a temple in Dmeir (Roussel and de Visscher 1942–1943, 173) mentions an orator pleading a case before Caracalla at Antioch; see Millar 2006, 268–269. Cass. Dio 79.4. See also Isaac 1990, 436–437. 40 Cass. Dio 79.19, 23, 34; Herodian 4.13.8, 5.1–2. Zos. 1.10.3.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

211

212

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

money partially collected from the Antiochians and then stayed in the city for a few months.41 The last of the Severans – Severus Alexander – used Antioch as a military training ground and launching point for further campaigns against eastern powers, even returning to the city as a welcome respite from the dry environment further east.42 His mother – Julia Mamaea – also took up residency temporarily within the city and invited the Christian teacher Origen to join her.43 For the Severan emperors, there can be no doubt that Antioch held a central importance.44 While within the city, at least some of the Roman emperors or would-be rulers co-opted Antioch’s mint to strike imperial silver denarii and gold aurei. Antioch had previously served in this capacity only under Vespasian during his bid for the imperial seat and possibly Hadrian (see Chapter 4). Faced with the challenge of making his own claim for the empire, Pescennius Niger revived this practice and redirected not only the mint at Antioch but also those at Caesarea in Cappadocia and Alexandria in Egypt to strike imperial coins (Fig. 5.1).45 Although Niger was only a governor of Syria at the time, the coins minted for him at Antioch are clearly imperial and not provincial because of their Roman denominations, use of Latin legends, and depiction of Roman deities like Jupiter and Ceres and personified Roman values like Concordia (“harmony”), Salus (“safety”), Spes (“hope”), Fortuna (“fortune”), and Fides (“faithfulness”); symbols such as Roman military standards and trophies also appear.46 The local engravers at Antioch struggled with the coins’ legends, as they were more accustomed to shaping Greek letters on local and regional coins rather than the Latin of these Roman denarii.47 Once Septimius Severus took control of the imperial seat, he continued using the mints at Antioch, Alexandria, and possibly other eastern mints for striking denarii and aurei on an exceptionally large scale.48 The iconography recalled earlier imperial issues – even with the errors made by

41 42 44

45

46 48

Cass. Dio 80.1.1, 80.3.1. Dio references a series of alternative names for Elagabalus. 43 Herodian 6.4.3, 6.6. Euseb. Hist. eccl. 6.21.3–4. An inscription from Ephesus (SEG 17.505) records a man traveling to Antioch as part of a local embassy to the emperor; see Millar 1993, 142. RIC IV.1, 19; Bland, Burnett, and Bendall 1987; Abdy 2012a, 502–503. The possibility exists that the Antioch denarii originated from a traveling mint (see Bickford-Smith 1994–1995, 59, n. 21). 47 E.g., RIC IV.1, 3–22, 77. Awianowicz 2013, 134. In contrast to RIC and Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, Butcher (2004, 98–108) reassigns the denarii of Emesa and Laodicea to Antioch. Previous studies had suggested that Septimius punished the Antiochians by moving the mint to Laodicea ad Mare, but recent scholarship has discredited this theory. See below, as well as Metcalf 2002, 177; Abdy 2012a, 502–503; Awianowicz 2013, 125–126.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of Emperors, Usurpers, and Invaders

Fig. 5.1 Roman imperial denarius minted at Antioch with Pescennius Niger/Fortuna (ANS 1956.127.1250. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

local engravers – but the coins themselves were now significantly debased, presumably as an empire-wide effort to stretch silver supplies in order to increase army pay.49 This production lasted several years and was likely tied to Septimius’s ongoing military campaigns against the Parthians.50 That such an extended production occurred at Antioch was a noticeable change from centuries of imperial minting predominately centered at Rome and underscores the eastward orientation of the administration during this period.51 Rather than a brief issue to fund an imperial bid, these issues recalled the earlier practice of imperatorial coinage from the Republican Civil Wars, in which denarii and aurei were minted at camp or at provincial mints near wherever a military campaign took place.52 The use of Antioch to mint denarii beyond the imperial issues of Niger and Septimius becomes a matter of debate. The RIC volumes and several excavation reports have generally attributed later Roman denarii in a Syrian style to the mint at Antioch.53 Kevin Butcher, however, argues that based on both stylistic differences to traditional Syrian types and the rarity of their finds in the province, the eastern denarii of the later Severans traditionally tied to Antioch are better attributed elsewhere outside of Syria.54 This questionable attribution complicates any study of the coins’ distribution. At least eighteen hoards buried during this period reported contemporary denarii minted at Antioch (Table A3.6; Fig. 5.2). The total count

49

50

51 53

54

See Harl 1987, 7; Gitler and Ponting 2003, 26; Abdy 2012, 503–504. On the errors, Awianowicz 2013, 125–135. Gitler and Ponting 2007, 375–397. Butcher (2004, 107–108) also proposes that some of the production was an attempt to replace earlier coins in the region after the debasement of the denarius at Rome c. 194 CE. 52 See Wolters 2012, 339. Woytek 2012, 324. E.g., RIC IV.2, 3, 26; Bellinger 1949b; Thompson 1954; Pekáry 1971; Nicolaou 1990; Kramer 2004; Casey and Brickstock 2010. Butcher 2004, 107–109; see also McAlee 2007, 287. Butcher reattributed Macrinus’s denarii to Rome and proposed a Balkans mint(s) for the denarii of Elagabalus.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

213

214

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

Fig. 5.2 Hoards with denarii minted at Antioch, which were buried c. 192–284 CE. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of Antioch finds within each hoard. Only hoards with Antioch denarii minted under Pescennius Niger and Septimius Severus are labeled. For details, see Table A3.6.

of Antioch denarii only adds up to forty-three coins and nowhere do the coins represent more than 5% of the statistically relevant hoards.55 Even so, their geographical spread is quite striking as it reaches far to the west of Syria. If the few stray denarii to appear as excavation finds are also included, denarii from Antioch even reached Britain.56 Of these finds, however, only four of these hoards contain denarii securely attributed to Antioch’s mint during the reigns of Niger and Septimius: one from Dura Europos, two from the Black Sea Region, and one from Austria.57 An additional hoard found in Austria also contained two aurei minted at Antioch during the reign of Septimius.58 All other hoard and excavation finds of denarii attributed to Antioch were minted under the later Severans, but this is the production that Butcher questioned.

55

56

57

58

This number may be higher if Butcher is correct in reattributing the denarii of Emesa and Laodicea to Antioch; compare with McAlee 2007, 263. A single denarius attributed to Antioch was reported for Haltonchesters (see Casey and Brickstock 2010, 98, no. 47); PAS also records 40+ finds of denarii of the Severans. Additionally, the excavations from both Corinth and Athens include at least one denarius from Antioch for this period (see Edwards 1933, 80, no. R79; Thompson 1954, 18, no. 249). Two denarii of Severus Alexander were also reported for Vindonissa (Pekáry 1971, 45). Dura Europos: Bellinger 1949b, Hoards nos. 3 and 4; Prăjești (Romania): CHRE 9379; Plevna (Bulgaria): Mattingly and Salisbury 1924; Oberdorf (Austria): CHRE 3368. CHRE 3037. The hoard from Villach (Austria) contained a total of 161 aurei and 4 denarii.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of Emperors, Usurpers, and Invaders

Questionable attribution aside, the fact that denarii and aurei minted at Antioch moved westward at all is an important reflection of how the city and Syria served the strategic military purposes of the Roman government in the late second and early third centuries CE.59 The westward spread and simultaneous dearth of eastern denarii as finds in the Middle East indicate that this imperial minting under the Severans was not about introducing a unified currency in the Levant.60 Instead, it was an expedient measure for ensuring enough payment to campaigning troops. As these troops returned home or transferred elsewhere in the empire, the eastern denarii gradually followed. After the death of the last Severan emperor in 235 CE, the empire fell into turmoil as internal and external forces fought for control. Neither Antioch nor the Antiochians escaped this upheaval. One major danger to their safety was the expanding Sasanian Empire, which replaced the Parthian threat.61 The efforts of Roman forces to rebuff the Persians kept the eastern power away from Antioch for several decades, but between 240 CE and 260 CE, the city came under a more direct threat.62 Antioch was invaded and burned at least once and possibly as many as three times by King Shapur as part of his much larger campaign against the Roman state. It is unclear how long the Persians remained in Antioch after their attack or if they left immediately after their raid, but enough damage warranted imperially funded repair in the 250s CE.63 The contemporary text of the thirteenth Sibylline Oracle (l.125–128) suggests that the Persians inflicted so much destruction on Antioch that it could no longer even be called a city.64 Additionally, many Antiochians were deported to Persian territory, possibly on two separate occasions.65

59

60

61 62

63 64 65

Metcalf 1977, 83–84. As Gitler and Ponting (2007, 385) comment, these payments of imperial denarii may also have been supplemented by regional coinages as well as payments in kind. Other studies have noted the dearth of eastern denarii in the East outside of Dura and their simultaneous spread westward from the Black Sea to Britain. See Howgego 1994, 15–16; Howgego 1996, 221–230. Frye 1984, 291–303. The historical record is immensely convoluted and subject to great scholarly debate. For a full survey of the evidence and debate, see Downey 1961, 252–261, 587–595. See also Metcalf 1977, 86–91; Frye 1984, 297–298; Millar 1993, 159–167; Edwell 2008, 190–194. SHA Gord. 26.5 and 27.5 record that already by 242 CE, Gordian III could claim that he had freed the Antiochians from the Persian yoke. Whether this was an actual invasion of the city or general propaganda for rebuffing an eastern threat is uncertain. In the honorific inscription, Res Gestae Divi Saporis 13, King Shapur claims Antioch, Seleucia, and Gindaros as part of his plunder. Zos. 1.27.2, 1.32.2; see Amm. Marc. 23.5.3. On the attack(s), see Barnes 2009, 294–296. See Potter 1990, 149, 175; Dodgeon and Lieu 1991, 51, 53–54. See also Lib. Or. 25.16, 60.2–3. See Huskinson (2004, 136), who suggests that “stylistic features” in mosaic pavements from Iran indicate that mosaicists from Antioch were part of the deported population.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

215

216

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

Both this threat and destruction pulled the Roman emperors back to Antioch, even as they struggled to keep control of the imperial seat against internal rivals. Gordian III entered the city in the 240s CE while on campaign against the Persians.66 Valerian helped to oversee repairs at Antioch after the Persians left the city damaged; a contemporary inscription detailing a letter he wrote to the city of Philadelphia in Lydia also places him within the city in 255 CE.67 The testimony for these visits and actions is bolstered by the general imperial Roman activity in the Middle East and a probable conclusion that campaigning emperors continued to utilize Antioch and its resources like the Severans before them.68 After 260 CE, the Persian threat to Antioch and its people yielded to danger far closer to home. Odenathus – a nobleman from the city of Palmyra who was aligned to Rome – leveraged his military success against the Persians into much broader control over the eastern provinces.69 Upon his death in 267/8 CE, his wife Zenobia broke ties with Rome and – on behalf of her son Vaballathus – launched a systematic conquest of the Roman East. Antioch was unavoidably drawn into the conflict, as its strategic location and status within the region demanded control by any would-be ruler.70 At what point Antioch fell under Zenobia’s campaign is debated, but when the emperor Aurelian came to Syria in the early 270s CE, the historian Zosimus records that Zenobia gathered her forces there.71 After a lengthy skirmish outside the city, Zenobia temporarily retreated into Antioch with her general, before fleeing into the night. Aurelian subsequently retook Antioch.72 If Malalas’s account can be believed, the defeated Zenobia was then briefly displayed in chains within the city in 272 CE before being carted off to Rome.73 Despite the uncertainty about which imperial leader or challenger oversaw Antioch and the empire during this tumultuous period, the city’s mint was almost constantly commandeered for the production of imperial coins. Instead of denarii and aurei, the mint now struck the new radiate, so named for the radiate crown worn by the emperor on the coin’s obverse (Fig. 5.3).74 The imperial Roman government had first issued this silver

66

67 69 71

72

73

SHA Gord. 26.5–6, 27.5. Philip I may also have been at Antioch, but the evidence is questionable. 68 Zos. 1.32.2; SEG 17.528. E.g., Millar 1993, 153, 163–173; Pollard 2000, 18–19, 59–60, 66. 70 Millar 1993, 167–173; Butcher 2003, 58–60. Isaac 1990, 275. Zos. 1.50–51. Downey (1961, 263) argues Palmyra held nominal control as early as 261 CE, but Millar (2006, 260) calls this “pure speculation.” SHA Aurel. 25.1. According to SHA Aurel. 5.3, this was the second time that Aurelian had visited Antioch. 74 Malalas 12.300. Abdy 2012a, 507.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of Emperors, Usurpers, and Invaders

coin outside of Antioch in 215 CE as larger and heavier than the denarius, but with a similar silver content (c. 50%).75 The goal of this new coin type was to increase financial supplies – especially for military payments – without further taxing the already diminishing resources of silver within the state coffer.76 Soon after the radiate’s introduction, its weight and silver content began dropping. By the late third century CE, even with reforms by emperors like Aurelian, the radiate was barely more than a bronze coin with a silver-looking coating and less than 5% silver content.77 Antioch was the first provincial mint to strike the imperial radiate during the reign of Gordian III.78 Much like the denarii and aurei minted in the city for Septimius Severus, these initial issues were likely directed toward ongoing military campaigns.79 Although stylistic similarities between these radiates and contemporary tetradrachms (see below) prove the same local engravers worked concurrently on both sets of coins, the radiates were wholly Roman in their iconography, Latin legends, and celebration of the emperor and imperial state; many of the same themes featured on the earlier denarii were repeated here (Fig. 5.3).80 (a)

(c)

(b)

(d)

Fig. 5.3 Imperial radiates minted at Antioch during the third century CE: (a) Gordian III/Concordia; (b) Trebonianus Gallus/Roma; (c) Aurelian/Vaballathus; (d) Aurelian/woman presenting a wreath to the emperor (ANS 1996.71.4; 1944.100.27066; 1944.100.32917; 1944.100.32923. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

75

76 78 80

Crawford 1975, 565; Harl 1996, 128–132; Corbier 2005, 333–335, 339–340; Bland 2012, 515–517. On Aurelian’s reform, see Estiot 2012, 545–549. Aurelian introduced a second radiate known as the aurelianus, but it was not always possible to distinguish this coin from other radiates within archaeological reports or hoards. 77 Hollard 1995, 1057–1058. Corbier 2005, 339–340; Estiot 2012, 540–543. 79 For a full discussion of the first issue, see Bland 1991a, 54–91. Bland 2012, 526–531. E.g., RIC IV.3, 36–37, nos. 206–219; McAlee 2007, 316–317, 326.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

217

218

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

By the middle of the third century CE through to the reign of Diocletian, the minting of these imperial coins overtook any provincial production at Antioch and elevated the city into one of the major suppliers for the Roman state.81 Production occurred at such a scale that multiple officinae – or workshops – were needed to meet the demand of legitimate rulers, rivals, and even temporarily, the Palmyrene leaders.82 This was an important escalation from previous periods, as Antioch’s mint(s) had finally been elevated into an empire-wide system of the Romans.83 This unprecedented control of the Antioch mint by the imperial Roman administration was matched by an unprecedented distribution of the coins themselves. Antioch radiates have happily survived within at least fifty hoards (Table A3.7; Fig. 5.4) and as single finds within thirty-six of

Fig. 5.4 Hoards with radiates minted at Antioch, which were buried c. 192–300 CE. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of Antioch coins within each hoard. For details, see Table A3.7.

81 82

83

E.g., RIC V.1, 16, 23–25; RIC V.2, 217–218; Butcher 2004, 124. See also Bland 2012, 526–527. McAlee 2007, 8–9; see Fulford 1978, 88. Multiple workshops may have been employed before at Antioch, but the coins now feature clear evidence of these operations. On the radiates of Zenobia and the Palmyrenes, see Seyrig 1966, 659–662; Bland 2011, 133–186. On usurpers, see Claes 2015, 15–60. On other mints of imperial radiates, see Burnett 1987, 63–65, 122–131; Corbier 2005, 348–349.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of Emperors, Usurpers, and Invaders

219

the excavations considered in this study (Fig. 5.5).84 For both types of finds, their geographic distribution is wide with a noticeable fan toward the west. This aligns well with several previous studies, which also indicated a growing presence of eastern coins within the west during the third century CE.85 Whereas finding coins minted at Antioch in areas like Britain, Spain, and even Greece was once an abnormality, their consistent spread from the Balkan states through Europe testifies to the authority of the imperial government guaranteeing them and the fact that the same currency system bound the Roman East and West.86

Fig. 5.5 Excavations with radiates minted at Antioch c. 192–284 CE. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of Antioch coins at each location. For details, see Fig. 5.7.

Despite being part of the same imperial currency system, the geographical distribution pattern also reveals a regional pooling of the imperial coins from the mint at Antioch. When the finds of Antioch-minted radiates are considered as a percentage relative to their assemblage – hoard or other silver coins from site – the greatest concentration of Antioch radiates appears within the southern Levant and Syria (Figs. 5.6 and 5.7). Additionally, for the first time since the Seleucid era, coins minted at Antioch regularly appear in hoards and as site finds within greater 84

85 86

See Evans 2006, 40. Caution must be taken in attributing radiates, as the Antioch mint sometimes paralleled types at Rome (see Howgego 1996, 221). See Mattingly 1939, 21–61; Le Gentilhomme 1947, 39–41; Howgego 1996, 219–236. PAS records over 100 finds of Antioch radiates dated to the third century CE.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

220

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

Anatolia, Cyprus, and Cilicia.87 The differentiation between East and West becomes even more defined in graphical form (Figs. 5.8 and 5.9). Whereas the percentage of Antioch radiates in each assemblage reaches well above 50% within Syria, the southern Levant, Anatolia, and possibly even Cyprus, the presence of these coins in the Balkans and the West generally clusters at or below 10%.88 It is possible that many of these coins moved westward with troops returning from the Middle East or simply traveled slowly over time through transactions, but it is unlikely that Antioch-minted radiates were regularly shipped beyond the region for larger imperial payments.

Fig. 5.6 The percentages represented by Antioch radiates within individual hoards buried c. 192–300 CE. Hoards with less than sixteen total coins, without a known find spot, with only a single Antioch coin, or where Antioch coins represented less than 1% are excluded. For details, see Table A3.7. 87

88

In addition to the well-published hoards, three other hoards of greater Anatolia contain radiates from Antioch: Smyrna (Eddy 1967); Caesarea in Cappadocia (CHRE 3183; Bland and Aydemir 1991, no. 8); and Haydere (Bland and Aydemir 1991). Bittel (1955, 28–30) proposed that the hoard from Bogazköy was tied to the Palmyrene invasion, which extended into Galatia and possibly moved higher quantities of Antioch coins westward than what would move more naturally through trade or other economic activities (see also Hollard and Bingöl 1994, 67). Bland and Aydemir (1991, 103–104) also tied the burial of the Haydere hoard to the Gothic invasion. These numbers align with Howgego (1996, 226), who measured Antioch radiates of Gordian III representing between 1% and 14% of hoards discovered in Britain, France, and Belgium. The one exception is a hoard from Almenara, Spain (see Gozalbes 1996–1997, 599–621); excavators conjectured that the hoard was buried during military conflict.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of Emperors, Usurpers, and Invaders

221

Region

Site

Total Silver Coins

Antioch Radiates

% Antioch

Syria

Apamea

6

6

100%

Southern Levant

Samaria-Sebaste

15

13

86.7%

Syria

Gindaros

7

6

85.7%

Southern Levant

Paneas

9

7

77.8%

Syria

Antioch

366

278

76%

Southern Levant

Jerash

26

19

73.1%

Syria

Berytus

57

38

66.7%

Cyprus

Kourion

26

16

61.5%

Southern Levant

Caesarea Maritima

21

12

57.1%

Syria

Hama

20

11

55%

Syria

Palmyra

32

16

50%

Southern Levant

Pella

8

4

50%

Cilicia

Elaiussa

9

4

44.4%

Anatolia

Sagalassos

10

3

30%

Anatolia

Side

32

7

21.9%

Syria

Zeugma

15

3

20%

Fig. 5.7 The percentages represented by radiates minted at Antioch c. 192–284 CE within individual excavations; numerical data listed in the table. Each percentage is based upon the total silver coin finds dating to this period. Sites with less than five total silver finds, only one Antioch coin, or where Antioch coins represent less than 1% are excluded from the map.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

222

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

Balkans

Athens

742

116

15.6%

Syria

Dura Europos

3623

371

10.2%

Anatolia

Troy

16

1

6.3%

Western Europe

Idanha-a-Velha

36

2

5.6%

Western Europe

Cosa

23

1

4.3%

Balkans

Corinth

100

4

4%

Balkans

Nicopolis ad Istrum

32

1

3.1%

Anatolia

Sardis

96

1

1%

Western Europe

Reims

523

3

0.6%

Western Europe

Bath

963

2

0.2%

Western Europe

Conimbriga

446

1

0.2%

Egypt

Karanis

10348 (?)

1

0%

Anatolia

Andriake (Myra)

4

1

n/a

Southern Levant

Tel Jezreel

4

1

n/a

Syria

Perrhe

3

3

n/a

Syria

Tille

3

2

n/a

Syria

Arsameia

2

1

n/a

Southern Levant

Nessana

2

1

n/a

East

Susa

2

1

n/a

Cyprus

Paphos

1

1

n/a

Fig. 5.7 (cont.)

This pattern suggests that coin populations were not yet integrated across the empire, but it also reflects the significant development in how the Roman administration employed Antioch’s mint in the later third century CE.89 Instead of intermittent issues intended to pay soldiers returning to the West, the imperial coins struck in the city were now designed for wide use across the eastern Mediterranean. Like centuries earlier under the Seleucid government, Antioch’s mint was more and more directed to fulfill the broader needs of the imperial government rather than those of a province alone. Furthermore, as the currency system of the Roman Empire transformed under the pressure of the

89

Compare with Duncan-Jones 1994, 172–179; Howgego 1994; Howgego 1996. On the debate of monetary integration, see the synthesis of Corbier 2005, 349–351; Katsari 2011, 196–207.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of Emperors, Usurpers, and Invaders

Fig. 5.8 A comparison of the percentages represented by Antioch radiates in hoards buried c. 192–300 CE according to region. Each line represents an individual hoard. Hoards with less than sixteen total coins are excluded. For details, see Table A3.7.

Fig. 5.9 A comparison of the percentages represented by Antioch radiates minted c. 192–284 CE within excavation assemblages according to region. Each line represents an individual excavation site. Sites with less than five total silver coins dating to the period are excluded. For details, see Fig. 5.7.

period, Antioch assumed a central position. These evolving operations therefore reinforce the greater transition experienced by Antioch, as an intensified Roman imperial presence moved the city again toward the status of an imperial capital. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

223

224

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

Antioch of the Antiochians The regular presence of the imperial rulers within Syria, their intensified operations at Antioch, and the general instability of the period had a mixed effect on the Antiochians. From one perspective, the historical evidence collectively testifies to the enduring activity and celebration of the civic body. For example, the passage of Herodian at the start of the chapter underscores the ongoing nature of festivals within the city.90 Although the author seeks to emphasize stereotypical indulgences of the Antiochians, inscriptions from throughout the eastern Mediterranean do reveal multiple individuals continuing to compete in games within the city.91 The Olympics may have even been introduced at Antioch in the third century CE.92 This persistent investment by the civic body explains why Septimius Severus could effectively punish the Antiochians by removing their games.93 Additionally, Caracalla granted the Antiochians the new status of colonia to celebrate alongside their city’s position as metropolis.94 Unlike the traditional use of the term indicating the settling of new residents into a city, the Severans and later emperors granted colonial status widely to already existing urban communities throughout the Roman East.95 According to Fergus Millar’s examination, the first round of grants was to reward civic communities for their support of Septimius against Pescennius Niger; Antioch’s rival Laodicea received colonial status under his rule.96 Later bestowals of colonia to other eastern cities – Antioch included – appear more dependent upon an individual emperor’s favor toward specific communities. For Antioch, this grant may have been purely honorific and included no exemption from taxation or further extensions of citizenship as it likely followed the Constitutio Antoniniana.97 At the same time, when viewed through the lens of local civic rivalry, this grant allowed the Antiochians to claim the same status as their neighboring Laodiceans. Overall, these brief accounts suggest that the civic government was still in operation, celebrating itself and its relationship to Rome.

90 91

92

93 96

Herodian 2.7.9. See also Haddad 1949, 153–177. I. Anazarbos 25 (Cilicia); FD III.1.551 (Delphi); I. Side 130 (Asia); IGLS IV 1265 (Syria); SEG 27.843 (Galatia). Traditional scholarship follows Malalas 12.284–290 with a foundation during the reign of Commodus, and then restoration under Caracalla (e.g., Downey 1961, 229–235, 244–245). In her reexamination of Malalas and inscriptions of the period, Remijsen (2010, 411–436) proposes an introduction in 212 CE under Caracalla. 94 95 Herodian 3.6.9. Dig. 50.15.8.5; Downey 1961, 245–246. Millar 2006, 164–222. 97 See Dig. 50.15.1.3; Ziegler 1978, 497–500. Compare with Carrié 2005, 273–274.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of the Antiochians

Nevertheless, all was not well within Antioch. The evidence from the period indicates increasing burdens and new obligations forced upon the population as they simultaneously suffered from repeated invasions and the destruction of their city. As a result, although the Antiochians could and did express loyalty toward the emperor, they also sought out alternatives to Rome. From the textual evidence, we are granted a vision of the generally unhappy and stressed inhabitants of Antioch. Already mentioned above was the severity of Septimius Severus’s punishments on the civic body, as well as the fact that the Antiochians were partially responsible for raising the payoff to Elagabalus’s troops not to sack their city. The people mourned as significant human casualties accumulated due to ongoing military campaigns.98 Adding insult to injury, the luxurious living of the Severan emperors and their soldiers cited in the ancient literature was bound to take an extra toll on the city’s resources in addition to the cost of merely housing the army (see Chapter 4).99 The occasional building/rebuilding project or donative from the emperor to the citizens was hardly sufficient compensation.100 Later during the third-century CE crisis, an episode involving one of Antioch’s citizens within the late 240s/early 250s CE illustrates the malleability of the community’s political allegiance under this pressure. Piecing together a biography from multiple sources, a man named Mariades (aka Cyriades) was involved in the abuse of public funds while serving as an official within Antioch’s municipal government.101 When his fellow citizens discovered his misdeed, Mariades fled to the Persians and advised them in one of their invasions of Antioch, the date of which is unclear. What happened to Mariades next is equally obscure, but he was eventually murdered for his treachery against his hometown.102 More interesting than the actions of an individual are the various reports – however jumbled – of how the Antiochians responded to Mariades’s betrayal and the invasion by the Persians. The accounts of Libanius and Ammianus Marcellinus suggest that much of the population was surprised by the Persian attacks and quickly turned to resist.103 However, a passage preserved in the anonymous continuer of Cassius Dio records that while the upper classes fled from these attacks, the lower classes welcomed the entrance of the Persians because of their support of 98 100 101

102 103

99 E.g., Herodian 3.4.1–6. Cass. Dio 78.20.1–2; Herodian 5.2.3–6, 6.4.3. E.g., Malalas 12.294; Zos. 1.32.2. For a full list of sources, see Dodgeon and Lieu 1991, 51–54. An alternative biography of Mariades is preserved in SHA Tyr. Trig. 2, which suggests that Cyriades (a Hellenization of Myriades) fled to the Persians after robbing his wealthy father. See Rostovtzeff 1943, 32–33. See Potter 1990, 47. Amm. Marc. 23.5.3; Lib. Or. 11.158, 24.38. See Potter 1990, 306–307.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

225

226

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

Mariades.104 Tempering the passage’s reliability is its overly common slur on the fickleness or ignorance of the poor and how this nature fueled their desire for revolution. Still, the idea of a pro-Persian party within such a large urban center is not out of the realm of possibility, especially as an alternative to the burdens the citizens faced from the imperial Roman administration.105 Similar to previous centuries of unrest, such as in the last years of Seleucid rule, the Antiochians collectively and as individuals or smaller parties could throw their support behind select leaders inside and outside the Roman government. Evidence also exists for the development of a pro-Palmyrene party at Antioch. The most direct testimony comes at the end of Palmyra’s empire. When the emperor Aurelian defeated Zenobia in 272 CE, several textual sources record that he had to extend forgiveness to a segment of the Antiochians for their support of the queen.106 This means that she had not simply occupied the city as an invading force but had actually found assistance and allegiance from some portion of the population. Further support for a change in Antiochene loyalty may be found in circumstances several years prior. According to a lengthy passage in Eusebius, in the early 260s CE, the Christian bishop of Antioch – Paul of Samosata – was accused of heresy, corruption, and generally deviant behavior by the larger Christian body.107 One of the most interesting accusations is that he began to present himself like a ducenarius or imperial procurator of Rome, surrounding himself with an entourage.108 Twice, a council was called to Antioch to confront Paul; in the second synod, the opposition was led by Malchion, the head of Antioch’s school of rhetoric and a faithful Christian. Paul was eventually excommunicated, and when he refused to vacate the church building, an appeal was sent to the emperor Aurelian. How exactly this incident reveals not only the division within Antioch’s religious population but also a challenge to their political loyalty toward Rome is more complicated. Antioch had long since become a central location for the emergent Christian Church, but recently around 250 CE, the Christian population had suffered under state-sponsored persecution in 104

105 106 107 108

Anonymous continuator of Cass. Dio frag. 1 (FHG IV, 192). See also Dodgeon and Lieu 1991, 53. See Rostovtzeff 1943, 17–60; Downey 1961, 256; Edwell 2008, 192. SHA Aurel. 25.1; Zos. 1.51.3. Euseb. Hist. eccl. 7.27–30. On the nature of the heresy, see Wallace-Hadrill 1982, 69–75. Downey (1961, 312–313) understands this passage to mean that Paul actually held this governmental office, but Millar (2006, 266) calls this a “fantasy.” See also Norris 1984, 50–70.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antiochians and Their Bronze Coins

addition to the Persian invasion and deportation.109 Downey suggested that the inability of the Roman government to protect its people may have opened the door for Christian leaders to look elsewhere for support, even though they had been loyal previously.110 This general context of unhappiness as well as Paul’s aspirations for not only religious, but possibly even political power, could partially explain why later textual sources comment on Zenobia’s patronage of Paul in his role at Antioch.111 Scholars like G. Bardy even go so far as to suggest that Paul served specifically as a civic representative of the Palmyrene monarchy at Antioch.112 Conversely, as Millar argued, such claims about Paul make too many assumptions about when Palmyrene control extended over Antioch, the cultural and religious ties between Paul and Zenobia, and the political structure of the city related to Rome.113 Even though care must therefore be taken in too closely associating Paul with an official political role for the queen, the overall incident at least hints at who some of the pro-Palmyrenes at Antioch may have been or whence their motivations stemmed.114 Once again, like the first-century BCE Antiochians reaching out to the Armenian king Tigranes, it would not be surprising that the city’s inhabitants would look for stability outside the Roman state.

Antiochians and Their Bronze Coins If the texts grant a general impression of the Antiochians’ difficult situation during this period, the civic and provincial coins provide a confined, yet rich body of evidence to investigate one way in which these circumstances played out in physical form for the civic body. The third century CE has often been described as the “apogee” of civic coin production within the eastern Roman Empire, both in terms of volume and in the number of cities issuing their own currency.115 According to the original count by T. B. Jones, over 360 mints or issuing cities produced coins under the reign 109 110

111

112 115

See Millar 1993, 158–159. See Downey 1961, 308–315. Tert. Apol. 35 makes clear that at least the Christians did not support the rebellion of Avidius Cassius. On the ancient sources, see Millar 2006, 264–265. Zenobia is known to have given patronage to both Jewish and Christian communities (e.g., Andrade 2013, 337–338). See also Wheatley 2011, 109–112. 113 114 Bardy 1923, 174–176. Millar 2006, 243–274. See Downey 1961, 269. Johnston 2012, 453–455, 465. On volume, see Crawford 1975, 572; Harl 1987, 19.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

227

228

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

of Septimius Severus alone.116 In Syria, the count of issuing cities or mints reached as high as twenty-five. Although differing in the details, many scholars agree that fiscal necessity predominantly drove this boom. Already mentioned were the imperial burdens placed upon the cities from increasing taxation to the strain of supporting Rome’s ongoing military campaigns.117 One suggestion is that individual civic communities turned to their own coin production to meet their growing financial obligations to the imperial state.118 Other scholars have proposed that the debasement of silver and inflation within the larger system created a shortage of bronze coinage in the eastern provinces, which civic production was intended to fill.119 According to either explanation, imperial demands and activity forced an expansion in the number of cities issuing their own coins. However much prompted by imperial impetus and financial need, individual cities still took the opportunity to use the coins for expressing local identity and the values of the civic body in a climate of escalating competition.120 Ann Johnston’s survey of the different issues highlights the diversity of types including games and festivals, alliances between civic governments, recently acquired statuses and building construction, and imperial gifts and visits.121 These coins provided another medium through which a city could celebrate both itself and its orientation toward the Roman emperor via his portrait and titles, even in the face of the thirdcentury CE upheaval. The Antiochians were part of this forced florescence, but only after a delay. No bronze coins – either civic or provincial – were issued within the city during the reigns of Niger and the earliest Severans. Some scholars have speculated that this was another manifestation of the Antiochians’ punishment by Septimius.122 According to their explanation, when the emperor shut down the civic government and put Antioch under the power

116

117 118 119

120 121 122

Jones 1963, 309–310; see Estiot 1996, 38; Corbier 2005, 347. Heuchert (2005, 33, n. 34) questions Jones’s count. E.g., Potter 1990, 6–13; Pollard 2000, 85–86, 104–109, 203, 213; Sartre 2005, 343–344. E.g., Crawford 1975, 572–575; Estiot 1996, 37–39. See Harl 1987, 9; Harl 1996, 126–143; Abdy 2012a, 503–505. Katsari (2003, 40–42) argues that Rome’s focus on striking large quantities of debased silver created a demand for small change and that the expansion of the civic mints was centrally directed. See also Katsari 2011, 104–166. E.g., Harl 1987, 83–88; Estiot 1996, 39; Johnston 2012, 455–456, 465. Johnston 2012, 455–457. E.g., McAlee 2007, 262. See the discussion in Buttrey 1992, xx–xxi; Butcher 2004, 41–42, 104; Abdy 2012a, 502.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antiochians and Their Bronze Coins

of Laodicea ad Mare, the Antiochians also lost the “privilege” to strike small change for themselves.123 As tantalizing as this interpretation is for the effect of the imperial authority on the internal operations of the civic body, good reason exists to question it. The lapse in the production of bronze civic and provincial coins had begun in 180 CE, long before the angry actions of Septimius. The Antiochians also appear to have regained whatever rights they had lost as early as 198 CE, over a decade before the next bronze issues from the city’s mint.124 The gap may therefore be innocuous; production of the bronze coins was never consistent, and the possibility remains that earlier coin issues were sufficient. Alternatively, the Roman state’s use of mint operations and resources to produce imperial and provincial issues in precious metals could have left little room for regional or especially local production in bronze.125 Rather than a punishment for a politically subversive action, the minting operations of the Antiochians may have actually been overridden by the needs of the imperial state. Provincial bronze production finally resumed under Caracalla, followed by the Antiochians’ own civic coins during the reign of Elagabalus. The production of at least the civic coins provides yet another important reminder of the persistent agency of the citizens, as well as the expression of their civic identity and bid for regional stature. One prominent addition to the civic coins is the new legend ΚΟΛΩΝΙΑC (colonia) on the reverse next to the city’s traditional ethnic and ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΛΕΩΣ (Fig. 5.10).126 As Antioch had only recently gained its colonial status, it is understandable that the citizens would want to prominently celebrate this title on their latest civic issues in the traditional Greek language of the city. Additionally, as many other cities throughout the Levant had begun to celebrate their status as both metropolis and colonia – including Antioch’s rival Laodicea ad Mare – it would have been especially important for the Antiochians to advertise their equivalent promotion by the

123 125

126

124 Harl 1987, 24. Ziegler 1978, 493–500; Haensch 1997, 251–252. A comparison to the situation at the mint in Rome may prove helpful, especially as Antioch was well on its way to becoming an imperial mint. According to Abdy (2012a, 502–504), in order to meet military demand for silver, the Roman mint curtailed base metal production, which was of decreasing importance within the camps as army salaries increased. Perhaps at Antioch too, if imperial silver production was geared toward the military during the Parthian campaigns, little demand existed at this time for provincial SC bronzes. Once this wave of imperial production passed and Septimius Severus moved back to the West, provincial minting at Antioch could resume. Butcher 2004, 44–45.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

229

230

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

imperial Roman state.127 The orientation of the civic community toward Rome was just as essential in this later stage of minting.128 (b)

(a)

(c)

Fig. 5.10 Civic bronze coins minted at Antioch during the third century CE: (a) Elagabalus/Tyche of Antioch with Orontes and ram; (b) Philip I/Tyche with ram; (c) Trajan Decius/Tyche of Antioch in temple ((a) and (b): gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques, Fonds général 672; Chandon de Briailles 1488. (c): ANS 1944.100.59353. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

The resurrected coins also testify to a change in Antiochene operations during the third century CE, which may be a sign of the imperial pressure felt throughout the region.129 The late bronze issues – both civic and provincial – exhibit differences and developments in size, iconography, and even circulation. Based upon the cumulative evidence, I propose that the traditional categories of civic coins (i.e., with the city ethnic) and provincial coins (i.e., with an SC) merged into one system at Antioch’s mint during the third century CE. Whether this production is considered new or hybrid, I argue that the Antiochians were behind these coins – adopting the traditional provincial coins into their own civic tradition to ensure enough coinage for their internal purposes and wider obligations. 127 128

129

See Kindler 1982–1983, 79–87. On Laodicea, see Meyer 1987/88 (1991), 58–62. McAlee (2007, 304) highlights an additional type in the civic issues, which portrays two individuals crowing a seated Tyche with the Orontes below. Although scholars debate the identity of the individuals, it is possible that at least one figure represents the Roman emperor. If so, this would be another example of the Antiochians’ orientation toward the imperial Roman state. Compare with Butcher 1988a, 63.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antiochians and Their Bronze Coins

The first noticeable change is in the size and weight of the Antioch bronze coins. In previous centuries, both the civic coins and the provincial coins appear to have been minted in three major denominations: a small, medium, and large. As discussed in Chapter 4, by the second century CE, the provincial SC coins assumed the larger denominations while civic coins were primarily produced in the smaller denominations.130 Starting in the third century CE, the provincial and civic coins appear to swap sizes: the provincial issues diminish into a single smaller denomination, while the civic coins appear in a larger and medium size.131 Many cities in the Roman East increased the size and weight of their civic issues during this period, possibly “to strengthen their own coinage” and combat “the feverish debasement of the imperial silver coinage.”132 For the Antiochians, the concurrent changes in size and weight of the civic and provincial issues provide the first piece of evidence that the traditions were merging under imperial pressure. The new civic issues now served as a large and medium denomination and the provincial SC coins as a small denomination until their last issue under Philip I.133 Changes in the iconography of the coins add to this picture. It is easy to notice the conventional themes restored under the Severans.134 The traditional provincial coins still feature imperial portraits with Greek legends on the obverse and a wreath and a Latin SC on the reverse (Fig. 5.11). Similar to the earlier provincial coins of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, several of the renewed issues also exhibit an eagle or the bust of a co-emperor/heir between the SC.135 The civic coins likewise bear an imperial portrait and Greek legends on the obverse with the reverse proudly displaying the civic ethnic ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ alongside such imagery as the bust of a turreted Tyche, Eutychides’s seated Tyche near the river god Orontes, Apollo, and/or a leaping ram, again presumably symbolizing Aries as the city’s astrological sign (Fig. 5.10).136 Alongside these traditional elements, however, the iconography provides additional evidence that a clear division no longer existed between the civic coins and what had traditionally been provincial coins issued by the Roman

130 131

132 134 136

See Butcher 2004, 321–398; McAlee 2007. See Butcher 1988a, 64. The provincial issues of the third century CE now consistently weigh around 4 grams and are no bigger than 22 mm. The civic coins come in two sizes: a larger issue between 15 and 20 grams and a medium size ranging between 7 and 11 grams. Their sizes are much bigger, ranging between 23 and 33 mm. 133 Kadman 1967, 318. See Butcher 2004, 44, 206–213. 135 See McAlee 2007, 262–315. E.g., McAlee 2007, nos. 696–699, 731–743. Butcher 2004, 225–226.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

231

232

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 5.11 So-called provincial bronze coins minted at Antioch in the third century CE: (a) Elagabalus/SC with delta-epsilon and eagle; (b) Elagabalus/SC with delta-epsilon and star; (c) Elagabalus/SC with delta-epsilon and ram ((a): gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques, 1966.453. (b): Princeton University Numismatic Collection 10267. (c): London Ancient Coins).

state. Immediately noticeable is the repetition of certain design elements on both sets of coins. For example, when a leaping ram appears on the newly restarted civic coins of Elagabalus, the same animal also appears on a few of the so-called provincial issues between the letters SC (Fig. 5.11); this ram is also featured on the provincial coins of Severus Alexander.137 While a ram could hold significance for a larger provincial or imperial ethos, the use of Aries in a civic context is better established for the Antiochians themselves and is therefore a notable addition to what had been an otherwise unobtrusive type.138 Even more suggestive of a merger is the appearance of a Latin SC on both categories of coins. In fact, an SC also appears on the silver tetradrachms from the reign of Gordian III through to the end of their production in the 250s CE (see Fig. 5.22).139 Unfortunately, while the repeated appearance of these letters further reinforces a link among the coins, how to interpret the SC is still not definite. Chapter 4 introduced the likelihood that the letters originally celebrated or signified the guarantee of the Roman authority within the provinces. While it is possible that the letters partially retained this meaning in the third century CE, this does not have to indicate the Roman authority now issued all the bronze coins – both with and without the civic ethnic. Considering the evidence and context, it is more likely that

137 139

138 E.g., McAlee 2007, nos. 791–795. Baldus 1973, 446. E.g., Prieur and Prieur 2000, 53; McAlee 2007, 320–388. An SC also appears on tetradrachm issues from Emesa, but alongside the legend “Emesa” and a camel; the Antioch mint may have been involved (see Prieur and Prieur 2000, 125).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antiochians and Their Bronze Coins

the Antiochians themselves used these letters out of tradition or as a way of evoking the larger authority for its monetary guarantee.140 Alongside the SC, both categories of bronze coins also now feature a deltaepsilon (ΔΕ).141 A delta-epsilon had already appeared on a few of the last bronze civic issues dating to the previous period, but not with the accompanying SC.142 Additionally, a delta-epsilon is featured on the silver tetradrachms minted at Antioch from the reigns of Caracalla through Elagabalus (see Fig. 5.21).143 The delta-epsilon also appears with a star and Latin legends on anonymous bronze issues thought to be minted at Laodicea, although once attributed to Antioch.144 Extra letters on other tetradrachms and bronze coins of the region sometimes signal either the mint of origin or officinae, and this was possibly the case for the delta-epsilon on later, fourthcentury CE bronzes struck at Antioch.145 However, three other interpretations seem more plausible for the third-century CE issues. The first explanation – favored by Butcher – is that the letters expand to mean Δ Ε(ΠΑΡΧΕΙΩΝ) (“of the four eparchies”), in reference to Antioch’s lead role as metropolis over four territorial subdivisions (see Chapter 4).146 Butcher proposed that this title suddenly appeared on the coins because of the rivalry between the Antiochians and Laodiceans. In 215 CE, the Laodiceans started advertising their recently gained status of metropolis with an extended Latin legend on their civic coins: COL LAVDICIAE METR IIII PROV or “Laodicea – colonia and metropolis of the four provinces.”147 In an earlier study, E. Meyer thought the Laodiceans wanted to emphasize their claim to this imperial privilege when the Antiochians resumed their civic minting around 215 CE and began celebrating themselves as colonia and metropolis.148 Considering this rivalry, Butcher proposed that the delta-epsilon appearing on both Antiochene and Laodicean coins was thereby an abbreviated Greek equivalent to the Latin legend.149 140 141

142 144 145

146

147 149

Compare with Baldus 1973, 448. E.g., McAlee 2007, 5–6, 274–276. For the provincial issues, only a first issue under Caracalla (see Butcher 2004, 380) and a single issue under Elagabalus (see Butcher 2004, 385) lack the delta-epsilon. 143 McAlee 2007, nos. 623–625. E.g., McAlee 2007, nos. 681–682. BMC Galatia, 205, nos. 447–450; McAlee 2007, 289. Van Heesch 1993, 66. On officinae, see Fulford 1978, 88; McAlee 2007, 8–9. Against these explanations for the mint at Antioch, see Baldus 1973, 444–445. Butcher 2004, 13, 40–41, 233–235. For other interpretations not discussed here, see Butcher 2004, 234, n. 66. 148 Meyer 1987/88 (1991), 68–73. Meyer 1987/88 (1991), 70–73. Contrary to Butcher’s summary, Meyer 1987/88 (1991), 70, n. 62, argues against interpreting delta-epsilon as a Greek abbreviation for METROPOL. IIII PROV. Then again, a coin issue of neighboring Tarsus does use the whole phrase ΜΗΤΡΟ. Γ ΕΠΑΡΧΕΙΩΝ or “metropolis of the

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

233

234

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

That this debate waged only between the two cities is suggested by the absence of these letters on the coins of other Syrian cities bearing the title metropolis.150 If Butcher is correct, both sets of coins – the traditional and the renewed – were civic coins issued by the Antiochians themselves for their own self-advertisement. That the Antiochians would use their coinage to emphasize a prominent provincial role is certainly conceivable, but a few considerations should give us pause. On certain bronze issues both from Laodicea and Antioch, the delta-epsilon does not appear alongside metropolis.151 The size of coin could play a part, which made it difficult to include every title on the lower denominations. However, the late second-century CE coins of Lucilla at Antioch, which were the first to feature a delta-epsilon, are no bigger than the later coins and yet pair the letters with ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕ. ΜΗΤΡΟ.152 Additionally, even though it is difficult to know how coin users received this iconography, such an abbreviation does seem rather obscure, especially without a common association or reference point for it. An alternative option is that the delta-epsilon was even more internally focused, specifically toward the authority and control of the civic government. H. R. Baldus proposed that the letters could be expanded into either Δ(ΟΓΜΑ) Ε(ΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣ) (“public decree of the city assembly”) or Δ(ΗΜΩ) Ε(ΔΟΞΕΝ) (“the people resolved”).153 He argued that as the provincial coins came under civic authority, the delta-epsilon was added to further restrain the message of the SC. If so, this would mean that the delta-epsilon appearing on the tetradrachms minted during the reigns of Caracalla through Elagabalus signals that the silver was also temporarily under civic control or at least paid for by the citizens (much like the city monogram of the first century BCE). This scenario is conceivable for this period, especially as the production of tetradrachms was spread out among multiple cities (see below).154 A third possibility is that the delta-epsilon serves as an abbreviation of Δ(ΗΜΑΡΧΙΚΗΣ) Ε(ΞΟΥΣΙΑΣ) in reference to the tribunician power of the

150 151

152 153

154

three eparchies,” so comparanda does exist for such a Greek title on coins (see Butcher 2004, 234). E.g., Damascus (see BMC Galatia, 285–288). For Laodicea, see BMC Galatia, 261–263, nos. 101–103, 105–108. For Antioch, see McAlee 2007, nos. 700–705. See McAlee 2007, nos. 623–625. Baldus 1973, 446–448. Butcher (2003, 225) points out that little evidence exists for the ecclesia in the region. See Bellinger 1940, 53–57.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antiochians and Their Bronze Coins

emperor. This is not an unknown legend for Antioch, as a version of this legend commonly appears on the reverse of silver tetradrachms minted at Antioch from the reign of Trajan until the end of their production in the mid-third century CE (see Figs. 5.21 and 5.22); silver tetradrachms minted elsewhere in the Roman East under Caracalla bear this title as well.155 The title also appears on select orichalcum coins struck in Rome for circulation in Syria during the reign of Trajan.156 It could therefore follow that the inclusion of delta-epsilon on the bronze issues merely reflects this longer title and serves to help link the bronze issues as subdivisions of the silver.157 This also could be a decision of the civic authority itself as they continued to orient their coinage toward Rome and celebrate the emperor.158 Then again, a common complaint of scholars about this interpretation is that the delta-epsilon is redundant as it sometimes appears alongside the full tribunician title.159 From the current evidence, Baldus’s interpretation seems the most likely explanation than either the first or third proposals. Nonetheless, all of these options provide important support for the overlapping operations of the mint at Antioch. Additionally, for the larger story of the Antiochians, all three proposals reflect the citizens’ evolution in the face of greater Roman presence and pressure. Butcher’s proposal exposes the Antiochians’ attempt to emphasize their role in the koinon and the imperial cult it oversaw. Baldus’s interpretation reveals the Antiochians laying claim to their mint, but – at least for the silver – because of imperial pressure. The final option shows the Antiochians adding imperial references to their bronze coins, perhaps to better align with the silver. Whatever the case, the Antiochians’ coinage was changing. This evolution is equally evident in the circulation and distribution of Antioch’s bronze, for which a detailed study has heretofore been lacking. Regardless of the territorial subdivision of Syria by Septimius Severus and the narrower provincial boundaries of which Antioch was now a part, it is impossible to argue for a regional or province-wide 155

156 157

158

159

E.g., Prieur and Prieur 2000, 90–91, 99–105, 107–114, 117; see McAlee 2007, nos. 426–436. This title appears on coins regardless if the obverse bust is the emperor or empress; see McAlee 2007, nos. 1090 (Otacilia Severa), 1165 (Herennia Etruscilla). See the critiques of Butcher 2004, 233–235. E.g., McAlee 2007, nos. 498–499. McAlee (2007, 288) notes “strong similarities between the tetradrachms and the reformed aes coins” and suggests “a physical consolidation of the aes and silver mint facilities at this time.” There is no need to follow McAlee (2007, 5–6), who overemphasizes imperial control and oversight of the bronze. See Katsari 2003, 37–38. See Baldus 1973, 444–445; Butcher 2004, 234.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

235

236

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

currency system fed by either the traditional provincial issues or the reformed civic coins.160 Instead, both types appear to be part of the same system of the Antiochians without extra-civic support. No strong evidence emerges from the distribution patterns that these coins were backed by the Roman state more than the contemporary issues of any other city in the region. Momentarily preserving the traditional division between the civic and provincial types, finds of bronze coins lacking the civic ethnic of the Antiochians display a significant contraction compared to the previous centuries. In Chapter 4, I established the wide and consistent circulation of these coins within a more delimited Syria stretching from Berytus to Zeugma to Dura Europos. While “provincial” Antioch coins dated to the third century CE do still appear at eight of these Syrian sites (Fig. 5.12), their raw count and relative representation within individual assemblages dramatically drop everywhere except Antioch (Figs. 5.13 and 5.14). The overall median is now only 11% on Syrian sites, which is significantly lower than the 40% median of the previous period. Even at Dura, where sixty-three, third-century CE “provincial” Antioch coins were found, they still only represent about 1% of the total bronze assemblage and are outmatched by civic issues minted at Laodicea ad Mare, nearby Mesopotamian cities, and even Antioch itself (see below).

Fig. 5.12 Excavations with bronze provincial coins minted at Antioch c. 192–284 CE. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of Antioch coins at each location. For details, see Fig. 5.17.

160

Compare with Butcher 2004, 42–43.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antiochians and Their Bronze Coins

Fig. 5.13 The relative percentage represented by provincial Antioch coins within each Syrian site. Columns in white represent provincial coins dating to the first and second centuries CE (see Fig. 4.19). Columns in grey represent “provincial” coins dating to the third century CE (the total quantity of all coins dating to this period is indicated in the parentheses). Sites with less than eight overall period finds are excluded.

This pattern continues the shrinking trend already noted last chapter for the distribution of provincial Antioch coins. Not only are significant quantities of these coins absent within the southern Levant, their relative presence within the Syrian provinces also noticeably contracts into the region of the Orontes River. Furthermore, from a chronological standpoint, although these “provincial” issues were produced as late as the reign of Philip I, no finds of this type from sites examined in this study date past the reign of Severus Alexander; the peak comes from coin finds issued even earlier during the reign of Elagabalus and may be related to a peak in minting at Antioch.161 Even without further analysis of the reformed civic Antiochene coins, it is safe to conclude that the regional experiment of a provincial currency first introduced by the Roman government in the late first century BCE had ended. The only true exception to this shrinking pattern is the aberrant appearance of “provincial” Antioch coins at Kourion and Paphos in Cyprus (see Fig. 5.17). Even though neither the raw counts (less than 25) nor the relative percentages (less than 20%) are high, up until this point only stray coins

161

By date, these coin finds include Caracalla: Antioch (10 coins), Seleucia Pieria (2), Palmyra (1), Berytus (1), Zeugma (1); Macrinus: Antioch (110), Dura Europos (18), Hama (2); Elagabalus: Antioch (256), Dura Europos (45), Hama (7), Palmyra (5), Berytus (2), Seleucia Pieria (2), Apamea (1), Zeugma (1); Severus Alexander: Antioch (2), Palmyra (1).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

237

238

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

Fig. 5.14 Comparison by period of the relative percentages of provincial Antioch coins within individual excavations (c. 31 BCE–284 CE). Only sites with third-century CE Antioch “provincial” coins are labeled. Sites with less than eight total period finds or where only a single Antioch coin appeared are excluded.

minted at Antioch had been brought to the island through either travelers and/or commercial traffic.162 The sudden concentration of “provincial” Antioch coins on Cyprus in the third century CE is best explained by their similarity to new issues either produced in Cyprus or imported from elsewhere for use on the island.163 Like the Antioch coins, the “Cypriot” coins bear a star and delta-epsilon (sans SC) on the reverse and appear to be of roughly the same denomination.164 These iconographical similarities may 162 163

164

Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1993, 20; Gordon 2012, 339. At Kourion, these new “Cypriot” coins represent one-third of the bronze finds, while at Paphos, five of the twelve finds were of this type. Scholars have debated whether these coins should be attributed to a Cypriot or a Syrian mint. If Cypriot in origin, the delta-epsilon/star type were the only issues minted on the island after the koinon issues ended during the time of Caracalla (see Parks 2004, 132–134; Gordon 2012, 299). The alternative attribution of the delta-epsilon/star type is to a Syrian mint – most likely Laodicea ad Mare (Butcher 2004, 173, 233, 384). E.g., Cox 1959, nos. 144–146. According to Butcher (2004, 384–385), the denomination of the Antioch provincial SC coin under Elagabalus ranged between 4 and 5 grams. Parks (2004, 132–133) found the delta-epsilon “Cypriot” standard to fall between 4 and 6 grams.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antiochians and Their Bronze Coins

have allowed Antioch issues to hide among the Cypriot currency much like Canadian quarters spreading through the United States. Alternatively, the Antioch coins could have been intentionally imported to circulate alongside the majority currency. Interesting as these exceptional circumstances are, they still do not negate the overall pattern of a diminished circulation for the traditional “provincial” issues minted at Antioch. As the spread of the “provincial” SC coins shrank, the distribution of the revamped civic coins appears to have expanded from the pattern set in previous centuries.165 The distribution map of the civic Antiochene coins by raw count reveals a wide dispersal of these issues with an exceptionally large quantity at Dura Europos (Fig. 5.15).166 These civic coins of the Antiochians even appear on at least three sites in the southern Levant: Paneas, Si (Hauran), and Jerash. A graphical comparison of the relative percentages represented by Antiochene civic issues at each site confirms the somewhat stronger presence, at least within Syria (Fig. 5.16). Most of these sites have civic Antiochene coins dating from the reign of Elagabalus through the reign of Philip; only at Antioch do large quantities of coins minted under the later emperors appear.167 An expanded distribution does not necessarily mean the civic coins now regularly circulated throughout Syria and the southern Levant. For example, special circumstances may have been at play at Jerash (ancient Gerasa), one of the most southern sites to reveal a noticeable quantity of civic Antiochene bronzes (Fig. 5.17).168 Butcher hypothesized that the civic coins of the Antiochians were brought to Gerasa to fill a void after the local civic mint was closed during the Severan period.169 As ancient sources occasionally 165

166

167

168

169

McAlee (2007, 288) calls these civic issues “reformed provincial.” Butcher (1988a, 64–65) initially suggested the revamped civic coins had a wide distribution within the Levant, but is later more hesitant (see Butcher 2004, 45). Whereas only 23 civic coins minted at Antioch were found at Dura Europos for the first and second centuries CE, 872 civic coins minted at Antioch date to the late second and third centuries CE. By date, these coin finds include: Elagabalus: Dura Europos (246 coins), Antioch (75), Palmyra (2), Hama (1), Zeugma (2), Gindaros (1), Apamea (1 coin), Tel Rifa’at (1), Arsameia (1); Severus Alexander: Dura Europos (208), Antioch (63), Palmyra (1), Hama (3), Zeugma (3), Seleucia Pieria (1), Gindaros (1); Philip I and family: Dura Europos (396), Antioch (73), Palmyra (9), Hama (1), Zeugma (1), Seleucia Pieria (2), Apamea (1), Tel Rifa’at (1), Perrhe (1); Trajan Decius and family: Dura Europos (11), Antioch (18); Trebonianus Gallus: Dura Europos (9), Antioch (83), Hama (1), Gindaros (1); Valerian: Dura Europos (1), Antioch (3), Palmyra (1), Seleucia Pieria (1). At Jerash, the thirteen civic Antiochene coins represent over 20% of the total fifty-three bronze finds dated to this period. These civic coins date from Elagabalus through Philip I. Even though the raw count is low, they are only surpassed by fifteen coins from nearby Neapolis; the only other Syrian coins are three finds from Tyre. Butcher 2004, 170–171, n. 57.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

239

240

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

Fig. 5.15 Excavations with finds of bronze civic coins minted at Antioch c. 192–284 CE. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of Antioch finds at each location. For details, see Fig. 5.17.

Fig. 5.16 The relative percentage represented by civic Antioch coins within each Syrian site. Columns in white represent civic finds dating to the first and second centuries CE. Columns in black represent civic finds dating to the third century CE (the total quantity of all coins dating to this period is indicated in the parentheses). Sites with less than eight total period finds are excluded.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antiochians and Their Bronze Coins

Region

241

% Provincial Coins

Total Civic Antioch

% Civic Coins

419

48.6%

353

40.9%

5

38.5%

3

23.1%

53.6%

9

32.1%

6

21.4%

9

26.5%

5

14.7%

4

11.8%

53

14

26.4%

1

1.9%

13

24.5%

Site

Total Bronze Coins

Total Antioch

% Total Antioch Provincial Antioch

Syria

Antioch

863

772

89.5%

Syria

Apamea

13

8

61.5%

Syria

Hama

28

15

Syria

Seleucia Pieria

34

Southern Levant

Jerash

Syria

Palmyra

96

23

24%

7

7.3%

16

16.7%

Southern Levant

Paneas

10

2

20%

0

0%

2

20%

Cyprus

Paphos

12

2

16.7%

2

16.7%

0

0%

Fig. 5.17 The percentage represented by bronze Antioch coins minted c. 192–284 CE within individual excavations; numerical data listed in the table. The area of each pie chart is proportionate to the total quantity of period bronze finds at each site. Sites with less than eight total period finds or where only one Antioch coin appeared are excluded.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

242

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

Cyprus

Kourion

171

24

14%

24

14%

0

0%

Syria

Perrhe

8

1

12.5%

0

0%

1

12.5%

Syria

Dura Europos

7901

950 (15 uncertain)

12%

63

0.8%

872

11%

Syria

Arsameia

9

1

11.1%

0

0%

1

11.1%

Syria

Zeugma

129

8

6.2%

2

1.6%

6

4.7%

Syria

Berytus

74

3

4.1%

3

4.1%

0

0%

Anatolia

Çankırıkapı

63

1

1.6%

0

0%

1

1.6%

Balkans

Corinth

120

1

0.8%

1

0.8%

0

0%

Syria

Gindaros

3

3

n/a

0

n/a

3

n/a

Syria

Tell Rifa’at

3

2

n/a

0

n/a

2

n/a

Southern Levant

Si (Hauran)

1

1

n/a

0

n/a

1

n/a

Fig. 5.17 (cont.)

refer to the city by its Hellenistic nomenclature – Antioch on the Chrysoroas – perhaps the similarity in names encouraged use of the Syrian Antioch’s coins; the local inhabitants may have overlooked any differences, such as the southern coins’ tendency to abbreviate the civic ethnic and lack of the SC.170 Gerasa also gained colonial status during the Severan period, so the Syrian Antiochians’ celebration of the same title on their coins would not be out of place.171 Furthermore, earlier coins of Gerasa dating from the reign of Marcus Aurelius through Elagabalus are actually described as depicting an “Antiochene type” (i.e., Eutychides’s turreted Tyche seated on rocks with a river god at her feet).172 All of these similarities could have encouraged the use of the Antiochene coins within this site, even if not long-term circulation.173 Even so, much like the “provincial” coins on Cyprus, without more evidence, these finds from Jerash represent an anomaly. As for Syria itself, it is difficult to argue for the circulation of the revamped Antiochene civic coins with the same privilege as the earlier provincial issues of the Roman imperial age. Among sites where these

170 171 172 173

See Spijkerman 1978, 156; Cohen 2006, 248–249. See BMC Galatia, lxxxix. Welles 1938, 437–438, no. 179; Andrade 2013, 168. Lichtenberger 2008, 142–143. See Spijkerman 1978, 160–165, nos. 11, 22, 32. Ball (2000, 191) suggests that Jerash sought to model itself after Antioch. Later excavations of the macellum at Jerash did not yield any identifiable Antioch coins until 270 CE (see Marot 1998, 394).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antiochians and Their Bronze Coins

issues appear, the median is only 14%. That said, their distribution pattern does seem to align well with the range established for their contemporary, third-century CE “provincial” Antioch issues. Such leveling out between the two categories of coin is not surprising if these “provincial” SC coins served as a denomination of the reformed civic coins. When both types of coins are considered together, Antioch bronze coins circulated unevenly across Syria (Figs. 5.17 and 5.18). Outside of Antioch itself, the sites with the strongest representation of Antioch bronze coins are Hama and Apamea. Together, the civic and “provincial” Antioch bronzes collectively represent over 50% of the finds, with the remainder of the assemblages composed of assorted coins mainly from mints across Syria. Neither community issued coins for this period and, as I discussed in the previous chapter, both had a history of relying upon provincial Antioch issues. Given the increased representation of the Antiochians’ civic coins with the ethnic prominently displayed, it is possible that both southern Orontes communities accepted the reforms in the Antiochene bronze as equivalent to the previous provincial system and earlier issues perhaps still circulating. At these sites, no division existed between the so-called civic and provincial issues minted at Antioch.

Fig. 5.18 The relative percentages represented by Antioch bronze coins minted c. 192–284 CE within Syrian sites. Sites with less than eight total period finds excluded.

This degree of use was clearly not universal. Whether near Antioch – such as Seleucia Pieria – or now removed to a different Syrian province – such as Berytus – individual Syrian communities had access to other coins. For at least Seleucia Pieria, Palmyra, Berytus, and Tyre, their own civic coins represent the

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

243

244

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

majority of the assemblage (Fig. 5.18).174 At Zeugma, finds of the city’s own civic coins (26 coins) are matched by issues from nearby Edessa (32 coins). This is not to say that coins from Antioch’s mint could not circulate within some of these communities; the presence of Antiochene coins at Seleucia Pieria and Palmyra suggests otherwise.175 On the whole, however, as in the previous period, the site assemblages suggest a preference for one’s own coinage with neighboring cities more minimally represented.176 On the furthest outskirts of the province, Antiochene bronze became part of the regional mix and represented neither the majority nor the minority. At Dura, out of the more than eighty mints represented by at least a single bronze coin, the 950 Antiochene coins represent the fourth most common group of bronze finds after Edessa (2,929 coins) and Nisibis (1,326 coins) in Mesopotamia, and Amasia in Pontus (1,053 coins) (Fig. 5.19).177 In addition to these site finds, bronze Antioch coins also appear in six, mostly bronze hoards from the city, which were buried during the third century CE (Fig. 5.20).178 As only a small portion of these coins was found in explicitly military contexts, the pattern of the finds is best interpreted as a reflection of the general currency circulating within the city and the region.179 174

175

176

177

178

179

At Berytus, 36 (48.6%) of the 74 coin finds were civic issues from Berytus. At Tyre, 6 of the 12 coins are from Tyre’s own citizens. At Seleucia Pieria, 22 (64.7%) of the 34 period finds are from the citizens of Seleucia Pieria. At Palmyra, 42 of the 96 coins are civic coins from Palmyra. At Palmyra, of the seventeen different mints represented in the period assemblage, the sixteen civic coins minted at Antioch are the second most common bronze find after Palmyra’s own civic issues. At Seleucia Pieria, the representation of provincial and civic Antioch coin finds is fairly evenly matched, but together represent only 25% of the 34 bronze finds. For a comparison to Berytus, see Sawaya 2005, 147–151; Sawaya 2011, 380. For Berytus and Tyre, only provincial coins had appeared for previous periods and now, even these issues are poorly represented among the third-century CE finds. At Zeugma, twenty-seven different mints are represented within the assemblage; Antioch coin finds are only the fifth most common bronze. For Dura, Zeugma, and Palmyra, both the civic and provincial issues minted at Antioch faced steady competition from Mesopotamian mints like Carrhae and Edessa. On the establishment and operation of these mints, see Hill 1916, 149–168. Dura’s neighboring settlement of Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad and the fort of Ain Sinu further to the northeast yield a similar profile, minus Antioch bronze. Given that most of the finds from Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad were discovered in the citadel, Oettel (2005) attributes the mixture of coins to military activity. However, the military could have made use of what already circulated in the region. Based upon Bellinger’s (1949b, 165–187) opaque descriptions, most of these Antioch coins appear to be reformed civic issues. Pollard 2000, 195–197. The assemblages at Dura and Zeugma even include coins from Pontic and Peloponnesian cities (see Çizmeli-Öğün 2000, 208–213; Butcher 2004, 178–179). They may have arrived through the military, but clearly a variety of coins were available to the inhabitants, soldiers, and traders at each place. See also Clark (1978, 256–263), who uses an interaction model of Dura’s coin finds to argue that Antioch remained an important trading partner with the eastern city until its destruction.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Fig. 5.19 The origins of bronze coins minted c. 192–284 CE and excavated at Dura Europos. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of coins from each location. Coins without a definable mint are excluded. Only cities with over 100 coins labeled. For details, see Bellinger 1949b.

245

246

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

Find Territory Syria

Dura Europos

Burial Date c. 253 CE

Syria

Dura Europos

c. 251 CE

Syria Syria

Dura Europos Dura Europos

c. 250 CE c. 249 CE

Syria

Dura Europos

c. 249 CE

Syria

Dura Europos

c. 244 CE

Find Site

Contents

Antioch Coins

% Antioch

Reference

260 bronze 2821 (4 silver; 2817 bronze) 202 bronze 159 bronze 74 (1 silver; 73 bronze) 21 bronze

41 (29 civic)

15.8%

Hoard 12

358 (312 civic)

12.7%

Hoards 8/9

24 (23 civic) 14 (14 civic)

11.9% 8.8%

Hoard 14 Hoard 15

6 (4 civic)

6.8%

Hoard 16

1 (1 civic)

4.8%

Hoard 22

Fig. 5.20 The presence of Antioch coins within bronze hoards from Dura Europos. All references are to Bellinger 1949b, 165–187.

The astounding raw counts of coins for this period are the result of Dura’s destruction c. 256 CE, and it is important to keep in mind that Antioch’s civic issues still only represent around 12% overall of the city’s third-century CE assemblage. This is far less than the provincial SC coins of the previous period. The hoards reinforce this pattern as, regardless of find spot and total assemblage size, bronze Antioch coins only make up between 4% to 16% of the predominately third-century CE coins. As such, the communities on the outskirts did not exclusively rely upon Antiochene issues, even though the consistent, albeit smaller percentages of Antiochene coins testify to their continued movement and probable circulation.180 The total evidence of denomination, overlap in iconography, marks of a civic authority, and new circulation pattern cumulatively support the conclusion that the Antiochians had now assumed responsibility for all bronze production within their city, if they had not already in the second century CE (see Chapter 4). As the imperial government focused on the production of debased precious metal coins and increased their demands on the region, it was up to the Antiochians to see to their own internal needs and external obligations. It is difficult to argue that they received any extra civic support for this production, regardless of previous Roman involvement with the provincial bronze and the current presence of the imperial administration within the city. Rather, the Antiochians were not unlike other civic bodies in the region issuing their own coins in response to the pressure of the times.

Antiochians and the Provincial Silver Coins This shifting of responsibility and financial burdens onto the Antiochians may have partially extended to the production of provincial tetradrachms 180

Compare with Butcher (2013, 7–8, 19), who wonders if there was a “Euphratensian background pattern” in which Antioch and Mesopotamian coins had equal value.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antiochians and the Provincial Silver Coins

as well, though the evidence is more inconclusive and in need of further support. At the beginning of this period during the reigns of Pescennius Niger and Septimius Severus, the Antioch mint struck silver tetradrachms alongside the imperial issues of aurei and denarii. The mints of Laodicea and Tyre joined Antioch in this provincial production, at least under Septimius.181 A recent study by H. Gitler and M. Ponting on the chemical composition of these silver issues discovered that the metal for the provincial coins varied from year to year, whereas the makeup of the Syrian denarii was far more consistent across time.182 The authors reasoned that the difference was a result of which authority supplied the metal: denarii were sourced directly by the imperial government, while the tetradrachms were dependent on annual, local liturgies by rotating individuals within the city. The study only examined the Roman silver coinage during the reign of Septimius, so it is uncertain whether this was a change in policy from what had occurred previously for the provincial silver issues.183 If Gitler and Ponting are correct in their explanation, this could be a possible indication of burdens shifted onto the civic population.

Fig. 5.21 Silver tetradrachm minted at Antioch with Caracalla/eagle and delta-epsilon (Classical Numismatic Group, LLC; www.cngcoins.com).

Soon after, the number of tetradrachm-producing cities spiked during the reign of Caracalla. The attribution of the coins to specific mints is heavily debated, but A. R. Bellinger proposed that as many as twentyeight different eastern communities took on the responsibility.184 Most of the coins are of the eagle type like what had long been minted at Antioch (Fig. 5.21), but the different mints are presumably indicated by various

181 182 183 184

See Butcher 2004, 94–95, 109–116; McAlee 2007, 260–267. Gitler and Ponting 2007, 381; compare with Butcher and Ponting 2014, 681–682. See Harl 1987, 26–30. For the full list, see Bellinger 1940. See also Gitler 2012, 494, on the opening of mints in the southern Levant during this period.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

247

248

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

symbols added to the reverse such as a lion, shrine, bull, or murex shell.185 This expansion of operations was also accompanied by a drastic lowering of the tetradrachms’ silver content by almost 30%.186 Many scholars attribute this diffusion in minting operations to an effort by the imperial administration to make sure that the soldiers stationed in the Middle East were paid: rather than ship coins from the West or deputize civic mints to strike imperial forms, the emperor ensured that local production of provincial silver could cover their salary.187 Kenneth Harl offered a slight variation to this explanation: as newly debased imperial silver entered the eastern empire via campaigning soldiers, the Roman government needed to remint already-circulating provincial silver on a lower standard lest these coins challenge the value of the imperial issues.188 In order to quicken the process, multiple Syrian cities were entrusted with the recall and reissue of the provincial silver. The debasement under Caracalla does appear to have altered the circulating currency, albeit in a less dramatic fashion than the reforms of Nero almost two centuries earlier. Butcher noted in his study of the hoard assemblages buried during this period that most contained predominately coins of the Severans and later.189 Of the twenty-three, third-century CE hoards examined within the current study that contain more than one tetradrachm minted at Antioch, sixteen of the hoards contain Antioch issues which almost entirely date to the Severan period and later (see Table A3.5).190 The remaining seven hoards, which do not reveal a watershed, may demonstrate that the Severan reforms were less effective than the changes under Nero or that the hoarders were selective in the coins they saved.191 185

186

187 188 190

191

See Bellinger 1940, nos. 103, 152, 162, 295; on additional types, see no. 93. Some of the coins also bear letters abbreviating the mint (see no. 128). Compare with Butcher 2004, 112–116. The attribution of mints based upon these symbols is not definite. Walker 1978, 83–96. The exact percentages provided by Walker may be suspect (e.g., Butcher 2004, 109, 202–204; McAlee 2007, 17, 265). E.g., Bellinger 1940, 6–7; Hamburger 1954, 204–205; Kadman 1967, 317; Katsari 2011, 188. 189 Harl 1996, 138. Butcher 2004, 182–185. Bellinger 1949b, Hoards nos. 1–4, 6–7, 10, 19–20; Bland 1990–1991; Bland 1991b, no. 2, Hoards I and III; Kramer 2004, 72–73; Kiwan 2012, 126–127; CH 7.157. Three of the hoards from the southern Levant contain Antioch tetradrachms dating as far back as Nero’s reign (Hamburger 1954; Spijkerman 1958–1959; CH 2.243), which may mean that Caracalla’s reforms were slow to spread. Then again, at least one hoard from Antioch also contained tetradrachms dating from Nero through Trebonianus Gallus, which may mean that the reforms were not as effective as those under Nero (see Metcalf 1975, 92, n. 16). Conversely, it is equally possible that the hoarders – especially whoever was responsible for the Tel Kalak hoard near Amman – exercised selectivity in which coins to save (see Metcalf 1975, 90). Hoards from the East with tetradrachms predating Caracalla’s reforms include two hoards from Dura Europos (Bellinger 1949b, Hoard nos. 5 and 18), one hoard from Nineveh (Hill

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antiochians and the Provincial Silver Coins

Whatever the impetus or the intention of the imperial government behind this diffusion in mints, we must consider the implications for the civic bodies. Bellinger suggested that this production was a boon to the cities, because the emperor shared the profits of minting a debased coin with local communities and granted them the “dignity” of striking silver for imperial purposes.192 In contrast, other scholars have deemed this extension a tax or a liturgy imposed upon the cities by the imperial authority in order to help fund the Parthian war.193 The individual cities did not simply strike the coins; they also bore the financial burdens associated with their issue. Because of these costs, many cities were looped into production in order to lighten the financial toll on any one community. The unique symbols accompanying the traditional eagle were therefore not mere signs of civic pride, but rather a way for each community to make sure their contribution was counted and their obligation was fulfilled. The cities were not minting their own civic silver, but rather bending to increasing imperial pressure. Such an explanation could indeed account for the temporary addition of the delta-epsilon to the silver tetradrachms minted at Antioch, which was noted earlier (Fig. 5.21).194 As Baldus proposed, the letters may stand for a measure passed by the civic body.195 In the case of the silver tetradrachms, it could indicate an extraordinary decree or agreement to fund the issue with municipal resources of the Antiochians. This experiment begun under Caracalla did not last long as by the reign of Elagabalus, only a few mints were still producing tetradrachms in Syria.196 The attribution of tetradrachms for the later Severans is not firm, with Laodicea possibly serving as the major mint instead of Antioch.197 Production of tetradrachms only picked up at Antioch beginning with the reign of Gordian III and stretching to its end under Trebonianus Gallus. The fineness of these coins appears to have continued to drop with a few failed attempts to return to at least the quality under Caracalla. Whether the Antiochians continued to bear the financial cost of these coins in this last phase is uncertain due to the inconclusive nature of the

192 193 194 197

1931), and a poorly published hoard from Hatra (CH 3.92). Although buried in the third century CE, three of these hoards contain Antioch tetradrachms dating as early as the first century BCE. Such a chronological range may be due to generational savings, location on a major trade route, or even Roman activity in the region, but the hoards all strongly support the continuous spread of Antioch tetradrachms into Parthian territory (see Slocum 1977, 37; Harl 1996, 301). Bellinger 1940, 6–7, 11; compare with Prieur and Prieur 2000, xxv. See Baldus 1973, 441–447; Crawford 1975, 566; Prieur and Prieur 2000, xxv, 47. 195 196 See McAlee 2007, nos. 681–682. Baldus 1973, 446–448. See Baldus 1973, 447. See Butcher 2004, 116–118, 202–204; McAlee 2007, 285–286.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

249

250

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

evidence. Antioch’s mint simultaneously struck radiates for the imperial government, but this production could have been kept separate from the provincial silver as perhaps was the case under Septimius Severus. The rather conservative iconography of imperial portrait and Tyrian eagle offers no straightforward clues, as only what is clutched in the bird’s talons (e.g., club, animal thigh, stars and crescent, branches, and even a running ram) may have had local implications.198 The addition of SC to the silver just like the late civic bronzes could indicate Antiochene involvement, but this must remain speculation without a better understanding of the letters’ significance.199 (a)

(b)

Fig. 5.22 Silver tetradrachms minted at Antioch during the third century CE: (a) Philip I/eagle with ANTIOXIA and SC; (b) Trajan Decius/eagle with SC (ANS 1944.100.59152; 1944.100.59253. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

Complicating matters further is the temporary legend ANTIOXIA on the later tetradrachms minted during the reigns of Philip I and Philip II (Fig. 5.22).200 Rather than a civic ethnic, this legend has been interpreted as a mintmark to distinguish these issues from Antioch-styled tetradrachms likely struck at Rome.201 The involvement of the western mint with eastern issues could indicate the imperial government’s support for the provincial silver, but the details of the arrangement are unclear. The overall distribution of the silver offers little additional help in deciphering the authority overseeing these coins. Despite the ways the tetradrachms may have served the imperial state, they continued to circulate regionally as before.202 At least twenty-four hoards buried during this period contained one or more tetradrachms minted at Antioch (Table A3.5). Their distribution map reveals that all of these hoards were found within Syria, the easternmost edge of Cilicia, the southern Levant, and a bit

198 199 201 202

McAlee 2007 has a comprehensive catalog of all the types; for the ram, see nos. 872–885. 200 See also Butcher 1988a, 67–68. McAlee 2007, 324–325. Baldus 1969, 11; Bland 2012, 527. Previous scholars expressed frustration at the lack of patterns in the circulation of the later tetradrachms of Caracalla and Elagabalus (e.g., Bellinger 1940, 14–16; Butcher 2004, 182).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antiochians and the Provincial Silver Coins

further to the east (Fig. 5.23).203 Stray finds of tetradrachms recovered from excavation reinforce this consistent regional representation.204 Only two Antioch tetradrachms were found further to the west: one coin from Athens and one coin from Bath which D. R. Walker labeled “mere freaks, probably souvenirs brought back by travellers.”205

Fig. 5.23 Hoards with tetradrachms minted at Antioch, which were buried c. 192–284 CE. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of Antioch finds within each hoard. For details, see Table A3.5.

The Antioch mint clearly retained its importance in the third century CE, as Antioch tetradrachms still represent the majority within most of the hoards in which they appear, with an overall median of 53% (Fig. 5.24). The only 203

204

205

Two problematic hoards reinforce this pattern. De Saulcy (1868, 350–369) records a hoard from Jaffa in the southern Levant with 159 silver coins (55 tetradrachms; 104 radiates), of which the majority (c. 73%) originated at Antioch. Kiwan (2012, 123–124) also records a hoard from Al-Atna in Syria with 450 silver coins, but only 85 coins were studied (79 tetradrachms; 4 denarii). In this hoard, at least 25 of the coins were minted at Antioch. Site finds of stray tetradrachms dating to the late second and third centuries CE include: Antioch (14 coins); Zeugma (5); Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad (3); Samaria-Sebaste (92); Athens (1); Berytus (1); Jerash (1); Paneas (1); Bath (1); Tille (1); Tell Rifa’at (1); Ain Sinu (2). The high quantity of single Antioch tetradrachms at Dura Europos (1,947 coins) is due to the sudden destruction of the site, rather than hoarding. Walker 1988, 289.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

251

252

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

Fig. 5.24 The percentages represented by Antioch tetradrachms within individual hoards buried c. 192–284 CE. Hoards with less than thirty-two total coins, without a known find spot, or where only one Antioch tetradrachm appeared are excluded. For details, see Table A3.5.

noticeable change is that the assemblage now regularly includes a mixture of coins from Laodicea, Hierapolis, Edessa, and Carrhae among other cities. In some hoards, as many as twenty-five or more mints from greater Syria, Mesopotamia, and the southern Levant are now represented within an individual hoard. Additionally, these tetradrachms were at times hoarded next to other silver denominations, including both denarii and eventually radiates.206 This is the case whether the hoards originated from the south, north, or east. Again, though, this is an effect of Caracalla’s reforms on the circulating currency of the region and does not tell us anything certain about whether a civic or imperial body consistently oversaw the production of these tetradrachms.

The End of Provincial and Civic Coins Whether the Antiochians took over the provincial silver production in addition to absorbing the provincial bronze into their civic issues, by the 206

E.g., Bellinger 1949b, Hoards nos. 1, 2, 5, 10; Spijkerman 1958–1959; Kramer 2004, 72–73.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

The End of Provincial and Civic Coins

Fig. 5.25 A comparison of the percentages represented by Antioch tetradrachms and radiates within hoards buried c. 192–284 CE. Each line or circle represents an individual hoard. The hoards are arranged by burial date. Hoards with less than sixteen total coins are excluded.

mid-third century CE, it was no longer feasible, necessary, or – as some scholars suggest – even permitted for any civic community to issue their own coins.207 Generally speaking, this termination of civic coin production extended not only from the overall crisis in the monetary system and the continuous debasement of the silver coins flooding the empire but also from broader changes in the operations of civic communities and the overall movement toward a more uniform currency dictated by the imperial state (see Chapter 6). One by one, issuing cities and regional authorities, some of which had minted even before the entrance of the Romans, stopped producing their own coins.208 At Antioch, the minting of local and provincial bronze and silver coins ended between 250 CE and 260 CE, whereas production of imperial radiates continued.209 The hoard evidence provides one reflection of the absorption of Antioch and the wider region into a new imperial system. A comparison of the burial dates of Antioch-minted tetradrachms and radiates indicates the point at which imperial coinage overtook Syria’s tetradrachms in the mid-third century CE (Fig. 5.25). Both types of coinage had served the purposes of 207

208 209

Compare Butcher 1988, 20–22; Potter 1990, 32–35; Whittow 1990, 7–8; Harl 1996, 136–157; Katsari 2003, 44–46; Corbier 2005, 348; Reece 2006, 117, 120–121. See the questions posed by Metcalf 2002, 175–180. The last provincial mint – Alexandria – closed in 296 CE; see Harl 1987, 95. For the last issue, see McAlee 2007, 390–391.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

253

254

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

Mint Site/ Territory

Total Coins

% Assemblage

Antioch Provincial Antioch Civic Antioch Imperial Rome Other Syria Cilicia Anatolia East Cappadocia Italy Southern Levant Balkans Egypt

433 353 278 57 51 14 12 12 6 4 4 4 1

35.2% 28.7% 22.6% 4.6% 4.1% 1.1% 1% 1% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1%

Total Coins

1229

100%

Fig. 5.26 Coins minted c. 192–284 CE and excavated at Antioch, according to mint/territory of origin. This total includes both bronze and silver coins, but not fifty-nine unattributed radiates. NB: Waagé’s catalog combines the imperial Roman coin finds at Seleucia Pieria and Antioch together.

the imperial Roman state, but per Gresham’s Law, the higher levels of silver still in the tetradrachms could not survive against the debased radiates. The hoard evidence indicates that this was a rapid transition, as the last issue of provincial tetradrachms minted at Antioch was fairly recent under Trebonianus Gallus.210 The currency system of the eastern Roman Empire was quickly streamlining from a provincial system into an imperial system. The assemblage of coin finds excavated at Antioch offers another perspective of this change. Once again, coins produced within Antioch remain the majority of the finds dating to the late second and third centuries CE, but two important differences appear. Initially evident is how the period assemblage reveals a widening representation of the surrounding communities and regions of the eastern Mediterranean (Figs. 5.26 and 5.27). Although the quantities are still low, which may indicate the local government continued to regulate what constituted currency within city limits, the wide spread of eastern cities represented in the assemblage is undeniable and reflects the boom in civic minting to meet imperial pressure.

210

McAlee 2007, 380–384.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Fig. 5.27 The origins of non-Antioch coins minted c. 192–284 CE and excavated at Antioch. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of finds from each location. Coins without a definable mint are excluded.

255

256

Imperial Creations (192–284 CE)

The other important difference in the assemblage at Antioch is the new and steady presence of imperial Roman radiates minted locally at Antioch and at mints far west of Syria. Some allowance must be made for the fact that D. Waagé inexplicably combined all imperial Roman coin finds from excavations at Antioch with those discovered at Seleucia Pieria. Even so, the 278 radiates struck at Antioch are now joined not only by coins from the mint at Rome (15 denarii and 33 radiates) but also by radiates produced at imperial mints in Cyzicus (9 coins), Heraclea (1 coin), Milan (4 coins), and possibly Siscia (1 coin). These issues testify to the fact that the Roman imperial currency system had already begun the transition to a more uniform body of circulating coins, of which Antioch was a part. The third-century CE assemblage thereby manifests the beginning of the end of multiple trends that had defined the numismatics of the city and the region for centuries. Most importantly, it contributes to the overall impression that the financial autonomy of the Antiochians was nearing its end.211

Conclusion As piecemeal and at times cryptic as the evidence is for Antioch during the third century CE, enough remains to characterize both the ascendancy of the city under imperial Roman attention and the situation of the Antiochians. The Antiochians clearly did not collapse as a civic body or assimilate wholly into an imperial city during this period. Rather, both the numismatic material and texts of the period testify to their persistent municipal operations. The coins especially provide physical evidence of the enduring operations and agency of the Antiochians, even to the point of absorbing what had arguably been a provincial Roman issue and contributing to the continued minting of the silver tetradrachms. From an iconographical standpoint, the bronzes especially expose the persistent expression of the civic identity of the Antiochians, from their celebration of their newly gained status as colonia to elements of their shared heritage and mythology. The civic community of the Antiochians was active during this period and continued to behave in civic ways: celebrating itself, offering support to different powers, and jockeying for a regional position of privilege. Such a positive reading, however, must take care not to minimize the tumultuous context of the period and the pressure it placed upon the city, 211

See Whittow 1990, 7–9.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Conclusion

its resources, and its people. As many previous studies have stated, Antioch and the region clearly held increasing importance to the Roman imperial state with the emperors often in residence. The city also was a target for other internal and external governmental powers. All forced changes and new responsibilities and obligations upon Antioch, its inhabitants, and the operations of the civic government. The coins make this manifest in the new types produced, in the consolidation and modification of existing coins, and ultimately in the cessation of local issues. When all the evidence is considered, it is difficult to claim that the Antiochians of the third century CE achieved the same degree of freedom and negotiation evident for citizens living under the earlier centuries of Roman rule. This imperial use of the city and its inhabitants conclusively changed the city and its horizons and set the citizens on the pathway to their greater centralization and integration into the Roman Empire. Bit by bit, Antioch was being molded into a capital city. Whether the Antiochians welcomed greater imperial control and the potential financial or political benefits it might eventually bring, the evidence for the third century CE clearly exposes the crucible-like strain it wrought on the civic body.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

257

6

|

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

The people inhabiting the great Antioch in Syria – unable to bear the additional payments contrived daily by the tax collectors towards state tribute – rose up in protest. Shamefully pulling down the statues of the emperor and his female companion, they let loose speeches appropriate for what they were doing and yet not without eloquence and their habitual wit. And when the emperor – greatly agitated by their actions – threatened to impose a punishment equal to their actions, the boule – out of fear at the emperor’s anger – resolved to send out ambassadors, through whom the demos made their excuses. —Zosimus 4.41

In 387 CE, fear consumed the entire population of Antioch. According to the sermons of the resident preacher John Chrysostom, everyone was in hiding or had already fled, the forums were empty of men, and the whole city had descended into quiet.1 Rumors spread that the imperial state would not only plunder people’s possessions and throw their bodies into prison but also impose death sentences and destroy the city.2 As Chrysostom sought to encourage his congregation to pray for deliverance, everything rested on an embassy sent to the emperor Theodosius I to plead for mercy.3 The emperor was justifiably angry with the Antiochians.4 A few days earlier, the inhabitants of Antioch had received news of an impending imperial tax. The orator Libanius writes in his own eyewitness account that the population was already exhausted by recent years of famine and so a mixture of boule members and the city elite entreated the governor to reject the levy.5 Their outcry before the governor achieved nothing, and the current Christian bishop in the city – Flavianus – could not be found to 1 2 3 4

258

5

Chrys. Hom. de Stat. 13.2, see 2.1, 11.1–2, 12.3. See also Lib. Or. 19.56–61. Chrys. Hom. de Stat. 5.10, 13.3–6, 17.3. Lib. Or. 19.39 reveals similar fears. Chrys. Hom. de Stat. 3.4–5, 17.2. Both Chrys. Hom. de Stat. and Lib. Or. 19–23 provide firsthand accounts of the riot; see also Zos. 4.41. For a full discussion of this riot, see Browning 1952, 13–20; Downey 1961, 419–433; Kelly 1998, 154–155. Lib. Or. 19.25–31.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

intercede for the community. The people’s pleas escalated into anger. Contemporary accounts blame theatrical claques and at least one rabblerouser from Berytus for further provoking the gathering crowds.6 No one tried to prevent the situation from spiraling out of control, as the riotous crowd surrounded the governor’s house, set fire to another residence, and violently tore down and vandalized statues of the imperial family.7 Order returned only after the imperial officials stationed within the city stepped in with military force. Arrests of the worst perpetrators immediately followed with several individuals swiftly put to death. Unlike previous conflicts with the imperial state, the Antiochians had not simply backed the wrong contender for the throne; they had committed treason. Then the waiting began. The bishop Flavianus immediately embarked on an embassy to the emperor to beg for mercy for the people of Antioch.8 Meanwhile, the city was held under martial law, as the emperor dispatched two commissioners to investigate events. Members of the city council were rounded up and imprisoned for trial; monks from the surrounding territory journeyed into the city to plead on their behalf and for the sake of the Antiochians as a whole.9 The rhetoric of both Chrysostom and Libanius strives to make clear that the entire population of Antioch was not involved in the destruction, even though people’s inaction and spectating rendered them guilty by association.10 For at least the third time in Antioch’s history, the city as a whole lost its metropolis title.11 The Antiochians also endured the closure of their horse races, baths, and theater. To the citizens’ relief, these punishments were temporary. The imperial commission returned to Constantinople and recommended clemency. The emperor then restored all rights and privileges to the people. On the whole, this account bears many of the telltale marks of previous conflicts between the Antiochians and their imperial Roman overlord. A governor is present in the city. The emperor focuses upon Antioch. The Antiochians raise their voices in opposition. Public activities are canceled. The citizens lose their coveted status as metropolis. Yet neither Antioch nor the Antiochians had made it to the fourth century CE unchanged. The third-century CE crisis and the reestablishment of order under the Tetrarchy in 284 CE had irreversibly transformed the

6 7 9 10 11

The rhetorical strategies of the primary sources cloud their reliability; see French 1998, 468–484. 8 On the significance of this act, see Stewart 1999, 159–189. E.g., Chrys. Hom. de Stat. 21. Chrys. Hom. de Stat. 17.3–7; 18.3. E.g., Lib. Or. 19.31–32, 40; Chrys. Hom. de Stat. 2.10–12, 3.3, 5.10. Lib. Or. 20.6; Chrys. Hom. de Stat. 17.9–10.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

259

260

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

empire.12 Instead of a light system of governors with the major center at Rome, the imperial government controlled the entire Mediterranean and eastern empire through greater subdivision and oversight.13 Four emperors – two senior Augusti and two junior Caesares – now shared the power of the imperial seat. The boundaries of the empire were also subdivided into numerous smaller provinces organized into overarching administrative districts of dioceses and prefectures. Antioch became part of the greatly reduced province of Syria and the larger structure of the diocese known as Oriens, which included southeastern Anatolia, greater Syria, much of the southern Levant, and, until the mid-fourth century CE, Egypt and Libya.14 An increased number of military and civilian officials oversaw these districts, but the emperors also established their own imperial centers and courts in cities strategically located throughout the empire in addition to their major capitals of Rome and the newly formed Constantinople.15 Just as the last period had demonstrated, the emperor(s) could spend a significant amount of time moving around the empire. Civic communities like that of the Antiochians persisted in this new environment, continuing to function as an essential unit of the imperial administration and a central point for political, economic, and sociocultural activity.16 In the Middle East especially, populations grew, building continued, and public shows received funding throughout the early centuries of this period.17 Even so, the restructuring of the empire gradually transformed the operation of cities and the priorities of the elites.18 As imperial financial pressures and political oversight increased upon a city, municipal officials had less power and civic resources at their disposal, but were still expected to help raise taxes and meet the financial needs of the empire.19 Civic elites could avoid this uncomfortable position and receive an exemption from civic duties if they entered one of a plethora of imperial posts. These imperial positions could serve a local function but were subsidized by the imperial government. The appeal of holding civic office thereby decreased and led to less benefaction through municipal channels,

12 13 14 16 17

18 19

For a full bibliographic survey of this period, see Lavan 2006b, 3–40. Millar 1993, 176–177, 192–193; Kelly 1998, 163–183; Lo Cascio 2005, 170–183. 15 Butcher 2003, 85–87. Ward-Perkins 1998, 386, 389–390. See Garnsey and Whittaker 1998, 326–335; Loseby 2009, 139–155. See Liebeschuetz 1992, 9–10, 31–32; Ward-Perkins 1998, 406; Liebeschuetz 2001, 54–63, 203–220. Loseby 2009, 152; see Liebeschuetz 2001, 29–30, 104–124. Liebeschuetz 1992, 6–13, 26–30; Ward-Perkins 1998, 373–384; Carrié 2005, 281–309. For the effect of this transition on the topography of the city, see Lavan 2003, 317–321.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

greater manipulation by an informal oligarchy that could afford the office, and increasing intervention of the imperial government in the local life of cities. This change in emphasis did not occur immediately or evenly within the empire, but nevertheless represents a fundamental shift in the character and administration of a city. In light of this larger context of both imperial and civic states, the socalled “Riot of the Statues” at Antioch cannot be viewed through the same lens as centuries past. By this point, Antioch had undeniably become an imperial center and even capital again by hosting the provincial governor, the separate officials overseeing the entire diocese and military campaigns of the Middle East, and most importantly, the emperor himself in newly built imperial palaces.20 The protest and destruction of the imperial statues in such a capital was therefore an especially egregious act against the imperial Roman state. In fact, when the emperor restored Antioch’s status and full operations, Libanius declared in a rhetorical flourish that Theodosius became the founder and owner of the city.21 The frustration of the citizens so apparent within the account also takes on new significance when considering the general neutering of magistrates within the late Roman Empire. In his prominent work on fourth-century CE Antioch, J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz comments that the Riot of the Statues revealed the striking contrast between what the council was in theory liable for and the reality of its “helplessness.”22 Although the city’s magistrates would be responsible for collecting the imperially mandated tax, their protest about the citizens’ inability to pay was unheeded. These same civic councilors were equally powerless in stemming the fury that came from the crowds themselves. Even worse for these local magistrates, despite their ineffectiveness, they were still held accountable for the entire protest, because they were nominally obliged to maintain community order. Further complicating the late antique narrative is the addition of a new authority at work within Antioch: the Christian Church. Neither distinct nor completely intertwined with the civil authority, this body increasingly affected civic operations throughout the empire.23 The bishops exercised considerable authority in local activities and fulfilled some of the 20

21 22 23

Downey 1961, 318–323, 436; Liebeschuetz 1972, 110–118; Harries 2012, 282–283; Brands 2016, 8–15. Lib. Or. 20.41–43; see also Or. 16.13–15 on the power of the emperor over the city. Liebeschuetz 1972, 104. Ward-Perkins 1998, 392–403; Liebeschuetz 2001, 137–155; Lavan 2003, 324–325; Loseby 2009, 147–151.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

261

262

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

responsibilities neglected by the declining civic body. Other offices within church administration served as a legitimate career path and secondary means for individuals to avoid the pressure of civic offices. The Church, as a whole, became a munificent institution supporting not only its clergy and congregations but also the poor and widowed. State and private munificence also turned toward church building projects, which led to a Christian infusion into the urban landscape.24 These actions of church officials were not attempts to replace the state or city nor were they the only religious body at work within the urban center, but the Church did provide a second administrative structure and network for Antioch. It is therefore understandable that when the governor proved unresponsive, the Antiochians sought out the bishop Flavianus.25 Likewise, when the Antiochians were under threat by the emperor, they sent the bishop to plead their case. These three developments – weakened civic administration, highly involved imperial state, and concerned church officials – emerge over and over again in the rich literary corpus for late antique Antioch. Thanks to the narratives written by contemporary individuals like Libanius and John Chrysostom who knew Antioch well, modern scholars have been able to study thoroughly how the city and its inhabitants developed past the third-century CE crisis.26 Furthermore, archaeological excavation and survey have and continue to yield a wealth of material culture for further understanding this place and people.27 To repeat the metaphor from this book’s introduction, after centuries of chasing Antioch around corners and through crowds, we can finally catch the city. Given this wealth of evidence and research, I will not repeat in detail or even overwhelmingly challenge these established characterizations of late antique Antioch. Rather, my purpose in the following chapter is to create a bookend to the current study of Antioch’s authorities provided by the coin evidence. In no way did the Antiochians’ story end after the fourth and early fifth centuries CE, nor did the mint at Antioch diminish in importance.28 However, the red thread of the multiple political authorities making use of the city’s mint is finally lost to a streamlined Roman currency guaranteed throughout the empire by the imperial state. In this aspect, the operations of Antioch in some ways had come full circle from the city’s time under Seleucid control, when both its location served as a royal capital

24 26 27 28

25 Caseau 2001, 38–40. On festivals, see Sandwell 2004b, 44. See Sandwell 2004b, 47–48. E.g., Downey 1961; Liebeschuetz 1972. E.g., Kondoleon 2000; Casana 2004; Pamir 2014; Brands 2016; De Giorgi 2016. RIC VIII, 510.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Defining Antioch of Late Antiquity

and so much of its emerging civic administration met the needs of ever-present kings. At the same time, the late Roman Empire had its own idiosyncrasies and scope, which are worth teasing out in regard to how the civic administration and general populace adapted and how the imperial state continued to make use of Antioch. The following chapter therefore expands upon the three major developments within the late antique city of Antioch, with special attention to the evidence from the fourth century CE. Even though the Antiochians did not disappear in either their voice or identity, the abilities of the civic government were greatly curtailed by tremendous imperial oversight and the Christianization of both city and empire. The numismatic material supplies an especially strong visualization of this takeover in terms of the images projected and the vastly different currency system of which Antioch’s mint and population were now a part. All things considered, the city undeniably served the Roman state on multiple levels in profoundly “imperial” ways, thus finally transforming Antioch back into an imperial city. At the same time, the cultural and religious shift in the city gave new meaning to the Antiochians’ status as metropolis.

Defining Antioch of Late Antiquity From a chronological perspective, the fourth century CE reads as a series of unfortunate events and tense conflicts within Antioch.29 The century started on a low note with a strange account from 303 CE. According to Libanius, drunken soldiers stationed at Seleucia Pieria decided to mutiny by naming their commander Eugenius “emperor” and marching toward Antioch.30 The threatened Antiochians took up arms and defended their city, only to be punished bizarrely by the true emperor Diocletian for their actions. Whatever the emperor’s rationale for blaming the Antiochians, this was only the start of imperial punishment as that same year, Diocletian instituted an empire-wide persecution of the Christians.31 This persecution continued even after Diocletian abdicated in 305 CE and the civil wars of the rival tetrarchs ensued. In fact, Antioch’s Christian inhabitants suffered for over a decade until an imperial edict by the joint emperors Constantine and Licinius in 313 CE saved them from further martyrdom.32

29 30 32

For a detailed study of this entire period, see Downey 1961, 317–449. 31 Lib. Or. 11.158–162, 19.45–46, 20.18–20. Euseb. Hist. eccl. 8.2, 8.12–13. Millar 1993, 204–205.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

263

264

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

While the imperial reprieve from religious antagonism secured a newfound social peace for the Christian community, internal feuding over theological issues ate away at the leadership of Antioch’s church for nearly five decades.33 Additionally, natural disasters plagued the citizens, including several famines and an earthquake in 341 CE.34 The renewed threat of invasion from the Sasanian Persians to the east – who were only temporarily calmed by a peace treaty in 298 CE – caused more anxiety within the city.35 During this time, Constantius II – the son of Constantine and emperor by 337 CE – regularly settled within Antioch with his campaigning army, which put additional strain on the city’s resources.36 When Constantius II was recalled to the West around 350 CE, he appointed his nephew Gallus as Caesar to watch over the eastern empire. Unfortunately for the Antiochians, Gallus proved to be a poor manager of both the city and the imperial bureaucracy and further entangled Antioch in conflict.37 Both natural and manmade difficulties continued to afflict Antioch during the second half of the fourth century CE.38 When the newly appointed emperor Julian came to the city in 362 CE for preparations against the Persians, he famously tussled with the Antiochians over his policies for them.39 He was so angered by their behavior that he penned an invective against them entitled the Misopogon, or “The Beard Hater.” Shortly after Julian left the city, another earthquake rattled Antioch in 365 CE followed by several periods of famine. Wars against the Sasanian Empire continued calling the emperors and their entourage to the city, which gave the Antiochians direct access to vent their frustration either through conspiracy against the emperor or protest like the Riot of the Statues against Theodosius I in 387 CE. As in centuries past, fourth-century CE Antioch was marked by civic protest, religious conflict, imperial intervention, and at least the threat of outside invasion. This brief survey of the tumultuous fourth century CE is only part of the story of late antique Antioch, as this period is also often described as a time of economic and demographic boom for the city and its region.40 Population estimates continue to range as high as 500,000 for the city and its surrounding territory, while Libanius vaguely asserts that the city 33 34 35 37 39 40

See Shepardson 2014. On the evidence for food shortages at Antioch, see Liebeschuetz 1972, 126–132. 36 Downey 1961, 353–363. See Isaac 1990, 437–438. 38 Amm. Marc. 14.1–7; see also Thompson 1943, 302–315. Downey 1961, 380–433. Amm. Marc. 22.14; see Gleason 1986, 106–119. E.g., Lib. Or. 11.166, 253, 257–258; Amm. Marc. 14.8.8; Downey 1961, 375. See also Whittow 1990, 13–20.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Defining Antioch of Late Antiquity

was inferior to only two cities (presumably Rome and Constantinople), on par with three others (possibly Alexandria, Trier, and Milan), and exalted over the rest.41 This population regularly spilled out past the territorial limits of the city into further parts of the empire.42 Despite periodic famine and earthquake, archaeological survey also reveals an increase in settlement as well as continuing land exploitation throughout this century.43 The archaeological evidence for the urban core, as surveyed recently by Gunnar Brands, reveals tremendous rebuilding and expansion of the urban layout after the damage of the third century CE and the natural disasters that followed.44 Finely constructed houses and villas excavated at Daphne equally speak to the continuing investment in lavish domestic architecture.45 In his famous panegyric, Libanius constantly celebrates the wealth of people continuing to flock to Antioch for business, education, relaxation, or opportunity.46 Luke Lavan’s survey of the function of the agora in the fourth and fifth centuries CE reveals an abundance of political, social, commercial, and religious activity swirling at the heart of the city.47 Greco-Roman culture also remained at Antioch in the form of the Olympic games, city festivals, and the schools at which Libanius and other intellectuals taught.48 The themes depicted through the mosaics of this period likewise testify to the continued cultural awareness and celebration of Greek and Roman literature and culture.49 Clearly, neither the transition to Late Antiquity nor the tragedies and conflicts of the fourth century CE ended the economic, cultural, or intellectual prominence of Antioch. Libanius would also have us believe in an optimistic and idyllic vision of the local civic administration as described in his eleventh oration. Unlike other cities, Antioch’s curiales or civic councilors willingly take up their responsibility for the people and eagerly contend for liturgies to put on shows, maintain the baths, and engage in public works and other 41

42 43

44 46 47 48 49

Lib. Or. 20.40; see also Or. 11.270, 15.59. On the identification of the cities, compare with Auson. Ordo nob. urb. 1–7. On population sizes, compare Liebeschuetz 1972, 41, 92–100; Bowersock, Brown, and Grabar 1999, 304. De Giorgi 2016, 180–181. Casana 2004, 102–125; De Giorgi 2016, 88–96, 127–128. For the wider economic context of Syria and the late antique empire, see Decker 2001, 69–86; Ward-Perkins 2001, 167–178. 45 Brands 2016. E.g., Ellis 2004; Pamir and Sezgin 2016. Lib. Or. 11.163–174. On the different classes of people at Antioch, see Liebeschuetz 1972, 39–92. Lavan 2006a, 196–199, 203, 206–234. Liebeschuetz 1972, 136–140, 224–232; Norman 2000; Cribiore 2007; Sandwell 2007, 35, 42–43. Levi 1947; Huskinson 2004; Gutzwiller and Çelik 2012; Liebeschuetz 2015, 380–385.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

265

266

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

management activities.50 Libanius even comments that because of their rhetorical ability and wise counsel against measures of the imperial state, these magistrates have earned for Antioch the right to still be called metropolis. However grandiose Libanius’s rhetoric may be, other sources do corroborate the voices and actions of these magistrates, for both good and bad. For example, in addition to their protest preceding the Riot of the Statues, Ammianus Marcellinus recounts the civic leaders of Antioch pushing back against the deeds of Gallus in 354 CE.51 On the more negative side is Julian’s invective against the Antiochians after they mocked his appearance, behavior, and policies in the city. The satire contains several passages directed against Antioch’s top civic officials, which describe their numbers, their elections by the people, their profiting off their fellow citizens, and their negligence to rectify the problems in the city, even after meeting with the emperor.52 As seen in the Riot of the Statues and elsewhere, these same councilors were also held liable for any civic disturbance that threatened imperial interests or security.53

Antioch of the Late Antique State Despite these examples and Libanius’s best efforts to convince us that the polis was functioning as before, the intensified involvement and intervention of both the imperial state and Christian Church within Antioch reshaped the city and its institutions. From the secular side of things, Antioch had undeniably returned to its status as a city in service to the imperial government. While it had previously played host to the Roman governor and – in more recent decades – the emperor himself, now multiple officers and branches of the imperial government mingled among and increasingly over Antioch’s population. The governor of Syria resided in the city, as did the comes Orientis, the civil official managing the entire diocese of Oriens.54 According to Liebeschuetz’s study, both officers

50 51 52 53

54

Lib. Or. 11.133–156, 187. See Harries 2012, 285–287. Amm. Marc. 14.7; see also Cabouret 2004, 125–132. E.g., Julian. Mis. 350, 354–356, 367–369. E.g., the revolt of Eugenius; Lib. Or. 11.158–162, 19.45–46, 20.18–20; Euseb. Hist. eccl. 8.6.8. See also Downey 1961, 330; Liebeschuetz 1972, 103. Downey 1961, 378; Ward-Perkins 1998, 376. On provincial capitals of this period, see Lavan 2006b, 25–29.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of the Late Antique State

“interfered constantly in every aspect of local government.”55 For example, the comes Orientis once interceded on behalf of the Antiochians when their refusal to drop the price of grain angered the emperor.56 Alongside the governor and comes Orientis, a third civilian official – the praetorian prefect of the eastern empire – was stationed at Antioch periodically to preside over law cases and other matters of order.57 If that was not enough, former imperial officials – both military and civilian – settled into Antioch after their tenure was over and took an active role in the city.58 Additionally, Antioch remained a launching point for military activity against the eastern frontier.59 In his orations, Libanius talks about the Persians blaming Antioch especially because the city served as a base of operations against them.60 The Roman military did have an arms factory at Antioch with the magister militum per orientum regularly in residence within the city.61 This important general offered both protection and a strong arm to various members of the city, while also extracting payment and supplies from the inhabitants.62 As long as the threat from the Sasanian Empire remained, Antioch acted as a regular capital of the Romans, bringing campaigning emperors into its walls. Diocletian built a palace there, while later emperors and their Caesars used the city as a headquarters both temporarily and long-term.63 Although Antioch’s central preeminence would eventually be eclipsed by Constantinople, for now it was an equal to its other imperial peers.64 We can also look to the coins to find evidence of the city’s imperial renovation. Following the collapse of imperial and provincial coinage in the third century CE, Diocletian’s monetary reforms beginning in the 290s CE introduced a revamped system to the whole Roman Empire that focused almost entirely on issues of the imperial government.65 As in years past, these coins fulfilled the purposes of the imperial state first and foremost, in addition to facilitating monetary exchanges among the empire’s

55 58 59 60 61 62 63

64

65

56 57 Liebeschuetz 1972, 257; see also 110–114. Amm. Marc. 14.7. Harries 2012, 288. E.g., Lib. Or. 11.133–149, 194. See Liebeschuetz 1972, 119–185; Ward-Perkins 1998, 378. See Isaac 1990, 270–277. Lib. Or. 11.177–179. On these campaigns, see Dodgeon and Lieu 1991. Downey 1961, 324; Isaac 1998, 455–456; Pollard 2000, 89–91. Liebeschuetz 1972, 114–118. See Lib. Or. 11.180; Downey 1961, 318–323, 362–368, 380–396, 399–403; Millar 1993, 175; Brands 2016, 7–15. See Liebeschuetz 1972, 3–4; Harries 2012, 274. In Expositio totius mundi 23 – a fourth-century CE geographical/economic survey prone to hyperbole – Antioch is called “a royal city . . . where the lord of the entire world sits.” Reece 2006, 117–118; Abdy 2012b, 584–590; Estiot 2012, 548–550.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

267

268

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

population.66 Antioch’s mint was now selected to be a regular part of the exclusive network, which struck official currency in vast quantities (Fig. 6.1).67 It subsequently remained in this service to the Roman state throughout the fourth and fifth centuries CE, as various emperors after Diocletian continued in their efforts to address inflation, control the quality and weight of the coins, and maintain public trust.68 Although production ebbed and flowed across this period, Antioch’s contribution is estimated to have been considerable as marks upon the coins suggest that as many as fifteen officinae – or workshops – were in operation at one time within the city.69

Fig. 6.1 Mints of the late Roman imperial government, c. 300–450 CE.

In striking contrast to the majority of previous coins minted at Antioch under the Romans, the standardized coins of the late antique period – whether in gold, silver, or billon and base metal – celebrate only the virtues of the imperial state and empire and not the histories and identities of individual cities and provinces.70 This uniformity in coinage did not mean that the workshop(s) at Antioch always minted the exact same coins at the precise time as other mints of the empire; still, the coins consistently 66 67

68

69 70

See RIC IX, xv; Burnett 1977b, 4–5; Banaji 2001, 60–61; Corbier 2005, 327–392. See Hendy 1985, 382; Evans 2006, 42. On production estimates, e.g., van Heesch 2011, 322–323; Guest 2012, 105–107. See also the caveats of Reece 2003, 140–141. In addition to RIC VI–X, see Harl 1996, 148–179; Abdy 2012b, 584–600; Moorhead 2012, 601–626. E.g., RIC VI, 610; Fulford 1978, 88. Butcher 2003, 220–221; Reece 2003, 140–142. See also RIC VI, 88.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of the Late Antique State

reflected the common mission and values of the imperial Roman state. When Diocletian introduced his reformed billon and eventually base metal coin known as the nummus, the coins at Antioch bore the emperor’s portrait on the obverse and the genius of the Roman people and the Latin legend GENIO POPULI ROMANI (“to the spirit of the Roman people”) on the reverse (Fig. 6.2).71 At least in this case, this type was produced simultaneously at mints throughout the empire and symbolized the strength and unity of the Roman state.72 Other coins of this period from Antioch celebrated the virtus (“valor”) and concordia (“unity”) of the military, as well as individual members of the Tetrarchy and their patron gods.73 While stylistic markers help place the coins at the mint in Antioch, the only explicit identification of the city itself is the mint mark ANT which appears on the reverse of many, but not all of the coins.74 This was not a celebration of the city, but rather a control mark for the overarching government.75 Over the years following Diocletian’s reign, as the late imperial Roman state developed, so too did the coins minted at Antioch. Constantine’s new gold coin called the solidus came to the city in 324 CE after he defeated his rival Licinius in the eastern empire and became sole emperor.76 Understandably, many of these new coins lauded his tremendous success with the phrase VICTORIA CONSTANTINI AVG and an actual depiction of Victory holding a trophy and palm branch (Fig. 6.2).77 Later around 348 CE, the denominational makeover of the nummus was accompanied by the prominent statement FEL(ICIUM) TEMP(ORUM) REPARATIO or the “renewal of happy times” in celebration of the eleven-hundredth anniversary of Rome’s foundation (Fig. 6.2).78 One of the types featured a chi-rho flying on a banner to indicate the Christianization of the empire, while the phoenix held by the emperor symbolized renewal of the empire.79

71

72 73 75 76

77

78 79

RIC VI, 618; see Corbier 2005, 335–337. Earlier scholars inaccurately refer to this heavily debased coin as a follis, but this term better applies to purses of these coins; see Abdy 2012b, 587. The RIC volumes periodically gather these coins under the heading of aes. RIC VI, 700; Alföldi 1973, 424; Harl 1987, 96. 74 RIC VI, 596–644. On patron gods, see Odahl 2004, 55. RIC VI, 6–7. Reece 2006, 116; see van Heesch 2012, 165–167. RIC VII, 47, 692–696. On the everyday use and function of gold currency in the late antique period, see Banaji 2001, 39–57, 76–78; Banaji 2016, 112–121. E.g., RIC VII, 695, no. 98; see 61–64. See Bruun 1962, 23, 29–34; Odahl 2004, 249; Hebblewhite 2017, 44–46. E.g., RIC VIII, 521–524. See Mattingly 1933, 182–202; Abdy 2012b, 595–597. See RIC VIII, 34–39.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

269

270

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

(a) (b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

Fig. 6.2 Roman imperial coins minted at Antioch c. 284–450 CE: (a) Bronze coin of Diocletian/standing genius; (b) bronze coin of Maximinus II/Virtus; (c) solidus of Constantine/Victory; (d) bronze coin of Constans/emperor in galley holding a phoenix and banner with a chi-rho; (e) bronze coin of Julian/bull; (f ) solidus of Jovian/ Constantinopolis and Roma; (g) bronze coin of Theodosius II/cross in wreath (ANS 1984.146.621; 1944.100.4450; 1967.153.47; 1944.100.22349; 1984.146.576; 1944.100.22358; 1944.100.54838. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

Over a decade later in the 360s CE, Julian’s reform of the base coinage bucked contemporary trends by featuring a bull on the reverse (Fig. 6.2).80 Both ancient and modern writers have variously interpreted the bull as a symbol of the emperor or a reference to his pagan practices and belief in a non-Christian god.81 Whatever Julian’s intentions with this type, after his death, the mint at Antioch returned to more traditional imperial themes of the late antique empire such as Victory, a conquering emperor, vota or 80 81

E.g., RIC VIII, 46–47, 531–532. E.g., Socrates, Hist. eccl. 3.17; Harl 1987, 96; Woods 2000, 157–169; Tougher 2004, 327–330; Abdy 2012b, 597–598.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of the Late Antique State

271

vows for his successful reign, and personifications of the capitals, Roma and Constantinopolis.82 By the fifth century CE, Antioch was also minting coins with other explicit Christian symbols like a cross (Fig. 6.2).83 Once again, these types were not exclusive to Antioch, but appeared elsewhere in the empire at other imperial mints. Such iconographical ubiquity was a far cry from the civic and provincial issues produced in the city during centuries past. Further testimony of these coins’ imperial nature is provided by their broad westward distribution and circulation. As single bronze and base metal coin finds and over seventy hoards demonstrate (Figs. 6.3 and 6.4; Table A3.8), imperial coins minted at Antioch at last traversed the wide expanse of the late Roman Empire to regions as far away as Spain and Britain. The occasional Antioch coin even appears along the coast of North Africa. Although these deposits include a few pre- and post-reform radiates, the majority of the Antioch coins are nummi and the various subdivisions of the base metal.

Fig. 6.3 Excavations with finds of Roman imperial coins minted at Antioch c. 284–450 CE. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of Antioch coins at each location. For details, see Fig. 6.6.

This westward movement of the coins minted at Antioch was not dependent upon either their intrinsic value or always the direct purposes of the imperial state; instead, their guarantee by the imperial government rendered them legal tender and free to move across the wide expanse of the greater Mediterranean. Some of the western finds of base metal coins minted at Antioch were definitely due to military activity – especially those

82

RIC IX, 272–295; RIC X, 42–60.

83

RIC X, 41, 275.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

272

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

Fig. 6.4 Hoards with bronze and billon Roman imperial coins minted at Antioch, which were buried c. 284–450 CE. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of Antioch coins within each hoard. For details, see Table A3.8.

along the northern frontier – but commercial activity and the movement of people through the empire also contributed to their spread.84 J. P. C. Kent has argued that trade links helped to connect the eastern empire to the West during this period.85 According to his survey of bronze circulation during the late antique period, more than 22% of coin finds in the Iberian Peninsula originated from the eastern Mediterranean; eastern coin finds in Roman Africa register even higher. Not only did these territories lack a mint following the transfer of the workshop at Carthage in the early fourth century CE and thus had a need for “foreign” coins, but they were also well connected to the eastern empire through sea routes.86 Scholarly consensus 84

85

On the role of trade, see Kienast 1962. Hoards expressly related to military activity: Dunaújváros (Hungary); Svištov (Bulgaria); Pantelimon (Romania); Jupa (Romania). 86 RIC VIII, 93. On the transfer of the mint at Carthage, see Hendy 1985, 289.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of the Late Antique State

further states that fourth-century CE coins continued to circulate well into the fifth century, giving these eastern coins plenty of time to move west through natural channels.87 From this bird’s-eye view of the finds, it is therefore safe to conclude that the western distribution pattern first seen in the later third century CE with the regular minting of imperial Roman radiates at Antioch was solidified in the fourth and fifth centuries. The days of narrow or restricted circulation were long over, and there can be no doubt about who ultimately controlled the mint in the city.88 Now, the single authority of the Roman state guaranteed the coins across the empire and encouraged a greater numismatic exchange and integration of the coins struck at Antioch than ever before.89 Even the territorial division of the empire under the tetrarchs does not seem to have had a great effect on how the coins moved. It bears underlining how dramatically different this westward distribution is compared to the original direction of royal coins minted at Antioch under the Seleucid kings (e.g., Figs. 2.8 and 2.11). In Late Antiquity, Antioch-minted coins did continue to move further east along the military frontier as Roman soldiers battled the Persians and trade continued between the Romans and peoples far to the east of their empire.90 The overwhelming pattern, however, is of Antioch-minted coins spread to the west. Although Roman control over Antioch should in no way be doubted for previous centuries, the visualization of the late antique coin finds distinctly reveals the western imperial currency system and the even larger political system of which the city was a part. The horizons of Antioch had certainly changed since the Hellenistic period. As important as this wide western spread of imperial Roman coins struck at Antioch is, the fact that the strongest representation of these finds concentrates within the eastern empire equally speaks to Roman state policies at work within the city and region. When the percentage represented by Antioch coins in each assemblage is mapped – minus single finds and non-statistically representative assemblages – these predominately 87

88 89 90

E.g., Butcher 2001–2002, 97–98; Bijovsky 2012b, 55, 75–77; Guest 2012, 120; Moorhead 2012, 623. On imperial officials of the late antique mints, see Burnett 1977b, 1–2; Reece 2006, 116. See Butcher 2004, 260–261. Several gold and base metal coins minted at Antioch and dated to the fourth century CE were found within excavation sites and hoards in western Georgia (see Dundua 2008, 309–316). A highly worn bronze hoard recovered at Kish (Mesopotamia) contained at least one fourth- or fifth-century CE coin from Antioch (Milne 1934, 132–134). See also Prawdzic-Golemberski and Metcalf 1963, 83–92. On trade and the movement of coins past imperial borders, see Harl 1996, 307–312.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

273

274

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

base metal coins of the fourth and early fifth centuries CE clearly pool within the eastern Mediterranean (Figs. 6.5 and 6.6). Their expanse is slightly broader than the distribution of the radiates of the previous period; coins minted at Antioch now appear consistently within parts of Anatolia and Egypt, where provincial coin production finally ceased at the end of the third century CE.91 Even so, Antioch coins are still not evenly distributed across the empire either among site finds or hoards.

Fig. 6.5 The percentages represented by Antioch coins within individual hoards buried c. 284–450 CE. Hoards with less than thirty-two total coins, without a known find spot, where only one Antioch coin appeared, or where Antioch coins represent less than 1% are excluded. For details, see Table A3.8.

This impression of the eastern pooling of Antioch coins is confirmed by graphs of the data from both excavation sites and hoards (Figs. 6.7 and 6.8). The slight irregularity apparent between the two types of finds is partially due to the poor and uneven preservation of the coins, as well as the comparative dearth of hoard reports from the Middle East; the pattern is thus subject to improvement with future recovery and publication.92 Still, 91 92

See Corbier 2005, 347. See King and Spaer 1977, 64; Noeske 2000, 267–268, 278; Bijovsky 2012b, 60, 153–156. Every attempt was made to exclude hoards that were not published or studied fully, but many of the reports acknowledged that a large portion of the coins were in too poor of a state to be identified. For future work, Oxford’s CHRE will prove to be an immensely important resource for expanding our understanding of the eastern empire.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of the Late Antique State

275

Region

Excavation Site

Total Coins

Antioch Coins

% Antioch

Syria

Gindaros

17

14

82.4%

Syria

Apamea

393

320

81.4%

Syria

Antioch/Seleucia Pieria

2941

1970

67%

Syria

Tell Rifa’at

21

14

66.7%

Cyprus

Paphos

28

14

50%

Syria

Hama

85

41

48.2%

Southern Levant

Samaria-Sebaste

30

14

46.7%

Syria

Palmyra

83

37

44.6%

Southern Levant

Pella

112

49

43.8%

Syria

Berytus

486

207

42.6%

Southern Levant

Paneas

67

28

41.8%

Southern Levant

Jerash

252

104

41.3%

Cilicia

Gözlü Kule/Tarsus

23

9

39.1%

Southern Levant

Qiryat Sefer

21

8

38.1%

Cilicia

Elaiussa Sebaste

48

15

31.3%

Cyprus

Kourion

437

136

31.1%

Southern Levant

Caesarea Maritima

400

123

30.8%

Southern Levant

Jaffa

56

15

26.8%

Anatolia

Side

173

32

18.5%

Egypt

Alexandria

211

33

15.6%

Fig. 6.6 The percentages represented by Antioch coins minted c. 284–450 CE within individual excavations; numerical data listed in the table. Sites with less than seventeen total period finds, where only one Antioch coin appears, or where Antioch coins represent less than 1% are excluded. The total amount of coins from Karanis is elevated due to the exorbitant amount of provincial coins dated to the end of the third century CE. When these unusual finds are excluded, the representation of Antioch coins fits with the regional pattern. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

276

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

Anatolia

Andriake

25

3

12%

Anatolia

Niksar

26

3

11.5%

Anatolia

Sagalassos

249

28

11.2%

Anatolia

Hierapolis

205

21

10.2%

Anatolia

Troy

83

8

9.6%

Anatolia

Sardis

2029

158

7.8%

Western Europe

Ordona

51

3

5.9%

Anatolia

Ephesus

52

3

5.8%

Balkans

Athens

5393

302

5.6%

Africa

Sabratha

18

1

5.6%

Western Europe

Cosa

37

2

5.4%

Anatolia

Pergamum

19

1

5.3%

Western Europe

Segobriga

61

3

4.9%

Balkans

Histria

116

5

4.3%

Balkans

Corinth

1341

50

3.7%

Western Europe

Idanha-a-Velha

198

7

3.5%

Western Europe

Conimbriga

1631

56

3.4%

Egypt

Karanis

13081 (675 imperial)

123

0.9% (18.2%)

Balkans

Nicopolis ad Istrum

186

1

0.5%

Western Europe

Vindonissa

1186

1+

0.1%

Syria

Perrhe

16

16

n/a

Southern Levant

Tel Jezreel

16

2

n/a

Syria

Tyre

13

7

n/a

Africa

Cyrene

9

1

n/a

Syria

Zeugma

8

6

n/a

Southern Levant

Horvat ’Eleq

8

2

n/a

Syria

Jebel Khalid

6

5

n/a

Syria

Tille

6

4

n/a

Syria

Tell el Hajj

6

3

n/a

Southern Levant

Nessana

6

2

n/a

East

Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad

5

3

n/a

Syria

Ras Shamra

4

4

n/a

Southern Levant

Tel Beth-Shean

3

2

n/a

Fig. 6.6 (cont.)

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of the Late Antique State

Fig. 6.7 A comparison of the percentages represented by Antioch coins minted c. 284–450 CE, according to region of excavation. Each line represents an individual excavation site. Sites with less than seventeen total period finds are excluded. For details, see Fig. 6.6.

even the existing body of evidence reveals not only the divide between the eastern and western Roman Empire but also how the percentages of Antioch coins decrease in almost concentric circles outside the immediate territory of the mint. Imperial coins minted at Antioch achieve their highest representation among hoards and as single excavation finds within the traditional region of Syria (range: 37–82.4%; median: 43.6%).93 The territories around this nucleus present just slightly lower percentages: Cilicia and Cyprus (range: 31–50%; median: 35%) and the southern Levant (range: 5–46.7%; median: 22.6%).94 With the exception of two late hoards of radiates from Ankara and Antioch Pisidia, finds of Antioch coins dip even lower within Anatolia (range: 5–35%; median: 11.5%) and Egypt (range: 6–24%; median: 11%).95 By far the poorest representation of Antioch coins comes from the Balkans and Danube region (range: less than 1–9%; median: 1.2%) and regions of the western empire, including North Africa and Europe (range: less than 1–11%; median: 1%).96 Such 93 94

95

96

Compare with Noeske 2000, 272–281. For the connections between Cyprus and Antioch, see Gordon 2012, 301–302. For Cilicia, see Polosa 2010, 178. For the southern Levant, Bijovsky (2012b, 60–61) notes a contraction in the representation of Antioch coins from the fourth to fifth centuries CE. On coin circulation generally in Egypt, see Milne 1920; Ford 2000; Noeske 2000. On western Anatolia, see Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 93–124; Evans 2013. On the Balkans and Danube, see Duncan 1993, 169; Guest 2012.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

277

278

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

Fig. 6.8 A comparison of the percentages represented by Antioch coins minted c. 284–450 CE, according to region of hoard discovery. Each line represents an individual hoard. Hoards with less than thirty-two total coins are excluded. For details, see Table A3.8.

concentricity is strikingly different from the distribution of pre-reform radiates studied last chapter (see Figs. 5.6 and 5.7), where the immediate region surrounding Syria revealed much higher percentages. Although far rarer as finds and thus limiting discussion, silver and gold coins minted at Antioch also seem to reflect a similar regionalization. Too few coins of precious metal appeared within excavation sites to evaluate, but almost thirty hoards of the period contained gold and silver produced at Antioch during the fourth and early fifth centuries CE (Table A3.9).97 In raw count, finds of these coins stretch from Egypt – where they had never appeared before – and Anatolia – where they were far rarer after Antiochus III lost this portion of his empire – to almost unprecedented clusters in western regions like Britain and the Netherlands (Fig. 6.9); some of these latter hoards even extend beyond the territorial limits of the empire. The coins produced at Antioch were undoubtedly moving far away from their original mint, spurred on through trade and military subsidies, tributes, and payments from the Roman government to their own citizens and allies.98 Once again, though, when the percentages represented by gold or silver minted at Antioch are examined without 97 98

One gold coin was excavated both at Caesarea Maritima and Nessana. See Banaji 2001, 76–78; Moorhead 2012, 601–626.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

(a)

(b)

Fig. 6.9 Hoards with gold and silver minted at Antioch, which were buried c. 284–450 CE. The top map (a) shows the distribution according to the raw count; each circle is proportionate to the quantity of Antioch coins within each hoard. The bottom map (b) shows the distribution according to percentage; hoards with less than twelve total coins are excluded. For details, see Table A3.9.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

280

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

Fig. 6.10 The distribution of base metal coins minted at Antioch (c. 284–450 CE) according to percentage within excavation sites of the eastern Mediterranean. Sites with less than seventeen total period finds or where only one Antioch coin appears are excluded. For details, see Fig. 6.6.

single finds or poor statistical assemblages, the strongest concentration appears in the eastern empire (Fig. 6.9).99 It takes little imagination to notice how finds of coins minted at Antioch – especially the base metal finds – strongly align with the boundaries of the diocese of Oriens (Fig. 6.10). As introduced earlier, this larger 99

Due to the smaller body of hoards, it is a bit more difficult to calculate the median. However, for western Europe and Africa, the median percentage of Antioch coin finds remains low at 3%. Excavators proposed that the hoard from Echt appearing to buck this trend was a direct payment to troops returning from the Middle East or related to imperial treasuries (see Roymans and Heeren 2015, 558).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of the Late Antique State

administrative unit now included the former provinces of Syria, Cyprus, Cilicia, and those of the southern Levant; Egypt too had originally formed a part of this administrative district, before the emperor removed it to form the diocese of Aegyptus sometime between 365 CE and 385 CE.100 These boundaries clearly did not limit the movement of Antioch-minted imperial coins to the diocese alone, much as they did not restrict the travel of people or goods.101 Still, the newly drawn borders of the diocese represent a point of intensity for the circulation of coins from Antioch’s mint in a pattern noticeably different from centuries past. This distribution reflects how Antioch and its mint served an administrative district dictated and defined by the Roman imperial state. Following the decentralization of the production of imperial Roman coinage in the third century CE, scholars have suggested that the imperial administration strategically spread out mints in such a way that most dioceses acquired one or even two mints (Fig. 6.1).102 This policy supposedly ensured sufficient coin supplies to each district. In support of this conclusion, numerous previous reports have found that many sites received the majority of their coinage from the imperial mint nearest to them.103 For example, C. E. King found a clear difference between British hoards – which were dominated first by the mint at London, and then, following the mint’s closure, coins from Trier and Lyons – and Egyptian hoards – the majority of which came from the mint at Alexandria.104 Large shipments of coins could be directed elsewhere and exceptions certainly existed, but many coins appear to have been paid out near their own mints, thus demonstrating the effectiveness in how the imperial mints were distributed throughout the empire. The data for Antioch-minted coin finds support this conclusion, namely that much of the bronze and billon and possibly even the precious metal coins were first paid out into circulation within Syria for the benefit of the diocese of Oriens.105 Of course, even though the mint at Antioch may have been directed toward supplying coins to the diocese of Oriens, communities within the eastern empire were not limited to these issues alone. Rather, this territory had access to equally state-guaranteed coins minted at six other imperial 100 101 102 103 104 105

Butcher 2003, 85–87; Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005, 709–710, 712–713. See Kingsley and Decker 2001, 13. Hendy 1985, 289, 378–394; Corbier 2005, 348–351. Cf. King 1979, 82; Duncan 1993, 8. E.g., RIC VIII, 111; Bland 1988, 153–154; Duncan-Jones 1994, 172. King 1979, 82–84; see also King and Spaer 1977, 84. See Reece 2003, 144, for the difference between directed “supply” of coins and their undirected “arrival.”

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

281

282

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

Fig. 6.11 The percentages represented by finds of imperial Roman coins minted c. 284–450 CE within Levantine excavations according to mint/territory of origin. For clarity, sites with less than fifty total period finds are excluded.

eastern mints during the late Roman period (Fig. 6.1).106 From 294 CE, this included Alexandria in Egypt, Cyzicus and Nicomedia in Anatolia, and Heraclea and Thessalonica in the Balkans; Constantinople joined these ranks after 326 CE. Such a wealth of mints in the eastern empire meant that even in the diocese of Oriens, assemblages were prone to a broader mixture of coins than was possible previously under stronger denominational, provincial, and even civic limits. A graphical comparison of the best excavation assemblages from the diocese of Oriens and Egypt manifests this clearly in addition to reinforcing how a site’s distance from Antioch influenced the composition of finds (Fig. 6.11).107 After the high percentages of Antioch-minted coins within excavations at Apamea and Antioch, several of the sites in Syria, Phoenicia and northern portions of the southern Levant hover between 40% and 50%. This percentage range is comparable to previous introductions of Seleucid royal coins or Roman-backed provincial coins, though the balance is no longer made up of a heterogeneous mix of civic or provincial coins.108 For

106 107

Fulford 1978, 81. The hoard evidence for this period varied tremendously in publication, scope, and integrity, and so, beyond general conclusions, it was too difficult to render this data into a comparable chart according to mint. Noeske (2000, 278) records similar frustrations.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of the Late Antique State

the Syrian and Phoenician sites, mints of Anatolia and the Balkans – especially Constantinople – compose much of the remaining assemblage; for the southern Levant and Egypt, mints of Constantinople and Alexandria loom large. Even coins struck at western mints find their way into these sites. Just as the imperial coins minted at Antioch could circulate outward from Syria and the diocese of Oriens, coins from other mints could also enter the district. Hans-Christoph Noeske noticed a similar pattern in his detailed study of the late antique hoards and excavation assemblages from the dioceses of Oriens and neighboring Aegyptus.109 In addition to recording the general dominance of coins from eastern mints over western mints among the finds, Noeske found a noticeable decrease in the intensity of Antiochminted coins the further away a site was from Antioch. Quite similar to the data visualized above, Noeske’s study discovered the best representation of coins from the Syrian mint on sites within northern Syria. In Cyprus, finds of Antioch coins remained high, but were eventually superseded by issues from Constantinople arriving through maritime traffic. For the three provinces of Palaestina, Noeske noted the strongest presence of Antioch coins in the northern territories, but this quickly weakened in provinces to the south such as Arabia and Palaestina II with coins from Constantinople and Alexandria becoming more common. By Egypt, coins from the mint at Alexandria dominated the assemblages, even though issues struck at Antioch regularly circulated there too. This pattern affirms the theory that the Antioch mint was primarily directed in service to its region, after which the coins naturally mingled with the imperial issues of other mints. This summary of late antique coin finds – especially as they relate to the mint at Antioch – only begins to scratch the surface of coin supply, monetary systems, and the early Byzantine economy.110 Nevertheless, this coin evidence serves to underscore the larger role or purpose now served by the imperial city of Antioch for the late antique Roman Empire. Clearly the coins minted at Antioch were produced neither under the authority of the

108

109 110

Noeske (2000, 230–231) also ties Antioch and Apamea together in terms of the frequency of specific issues found on site. This further reinforces the conclusion that the two cities drew from the same supply of currency. Noeske 2000, 272–284. For more detailed and comprehensive numismatic studies of Late Antiquity, see Nicklas 1995; Noeske 2000. An international consortium of scholars is also collecting, visualizing, and examining coin finds of this later period through the digital project, FLAME: Framing the Late Antique and Early Medieval Economy.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

283

284

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

Antiochians, nor for purely Antiochene purposes. Gone too were the limits for even the provincial bronze and silver Roman issues once struck in the city. Rather, Antioch’s mint had been permanently transformed into a branch of the Roman state mint.111

Antioch of the Late Antique Antiochians If such intense imperial focus on Antioch unquestionably encroached upon the city’s space and operations in the late antique period, we must return to Libanius’s portrayal of the Antiochians and ask where this left the citizens and their civic institutions. Despite the panegyrist’s claims of business as usual, Liebeschuetz’s study of Libanius and other contemporary evidence details several important changes to this municipal body and structure beginning in the fourth century CE.112 He argues that city councilors no longer created policy, but simply kept Antioch functioning and fulfilled administrative obligations to the imperial state and the numerous officials in residence. For many of the elite within Antioch, the burdens and lack of rewards for civic service proved too onerous, so they fled for other offices within the imperial state. As the number of candidates shrank, what power remained under the city council fell to a narrow group of principales or executive councilors. These men could not fulfill all the needs and desires of the citizens, and so patronage ties of clients also began moving from these civic magistrates to more effective individuals in imperial service.113 Although caution must be taken in comparing Libanius’s abundant record of Antioch to the scattered texts of the earlier period, the impression nonetheless emerges of greater imperial oversight of the city and the lessening effectiveness of the civic institutions. The financial structure of the city also evolved under extensive imperial presence and oversight. Civic magistrates still performed the important role of collecting taxes, but a greater portion of the funds went to the imperial state.114 As to the claims in Libanius’s panegyric of the civic councilors willingly contending for liturgies investing in city maintenance and celebration, evidence does exist in his writings and elsewhere for the 111 112

113 114

Reece 2006, 118. Liebeschuetz 1972, 167–208, 257–262. See also Whittow 1990, 9–10; Liebeschuetz 1992, 12–14; Loseby 2009, 143–148. See also Schachner 2006, 78. Whittow 1990, 7–10; Ward-Perkins 1998, 375–377; Brandes and Haldon 2000, 143–145, 154–156.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of the Late Antique Antiochians

285

continuation of private munificence.115 However, much of this generosity appears to be through individuals with imperial ties and employment instead of the traditional civic magistrates.116 The Antiochians’ loss of their own civic issues in the transition to a uniform imperial currency system left a definite mark upon the city as well, as is demonstrated by a closer inspection of finds excavated at Antioch. While coins minted within the city remain the bulk of finds at 67% (Fig. 6.12), this percentage is noticeably lower than all previous periods. For centuries past, Antioch coins – regardless of authority – consistently account for over 80% of all site finds: 300–129 BCE (86.8%), 129–31 BCE (88.3%), 31 BCE–192 CE (82.5%), and 192–284 CE (86.5%). The balance of the late antique assemblage consists of coins largely originating from mints within Anatolia, the eastern Balkans, and Egypt, with a far smaller quantity coming from a variety of workshops within western Europe (Figs. 6.12 and 6.13).

Mint Site/Territory

Total Coins

% Assemblage

Antioch Anatolia Cyzicus Nicomedia Panticapaeum Uncertain Balkans Constantinople Heraclea Thessalonica Siscia Egypt Rome Western Europe Arles Lyons Trier Aquileia Ticinum Uncertain

1970 419 264 142 1 12 300 176 61 46 17 110 88 54 14 6 15 10 8 1

67% 14.2% 9% 4.8% 0% 0.4% 10.3% 6% 2.1% 1.6% 0.6% 3.7% 3% 1.8% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0%

Total Coins

2941

100%

Fig. 6.12 Coins minted c. 284–450 CE and excavated at Antioch, according to mint/territory of origin. This total includes both silver and bronze coins. The original publication listed the coins of Ticinum as from Tarraco/Tarragona (Waagé 1952, nos. 1365–1367, 1420–1421, 1522). 115 116

Lib. Or. 11.133–156; see also Or. 22.38. See Harl 1996, 267–269; Ward-Perkins 1998, 377–378. Although examining civic finances and building in regard to the western empire, the discussion in Underwood (2019, 186–190) is useful.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

286

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

Fig. 6.13 The origins of non-Antioch coins minted c. 284–450 CE and excavated at Antioch. Each circle is proportionate to the quantity of finds from each location. Coins without a definable mint are excluded.

For a city that had arguably monitored its currency in years past in favor of only select authorities, the late antique assemblage from Antioch is a striking departure. A far greater quantity of coins originates from outside of the Levant, and the overall pattern aligns much more closely to other regional assemblages than ever before (see Fig. 6.11). Part of this discrepancy could extend from the fact that the original excavation catalog assembled by D. Waagé combines together all imperial Roman coin finds excavated at Antioch and Seleucia Pieria. Then again, as the imperial Roman authority guaranteed all the coins, there was no need for the civic officials at Antioch to screen in favor of the issues struck at their own mint. By way of comparison, coins minted at Alexandria only account for c. 40% of the period finds excavated at Alexandria.117 All imperial money of the late Roman state was good within the city and empire, and there was certainly no advantage in using a coin with ANT or ALEA. The high percentage of Antioch-minted coinage found at Antioch is therefore more 117

This dataset was pulled from Picard et al. (2012), but the number is fairly close to Kent’s study: “The mint of Alexandria supplied no more than 35% of Egyptian currency” (RIC VIII, 95).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of the Late Antique Antiochians

likely to result from the proximity of the imperial state mint and a regular influx of issues directly into the city for local and state purposes, rather than any municipal screening policy.118 How the Antiochians responded to this change in agency is uncertain. At least some of the locals did remain involved in the production of coins within the city. The clearest evidence comes from the emperor Julian himself in his Misopogon, in which he berates the Antiochians for mocking his coins and for poorly choosing the local officials who oversaw minting.119 Literary and inscriptional evidence from elsewhere in the empire reveals that mint work was coordinated by several imperial officials, but fulfilled by multiple tiers of workers, many of whom, again, were likely locals.120 Still, a few citizens laboring at the mint was not the same as a civic body issuing its own coinage. R. Reece echoes the sentiments noted in previous chapters by labeling this transition “a blow to city pride” and a limiting of “general city rights to mint coinage.”121 Even so, he also acknowledges that while “good for prestige,” striking one’s own coins entailed financial cost for a municipal government. Given the overarching context, it is tempting to speculate that the magistrates welcomed removal of this expense – even if it may have represented another loss of autonomy regarding civic finances. The one exceptional moment that the Antiochians did issue their own base metal civic coins in the late antique period reinforces how much the system had changed for the civic authority. The coins bear no date, and so attributions have ranged from anywhere between 300 CE and 360 CE.122 Their types, however, leave little doubt as to whom they celebrated: instead of an imperial portrait on the obverse, the coins feature the Tyche of Antioch either as a bust or seated with the personification of the Orontes River swimming at her feet (Fig. 6.14).123 The style of the seated Tyche is slightly different than earlier incarnations, but the reference to the original Hellenistic statue of Eutychides and the later municipal coins is obvious. The bust of Tyche also recollects earlier civic issues from the city. One type is missing any additional legends, but most of the coins bear either the Latin phrase GENIO ANTIOCHENI (“to the genius/spirit of Antioch”) or GENIO CIVITATIS (“to the genius/spirit of the city”). On the reverse of 118

119 121 123

On the mechanisms or channels by which local populations would procure imperial coins, see Brandes and Haldon 2000, 152–153; Reece 2003, 142. On local and state uses of imperial coinage, see Banaji 2001, 56–65. 120 Julian. Mis. 355d, 368a. See RIC VI, 88–93, 105–108. See also RIC X, 23–26, 41. 122 Reece 2006, 117–118. See van Heesch 1993, 68–73. McAlee 2007, nos. 170–173. A fourth type is often included in this group, which features Jupiter on the throne with the legend IOVI CONSERVATORI.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

287

288

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

these coins, Apollo stands with a lyre in one hand and a bowl for a sacrificial libation in the other with the legend APOLLONI SANCTO (“to holy Apollo”); the reference to the god of the city’s suburb Daphne is hard to miss. These coins honor the core identity of the Antiochians, despite the fact that the writing is no longer in Greek.

Fig. 6.14 Civic bronze coin of the Antiochians minted at Antioch and dating to the late antique period (ANS 1944.100.6057. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society).

Given their unusual nature in an otherwise dearth of civic coins from the mint at Antioch, both the authority and the purpose behind these coins must be investigated past their iconography. Although the coins may have functioned as symbolic tokens, based upon their size and craft with multiple officinae, it is generally argued that they served as a fraction of the nummus; in other words, they worked as actual currency within the imperial system and in theory aligned to these denominations.124 The few attributed finds of the Antiochene issues to show up in this study originate primarily within Syria at sites near Antioch, which suggests their use was primarily local.125 However abnormal these issues were for Antioch in this period, they were not completely unique as comparable civic coins were minted for at least two other cities: Alexandria in Egypt and Nicomedia in Asia Minor.126 Like those from Antioch, these coins celebrate idiosyncratic features of both communities – the Nile river, Serapis, and crocodile/hippopotamus for Alexandria and Ceres/Demeter for Nicomedia – in addition to bearing the legend GENIO + city name and/or SANCTO + local deity. This uniformity juxtaposed with such local specificity indicates machinations beyond the Antiochene community alone.127 124 125

126 127

Van Heesch 1975, 101. Van Heesch (1993, 75) argues for a large output of these issues. Antioch/Seleucia Pieria: Waagé 1952, 131, no. 1668 (27 coins erroneously attributed to Julian); Gindaros: Kramer 2004, 76, no. 44 (one example); Apamea: Callu 1979, 21, nos. 111–113 (three examples); and Kourion in Cyprus: Cox 1959, no. 342 (one example). These civic-like coins from Antioch were also found within a hoard from eastern Turkey; see Dembski 1974, 113–116; Sellwood and Bendall 1976, 371–372. Van Heesch 1993, 66–68. E.g., Laffranchi (1907, 53) argued that the individual mints reverted to civic coins because of the confusion as to who was in charge.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of the Late Antique Antiochians

Different explanations have been offered, but the best proposal comes from Johan van Heesch, who tied the three sets of civic coins to a particular moment of imperial and civic engagement.128 Due to style, mintmarks, and die-axis, van Heesch convincingly argued that the coins are best dated to the Tetrarchy and, more specifically, to 312 CE right before Licinius defeated his rival Maximinus II for control of the eastern empire.129 This attribution is important, because van Heesch proposed that the coins are linked to Maximinus’s well-known promotion of pagan gods and persecution of the Christians while he ruled the eastern empire.130 Eusebius records several cities – Antioch and Nicomedia included – sending an embassy to the emperor for the purpose of expelling Christians from their city and territory.131 Van Heesch believed the coins were one of the outcomes of these embassies, as their promotion of local gods served as “anti-Christian propaganda” within the cities.132 In this scenario, the coins fulfilled imperial purposes and were permitted only through the emperor’s blessings. Emphasizing these administrative restrictions to the civic government at Antioch certainly does not mean that the political voices or independent spirit of the people themselves were quelled in the fourth century CE. Beyond the general tenor of the Misopogon chastising the snide behavior of the Antiochians toward him, Emperor Julian devotes a whole section (355b–357a) to specifically targeting the excessive freedom of the city and people. Even the Antiochians’ pack animals and women are given a long leash, lest they be taken for slaves. Donkeys and camels are allowed to travel through porticoes as they please; women are given freedom to govern themselves and raise children as they see fit. The Antiochians practice true freedom, comments Julian sarcastically, in that everyone is allowed to do and say what he, she, or it pleases. The satire certainly exaggerates for rhetorical effect, but Libanius’s oration in response also chastises the Antiochians for their attitude and behavior.133 Additionally, the Antiochians made great use of acclamations or “public expressions of opinion or faith by an assembled group.”134 Evidence for such acclamations in religious and political contexts predates the late antique period, but their importance as a means of communicating favor or disfavor to a political authority appears to have increased in the later

128 129 131 133

Van Heesch 1975, 91–108; van Heesch 1993, 65–75; see also Corbier 2005, 352. 130 See also Dieudonné 1907, 246–267; Schwartz 1982, 63–67. See Millar 1993, 200–204. 132 Euseb. Hist. eccl. 9.2–3, 9. See also Downey 1961, 332–334. Van Heesch 1993, 75. 134 Lib. Or. 16. Bowersock, Brown, and Grabar 1999, 274.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

289

290

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

period.135 Importantly, the Antiochians used the acclamation more often than not to speak directly to the governor, comes Orientis, or the emperor himself about matters of food supplies and prices, taxes, pardons, and many other issues.136 As the emperor Julian’s own encounter with the Antiochians testifies, these citizens in no way held back if angered and were even willing to ridicule the emperor’s appearance.137 Circumventing the civic councilors did not mean the Antiochians always got their way or were free from the consequences of expressing their opinion, but speaking directly en masse to representatives of the imperial state was a welcome alternative to an increasingly ineffective civic government.

Antioch of the Christian Church More changes came to Antioch and the Antiochians beyond those wielded by the Roman imperial administration. The hierarchy of the ascending Christian Church also molded and reframed the communities at Antioch and the greater empire. After the Antiochians’ failed petition to Maximinus II and the legalization of Christianity in 313 CE, the city became the seat of the metropolitan bishop of Syria and an episcopal see, exercising as much authority as Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem at the great councils.138 Councils were convened at Antioch, as in 341 CE when the Great Church begun by Constantine was dedicated with over ninety bishops present.139 Antioch’s theological school was equally influential throughout the Roman world and carried weight at great assemblies such as the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE.140 In addition to having an empire-wide presence, the Church at Antioch – in no way a monolithic institution – also expanded internally within the city and its territory.141 The archaeological record has preserved the remains of the many places where these congregations worshipped in addition to the objects and inscriptions proclaiming their faith.142 Both the material culture and the literary evidence make clear that rich, poor,

135 137 138 139 141

136 Roueché 1984, 181–188; Maxwell 2006, 56–59. Liebeschuetz 1972, 208–219. See Amm. Marc. 22.14; Julian. Mis. Harvey 2000, 42. On the geographical extent of Antioch’s power, see Hunt 1998, 246. 140 Malalas 13.325–326; Downey 1961, 358; Sandwell 2007, 38. Harvey 2000, 47–48. 142 See Sandwell 2007, 45–46. E.g., Vorderstrasse 2004; Mayer and Allen 2012.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch of the Christian Church

and middle class, as well as those of different ethnicities composed church membership.143 Church officials also took on more traditional roles of the municipal government and offered another alternative career path for ambitious individuals.144 By the fourth century CE, the Antiochene Church wielded some form of judicial authority and acted as civic representative, patron, and charitable organization.145 The monastic movement also grew around the city. These monks lived in the countryside, but as seen in the Riot of the Statues, they could intercede on behalf of the citizenship within Antioch.146 The Christian Church as an institution did not completely replace what had existed before at Antioch, at least not in the fourth century CE. From a religious standpoint, the Antiochians remained for the time a pluralistic religious body, retaining both Jewish and pagan beliefs even as Christianity spread throughout the empire.147 A strong Jewish presence continued to challenge Christian preaching, especially as these rituals may have led parishioners away from Christian congregations.148 Additionally, as Isabella Sandwell notes, both traditional Greco-Roman religious institutions and the emerging Christian Church locked the civic administration of the fourth century CE in a tense and ambivalent embrace.149 Even so, much like ivy crawling across the side of a building or the crosses and chi-rho that now appeared on the coins, the institutions of the Christian Church grew to surround and cover the traditional structures of the city. Perhaps most symbolic of this transformation are John Chrysostom’s comments on Antioch’s precious status as metropolis in his seventeenth Homily on the Statues.150 By this point, the title could equally reference the secular political position of a city in the imperial bureaucracy and/or its often-overlapping status as the “seat of a metropolitan bishop” who held a supervisory role within the Christian Church.151 Although Antioch wielded both a secular state and Christian religious primacy during this period, Chrysostom’s comments are clearly directed at the city’s political prominence within the late Roman government. Chrysostom first gives thanks for the emperor’s pardon of the city after the Riot of the Statues, but then wonders if the ruler’s punishments should 143

144 146 148 149 150

E.g., Trombley 2004, 59–85. See Chrys. Hom. de Stat. 19.2. For a dissection of Chrysostom’s congregation, see Maxwell 2006, 65–87. 145 Whittow 1990, 29. Liebeschuetz 1972, 239–242; Sandwell 2007, 17. 147 Chrys. Hom. de Stat. 17.3; see also Harvey 2000, 45–47. E.g., Soler 2006. See Chrys. Adv. Jud.; Meeks and Wilken 1978, 25–36. Sandwell 2004b, 44–45. See also Shepardson 2014; Liebeschuetz 2015, 341–357. 151 Chrys. Hom. de Stat. 17.9–10. See Bowersock, Brown, and Grabar 1999, 577.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

291

292

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

have grieved his congregation so (17.1, 9). The hippodrome and theater were dens of iniquity corrupting the people, and the removal of the title metropolis was more akin to a father trying to correct his rebellious children (17.10). After all, the dignity of the city is not dependent upon monumental buildings or a title like metropolis, but upon the virtue and piety of its citizens (17.10). Furthermore, what good can the title metropolis do for a family in distress, poverty, or sickness (17.13)? Chrysostom believes the Antiochians will regain their glory as metropolis eventually, but he calls upon his congregation not to place too much emphasis on that distinction (17.14). They should not seek to be a metropolis on earth, but one in heaven (17.10).152 Chrysostom’s comments are a far cry from the words of his contemporary Libanius, who greatly cared about the terrestrial significance of this title. As mentioned earlier, Libanius argues in his eleventh oration that Antioch had earned its lauded status as metropolis both because of its elevated position in the eastern empire as well as the magnificent behavior of its civic officials.153 In his other writings, it becomes equally clear that holding the status of metropolis brought glory to Antioch, while removal of this title was the greatest dishonor to the city. When the emperor punished the Antiochians after the Riot of the Statues, he shamed the city; when he restored the title, light penetrated the gloom of Antioch, and it was as if the dead had been restored to life.154 Elsewhere, Libanius references removal of Antioch’s title to indicate how much the citizens had been insulted. In Oration 33, while in the middle of a long rant against the Syrian governor Tisamenus, Libanius rages that the magistrate had so dishonored Antioch that the Antiochians would now be forced to renounce their city’s status as metropolis and become subordinate to another community.155 Given the passion with which Libanius spoke about Antioch’s earthly title of metropolis, what are we to make of Chrysostom’s comments? Although the perspective of only one Antiochian with his own agenda, Sandwell cautions against dismissing Chrysostom’s speech as mere rhetoric. Instead, sermons like this were part of a more global effort in the fourth century CE to reorient the Greek polis and people along Christian parameters. She writes, “That Chrysostom describes Antioch as a 152 155

153 154 Chrys. Hom. de Stat. 17.10. Lib. Or. 11.187. Lib. Or. 19.62, 20.6–8. Lib. Or. 33.22–23. Among other complaints, Libanius was angry that the Syrian governor Tisamenus went outside of the Antiochene population to the city of Beroea to fill the position of the Syriarch, the magistrate who produced shows for the seventeen Syrian cities of the assembly. On Tisamenus, see Downey 1961, 424; Slootjes 2006, 69, 97, 162–167. On the position of the Syriarch, see Liebeschuetz 1959, 113–126; Liebeschuetz 1972, 141–144.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Conclusion

‘metropolis’ and ‘mother-city’ in heaven shows this well in that he takes titles from the secular world but places them in a Christian context. He uses terms and language that his audience would have understood but transforms their meaning by placing them in a different frame of reference.”156 The status of metropolis was still important to the Antiochians at this late date and its removal still considered an effective punishment by the imperial state, but Chrysostom’s efforts to recast this civic title into the Christian realm provide an apt metaphor for the wider reorientation of Antioch. From a civic title, to a provincial celebration of the emperor, to a secular and religious administrative role, this final iteration of the status represents an aspiration for heavenly recognition.

Conclusion Already by the first century of the late antique period, Antioch had both progressed and regressed from its Hellenistic foundations. If we step back several centuries to when Antioch first ascended into the role of central city and capital for the Seleucid Empire, this meant that it housed royal palaces and acted as a platform for the king to lead the royal government. From the city, he received foreign powers, launched military expeditions, and wrestled with dynastic rivals for its control. Antioch likely also served as the base for regional administrators of the Seleucid Empire. Such kingly focus did not negate the emerging civic government of boule, demos, and magistrates, which interacted and even clashed with the royal overlords. Nevertheless, these citizens were often overshadowed by the Seleucid kings and their purposes for Antioch. Now in Late Antiquity, imperial and civic administration mingled more closely than ever before under the Romans, partially recalling the Seleucid governing structure. This did not mean that the civic body itself grew silent or docile; there can be no doubt that Antioch remained full of Antiochians – bold, assertive, and proud of their city – through the late antique period. Nevertheless, their urban metropolis transformed during this period as their civic administrators weakened and imperial officials as well as the Christian Church stepped into their place. The increasing powerlessness or ineffectiveness of the civic councilors went hand in hand with intensified imperial focus upon the city and the service its resources 156

Sandwell 2004b, 49–50.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

293

294

Imperial City (284–450 CE)

rendered to the larger bureaucracy. The late antique coins minted at Antioch visualize this change and reveal the degree to which the mint, city, and region were now a part of an empire-wide system. Furthermore, although other cultural elements of the Greek polis persisted, the character of the community was shifting as the Christian Church overgrew empire and city, people and administration. Processes started centuries ago with Antioch’s annexation into the Roman Empire had finally come to fruition as both city and citizen were integrated into and formalized within the western state at a whole new level. Antioch had finally returned to service as an imperial city, if not a capital, but with a decidedly late Roman character.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Conclusion

The history of Antioch is that of a Greek polis, founded on non-Greek soil, which absorbed much from its new environment. It was as a polis that Antioch played its destined role, and it was through the various stages of its development as a city – Hellenistic, East Roman, Byzantine, pagan, and then Christian – that Antioch achieved its characteristic stamp and made its own special contribution to the history of civilization. —Glanville Downey1

At the end of the introduction to his seminal history of Antioch, Glanville Downey recites the city’s noteworthy attributes.2 It was a cultural center for Greek civilization, even though a diverse population inhabited its walls. It was a center of political power and administration for the Seleucids and the Romans and rival to any of the other great cities of the Mediterranean. It served as a military center for campaigns, especially those directed further east. It acted as an ecclesiastical center for the Christian Church. It was strategically located along commercial routes. Despite the importance of any one of these aspects, Downey concludes his list with Antioch’s most significant characteristic: it was a Greek polis. Antioch took on many varied and vital roles throughout antiquity and often held a place of prominence for royal and imperial leaders, all of which helped to elevate the city over other urban settlements within the ancient world. Nevertheless, no matter how Antioch grew or was used, it was fundamentally a civic community of the Antiochians. It was this Antioch that weathered the transition from the Hellenistic to the Roman to the late antique periods. Unfortunately, it is also this aspect of Antioch that Downey and much of traditional scholarship have struggled to pull out of the historical record before the fourth century CE. Continuous occupation of the site as well as environmental factors have hidden much of the urban layout, especially the early layers. Constrained archaeological investigation – although 1

Downey 1961, 13.

2

Downey 1961, 3–13.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press

295

296

Conclusion

ongoing – has yet to unearth many of the civic buildings that serviced the community. An uneven textual record – which often reports on Antioch from the outside or from the perspective of the reigning government – further obscures the citizens and operations of this city. The unavoidable result has often been to portray Antioch’s administration predominately through the lens of provincial, royal, and imperial powers making use of this space while the civic administration becomes overshadowed. In turn, failure to unravel the complex dynamics and negotiations between internal and external forces within Antioch has granted the city a static prominence. Antioch has thus come down through the scholarship as “always a capital,” even though the city and its people endured several significant transitions of power from one empire or authority to the next. In contrast, this book has proposed that Antioch’s coin evidence provides one of the most consistent representatives of the civic community and serves as a dependable standard for measuring change for the city and its people over space and time. Both in their iconography and as found objects, the coins minted within the city speak to the policies, identities, connections, and horizons of the different political authorities – local, provincial, and royal/imperial – using Antioch. Mining this information from the numismatic evidence is not without its challenges, but when the coins are examined in relation to other textual and archaeological material for Antioch, they help reveal far more negotiation, oscillating importance, and civic agency than previous studies have attributed to either Antioch or its citizens. In other words, while royal and imperial leaders capitalized upon the amenities and rank of Antioch, the city was not always as important or important in the same way as scholarship commonly assumes. Individual chapters of this book closely analyze the different coins of Antioch and their related distribution patterns, but it is also worth considering these conclusions within a more comprehensive summary of the patterns inside and outside the city. A comparison of all the coins excavated within Antioch according to minting date and issuing authority provides one broad indicator of the change wrought within the city and to the Antiochians (Fig. 7.1). Coins produced within Antioch do consistently represent most of the finds, but this is not a simple reflection of the city’s static importance as a major ancient mint. Rather, subdividing the finds by issuing authority exposes the complexity of the different powers making use of Antioch and how their relationships may have evolved over time.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Conclusion

Fig. 7.1 Comparison of all coins excavated at Antioch according to period of issue and issuing authority. This graph excludes twenty-five bronze Antioch coins dated to the Roman imperial period, but of an uncertain authority.

For the period immediately after Antioch’s founding, the purposes of the royal Seleucid government dominated the city. The coins minted at Antioch and most other foreign coins found on site for this period were produced for the kings, which indicates that the Antiochians relied upon this currency rather than their own occasional civic issues. By the early first century BCE, the escalating breakdown in the Seleucid kings’ control over their empire and capital forced the Antiochians to begin regularly minting their own civic coins and take ownership over what currency circulated within their city. This practice remained unchanged through dynastic conflict, foreign usurpation, and the end of the Seleucid kings, which speaks to the continuity of some form of control by the Antiochians over their internal operations. Indeed, as other textual evidence demonstrates, it was the Antiochians who endured Antioch’s annexation by the Romans in 64 BCE. Given the laissez-faire attitude by the initial conquerors, it was also the Antiochians who maintained the operations of their city for much of the rest of the century. Beginning in the first century CE, the more active involvement of the Roman government at Antioch and in the Middle East had a mixed effect on the coin assemblage. The Antiochians continued minting their own civic coins out of necessity and as a by-product of their persistent agency, even as they now shaped their design with specific nods to Roman officials and emperors. The Antiochians also continued to regulate the currency

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press

297

298

Conclusion

circulating within city walls, showing a clear preference for their own coins over those of neighboring cities. At the same time, the citizens were no longer left to their own devices, as signaled by the introduction of a new provincial Roman bronze coin both to Antioch’s mint and the city’s currency. The period assemblage also increasingly yields a stronger presence of Roman or Roman-minted coins, which reflects the western conquerors’ intensified use of Antioch as campaigns further to the east regularly called the emperors and their troops to the city. By the third-century CE assemblage, the currency within Antioch had evolved once again. What had once been a provincial Roman coin type was now absorbed into the civic currency system of the Antiochians. These issues of the Antiochians collectively outnumbered at Antioch any other civic issues from the diverse pool circulating within the region, which suggests the citizens kept monitoring local currency. Eventually, even these revamped civic coins could not withstand Roman streamlining of the empire’s currency as standardized imperial coins were produced at Antioch and other select mints. The homogenization of Antioch’s currency started within the third century CE but came to fruition in the fourth and fifth centuries CE. Compared to previous centuries, the primacy of Antioch-minted issues noticeably decreases in this period. There was no longer any reason for the Antiochians to regulate currency in favor of their own mint, as imperial coins were interchangeable empire-wide. The Antiochians were no longer responsible for their own currency as their internal operations were integrated into the Roman state to a greater degree than ever before. Beyond the coin assemblage excavated at Antioch, a holistic examination of the distribution patterns of coins outside of the city reinforces the many changes wrought on Antioch and its people throughout antiquity. Additionally, these patterns help cultivate a spatial imagination of the connections and horizons binding Antioch to the outside world as well as suggest through whose authority and use of the city these relationships were fostered. A comparison of the spread of “central” bronze, silver, gold, and billon coins minted at Antioch for both the Seleucid kings and the Roman imperial state demonstrates how the city’s orientation transformed over time (Figs. 7.2 and 7.3). In theory, these coins had value as currency throughout the wider empires as they were guaranteed by the royal or imperial state rather than a provincial subsection or civic government. It is no surprise then that the “central” coins of Antioch largely aligned eastward during the Seleucid period, whereas later Roman integration of the

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Fig. 7.2 Comparison of all hoards containing “central” Antioch coins minted for the royal Seleucid and Roman imperial authorities according to burial location and percentage represented by Antioch coins. Each circle is proportionate to the percentage represented by Antioch coins per hoard. No hoards with less than 1% Antioch coins shown. For details about the individual datasets, see Tables A3.1–A3.3, A3.6–A3.9.

299

300

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Fig. 7.3 Comparison of all excavations containing “central” Antioch coins minted for the royal Seleucid and Roman imperial authorities according to location and percentage per site. Each circle is proportionate to the percentage represented by Antioch finds per site. No sites shown where Antioch coins represented less than 1%. Only sites with over sixteen total finds included. For details of each dataset, see Chapters 2, 3, 5, and 6.

Conclusion

city’s mint turned the distribution westward. The strong percentages in which the royal and imperial Antioch coins appear throughout the eastern Levant also help to underscore the regional service and importance of the city for both authorities. In other words, although Antioch was connected to an eastern and then western imperial system via the coins, its major numismatic purpose was to its immediate region. Obvious as these points may seem, having such a visible manifestation of both the reorientation of the city over time as well as its service to the state should prompt greater nuance and differentiation when we discuss Antioch as a “capital” or “imperial city” for an eastern versus western empire. It is equally important to pay attention to the fact that Antioch did not continuously serve the Seleucids or Rome in an imperial capacity, at least numismatically speaking. Instead, major royal and imperial coin production at Antioch represents bookends within the city’s ancient chronology. This recommends cautious consideration or characterization of Antioch’s governance during the in-between periods. Finally, finding these empire-wide connections bolsters further research into the political, economic, and military paths moving in and out of the city and how these routes or relationships differed from one period to the next. As for the provincial coins minted at Antioch for the Roman government in Syria and the eastern empire, this distribution study has revealed several important uses and manipulations of both Antioch and the regional currency system by the Mediterranean state (Fig. 7.4). The spread of the provincial bronze coins produced at Antioch does reinforce previous scholarly claims about their ubiquity as finds, but the quantities and range in which they appear do not support the assumed degree nor longevity of their circulation. The introduction of the coins does not appear to be an overhaul of the small change of the Levant as a whole, as different communities of the southern Levant continued to show a preference for other local coins. Instead, the bronze Antioch coins were clearly part of a first- and second-century CE provincial experiment to unify the bronze currency of the province of Syria proper for the military, government, and cities alike. Eventually, the Romans abandoned this provincial bronze, which led the Antiochians to integrate it into their civic currency as a lower denomination (see below). In contrast, the provincial silver coins minted at Antioch were adopted and enhanced by the Roman government from the residues of the disjointed Seleucid system and temporary civic control. By the reign of Nero, the Romans had streamlined the precious metal currency of the Levant in favor of a slightly modified Antioch silver tetradrachm and its occasional

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press

301

302

Conclusion

Fig. 7.4 Comparison of the distribution of provincial coins minted at Antioch between 31 BCE and 284 CE. The white circles represent the percentage of silver Antioch coins within hoards (see Tables A3.4 and A3.5 for details about the dataset). The black circles represent the percentage of bronze Antioch coins within excavation assemblages (see Chapter 4 for details about the dataset). Each circle is proportionate to the percentage represented by Antioch coins per site or hoard.

subdivisions (Fig. 7.4). Importantly, the Romans did not replace this traditional coin in circulation with a new type of silver or the Roman denarius, but preserved distinct traditional and regional elements in design, content, and denomination. This may be indicative of an effort to create a closed currency system for the eastern Levant, but it can also be interpreted as preserving enough of a traditional system to enhance imperial operations within the region. This restructured silver currency lasted longer than the provincial bronze, but it ultimately collapsed under debasement and the introduction of imperial radiates in the third century CE. These differences in how the Romans approached the currency of Syria and the Levant serve as a good reminder of the complex strategies employed by the imperial state while governing the eastern empire. They were capable of new introductions but were equally efficient in manipulating long-standing systems or cities like Antioch to their own benefit. The patterns in Syria also raise questions about how other provinces and

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Conclusion

regions worked both in terms of currency boundaries as well as administrative oversight. More distribution studies – especially on a comprehensive spatial and temporal level – may challenge our understanding of how regions of the empire were divided and governed. Pointing out either the scope or the intensity of Antioch’s service to the royal, imperial, and provincial governments of the Seleucids and Romans still does not nullify the significance of the mostly bronze civic coins of the Antiochians. From one perspective, their generally restricted distribution beyond the city underscores their inherently civic nature (Fig. 7.5). As issues of a city government for use within city territory, they appear in strong proportions among the finds at Antioch and its satellite Gindaros and are generally not found outside the Levant. This is an important point unto itself, as despite Antioch’s use by higher political authorities, the civic coins of the Antiochians were not necessarily promoted in their circulation. They must therefore be differentiated from the provincial bronze and not subsumed into that regional category, especially as the opposite appears to have occurred in the third century CE when the provincial bronze became part of the civic system of the Antiochians. From another perspective, the distribution of the civic coins of the Antiochians also presents enough exceptions to the assumed pattern to warrant further consideration. As discussed throughout this book, the Antiochians’ coins moved in interesting and exceptional ways due to trade, military movement, and civic connections. These connections changed over time as both the civic community at Antioch and the coins they issued evolved along with the values, identities, and relationships they celebrated. Although civic agents were not always responsible for these exceptions, every noticeable pattern of coin movement extending outward from the city begs us to remember the Antiochians themselves and their activity within the wider region. After all, as their own coins boldly celebrated, Antioch was a metropolis of the Antiochians. This book has argued that both the production of these coins and their distribution patterns inside and outside Antioch serve as a continuous standard against which other evidence for the city can be assembled and compared. By integrating this material together, we are finally able to draw out the evolution of Antioch, the Antiochians, and the various powers that claimed them both. The Seleucids had established Antioch and other cities as part of an urban network to harness the resources of a region and maintain control and safe places of rest. Antioch did have a privileged place within this urban network because of its naturally prime location and the special ways in which the Seleucids used it. Seleucid reliance upon

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press

303

304

Conclusion

Fig. 7.5 Distribution of the civic coins of the Antiochians according to their relative percentage per site (c. 92 BCE–284 CE). No sites with less than sixteen total finds were included. This visualization also excludes single finds of Antioch coins and where Antioch coins represent less than 1%.

Antioch intensified over time, thereby elevating the city to a capital. At the same time, Antioch was also founded as a Greek polis replete with the institutions of civic government and a civic community aware of its agency and unique identity. Temporarily overshadowed by Seleucid use of their city, these civic institutions and citizenry eventually outlasted the kings and confronted their conquerors – the Romans – in the first century BCE. Roman involvement and exploitation of Antioch was limited at first, as the western administrators were content to allow traditional systems to continue as their focus was directed to the conflicts at home. By the first century CE, Antioch had become a provincial caput, or capital, as the Romans relied upon it and its people for a multitude of political, military, economic, and sociocultural purposes. Meanwhile, Antioch’s civic institutions remained and even flourished in the high Roman imperial period as outside use of the city did not overwhelm or outshine the civic body and the agency and identity that they maintained for themselves. Instead, the

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Conclusion

record for the city reveals many layers of negotiation among civic, regional, and imperial forces. Recognizing the persistence of the civic body through Roman annexation also helps to correct an ancient narrative portraying the Antiochians as fickle. Born out of a larger stereotype against eastern peoples, this traditional characterization equally relies upon understanding Antioch as a simple tool for outside powers. The Antiochians have no place in such a narrative but are assumed to be completely absorbed into whatever purposes the imperial state may have had for their city. Any protest or pushback from the city’s residents therefore seems surprising to both ancient and modern audiences alike. Alternatively, if we appreciate the continuation and even celebration of a local, civic community at Antioch, these moments of tension are much more understandable. The Antiochians – like their neighbors – were ready to respond to imperial powers as a civic body with a strong sense of their own agency and identity. Only with the crisis of the empire in the third century CE – financially and otherwise – as well as the increasing centrality of the Middle East due to threats along the border did Antioch truly begin to ascend again to an imperial status. The civic body did not yet collapse under this pressure, although they clearly suffered and were stretched in trying to meet the demands of the Roman state. By the fourth and fifth centuries CE, even as the Antiochians continued to assert themselves, the civic structure was evolving under a now formalized imperial presence within the city. The general trend throughout the empire of weakening civic administration was exaggerated at Antioch by the city’s importance to both the late Roman state and the increasingly powerful Christian Church. The transformation of the city back into a capital or at least an imperial center was finally complete. A thorough distribution study of Antioch’s coins has long been needed within scholarship, both for better understanding the coins themselves and the people and policies they represent. The coins cannot answer all the questions we may have about Antioch, the Antiochians, or the powers at work within the city, nor are they the only or ultimate measurement of their development within the ancient world. As representatives of the political authorities at work, they also cannot speak for every subgroup or identity within the population. Nevertheless, the coins and their distribution do offer a new perspective of how Antioch and its people evolved in their public policies, agencies, identities, imperial service, civic relationships, and general horizons over space and time. Furthermore, the approach of this book – both in the evidence selected and the methodologies applied – is not limited to Antioch in its

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press

305

306

Conclusion

applications. From the numismatic angle, more comprehensive distribution studies are needed, especially for the Middle East and the many civic communities located there. Challenging though the evidence may seem, by applying the methodologies of Exploratory Data Analysis, we are not constrained to absolute numbers or by imperfect datasets. The flexibility of EDA allows for an open and commonsense examination of the material, while yielding tremendous results. Likewise, utilizing digital technologies to aggregate and visualize the material grants more robust analysis of larger datasets than ever before. We should also be careful about limiting the potential of the coin evidence to strictly economic studies. As numerous scholars have proven in the past, coins can provide both a qualitative and quantitative testament beyond their monetary value. Granted, the varied representation that the coins of Antioch provide will not necessarily work for other cities, as being a royal or imperial mint did not always make a place a capital. Lacunas surface and care must be taken when drawing conclusions. Still, the coins can and should continue to be brought into the mainstream history of cities and peoples. As this study demonstrates, the numismatic evidence offers a unique and essential mechanism for finding the conquered civic communities themselves, which both complement and counter the dominant narratives of their conquerors. Additionally, more can and should be done in cultivating a spatial imagination of the ancient world and the connections binding different communities to one another through commerce, politics, religion, and cultural identities. This book has attempted to lay the groundwork for a multitude of additional studies not only on Antioch, but the other cities and communities of the region. The rise of digital humanities opens a multitude of possibilities for visualizing and reexamining the texts and artifacts of the ancient world in innovative ways. It is only through exploring new and creative approaches to the old evidence that the Antioch of the Antiochians will continue to be elevated from traditional narratives and static characterizations and be seen and celebrated for the dynamic polis it was.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Appendix 1

|

A Methodology for Digitally Analyzing Coin Finds

Throughout this project’s evolution, I have used various methodologies and digital tools to explore the distribution of ancient coin finds.1 This appendix details only the latest iteration of this work – from collecting to exploring the dataset – for the sake of transparency and in the hope to inspire similar applications of numismatic material, especially among more analog-oriented historians.2 The technical aspects of data collection are first considered, followed by a discussion of Exploratory Data Analysis according to the graphical and digital-mapping techniques employed in this study. The process presented here is in no way the final or only approach to this data, as it is expected that future excavations will yield more material and allow for the application of more statistically rigorous models and methods. Nevertheless, the processes followed in the current study allowed for a thorough examination of the material and produced compelling results about the development of a city and region over time and space.3 Put another way, a simple approach to the materials allowed for something useful to emerge.4

Data Collection This section details the process through which the coins were rendered into a digital dataset.5 The current project considered over 300,000 coins gathered from excavation reports (Appendix 2) and hoard lists (Appendix 3) and with an issue date between c. 300 BCE and c. 450 CE. Chapter 1 details the criteria used to select these publications, but it is important to reiterate how the details about the coin finds differed between excavation reports and hoard inventories. Most excavation reports included in this study provide a wealth of information about each 1 2

3 5

E.g., Neumann and Wallrodt 2017. My great thanks to Drs. Peggy Lindner and Donald Hackler for their guidance in constructing this methodology. 4 Compare with Syon 2015. See Baxter 2003, 16–18. See also Neumann and Wallrodt 2017, 42–43; compare with Iossif 2016.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press

307

308

Appendices

discovered coin, including details about date of issue, iconography, archaeological context, and rarely even stratigraphic location; the lack of a standard notation for the publication of the coins was noticeable, but not insurmountable in most cases.6 In contrast, many of the traditional hoard lists – such as IGCH and the CH volumes – were gathered from a mix of excavation reports, individual articles and notes, auction catalogs, and museum collections, which means the detail provided about individual coins varies widely. At times only a selection of the hoard contents was cleaned, analyzed, and published, whereas in other cases the publication only provided a total summary of how many coins per mint with no information on type or date. Print and digital projects aggregating these older inventories alongside new publication – such as Frédérique Duyrat’s 2016 study or Oxford’s ongoing Coin Hoards of the Roman Empire – provide far more detail and have the potential for improving use of hoard evidence. In the meantime, my study gathered as much information currently available about each coin deposit as was possible. At the most basic level, this study required four pieces of information from each coin find: the location where a coin was originally minted; the date/period when a coin was originally minted; the location where a coin was eventually recovered; and the quantities in which a specific coin type/ issue date/metal was recovered at each location. For coins minted at Antioch, it was also necessary to know whether a coin was issued by a civic, provincial, or royal/imperial authority. To assemble the most robust dataset possible with an eye toward future projects, all the coins recovered from excavations and hoards – whether struck at the Antioch mint or produced elsewhere – were entered into Excel spreadsheets according to the following attributes:7 1. Nature of Find: Single find from excavation or hoard. This distinction is important, because in broad terms, excavation assemblages represent the accumulation of single losses by multiple individuals over time, whereas hoards represent a collective loss – whether deposited by an individual or group, intentionally or unintentionally, at one moment or over time (see Chapter 1, “Stage Three: Loss”). 2. Coin Origin: Region (e.g., Syria, Western Europe) and – if available – the specific issuing city or mint (e.g., Antioch, Rome) with geographical coordinates (latitude, longitude). Most of the coordinates for the ancient 6 7

Guest 2012, 108. The earliest iteration of this project used FileMaker Pro as a database, which did allow for more consistency in the description of coins and locations. However, Excel spreadsheets were equally sufficient, especially once I started processing the data.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Appendices

mints and cities were easily gathered by their modern equivalents, but for some of the lesser-known places, an approximate location was found through sources like the Barrington Atlas and the New Pauly. As for the region, because political limits fluctuated throughout the time period studied here, general territorial designations were often preferred (Fig. A1.1). This includes more discrete regions like Cyprus, Cilicia, and Egypt, but also broader groupings such as “Syria” (i.e., both northern and southern Syria and Phoenicia), “Southern Levant” (i.e., the provinces of Judea, Arabia, and the various later Palaestinas), “East” (i.e., from Mesopotamia to Armenia and territories further east), “Anatolia” (i.e., broadly Asia Minor west of Cilicia and Cappadocia and including Lycia, Galatia, Asia, and Bithynia and Pontus), “Balkans” (i.e., southeastern Europe including Greece and Macedonia), “Africa” (i.e., Cyrenaica, Africa, and Mauretania), and “Western Europe” (i.e., from Italy to Britain, and Spain to Germany and France).

Fig. A1.1 The approximate territorial designations applied within this study.

Some of the coins lacked any geographical detail beyond region of origin because decay prevented further identification, the original mint location in antiquity was unknown (e.g., coins of the Jewish people), and/or the publication only provided general information. As this study sought aggregate patterns and therefore needed to retain as many data

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press

309

310

Appendices

3.

4.

5.

6.

8

points as possible, coins lacking a specific mint or issuing city were entered only according to region of origin. Coin Find Location: Region (see above) and – if available – the specific find location (e.g., Antakya, Beirut) with geographical coordinates. With a few exceptions, how each place name was printed in the original report or hoard list has been preserved throughout this monograph, with no attempt to systematize ancient and modern identifications.8 Additionally, the specific locations of some of the smaller excavation sites were not sufficiently described, while many of the hoards were only published according to regional provenance. In these cases, the best approximate location was assigned or only a regional designation was used. Date Range of Issuing Period: The earliest and latest date during which a coin was minted. Given the lack of stratigraphic context for most of the coin finds considered in this study, the most consistent date marker was when a coin was originally minted. As explained in Chapter 1, a significant gap may exist between the date a coin was minted and the date in which it was lost or deposited. As narrow of an issuing date as possible – even a single year – was provided for each coin find. However, artificial chronological assignments were sometimes necessary (e.g., 200–225 CE), such as when a publication provided only a general period (e.g., “Early Third Century”). When a coin was published according to two possible dates (e.g., the reign of Tiberius or Claudius), the date range was recorded as encompassing the span of both (e.g., 14–54 CE). In addition to specific minting dates, a broader chronological period was also assigned for each coin. This field was not standardized, but relative to either the royal or imperial authority under which the coin was minted or the general period (e.g., second century BCE). Authority: The political authority which minted the coins. In most cases, the political authority could be assigned to one of three broad tiers: “central” government (e.g., royal Seleucid, imperial Roman); provincial government; or civic government. Coins minted at Antioch were recorded by additional subcategories (e.g., provincial SC; civic SC/DE). Metal: The material of the coin: gold, silver, bronze, billon, orichalcum, or uncertain. Where possible, a further denomination was assigned to the material. This was most relevant for the silver issues (e.g., radiate, tetradrachm, or denarius).

See the Pleiades project (https://pleiades.stoa.org/) for a current attempt to codify ancient and modern place names.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Appendices

7. Iconography: The images and legends displayed on the obverse (e.g., Apollo, ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ) and reverse (e.g., wreath, SC). A standardized vocabulary was imposed for all Antioch issues. 8. Additional Marks: The presence of any additional countermarks or modifications of the coin, such as halving. 9. Quantity: The quantity of coins of a particular issue date, type, and metal recovered from an individual site or hoard. For example, the publication of excavations at Antioch reported two bronze Antiochene civic issues dating to 18/17 BCE with an obverse of Zeus. Subdividing coin finds of a single assemblage according to these attributes was more often possible with excavation reports, as they commonly reported individual finds. Some excavation reports detailed every single coin whereas others summarized similar coins into a single entry. In contrast, hoards often had to be recorded by wider categories, such as all the coins from Antioch (regardless of metal or minting date).

Data Preparation Once every coin within each excavation report or hoard publication was entered into the spreadsheet, the data were then refined into distinct datasets.9 First, the coins were separated according to find type: single coins gathered through excavation were considered as one dataset, and hoards were considered as a second dataset. Both the datasets were then further subdivided into smaller datasets according to the chronological periods of this study. For single coins gathered through excavation, every effort was made to retain as many coins as possible for the final study. However, given the nature of the research questions, coins without a known date, territory of origin or find location, and/or quantity were excluded. All remaining coins were then subdivided into the five chronological periods of this study:10 300–129 BCE; 129–31 BCE; 31 BCE–192 CE; 192–284 CE; and 284–450 CE. Some of the coin finds could not be finely dated enough to fit these chronological divisions, but as much of this material as possible was considered in the conclusions. Coins with issue dates overlapping a

9 10

This step can be done manually through Excel or more quickly through RStudio. On these chronological periods, see Chapter 1.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press

311

312

Appendices

chronological period (e.g., 150–115 BCE) were included in the period where the majority of years fell.11 The excavation coins of each chronological subdivision were then aggregated into summary tables in Excel according to their raw counts. For each site assemblage, the following information was recorded: “Total Coins in the Period Assemblage”; “Total Coins in the Period Assemblage by Metal” (i.e., separating silver and bronze coins); “Total Antioch Coins in the Period Assemblage”; “Total Antioch Coins in the Period Assemblage by Metal” (i.e., silver vs. bronze); “Total Antioch Coins in the Period Assemblage by Authority” (i.e., royal/imperial, provincial, civic); and “Total Other Syria/Phoenicia Coins in the Period Assemblage” (i.e., nonAntioch coins). Treatment of the hoards slightly differed from the single coins gathered through excavation. Instead of subdividing the contents of each hoard into individual chronological periods, a whole hoard was assigned to a single chronological period based upon its presumed burial date (i.e., usually the latest coin in the assemblage). For example, although one of the hoards from Dura Europos (Bellinger 1949b, no. 5) contains silver coins dating back to the first century BCE, the hoard was assigned to 192–284 CE because its latest contents suggest a burial during the city’s collapse around 256 CE. The hoards of each chronological subdivision were then entered into summary tables in Excel according to raw counts. For each hoard, the following information was recorded: “Total Coins in the Hoard”; “Total Coins in the Hoard by Metal” (i.e., separating silver from bronze; separating silver denominations like radiates and denarii); “Total Antioch Coins in the Hoard”; “Total Antioch Coins in the Hoard by Authority and Metal”; and “Total Other Coins by Region” (e.g., Other Syria; Southern Levant; Egypt). The entire hoard was considered in these tallies, regardless of the date of issue of the coins. Because a hoard usually represents a complete deposit, all the coins – even those without known mint of origin or metal or those that were not examined – were included in the total count. Where possible, this information has been included in Appendix 3. Several hoards considered within this study were too poorly published to use in any numerical analysis and have instead been included with general descriptions where relevant within chapter footnotes. 11

Many of the Hasmonean coins had a broad issue date starting in 140 BCE and extending through the first century BCE. In these cases, with due consideration of circulation periods, I pulled them forward into 129–31 BCE.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Appendices

Exploratory Data Analysis Once the coins were gathered, recorded, and prepared, exploration and analysis could begin. The human eye is not well suited to picking out patterns based upon charts of numbers and needs a way to cut through the noise of a large dataset. As explained in Chapter 1, this study relies upon the commonsensical approach of Exploratory Data Analysis.12 The primary goal of this methodology is to summarize and understand the main characteristics of a dataset and the relationships among variables before any formal modeling or hypothesis testing. In other words, the data determine what steps can be taken rather than trying to impose an equation (such as the Annual Average Coin Loss) onto the data. Both graphical and mapping techniques were applied to make sense of the numerical, chronological, and spatial structure and distribution of the data. Not all the techniques used to explore the data are detailed in this appendix, but rather those most relevant to the content and figures published in this book. To help illustrate the processes used on the different coin datasets, the following sections will use one dataset as a consistent example: the single, bronze excavation finds dating to c. 300–129 BCE. Sixty-two excavation sites published bronze coins dating to this period. The smallest assemblages consisted of a single coin, while the largest assemblage contained over 6,000 coins.

Raw Count All data were first examined according to the raw or unaltered counts of coins. In order to highlight patterns, simple summary graphics and statistics were used to explore individual datasets. For example, bar graphs, stem-and-leaf plots, and boxplots (Fig. A1.2) were created from the different datasets in order to understand the structure and distribution of the data. The latter two techniques were especially helpful in finding outliers and the median in a dataset. The median or middle value in a set of numbers was preferred over calculating their mean (i.e., the average of a set of numbers) as the median proved more resistant to outliers.13 In the example of excavation coins dating to the High Hellenistic period, the median was 23 coins, but the mean was skewed to 213 because of the unusually large assemblages within the bronze dataset. 12

See Tukey 1977; Hoaglin, Mosteller, and Tukey 2000.

13

See Drennan 1996, 20.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press

313

314

Appendices

Fig. A1.2 A comparison of the boxplots generated for the raw count of coins minted c. 300–129 BCE within individual excavation sites and for the scaled count via binary logarithm of these same finds. Each plot divides the distribution of the dataset into four parts or quartiles. It reveals the minimum value, the first quartile (i.e., first 25% of the data), the median, the third quartile, the maximum value, and outliers. In sum, the plot shows where the majority of the data lie (i.e., within the square) as well as outliers (i.e., the dots or lines outside the box).

Binary Logarithms While raw counts formed an essential component of this study, the vast differences in size among assemblages (e.g., Site A with 23 coins vs. Site B with 6,000+ coins) made it difficult to evaluate and compare individual datasets with each other. The data needed to be scaled.14 Alternative

14

Various methods have been offered within numismatic studies such as the Annual Average Coin Loss Equation (e.g., Casey 1986, 88–89; Casey 1988, 41; Katsari 2011, 30) and the “per mill” calculation (e.g., Reece 1995; Walton 2011, 50–51; Guest 2012, 109). Both calculations

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Appendices

techniques for transforming data are available within data analysis (e.g., square roots), but logarithms worked well for this study as a standard and convenient method of rescaling large numbers. Robert Drennan provides a concise explanation of logarithms in his work Statistics for Archaeologists: A Common Sense Approach: “The logarithm of a number is the power to which some base must be raised to produce the number. For example, the base-10 logarithm of 1000 is 3 since 103 = 1000. The base-10 logarithm of 100 is 2, since 102 = 100. The base-10 logarithm of 10 is 1, since 101 = 10.”15 While Drennan references base-10 logarithms for his examples, my study relied upon binary logarithms or a logarithm that uses 2 as a base. For example, the base-2 logarithm of 8 is 3 since 23 = 8. The base-2 logarithm of 16 is 4 since 24 = 16. While either base-10 or base-2 can be used, binary logarithms were easier to work with in this study because many of the period assemblages consisted of fewer than 100 coins. Base-2 provided a finer scale than base-10, meaning that the resulting logarithms were whole numbers, rather than all decimals. Using the basic log function within Excel, the total quantity of coins within each period assemblage was turned into its binary logarithm. For the example of the excavation finds from the High Hellenistic period mentioned above, the binary logarithms were as follows: 0 • the smallest assemblages transformed to 0 since 2 = 1 4.5 • the median transformed to 4.5 since 2  23 12.6  6,100 • the largest assemblage transformed to 12.6 since 2

Now, when the boxplot is generated, it is much easier to examine the distribution of the data for minimum and maximum values, as well as median and outliers if any (Fig. A1.2).

Normal Distributions Scaling the data through binary logarithms played an important role in determining which assemblages – hoard or excavation – could be considered a statistically relevant sample. The vast differences in scale among assemblages had made it difficult to evaluate and compare the relative

15

have a tendency to inflate the actual quantity of coins, sometimes making a small assemblage appear much larger and therefore more robust than it actually is. Drennan 1996, 55.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press

315

316

Appendices

importance of specifically Antioch coins at each site. One simple solution was to transform raw counts of Antioch coins into the percentage they represented according to the total assemblage. The problem then became determining how many total coins are required in each assemblage for that percentage to be statistically relevant. Put another way, is the 5% represented by Antioch coins in Site A’s assemblage of 23 total coins comparable to the 5% Antioch coins in Site B’s assemblage of 6,000+ coins? Previous scholars have debated the quantities required in order to say something worthwhile about the data and have suggested anywhere from 20 to 200+ coins per assemblage.16 However well reasoned some of these suggestions may be, the problem with assigning any number is that it tries to create a single standard applicable to all situations. In contrast, the EDA approach allows the nature of each dataset to determine how many coins in total represent a statistically relevant sample. The required quantities might vary greatly from dataset to dataset but are born out of the data rather than imposed from above. The EDA approach therefore is more flexible and able to handle both small and large datasets. The current study uses normal probability plots based upon binary logarithms to determine how many coins were required per assemblage in order to compare percentages of Antioch coins. A normal probability plot “is a graphical technique for assessing whether a dataset is approximately normally distributed.”17 In other words, do the logarithms of a dataset have the same distribution as a normally distributed set of data? If so, a straight line will appear when plotted as well as any points that deviate from normality. Once a dataset is found to be approximately linear and therefore normally distributed, it can be used as a tool to identify the lower bound of a dataset or the point at which the assemblages cease to produce a statistically relevant sample. Although several different distributions were tried for the data in this study (e.g., logistic distribution), the standard test for the normal distribution (a.k.a. Gaussian distribution) consistently worked well.18 The following process was followed in Excel to check for normality:19 1. Scale the raw count of the different assemblages of a specific chronological period into a manageable range for comparison by using binary 16

17 18 19

Compare Casey 1986, 89; Collis 1988, 192; Hobley 1998, 1; Duncan-Jones 1999, 64–65; WiggWolf 2009, 116; Katsari 2011, 26–27; Walton 2011, 50. www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/normprpl.htm. See Hogg, McKean, and Craig 2013. This process can be done in RStudio, but the Excel functions worked perfectly fine.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Appendices

2.

3.

4.

5.

logarithms. In a second column next to the raw totals of each assemblage, the corresponding binary logarithm was entered. For example, the Antioch excavations yielded 737 bronze coins minted c. 300–129 BCE. The binary logarithm of 737 is approximately 9.5. The assemblages were then ordered or ranked from smallest to largest. A third column assigned the rank of each. The Antioch excavations were ranked 59th of 62 total excavations. In a fourth column, the percentile represented by each number was entered. A percentile is the location of a number relative to the total number of data points lined up in order. For example, for a number to be the 0.5 percentile means that half the dataset is above its position and half the dataset is below its position. The Antioch excavations represented the 0.94 percentile. In the fifth column, the corresponding percentile of the theoretical normal distribution or standard normal distribution was entered.20 In the example of the Antioch excavations, the corresponding percentile of the normal distribution was approximately 1.58. The binary logarithms and the corresponding percentile of the normal distribution were then charted against each other using a scatter plot. The y-axis represents the binary logarithms, whereas the x-axis represents the normal distribution (see Fig. A1.3).

If the resulting plot reveals linearity, meaning the binary logarithms mostly correspond to a straight line, this indicates that the dataset is effectively normally distributed. The plot can then be used as a tool to determine the lower bound or the point at which linearity breaks down on the left side of the graph. Any assemblages past this point are statistically meaningless, meaning that nothing can be said assertively about these assemblages. Linearity may also break down at the higher end, but this is not a problem as the assemblages contain plenty of data to examine. In the example of the single, bronze excavation finds minted c. 300–129 BCE, the resulting plot does reveal linearity (Fig. A1.3) in that the binary logarithms mostly correspond to a straight line. The dataset can thus be considered normally distributed, at least according to the binary logarithms. As it is normally distributed, this same plot can be used as a tool to determine the lower bound or the point at which the assemblages cease to present a statistically relevant sample. In the example Hellenistic dataset,

20

In Excel, this column uses the normsinv function.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press

317

318

Appendices

linearity begins to break down around 3.2, which means that period assemblages with less than nine total coins (23.2  9) cannot be used to speak assertively about the presence or absence of Antioch coins. This is not a perfect solution to the problem of how many coins are required to produce a statistically relevant sample, but it worked well for the datasets considered in this study and greatly helped in refining patterns.

Fig. A1.3 The normal probability plot for the scaled count via binary logarithms of excavated bronze coins minted c. 300–129 BCE. Every diamond represents the binary logarithm of a single excavation assemblage.

Most of the charts, graphs, and visualizations included in each chapter use percentages to compare and evaluate the presence of Antioch coins. The caption will always note the point at which an assemblage was no longer considered statistically relevant.

Digital Mapping In addition to graphical techniques, EDA also encourages a spatial exploration of the dataset through techniques like digital mapping. A wealth of data-exploration and mapping software exists beyond commonly used ESRI products like ArcGIS. Over the course of this project, several different visualization programs have been applied to the data to achieve the level of precision necessary for this study’s research questions. This includes Google Earth, a free virtual globe available through the Internet; Tableau, another interactive data-visualization platform; and Circos – originally used to visualize genomic data, but equally helpful in illuminating

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Appendices

connections between individual cities.21 Each of these programs created interactive and intuitive spaces to cut through the noise created by a complex dataset and highlight otherwise overlooked patterns. While many previous numismatic studies have employed maps and computers to visualize the distribution of coins, this project has advocated for a dynamic digital approach applying a wide variety of visualization platforms both in the examination and final presentation of the material.22 Most of the datasets examined in this current book were explored through Tableau Public, the free version of the Tableau software.23 As summarized by B. Jones, “Tableau facilitates the data discovery process (finding insights in data) as well as the data communication process (creating explanatory graphics, exploratory dashboards, and data storytelling) with no programming required.”24 For the purposes of this book, this data-visualization platform allowed for an easy upload and manipulation of individual datasets created in Excel. It also facilitated the creation of proportional symbol maps comparing raw counts and percentages of coins with specific attributes over time and space. The intuitive interface made it very simple to adjust how the data were viewed and represented, whether it was a matter of changing the color or shape of symbols, selecting which material appeared at any one time, or changing layers of the map. The resulting maps in Tableau informed the final visualizations which appear within this book. Throughout this book, most data were represented on the final maps as both raw counts of coins and as the percentage of an assemblage. Maps displaying raw counts of coins include all finds, whether a single coin was found at a location or 100 coins (e.g., Figs. 2.8 and 2.11). As the main goal of these raw maps is to show the coverage and spread of coins, excavation sites or hoard locations on these maps are only selectively labeled; extra geographical features such as rivers and elevations have also been omitted or limited. This helped to minimize clutter on the map.

21

22

23 24

On the applications of Google Earth (www.google.com/earth/), see Neumann and Wallrodt 2017. All maps for and information related to the distribution of coin finds in Google Earth are stored in the University of Cincinnati’s digital repository, Scholar@UC (http://scholar.uc.edu), and are available for download (doi:10.7945/C2201C; doi:10.7945/C25P4B; doi:10.7945/ C25P4B). The final digital visualizations of the coins will be made available through an online, interactive exhibit. Tableau Desktop licenses are free for instructors and students at eligible universities. Jones 2014, 15–16; see Chapters 10 and 11 for a full overview of mapping in Tableau.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press

319

320

Appendices

Maps displaying the percentage represented by a body of coins (i.e., its relative importance) were treated differently from the maps of raw counts (e.g., Figs. 2.9 and 2.12). Only statistically relevant assemblages were displayed. To further streamline, maps investigating the relative importance of Antioch coins at particular locations also excluded locations where only a single Antioch coin was discovered or where Antioch coins represented less than 1% of an assemblage.25 The captions always indicate where adjustments have been made to the displayed data. Finally, in order to clarify patterns within the data, pie charts of individual excavation assemblages were periodically superimposed onto the maps (e.g., Fig. 2.12). The area of each pie chart is proportionate to the total quantity of coin finds at each site for specific chronological periods. This allows the viewer to differentiate large assemblages from much smaller ones. All locations are labeled on these maps to allow for additional research and verification of these results using the tables below each map or in Appendix 3.

Conclusion None of the techniques detailed here represent the final exploration or application of the data considered within this book. In no way does the above discussion limit alternative approaches to the numismatic material. Nevertheless, these techniques allowed for a simple and yet meaningful analysis of the coin data without launching into complicated testing, modeling, or computer programs.

25

Compare with Syon 2014, 106.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Appendix 2

|

List of Excavation Reports

Syria Antioch and Seleucia Pieria Waagé, D. (ed.). 1952. Antioch-on-the-Orontes IV.2: Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and Crusader Coins. Princeton University Press.

Apamea Callu, J.-P. 1979. Fouilles d’Apamée de Syrie VIII.1: Les monnaies romaines. Brussels: Centre belge de recherches archéologiques à Apamée de Syrie. Lauwers, C. 2013. “Les monnaies des fouilles belges d’Apamée sur l’Oronte, Syrie (2005–2010),” Belgisch Tijdschrift voor numismatiek en zegelkunde 159: 151–186.

Arsameia Berghaus, P. 1963. “Antike Münzfunde in Arsameia am Nymphaios.” In F. K. Dörner and T. Goell (eds.), Arsameia am Nymphaios, Die Ausgrabungen im Hierothesion des Mithradates Kallinikos von 1953–1956. Berlin: Mann. 282–288.

Berytus Butcher, K. 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.

Gindaros Kramer, N. 2004. Gindaros: Geschichte und Archäologie einer Siedlung im nordwestlichen Syrien vom hellenistischer bis in frühbyzantinische Zeit. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

321

322

Appendices

Hama Thomsen, R. 1986. “The Graeco-Roman Coins.” In A. Papanicolaou Christensen, R. Thomsen, and G. Ploug (eds.), Hama: Fouilles et recherches de la fondation Carlsberg (1931–1938) III.3: The Graeco-Roman Objects of Clay, the Coins and the Necropolis. Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet. 59–69.

Jebel Khalid Nixon, C. E. V. 2002. “The Coins.” In G. W. Clarke et al. (eds.), Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates I: Report on Excavations 1986–1996. Sydney: Meditarch. 291–335.

Oumm el-Marra and Tell Abou Danné Doyen, J.-M. 1987. Les monnaies antiques du Tell Abou Danné et d’Oumm elMarra (Campagnes 1976–1985): Aspects de la circulation monétaire en Syrie du Nord sous les Séleucides. Brussels: Archaion.

Palmyra Krzyżanowska, A. 2014. “Monnaies grecques et romaines.” In A. Krzyżanowska and M. Gawlikowski (eds.), Studia Palmyrenskie XIII: Monnaies des fouilles polonaises à Palmyre. Warsaw: Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology. 13–70.

Perrhe Facella, M. 2008. “Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Coins from the Necropolis of Perrhe.” In E. Winter (ed.), ΠΑΤΡΙΣ ΠΑΝΤΡΟΦΟΣ ΚΟΜΜΑΓΗΝΗ: Neue Funde und Forschungen zwischen Taurus und Euphrat. Bonn: Habelt. 207–226.

Ras Shamra Callot, O. 2002. “Les monnaies des environs de Ras Shamra.” In C. Augé and F. Duyrat (eds.), Les monnayages syriens. Quel apport pour l’histoire du ProcheOrient hellénistique et romain? Actes de la table ronde de Damas, 10–12 novembre 1999. Beirut: IFAPO. 93–103.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Appendices

Tell el-Hajj Stucky, R. A. and Zellweger, S. 1974. “Muenzen.” In P. Bridel et al. (eds.), Tell el Hajj in Syrien. Zweiter vorlaeufiger Bericht: Grabungskampagne 1972. Bern: Archäologisches Seminar der Universität. 59–65.

Tell Rifa’at Clayton, P. A. 1967. “The Coins from Tell Rifa’at,” Iraq 29.2: 143–154.

Tille Lightfoot, C. S. 1996. “The Coins from Tille.” In R. Ashton (ed.), Studies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph XVII. London: Royal Numismatic Society. 139–145.

Tyre Fulco, W. J. 1996. “The Coins and Stamped Handles.” In P. M. Bikai, W. J. Fulco, and J. Marchand (eds.), Tyre: The Shrine of Apollo. Amman: National Press. 41–56.

Zeugma Butcher, K. 2013. “Coins and Hoards.” In W. Aylward (ed.), Excavations at Zeugma Conducted by Oxford Archaeology III. Los Altos: Packard Humanities Institute. 1–92.

East of Syria Ain Sinu Oates, D. and Oates, J. 1959. “Ain Sinu: A Roman Frontier Post in Northern Iraq,” Iraq 21.2: 207–242.

Dura Europos Bellinger, A. R. 1949b. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Final Report VI: The Coins. New Haven: Yale University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

323

324

Appendices

Nimrud Jenkins, G. K. 1958. “Hellenistic Coins from Nimrud,” Iraq 20.2: 158–168.

Seleucia on the Tigris Le Rider, G. 1998. Séleucie du Tigre: Les monnaies séleucides et parthes. Florence: Le Lettere.

Susa Le Rider, G. 1965. Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes: Les trouvailles monétaires et l’histoire de la ville. Paris: P. Geuthner.

Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad Oettel, A. 2005. “Die antiken Münzen aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad: Die Funde der Grabungskampagnen 1978 bis 2000.” In H. Kühne (ed.), Magdalu/ Magdala: Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad von der postassyrischen Zeit bis zur römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin: Reimer. 161–186.

Southern Levant and Egypt Alexandria Picard, O. (ed.). 2012. Les monnaies de fouilles du Centre d’études alexandrines. Les monnayages de bronze à Alexandrie, de la conquête d’Alexandre à l’Égypte moderne. Alexandria: Centre d’Études Alexandrines.

Bethsaida Kindler, A. 1999. “The Coin Finds at the Excavations of Bethsaida.” In R. Arav and R. A. Freund (eds.), Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee II. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press. 250–268.

Caesarea Maritima Evans, J. DeRose 2006. The Coins and the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Economy of Palestine. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Appendices

En-Gedi Ariel, D. 2007. “Coins of En-Gedi.” In E. Stern (ed.), En-Gedi Excavations I: Final Report (1961–1965). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 423–427.

Gamla Syon, D. 2014. “Coins.” In D. Syon (ed.), Gamla III: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989. Finds and Studies: Part 1. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 109–231.26

Horvat ‘Eleq Barkay, R. 2000. “The Coins of Horvat ‘Eleq.” In Y. Hirschfeld (ed.), Ramat Hanadiv Excavations: Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 377–419.

Jaffa Meir, C. 2000. “Coins: The Historical Evidence of the Ancient City of Jaffa.” In B. Kluge and B. Weisser (eds.), XII. Internationaler Numismatischer Kongress, Berlin 1997. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. 123–130.

Jerash (Gerasa) Bellinger, A. R. 1938. Coins from Jerash, 1928–1934. New York: American Numismatic Society.

Jerusalem Gitler, H. 2003. “The Coins.” In H. Geva (ed.), Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad (1969–1982) II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 453–492. Ariel, D. 2006. “Coins.” In H. Geva (ed.), Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad (1969–1982) III: Area E and Other Studies. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 192–217. 2010. “Coins.” In H. Geva (ed.), Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad (1969–1982) IV: The Burnt House of Area B and Other Studies. Final Report. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 236–247. 26

As a late addition to this list, only the bronze coin finds dating to the Roman Principate were considered for Gamla.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

325

326

Appendices

Karanis Haatvedt, R. A. and Peterson, E. E. 1964. Coins from Karanis: The University of Michigan Excavations, 1924–1935. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.

Masada Meshorer, Y. 1989. “The Coins of Masada.” In Masada: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports I. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 69–132.

Nessana Bellinger, A. R. 1962. “Coins.” In H. D. Colt (ed.), Excavations at Nessana I. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. 70–75.

Paneas Berman, A. and Bijovsky, G. 2008. “The Coins.” In V. Tzaferis and S. Israeli (eds.), Paneas II: Small Finds and Other Studies. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 11–99.

Pella Sheedy, K., Carson, R., and Walmsley, A. 2001. Pella in Jordan 1979–1990: The Coins. Sydney: Adapa.

Qiryat Sefer Bijovsky, G. 2004. “The Coins from Khirbet Badd ‘Isa – Qiryat Sefer: Isolated Coins and Two Hoards Dated to the Bar-Kokhba Revolt.” In Y. Magen et al. (eds.), The Land of Benjamin. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 243–300.

Samaria-Sebaste Kirkman, J. S. 1957. “The Evidence of the Coins.” In J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot, and K. Kenyon (eds.), Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. 43–70. Reisner, G. A., Fisher, C. S., and Lyon, D. G. (eds.). 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908–1910. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Appendices

Saqqâra Price, M. Jessop 1988. “The Coins.” In D. G. Jeffreys and H. S. Smith (eds.), The Anubieion at Saqqâra I: The Settlement and the Temple Precinct. London: Egypt Exploration Society. 66–76.

Si (Hauran) Augé, C. 1985. “Les monnaies de fouilles de Si’ et la circulation monétaire antique dans le Hauran.” In J.-M. Dentzer (ed.), Hauran I: recherches archéologiques sur la Syrie du Sud à l’époque hellénistique et romaine. Paris: P. Geuthner. 205–218.

Tel Anafa Meshorer, Y. 1994. “Coins 1968–1986.” In S. C. Herbert (ed.), Tel Anafa I.i: Final Report on Ten Years of Excavation at a Hellenistic and Roman Settlement in Northern Israel. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of the University of Michigan. 241–260.

Tel Beth-Shean Amitai-Preiss, N. 2006. “The Coins.” In A. Mazar (ed.), Excavations at Tel BethShean (1989–1996) I: From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 607–615.

Tel Jezreel Moorhead, S. 2008. “The Coins from the Excavations at Tel Jezreel (Israel),” Numismatic Chronicle 168: 453–474.

Cilicia and Cyprus Elaiussa Sebaste Tekin, O. 1999. “Monete provenienti dallo scavo.” In E. E. Schneider (ed.), Elaiussa Sebaste I: Campagne di scavo 1995–1997. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. 319–326. 2003. “Catalogue of the Excavation Coins found in the Campaigns of 1998 and 1999.” In E. E. Schneider (ed.), Elaiussa Sebaste II: Un porto tra Oriente e Occidente. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. 541–556.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

327

328

Appendices Polosa, A. 2003. “Monete dalle campagne di scavo 2000–2001.” In E. E. Schneider (ed.), Elaiussa Sebaste II: Un porto tra Oriente e Occidente. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. 570–596. 2010. “The Coins.” In E. E. Schneider (ed.), Elaiussa Sebaste III: L’Agora Romana. Istanbul: Ege Yaynıları. 164–185.

Gözlü Kule/Tarsus Cox, D. H. 1950. “The Coins.” In H. Goldman (ed.), Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus I: The Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Princeton University Press. 38–83.

Kourion Cox, D. H. 1959. Coins from the Excavations at Curium, 1932–1953. New York: American Numismatic Society.

Paphos Nicolaou, I. 1990. Paphos II: The Coins from the House of Dionysos. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

Yüceören Arslan, M. and Tahberer, B. 2005. “The Coins of the Yüceören Necropolis.” In S. Y., Şenyurt, A. Akçay, and Y. Kamiş (eds.), Yüceören: A Hellenistic and Roman Necropolis in Eastern Kilikia. Ankara: Gazi University Research Center for Archaeology. 235–260.

Anatolia Andriake Bulut, S. and Şengül, M. 2014. “2009–2012 Yılları Andriake Kazı Sikkeleri ve Yerleşim Tarihine Katkıları.” In K. Dörtlük, O. Tekin, and R. Boyraz Seyhan (eds.), First International Congress of the Anatolian Monetary History and Numismatics, 25–28 February 2013, Antalya, Proceedings. Antalya: Suna & Inan Kıraç Research Institute on Mediterranean Civilizations. 79–110.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Appendices

Aphrodisias MacDonald, D. J. 1976. Greek and Roman Coins from Aphrodisias. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Çankırıkapı Arslan, M. 1996a. “Greek and Greek Imperial Coins Found during the Çankırıkapı Excavations at Ankara.” In R. Ashton (ed.), Studies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey. London: Royal Numismatic Society. 107–114.

Ephesus Karwiese, S. 2003. “Liste der Fundmünzen aus den Grabungen im Hanghaus 1 von Ephesos 1960 bis 1998.” In C. Lang-Auinger (ed.), Forschungen in Ephesos VIII.4: Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: Funde und Ausstattung. Vienna: VÖAW. 340–355.

Hierapolis Travaglini, A. and Camilleri, V. G. 2010. Hierapolis di Frigia IV: Le Monete. Campagne di scavo 1957–2004. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.

Niksar Özcan, B. 1991. “Fouilles de la nécropole de Niksar (1982–1987), avec un appendice sur les trouvailles monétaires par B. Özcan et B. Rémy.” In B. Rémy (ed.), Pontica I: Recherches sur l’histoire du Pont dans l’Antiquité. Istanbul: Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes. 39–59.

Pergamum Voegtli, H. 1993. Die Fundmünzen aus der Stadtgrabung von Pergamon. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Sagalassos Scheers, S. 1993. “Catalogue of the Coins Found during the Years 1990 and 1991.” In M. Waelkens (ed.), Sagalassos I: First General Report on the Survey (1986–1989) and Excavations (1990–1991). Leuven University Press. 197–205.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

329

330

Appendices 1993. “Catalogue of the Coins Found in 1992.” In M. Waelkens and J. Poblome (eds.), Sagalassos II: Report on the Third Excavation Campaign of 1992. Leuven University Press. 249–260. 1995. “Catalogue of the Coins Found in 1993.” In M. Waelkens and J. Poblome (eds.), Sagalassos III: Report on the Fourth Excavation Campaign of 1993. Leuven University Press. 307–326. 1997. “Coins Found during 1994 and 1995.” In M. Waelkens and J. Poblome (eds.), Sagalassos IV: Report on the Survey and Excavation Campaigns of 1994 and 1995. Leuven University Press. 315–350. 2000. “Coins Found during 1996 and 1997.” In M. Waelkens and L. Loots (eds.), Sagalassos V: Report on the Survey and Excavation Campaigns of 1996 and 1997. Leuven University Press. 509–552.

Sardis Buttrey, T. V., Johnston, A., MacKenzie, K. M., and Bates, M. L. 1981. Greek, Roman, and Islamic Coins from Sardis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Side Atlan, S. 1976. 1947–1967 yılları Side kazıları sırasında elde edilen sikkeler. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi.

Troy Bellinger, A. R. 1961. Troy: The Coins. Princeton University Press.

Balkans and Danube Athens Thompson, M. 1954. The Athenian Agora II: Coins from the Roman through the Venetian Period. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Kroll, J. H. 1993. The Athenian Agora XXVI: The Greek Coins. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Corinth Edwards, K. M. 1933. Corinth VI: Coins, 1896–1929. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Appendices

Histria Preda, C. and Nubar, H. 1973. Histria III: Descoperirile monetare de la Histria 1914–1970. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România.

Nicopolis ad Istrum Butcher, K. 1995. “The Coins.” In A. Poulter (ed.), Nicopolis ad Istrum: A Roman, Late Roman and Early Byzantine City. Excavations 1985–1992. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. 269–314.

Western Europe and Africa Alesia Popovitch, L. 2001. “Les monnaies romaines.” In M. Reddé and S. von Schnurbein (eds.), Alésia. Fouilles et recherches franco-allemandes sur les travaux militaires romains autour du Mont-Auxois (1991–1997) II: Le matériel. Paris: De Boccard. 69–95.

Bath Walker, D. R. 1988. “The Roman Coins.” In B. Cunliffe (ed.), The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath II: The Finds from the Sacred Spring. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. 281–358.

Carthage Buttrey, T. V. 1976. “The Coins.” In J. H. Humphrey (ed.), Excavations at Carthage 1975 Conducted by the University of Michigan I. Tunis: Cérès Publications. 157–197.

Conimbriga Pereira, I., Bost, J.-P., and Hiernard, J. 1974. Fouilles de Conimbriga III: Les Monnaies. Paris: De Boccard.

Cosa Buttrey, T. V. 1980. “Cosa: The Coins.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 34: 5–153.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

331

332

Appendices

Cyrene Buttrey, T. V. 1997. “The Coins.” In D. White (ed.), The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya. Final Reports VI. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. 1–66.

Haltonchesters Casey, P. J. and Brickstock, R. J. 2010. “The Coins.” In J. N. Dore (ed.), Haltonchesters: Excavations Directed by J. P. Gillam at the Roman Fort, 1960–61. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 91–107.

Idanha-a-Velha Marques de Faria, A. 1991–1992. “Achados monetários em Idanha-a-Velha,” Nummus 14/15: 121–149.

Minturnae Ben-Dor, I. 1935. “Coins Found during the 1931–2 and 1933 Campaigns.” In J. Johnson (ed.), Excavations at Minturnae I: Monuments of the Republican Forum. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 91–120.

Ordona Scheers, S. 1997. “La circulation monétaire à Ordona.” In J. Mertens (ed.), Ordona IX: Rapports et études. Brussels: Institut historique belge de Rome. 293–371.

Reims Doyen, J.-M. 2007. Economie, monnaie et société à Reims sous l’Empire romain. Recherches sur la circulation monétaire en Gaule septentrionale intérieure. Reims: Société archéologique champenoise.

Sabratha Burnett, A., Jenkins, K., and Kenrick, P. M. 1986. “Coins from the Excavations.” In P. M. Kenrick (ed.), Excavations at Sabratha 1948–1951. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. 246–257.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Appendices

Segobriga Abascal, J. M., Alberola, A., and Cebrián, R. 2008. Segobriga IV: Hallazgos monetarios. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia.

Silchester Boon, G. C. 2000. “The Coins.” In M. Fulford and J. Timby (eds.), Late Iron Age and Roman Silchester: Excavations on the Site of the Forum-Basilica 1977, 1980–86. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. 127–179.

Vindonissa Kraay, C. M. 1962. Die Münzfunde von Vindonissa (bis Trajan). Basel: Birkhäuser. Pekáry, T. 1971. Die Fundmünzen von Vindonissa von Hadrian bis zum Ausgang der Römerherrschaft. Brugg: Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press

333

Appendix 3

|

Coin Hoards with Coins from Antioch

Table A3.1 Third- and second-century BCE hoards from Syria containing silver minted at Antioch. The percentage represented by Antioch coins is only included for hoards containing 12+ total coins.

Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Contents

Antioch Total (%)

Syria?

uncertain

148 BCE

17 silver

17 (100%)

Syria

uncertain

130 BCE

173+ silver

163 (94.2%)

Syria? (south Anatolia?)

uncertain

130 BCE

150+ silver

130 (86.7%)

Syria

uncertain

150 BCE

28+ silver

18 (64.3%)

Syria

Apamea (near)

165 BCE

45 silver

22 (48.9%)

Syria

uncertain

160 BCE

65 silver

26 (40%)

Syria (north)

uncertain

145 BCE

150+ silver

49 (32.7%)

Syria (Phoenicia)

uncertain

175 BCE

105+ silver

31 (29.5%)

Syria

Ghonsle

145 BCE

21 silver

5 (23.8%)

Syria (Phoenicia)

Ras Baalbek

142 BCE

45 silver

10 (22.2%)

Syria

Ma’aret en-Numan

162 BCE

536+ silver

102 (19%)

Syria

Gaziantep

143 BCE

1916 silver

339 (17.7%)

334

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Reference Duyrat 2016, no. 215; IGCH 1554 Duyrat 2016, no. 252; CH 10.314 Duyrat 2016, no. 250 Duyrat 2016, no. 206; IGCH 1551 Duyrat 2016, no. 191; CH 10.298 Duyrat 2016, no. 196; CH 8.434 Duyrat 2016, no. 224; IGCH 1555 Duyrat 2016, no. 181; CH 9.507 Duyrat 2016, no. 210; IGCH 1560 Duyrat 2016, no. 232; IGCH 1593 Duyrat 2016, no. 193; CH 6.37; CH 7.98; CH 8.433; CH 9.511 Duyrat 2016, no. 228; CH 9.527; CH 10.308

Appendices

335

Table A3.1 (cont.) Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Contents

Antioch Total (%)

Syria

uncertain

210 BCE

18 silver

3 (16.7%)

Syria

Aleppo?

165 BCE

37+ silver

6 (16.2%)

Syria (Phoenicia)

Khan el-Abde

128 BCE

118+ silver

16 (13.6%)

Syria

Antioch

150 BCE

4 gold; 28 silver

4 (12.5%)

Syria (Phoenicia)

uncertain

133 BCE

26 silver

3 (11.5%)

Syria (north)

uncertain

143 BCE

38+ silver

3 (7.9%)

Syria (southeast Turkey)

uncertain

142 BCE

750 silver

59 (7.9%)

Reference Duyrat 2016, no. 160; IGCH 1533; CH 1.75 Duyrat 2016, no. 189; IGCH 1546 Duyrat 2016, no. 255; IGCH 1597 Duyrat 2016, no. 207; IGCH 1553 Duyrat 2016, no. 247; CH 9.532 Duyrat 2016, no. 217; IGCH 1556 Duyrat 2016, no. 234; CH 3.60; CH 4.64

Oylum Höyüğü (Cyrrhestica) Laodicea ad Mare Teffaha (near Tartus)

195 BCE

134 silver

10 (7.5%)

Duyrat 2016, no. 166; CH 9.501

169 BCE

100+ silver

7 (7%)

Duyrat 2016, no. 184; IGCH 1544

142 BCE

30 silver

2 (6.7%)

Duyrat 2016, no. 225; IGCH 1557

Syria

Homs

210 BCE

60 silver

4 (6.7%)

Syria

Homs

230 BCE

50+ silver

1 (2%)

Syria

Antioch (near)

258 BCE

58 gold; 1 bronze

1 (1.7%)

Syria

uncertain

210 BCE

250+ silver

4 (1.6%)

Syria (Phoenicia)

Akkar

142 BCE

70 silver

1 (1.4%)

Syria

Kosseir

189 BCE

82+ silver

1 (1.2%)

Syria

Antioch

140 BCE

10+ silver

10 (n/a)

Syria

uncertain

175 BCE

9+ silver

8 (n/a)

Syria

Tell Sukas

242 BCE

10 silver

1 (n/a)

Syria

Laodicea ad Mare

145 BCE

10+ silver

1 (n/a)

Syria Syria Syria

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Duyrat 2016, no. 161; IGCH 1532 Duyrat 2016, no. 148; IGCH 1529 Duyrat 2016, no. 135; CH 9.489 Duyrat 2016, no. 162; IGCH 1535 Duyrat 2016, no. 209; IGCH 1559; CH 1.75 Duyrat 2016, no. 171; IGCH 1537 Duyrat 2016, no. 238; IGCH 1558 Duyrat 2016, no. 180; CH 2.83 Duyrat 2016, no. 145; IGCH 1528 Duyrat 2016, no. 208; IGCH 1561

336

Appendices

Table A3.2 Third- and second-century BCE hoards from outside of Syria containing silver minted at Antioch. The percentage represented by Antioch coins is only included for hoards containing 12+ total coins. Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Contents

Antioch Total (%)

East

Midyat

150 BCE

13+ silver

12 (92.3%)

East

Baghdad

136 BCE

212 silver

137 (64.6%)

175 BCE

26 silver

15 (57.7%)

130 BCE

20 silver

c. 10 (50%)

IGCH 1434

145 BCE

15+ silver

6 (40%)

IGCH 1777; SC II.2, 124 IGCH 1451; SC II.2, 82–83 Le Rider 1965, no. 5 IGCH 1805; SC II.2, 131–132

East

Zivnik (Gordyene) Alexandria ad Issum Mesopotamia

Anatolia

uncertain

187 BCE

14+ silver

4 (28.6%)

East

Susa

140 BCE

93 silver

20 (21.5%)

East

Susiana

140 BCE

200 silver

39 (19.5%)

East

Susiana

138 BCE

East East East Anatolia Anatolia East Anatolia East

Susa Susa Babylon uncertain uncertain Susa uncertain Hamadan

Anatolia

Ordu (Kotyora)

c. 175 BCE 140 BCE 150 BCE 125 BCE 140 BCE 149 BCE 190 BCE 147 BCE 2nd cent. BCE

East

Mesopotamia

Anatolia Anatolia

East Cilicia

Reference IGCH 1775; SC II.2, 123 IGCH 1778; SC II.2, 124–125 IGCH 1771; SC II.2, 122–123

2 gold; 485 silver; 5 bronze 42 silver 67 silver 100 silver 119+ silver 71+ silver 19 silver 251+ silver 360 silver

96 (19.5%)

IGCH 1806; SC II.2, 132–133

7 (16.7%) 11 (16.4%) 13 (13%) 14 (11.8%) 8 (11.3%) 2 (10.5%) 23 (9.2%) 30 (8.3%)

Le Rider 1965, no. 4 Le Rider 1965, no. 6 IGCH 1774; SC II.2, 123 IGCH 1454 IGCH 1453 Le Rider 1965, no. 3 IGCH 1450 SC II.2, 135–136

207 silver

17 (8.2%)

CH 9.530; SC II.2, 79

190 BCE

100 silver

8 (8%)

Gordium Gordium Quetta (Pakistan) Tarik Darreh (Kangavar)

205 BCE 200 BCE

100 silver 114 silver

7 (7%) 8 (7%)

IGCH 1769; SC I.2, 110–111 IGCH 1405 IGCH 1406

200 BCE

230 silver

14 (6.1%)

SC I.2, 123–124

225 BCE

34 gold

2 (5.9%)

East

Urfa

160 BCE

200 silver

10 (5%)

Anatolia

uncertain

190 BCE

21+ silver

1 (4.8%)

Anatolia

Pergamum

201 BCE

22 silver

1 (4.5%)

Anatolia East

Sardis Diyarbekir

190 BCE 205 BCE

60 silver 35+ silver

2 (3.3%) 1 (2.9%)

East East

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

CH 2.70; CH 7.78; SC I.2, 116 IGCH 1772; SC I.2, 111–112 IGCH 1317 IGCH 1303; SC I.2, 88–89 IGCH 1318 IGCH 1735; SC I.2, 106

Appendices

337

Table A3.2 (cont.) Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Contents

Antioch Total (%)

Reference

188 BCE

170+ silver

4 (2.4%)

IGCH 1413

190 BCE

400+ silver

9 (2.3%)

IGCH 1411 IGCH 1764; SC I.2, 109–110

Anatolia

Ayaz-In (Phrygia) Central

East

Mesopotamia

230 BCE

94+ silver

2 (2.1%)

Anatolia

Pamphylia or Cilicia

186 BCE

800+ silver

15 (1.9%)

SC II.2, 77–78

Anatolia

Sardis

240 BCE

55 silver

1 (1.8%)

IGCH 1299; CH 9.499; SC I.2, 78

225 BCE

60+ silver

1 (1.7%)

IGCH 1370; SC I.2, 83

190 BCE

752+ silver

11 (1.5%)

16 (0.3%) 3 (0.1%)

IGCH 1410 IGCH 1763; CH 8.302; SC I.2, 108–109 CH 1.73; SC I.2, 83–84 IGCH 1424; SC I.2, 75 IGCH 1369; CH 8.324; SC I.2, 81–82 CH 8.308; SC I.2, 79–80 CH 1.87; CH 2.90

3 (0.1%)

IGCH 237; SC II.2, 155

3 (n/a)

Anatolia

Anatolia

Northwest Asia Minor Mektepini

East

Tell Halaf

235 BCE

352 silver

4 (1.1%)

Anatolia Cilicia

230 BCE 280 BCE

145 BCE

100+ silver 150+ silver 13 gold; 802 silver 5215 silver 5000 silver 3000+ silver 5+ silver

1 (1%) 1 (0.7%)

East

Asia Minor Mersin Kizakli (near Amasya) Meydancikkale Near Kırıkhan Pharsalus (Thessaly) Mesopotamia

Armenia

Barda environs

129 BCE

6+ silver

3 (n/a)

Anatolia

Gordium

5+ gold

2 (n/a)

East

Nimrud

223 BCE late 3rd cent. BCE

IGCH 1776; SC II.2, 124 IGCH 1736; SC II.2, 117–118 IGCH 1404; SC I.2, 84

6 silver

1 (n/a)

IGCH 1766; SC I.2, 110

Anatolia

Anatolia Cilicia Cilicia Balkans

230 BCE 235 BCE 142 BCE 167 BCE

4 (0.5%)

Table A3.3 Late second- and first-century BCE hoards containing silver minted at Antioch. The percentage represented by Antioch coins is only included for hoards containing 16+ total coins.

Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Contents

Antioch Total (%)

East

Midyat

40+ silver

40 (100%)

Syria

uncertain

c. 80 BCE after 69 BCE

25+ silver

25 (100%)

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Reference IGCH 1782 Duyrat 2016, no. 329; IGCH 1577

338

Appendices

Table A3.3 (cont.) Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Contents

Antioch Total (%)

Syria

Aleppo

55–50 BCE

22 silver

22 (100%)

Syria

Aleppo

76/5 BCE?

20+ silver

20 (100%)

Syria

uncertain

76/5 BCE?

53+ silver

52 (98.1%)

Syria

Akkar

c. 30 BCE

16+ silver

14 (87.5%)

East

Diyarbekir

238+ silver

150 (63%)

IGCH 1744

Syria

Baarin

21 silver

IGCH 1567

East

Basra

11 (52.4%) 253 (47.1%)

Syria

Kessab (near Seleucia Pieria)

after 105/4 BCE

392 silver

155 (39.5%)

Duyrat 2016, no. 288; IGCH 1568

East

Mardin

c. 60–55 BCE

83+ silver

31 (37.3%)

IGCH 1784

Syria

Baalbek?

113/2 BCE

76+ silver

16 (21.1%)

Syria

Homs

112 BCE

19 silver

4 (21.1%)

after 30 BCE c. 110 BCE after 45 BCE

537+ silver

Reference Duyrat 2016, no. 335; IGCH 1578 = CH 1.75 Duyrat 2016, no. 315; IGCH 1575 Duyrat 2016, no. 317; CH 10.345 Duyrat 2016, no. 314; IGCH 1583

IGCH 1786

Duyrat 2016, no. 280; CH 8.479 Duyrat 2016, no. 286; CH 9.545

115 BCE

c. 200 silver

35 (17.5%)

IGCH 1435

Anatolia

Between Tarsus and Adana uncertain

c. 125 BCE

119+ silver

14 (11.8%)

Syria

Tartus

120 BCE

200 silver

19 (9.5%)

Southern Levant

Haifa

113/2 BCE

400+ silver

23 (5.8%)

Syria

uncertain

127/6 BCE

30 silver

1 (3.3%)

IGCH 1454 Duyrat 2016, no. 277; CH 10.322; CH 8.471 Duyrat 2016, no. 281; IGCH 1605 = CH 3.63 = CH 8.477 Duyrat 2016, no. 262; IGCH 1599

Southern Levant

uncertain

34+ silver

1 (2.9%)

IGCH 1610

East

Gombad

226 (1.7%)

IGCH 1814

Syria

Kırıkhan

38/7 BCE

1 (0%)

Duyrat 2016, no. 353; CH 9.579

Syria

Laodicea ad Mare

125 BCE

5 (n/a)

Duyrat 2016, no. 256; IGCH 1563

Cilicia

after 86 BCE before 53 BCE

c. 13000 silver 3000+ silver (only 31 studied) 10 silver

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Appendices

339

Table A3.3 (cont.) Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Contents

Antioch Total (%)

Syria

Coastal Syria or Northern Lebanon

123/2 BCE

9 silver

3 (n/a)

Syria

Antioch

c. 95 BCE

8 silver

7 (n/a)

Syria

uncertain

47/6 BCE?

5 silver

4 (n/a)

Reference Duyrat 2016, no. 273; CH 10.318 Duyrat 2016, no. 304; IGCH 1570 Duyrat 2016, no. 345; CH 10.358

Table A3.4 Hoards buried c. 31 BCE–192 CE, which contain silver minted at Antioch. The percentage represented by Antioch coins is only included for hoards containing 22+ total coins. The first three hoards predate Nero’s reforms. Find Territory

Find Site

Syria

Al-Bab

Syria

uncertain

Syria

Burial Date

Contents

Antioch Total (%)

Reference

76 silver

75 (98.7%)

CH 9.589; CHRE 8006

70+ silver

40 (57%)

CH 2.131

Akkar

12 CE Late 1st c. BCE 30 BCE

16+ silver

15 (n/a)

IGCH 1583

Southern Levant

Tiberias

119 CE

218 silver

218? (or Tyre?) (100%)

CHRE 7704; Hamburger 1959

Syria

Ptolemais (Ake)

118 CE

44+ silver

24 (54.5%)

Syria

Tyre

79 CE

75+ silver

40? (53.3%)

Syria

Ptolemais (Ake)

161 CE

Southern Levant

Beit Mirsim

136 CE

Amazia

128 CE

77 silver

22 (28.6%)

Gamla

63 CE

27+ silver

7 (25.9%)

Nahal Shalwa

114 CE

4 gold; 132 silver

28 (20.6%)

Southern Levant Southern Levant Southern Levant

40 gold; 30 silver 1 gold; 384 silver; (?) bronze

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

CHRE 7726; Tepper 2010 CHRE 8101; Noe 1937, no. 1142

29 (41.4%)

CH 7.243

150? (39%?)

CHRE 8189; Waner and Safrai 2001, no. 89 CHRE 7733 (unpublished) CHRE 7592; Waner and Safrai 2001, no. 144 CHRE 7617 (unpublished)

340

Appendices

Table A3.4 (cont.) Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Contents

Antioch Total (%)

Reference Butcher 2004, 273, no. 29; Evers 1970, 29–34; CHRE 9736 Butcher 2004, 273, no. 30; Svoronos 1907, 230–248

Syria

Latakia

140 CE

64+ silver

9 (14.1%)

Southern Levant

Eleutheropolis

c. 130 CE

285 silver

30 (10.5%)

Hebron District

135 CE

54+ silver

5 (9.3%)

CH 3.90; CHRE 7844

Shahariyem

70 CE

27+ silver

2 (7.4%)

CH 8.553; CHRE 7956

Murabba-at

120 CE

227+ silver

14 (6.2%)

CH 2.142

Khirbet Badd ‘Isa

136 CE

2 gold; 144 silver

9 (6.2%)

Bijovsky 2004, 246–248

Southern Levant

uncertain

136 CE

36+ silver

2 (5.6%)

Butcher 2004, 273, no. 32; Meshorer 1985, 43–50

Southern Levant

Jericho

135 CE

53 silver

2 (3.8%)

CH 7.234

Southern Levant

Mount of Olives

70 CE

16 silver

1 (n/a)

Masada

110 CE

13 silver

8 (n/a)

123 CE

13 silver

8 (n/a)

132 CE

13 silver

3 (n/a)

Southern Levant Southern Levant Southern Levant Southern Levant

Southern Levant Southern Levant Southern Levant Southern Levant

Sha’ar Ha’amakim Idna (Hebron) uncertain

70 CE

12 silver

1 (n/a)

East

Al-Jezireh (Upper Euphrates)

115 CE

10 silver

8 (n/a)

Southern Levant

Tell el-Far’ah (South)

59 CE

uncertain silver and bronze

1 (n/a)

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Butcher 2004, 272, no. 23; Spijkerman 1961, 25–32 Meshorer 1989, 77; CHRE 7281 CHRE 8162; Berman 2009 CH 4.113; CHRE 6935 Butcher 2004, 272, no. 22a CH 7.153; Butcher 2004, 272, no. 25 CHRE 8084; Petrie 1930, 20–21

Appendices

341

Table A3.5 Hoards buried c. 192–284 CE, which contain tetradrachms attributed to the mint at Antioch. Percentages not included for hoards with less than thirty-two total finds. Find Territory Southern Levant

Contents

Transjordan 253 CE

124 tetra.

124 (100%)

124 (100%)

75+ tetra.

74 (98.7%)

74 (98.7%)

276 tetra.

269 (97.5%)

269 (97.5%)

114 (91.9%)

114 (91.9%)

Bellinger 1949b, no. 18

230 (95.8%)

220 (87.3%)

Metcalf 1975, 92, n. 16; CHRE 8062

Find Site

Syria

uncertain

Syria

Dura Europos

249 CE 253 CE

Antioch Total (%)

Antioch Tetradrachm (%)

Burial Date

1 bronze + 123 silver (115 tetra.; 7 denarii; 1 other) 240+ silver (10 denarii; 227 tetra.; 3 other)

Reference Bland 1990– 1991 Bland 1991b, Hoard I Bellinger 1949b, no. 6

Syria

Dura Europos

253 CE

Syria

Antioch

after 250 CE

Cilicia

Iskenderun

after 250 CE

665 tetra.

563+ (84.6%)

563+ (84.6%)

Bland 1991b, Hoard III; CHRE 9611

Syria

Dura Europos

c. 256 CE

96 silver (91 tetra.; 5 radiates)

82 (85.4%)

81 (84.4%)

Bellinger 1949b, no. 2

Syria

Khan Toman

235 CE

114 tetra.

86 (75.4%)

86 (75.4%)

Kiwan 2012, 126

106+ tetra.

79 (74.5%)

79 (74.5%)

Bland 1991b, no. 2

461 (84.9%)

355 (65.4%)

Bellinger 1949b, no. 10

595 (75.5%)

451 (57.2%)

Bellinger 1949b, no. 1

205 (57.3%)

177 (49.4%)

Bellinger 1949b, no. 7

61+ (49.6%)

57 (46.3%)

Kramer 2004, 72–73

Syria

uncertain

after 251 CE

Syria

Dura Europos

c. 256 CE

Syria

Dura Europos

c. 256 CE

Syria

Dura Europos

253 CE

Syria

Gindaros

235 CE

1 bronze + 542 silver (394 tetra.; 148 radiates) 788 silver (506 tetra.; 1 denarius; 281 radiates) 358 silver (212 tetra.; 70 denarii; 76 radiates) 123 silver (97 tetra.; 25 denarii; 1 radiates)

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

342

Appendices

Table A3.5 (cont.) Find Territory Syria Southern Levant Syria

East

Find Site Dura Europos Khirbet Qasta (Galilee) Mishrafit Remeilah

Nineveh

Burial Date

Contents

Antioch Total (%)

Antioch Tetradrachm (%)

Reference

235 CE

299 silver (10 denarii; 289 tetra.)

136 (45.5%)

135 (45.2%)

Bellinger 1949b, no. 19

220 CE

81+ tetra.

36 (44.4%)

36 (44.4%)

CH 7.157; CHRE 7904

222 CE

298 tetra.

128 (43%)

128 (43%)

Kiwan 2012, 126–127

139+ (35.8%)

138+ (35.6%)

Hill 1931; CHRE 4849

50 (21.1%)

50 (21.1%)

Hamburger 1954; CHRE 5502

1109 (71.8%)

267 (17.3%)

Spijkerman 1958–1959

11 (2.7%)

10 (2.5%)

Bellinger 1949b, nos. 3 and 4

1 (2.1%)

1 (2.1%)

Bellinger 1949b, no. 11

32 (1.4%)

32 (1.4%)

CH 2.243

23 (n/a)

22 (n/a)

Bellinger 1949b, no. 5

28 (n/a)

28 (n/a)

Bellinger 1949b, no. 20

after 227 CE

Southern Levant

Gush Halav 249 CE (Galilee)

Southern Levant

Capernaum

270 CE

Syria

Dura Europos

c. 217 CE

Syria

Dura Europos

after 247 CE

Southern Levant

Tell Kalak (near Amman)

225 CE

Syria

Dura Europos

c. 256 CE

Syria

Dura Europos

253 CE

1 bronze + 387 silver (142 denarii; 150 tetra.; 95 other) 35 bronze + 202 silver (180 tetra.; 22 denarii) 1 bronze + 1545 silver (270 tetra.; 1274 radiates) 402 silver (31 tetra.; 370 denarii; 1 other) 47 bronze + 1 tetra. 2350 silver (1985 denarii; 315 drachms; 32 tetra.) 29 silver (22 tetra.; 6 denarii; 1 radiates) 28 tetra.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Appendices

343

Table A3.6 Hoards buried c. 192–284 CE, which contain denarii attributed to the mint at Antioch. Percentages not included for hoards with less than sixty total finds. Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Contents 123 silver (97 tetra.; 25 denarii; 1 radiates) 259 silver (112 denarii; 147 radiates)

Syria

Gindaros

235 CE

Balkans

Olteni (Romania)

257 CE

Danube

Balozsameggyes (Hungary)

255 CE

Balkans

Barca (Romania)

251 CE

Western Europe

Reims

3rd cent. CE

Western Europe

Reims

3rd cent. CE

Syria

Dura Europos

253 CE

Western Europe

Sint-Oedenrode (Netherlands)

256 CE

Anatolia

Göktepe

3rd cent. CE

Balkans

Prăjești (Romania)

193 CE

183 denarii

Syria

Dura Europos

235 CE

299 silver (10 denarii; 289 tetra.)

337 silver (272 denarii; 65 radiates) 127 silver (39 denarii; 88 radiates) 74 silver (31 denarii; 43 radiates) 310 silver (232 denarii; 78 radiates) 358 silver (212 tetra.; 70 denarii; 76 radiates) 167 silver (66 radiates; 101 denarii) 7 bronze + 178 silver (37 denarii; 88 radiates; 53 uncertain)

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch Total (%)

Antioch Denarii (%)

Reference

61+ (49.6%)

4 (3.3%)

Kramer 2004, 72–73

32 (12.4%)

5 (1.9%)

11 (3.3%)

6 (1.8%)

10 (7.9%)

2 (1.6%)

1 (1.4%)

1 (1.4%)

Doyen 2007, Tresor F

4 (1.3%)

4 (1.3%)

Doyen 2007, Tresor E

205 (57.3%)

2 (0.6%)

Bellinger 1949b, no. 7

7 (4.2%)

1 (0.6%)

CHRE 10010; Gelder 1967, 378

5 (2.7%)

1 (0.5%)

Hollard and Bingöl 1994; CHRE 5297

1 (0.5%)

1 (0.5%)

CHRE 9379; Căpitanu and Ʈarălungă 1992

136 (45.5%)

1 (0.3%)

Bellinger 1949b, no. 19

CHRE 2664; Mitrea 1971, 115–143 CHRE 2875; Bíróné-Sey et al. 1971, 190–204 CHRE 2656; Tudor 1968, 125

344

Appendices

Table A3.6 (cont.) Find Territory

Burial Date

Find Site

Contents

Balkans

Belgrade (Serbia)

Western Europe

Adetswil-Pulten (Switzerland)

226 CE

Syria

Dura Europos

c. 217 CE

Danube

Tengelic (Hungary)

259 CE

Balkans

Plevna (Bulgaria)

c. 250s CE

Danube

Oberdorf (Austria)

267 CE

Western Europe

Eck en Wiel (Netherlands)

244 CE

254 CE

2810 silver (denarii?; radiates?) 658 silver (641 denarii; 15 radiates; 2 other) 402 silver (31 tetra.; 370 denarii; 1 other) 1090 silver (14 denarii; 1076 radiates) 3296+ silver (592 denarii; 2704 radiates) 4 bronze + 27 silver (19 denarii; 8 radiates) 34 silver (14 denarii; 20 radiates)

Antioch Total (%)

Antioch Denarii (%)

Reference

140 (5%)

7 (0.2%)

Kondić 1969

1 (0.2%)

1 (0.2%)

CHRE 5503; Diaz Tabernero et al. 1998

11 (2.7%)

1 (0.2%)

Bellinger 1949b, nos. 3 and 4 CHRE 2826; Albeker and Bironé-Sey 1969 Mattingly and Salisbury 1924; CHRE 2722

92 (8.4%)

1 (0.1%)

3 (0.1%)

1 (0.0%)

3 (n/a)

3 (n/a)

CHRE 3368

2 (n/a)

1 (n/a)

CHRE 9885; Gelder 1967, 173

Table A3.7 Hoards buried c. 192–300 CE, which contain radiates attributed to the mint at Antioch. No percentages are included for hoards with less than sixteen total finds. Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Contents

Syria Anatolia

Hama Bogazköy

272 CE 270 CE

312 radiates 523 radiates

Anatolia

Ihsaniye

285 CE

83 radiates

Syria

uncertain

283 CE

370 radiates

Antioch Total (%)

Antioch Radiates

Reference

312 (100%) 312 (100%) Seyrig 1966, 662 521 (99.6%) 521 (99.6%) Bittel 1955 Temizsoy 1996; 79 (95.2%) 79 (95.2%) CHRE 8163 Bastien and 310 (83.8%) 310 (83.8%) Huvelin 1969

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Appendices

345

Table A3.7 (cont.) Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Contents

Antioch Total (%)

Antioch Radiates

Reference

14 (82.4%)

14 (82.4%)

CHRE 9117

Anatolia

Gümüşhane (Satala)

283 CE

17 radiates

Syria

Antioch area

286 CE

701+ radiates

Southern Levant

Qula

296 CE

2109 radiates

Syria

Nahr Ibrahim

284 CE

c. 5200 radiates

Syria

uncertain

284 CE

Southern Levant

Tiberias

Southern Levant

Bet She’an

1580 (74.9%) 3766 (72.4%)

1580 (74.9%) 3766 (72.4%)

2 bronze + 136 radiates

98 (71%)

98 (71%)

293 CE

99 radiates

68 (68.7%)

68 (68.7%)

270 CE

22 radiates

15 (68.2%)

15 (68.2%)

1109 (71.8%)

842 (54.5%)

Southern Levant

Capernaum

269 CE

Syria

Kafr Nebudi

260 CE

Syria

uncertain

Syria

Bekaa

293 CE c. 296 CE

Western Europe

Almenara (Spain)

Syria Anatolia

548 (78.2%) 548 (78.2%)

after 266 CE

c. 256 CE West Turkey A 267 CE Dura Europos

Syria

Dura Europos

c. 256 CE

Syria

Dura Europos

c. 256 CE

Brenot and Pflaum 1965, Tresor B Kool 2016; CHRE 7490 Pink 1963 Brenot and Pflaum 1965, Tresor P Hamburger 1964; CHRE 7710 Bland 1981; CHRE 8174

1 bronze + 1544 silver (270 tetra.; 1274 radiates) 597 silver (591 radiates; 6 tetra.) 61 radiates

316+ (52.9%+)

310+ (51.9%)

29 (47.5%)

29 (47.5%)

Carson 1967– 1968; CHRE 5327 Pflaum 1980

45 radiates

21 (46.7%)

21 (46.7%)

Diwan 2013

31 silver (2 denarii; 29 radiates)

Gozalbes 1996– 1997; CHRE 3190 Bellinger 1949b, 14 (31.1%) 14 (31.1%) no. 17 129 (20.3%) 129 (20.3%) Elks 1975

45 radiates 637 radiates 1 bronze + 542 silver (394 tetra.; 148 radiates) 788 silver (506 tetra.; 1 denarius; 281 radiates)

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

12 (38.7%)

Spijkerman 1958–1959

12 (38.7%)

461 (84.9%) 106 (19.5%)

Bellinger 1949b, no. 10

595 (75.5%) 144 (18.3%)

Bellinger 1949b, no. 1

346

Appendices

Table A3.7 (cont.) Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Antioch Total (%)

Antioch Radiates

Balkans

Olteni

257 CE

259 silver (112 denarii; 147 radiates)

32 (12.4%)

27 (10.4%)

CHRE 2664; Găzdac 2002

Western Europe

Lugo (Spain)

259 CE

47 radiates

4 (8.5%)

4 (8.5%)

CHRE 4779; Martínez Mira 1995

Danube

Tengelic

259 CE

92 (8.4%)

91 (8.4%)

CHRE 2826; Găzdac 2002

Danube

Nagyvenyim

257 CE

94 (7.6%)

94 (7.6%)

CHRE 5313; FMRU I, 272–279

Syria

Dura Europos

253 CE

205 (57.3%)

26 (7.3%)

Bellinger 1949b, no. 7

Balkans

Eretria

253 CE

201 radiates

14 (7%)

14 (7%)

CHRE 5388; Spoerri et al. 2012

Anatolia

West Turkey B

c. 260s CE

195 radiates

13 (6.7%)

13 (6.7%)

Elks 1975

Balkans

Bârca

251 CE

127 silver (39 denarii; 88 radiates)

13 (10.2%)

8 (6.3%)

CHRE 2656; Tudor 1968

Anatolia

Troy

282 CE

218 radiates

11 (5%)

11 (5%)

Bellinger 1961, 201–211

Balkans

Belgrade

254 CE

140 (5%)

133 (4.7%)

Kondić 1969

Western Europe

Xanten (Germany)

268 CE

2 (4.3%)

2 (4.3%)

CHRE 7432

1 (4.2%)

1 (4.2%)

CHRE 4822; Gurt 1985, 133–144

7 (4.2%)

6 (3.6%)

CHRE 10010; Gelder 1967, 378

23 (79.3%)

1 (3.5%)

Bellinger 1949b, no. 5

Western Europe

Coruna del 280 CE Conde (Spain)

Western Sint-Oedenrode 256 CE Europe (Netherlands)

Syria

Dura Europos

c. 256 CE

Contents

1090 silver (14 denarii; 1076 radiates) 1233 silver (2 denarii; 1231 radiates) 358 silver (212 tetra.; 70 denarii; 76 radiates)

2810 silver (denarii?; radiates?) 3 bronze + 43 silver (2 denarii; 41 radiates) 6 bronze + 18 radiates 167 silver (101 denarii; 66 radiates) 29 silver (22 tetra.; 6 denarii; 1 radiate)

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Reference

Appendices

347

Table A3.7 (cont.) Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Western Europe

Eck en Wiel (Netherlands)

244 CE

Balkans

Slatina

257 CE

Western Europe

Clamerey (Gaul)

after 260 CE

Anatolia

Göktepe

late 3rd cent. CE

Western Europe

Nanterre

255 CE

Western Europe

Stevenage 263 CE (Hertfordshire)

Danube

Balozsameggyes 255 CE

Contents 34 silver (14 denarii; 20 radiates) 37 silver (12 denarii; 25 radiates) 1550 silver (2 denarii; 1548 radiates) 7 bronze + 178 silver (37 denarii; 88 radiates; 53 uncertain) 1862 silver (219 denarii; 1613 radiates) 2579 silver (385 denarii; 212 radiates) 337 silver (272 denarii; 65 radiates) 67 silver (34 denarii; 33 radiates) 96 silver (91 tetra.; 5 radiates)

Antioch Total (%)

Antioch Radiates

2 (5.9%)

1 (2.9%)

CHRE 9885; Gelder 1967, 173

1 (2.7%)

1 (2.7%)

CHRE 9746; Gerasimov 1979, 136

38 (2.5%)

38 (2.5%)

Giard 1980; CHRE 7571

5 (2.7%)

4 (2.2%)

Hollard and Bingöl 1994; CHRE 5297

39 (2.1%)

39 (2.1%)

48+ (1.9%)

48 (1.9%)

11 (3.3%)

5 (1.5%)

1 (1.5%)

1 (1.5%)

CHRE 4846; Găzdac 2002

82 (85.4%)

1 (1%)

Bellinger 1949b, no. 2 Doyen 2007, Tresor G

Balkans

Bîrca

249 CE

Syria

Dura Europos

c. 256 CE

Western Europe

Reims

mid 3rd cent. CE

280 silver (70 denarii; 210 radiates)

2 (0.7%)

2 (0.7%)

Balkans

Plevna

c. 250s CE

3296+ silver (592 denarii; 2704 radiates)

3 (0.1%)

2 (0.1%)

Western Europe

Normanby (Lincolnshire)

293 CE

47912 coins

7 (0%)

7 (0.0%)

7 radiates

6 (n/a)

6 (n/a)

Balkans

Panayot Volovo 253 CE

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Reference

Le Gentilhomme 1947 Bland and Burnett 1988, no. 8 CHRE 2875; Bíróné-Sey et al. 1971, 190–204

Mattingly and Salisbury 1924; CHRE 2722 Bland and Burnett 1988, no. 12 CHRE 10389; Varbanov 2017

348

Appendices

Table A3.7 (cont.) Find Territory

Burial Date

Find Site

Contents

Antioch Total (%)

Antioch Radiates

Balkans

Ostrov

247 CE

6 silver (3 denarii; 3 radiates)

Balkans

Ruše

270 CE

8 radiates

2 (n/a)

2 (n/a)

Southern Levant

Jerusalem

c. 270 CE

14 radiates

1 (n/a)

1 (n/a)

2 (n/a)

2 (n/a)

Reference CHRE 9618; Dima and Ecentererescu 2009 CHRE 9048; FMRSI III, no. 183/1 Sweeney and Visonà 1991; CHRE 8183

Table A3.8 Hoards buried c. 284–450 CE, which contain bronze coins attributed to the Antioch mint. No percentages are included for hoards with less than thirty-two total finds. Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Contents

Syria

Lebanon

307 CE

182 bronze

Syria

uncertain

310 CE

451+ bronze

Syria

Palmyra

395 CE

45 nummi

Syria

Aleppo

309 CE

1288 nummi

Syria

Homs

309 CE

1017 bronze

Anatolia

Antioch Pisidia

305 CE

1669 radiates

Anatolia

Ankara

310 CE

885 coins (576 radiates; 309 nummi)

269 (30.4%)

Egypt

uncertain

360 CE

37 bronze

9 (24.3%)

Egypt

uncertain

before 305 CE

1054 bronze

Southern Levant

El-Yamun

363 CE

341 bronze

Anatolia

Ephesus

305 CE

199 coins

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Antioch Total (%) 77 (42.3%) 186 (41.2%) 18 (40%) 504 (39.1%) 376 (37%) 586 (35.1%)

220 (20.9%) 63 (18.5%) 35 (17.6%)

Reference Bastien 1967 Bland 1988 Krzyżanowska 2014, 52–55 Bastien 1967 Bastien 1967 Cesano 1921, 63–104 Kienast 1962, 65–112; CHRE 6298 Ford 2000, AE 16; King 1986, 285 Metcalf 1974, 104; Bastien 1967, 166 CHRE 7664; Baramki 1945 Voetter 1913, 168–171

Appendices

349

Table A3.8 (cont.) Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Contents

Anatolia

Priene

395 CE

186 bronze

Egypt

“Cairo”

310 CE

1851 bronze

Southern Levant

Caesarea

395 CE

81 bronze

11 (13.6%)

CHRE 7639 (unpublished; from excavation)

Southern Levant

En Nashut

450 CE

51 bronze

6 (11.8%)

CHRE 7817; Ariel 1987

Egypt

Luxor

317 CE

505 bronze

57 (11.3%)

Egypt

Theadelphia

314 CE

172 bronze

19 (11%)

Egypt

Hawara (Fayum)

410 CE

3132 bronze

345 (11%)

Western Europe

Augusta Emerita (Spain)

before 423 CE

1400 coins (1399 bronze; 1 gold)

149 (10.6%)

Velázquez Jiménez 1983

Egypt

uncertain

355 CE

1484 bronze

145 (9.8%)

Mattingly 1956

Egypt

uncertain

361 CE

650 bronze (448 identified)

62 (9.5%)

Milne 1920, Hoard A

Balkans

Pleven (Bulgaria)

305 CE

80 nummi

7 (8.8%)

CHRE 2771; Kunisz 1987

Egypt

Hawara (Fayum)

420 CE

2999 bronze

236 (7.9%)

Milne 1926, H2

Southern Levant

Khirbet Fa’ush

Southern Levant

Antioch Total (%) 27 (14.5%) 255 (13.8%)

Reference Regling 1927, 127–118; Kent 1994, clvi Metcalf 1974

Metcalf 1974, 104, “Luxor 1931”; Kraemer and Miles 1952 Metcalf 1974, 104, “Theadelphia 1912” Milne 1920, Hoard B; Milne 1926, H6

419 CE

83 bronze

6 (7.2%)

CHRE 7588; Bijovsky 2012a

Caesarea Maritima

421 CE

3700 bronze (1453 identified)

256 (6.9%; 17.6% identified)

Raphael and Bijovsky 2014

Egypt

Kom Washim (Karanis)

430 CE

1074 bronze

73 (6.8%)

Milne 1926, KW

Egypt

Dendereh

310 CE

242 bronze

15 (6.2%)

Metcalf 1974, 104, “Dendereh 1898”; Petrie 1900

Southern Levant

Khirbet Fa’ush

401 CE

34 bronze (18 identified)

2 (5.9%; 11.1% identified)

CHRE 7589; Bijovsky 2012a

Southern Levant

Katzrin

361 CE

40 bronze

2 (5%)

CHRE 7718 (unpublished; from excavation)

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

350

Appendices

Table A3.8 (cont.) Find Territory

Burial Date

Contents

Antioch Total (%)

Dunaújváros (Hungary)

284 CE

67 radiates

3 (4.5%)

CHRE 2837; Găzdac 2002, no. 529

uncertain

355 CE

318+ bronze

13 (4.1%)

Bland 1989, Hoard 1

Tarifa (Spain)

402 CE

5 (3.8%)

Nony 1967

Attica

345 CE

132 bronze (29 identified) 139 nummi

4 (2.9%)

Balkans

Ljubljana (Slovenia)

402 CE

37 nummi

1 (2.7%)

Balkans

Banjole (Croatia)

375 CE

43 nummi

1 (2.3%)

Danube

Aba (Hungary)

341 CE

90 nummi

2 (2.2%)

Bellinger 1928 CHRE 8126; FMRSI I, 231–235, nos. 155/31a, 155/31b CHRE 9247; FMRK XVIII, 108–111, no. 69/2 CHRE 7479; FMRU I, 22–23

Balkans

Razhevo Konare (Bulgaria)

317 CE

3693 coins (11 radiates; 3682 nummi)

80 (2.2%)

Africa (North)

Tipasa (Algeria)

c. 420 CE

239 bronze

5 (2.1%)

335 CE

48 nummi

1 (2.1%)

378 CE

56 nummi

1 (1.8%)

Balkans

Svištov (Bulgaria)

317 CE

366 coins (6 denarii; 235 radiates; 125 nummi)

5 (1.4%)

CHRE 4192; Găzdac 2002, 559–560

Danube

Nagytétény (Hungary)

333 CE

10585 nummi

129 (1.2%)

CHRE 8451; Duncan 1993, 27

Western Europe

Dardilly (France)

375 CE

252 coins (1 denarius; 251 nummi)

3 (1.2%)

CHRE 12746; Amandry and Royet 1997, 129–139

Western Europe Africa (North)

San Giacomo (Italy)

90 bronze

1 (1.1%)

101 bronze

1 (1%)

361 CE

206 nummi

2 (1%)

378 CE

995 nummi

8 (0.8%)

CHRE 7507; FMRU III, 183–192

375 CE

381 coins (1 radiate; 380 nummi)

3 (0.8%)

CHRE 4339; Burger 1978

Danube Africa (North) Western Europe Balkans

Balkans Balkans

Balkans Danube

Danube

Find Site

Ljubljana (Slovenia) Razvanje (Slovenia)

Tipasa (Algeria) Stobi (Macedonia) KisigmándÖregcsémpuszta (Hungary) Mernye (Hungary)

c. 400 CE c. 420 CE

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Reference

CHRE 12391; Bozhkova 2002 Turcan 1961; Kent 1994, clxi; CHRE 4938 CHRE 8131; FMRSI I, 346–349, no. 155/57 CHRE 9047; FMRSI III, 408–411, no. 182/2

CH 6.197; Kent 1994, clix Turcan 1961; Kent 1994, clxi; CHRE 4939 CHRE 8243; Vinčić and Maneva 2000

Appendices

351

Table A3.8 (cont.) Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Contents

Antioch Total (%)

Reference

Balkans

Pantelimon (Romania)

450 CE

256 bronze

2 (0.8%)

CHRE 9329

Danube

Dunaújváros (Hungary)

378 CE

140 coins (1 radiate; 139 nummi)

1 (0.7%)

CHRE 4314; Guest 1994

Balkans

Petralice (Macedonia)

310 CE

377 nummi

2 (0.5%)

CHRE 9761; JosifovskaDragojević 1990

Danube

Öcsöd (Hungary)

383 CE

12 (0.5%)

CHRE 8475; Jónás 1930

Danube

Dunaújváros (Hungary)

378 CE

1 (0.5%)

CHRE 4313; Guest 1994

Western Europe

Colonne (France)

294 CE

9 (0.5%)

CHRE 12782; Estiot 1998

Western Europe

L’estrade (France)

361 CE

2 (0.5%)

CHRE 12492; Depeyrot and Passelac 1979

Western Europe

Seltz (France)

307 CE

453 nummi

2 (0.4%)

CHRE 12489; Amandry 1979

17 (0.4%)

CHRE 8468; FMRU II, 43–55

2265 coins (2 radiates; 2263 nummi) 191 coins (1 radiate; 190 nummi) 1726 coins (3 denarii; 1723 radiates) 435 coins (1 radiate; 434 nummi)

Danube

Árpás (Hungary)

378 CE

4040 coins (1 denarius; 2 radiates; 4037 nummi)

Western Europe

Lier (Belgium)

423 CE

486 bronze

2 (0.4%)

Danube

Perbál (Hungary)

354 CE

732 nummi

3 (0.4%)

321 bronze

1+ (0.3%)

680 bronze

2 (0.3%)

971 bronze

2 (0.2%)

583 nummi

1 (0.2%)

Western Europe Western Europe Balkans

Jupa (Romania)

Western Europe

Saint-Quentin (France)

316 CE

Western Europe

Wiveliscombe (Britain)

388 CE

Western Europe

Troussey (France)

303 CE

Rome Rome

c. 410 CE c. 435 CE 393 CE

1139 coins (1138 bronze; 1 silver) 5864 coins (5283 radiates; 10 denarii; 571 nummi)

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

CHRE 8638; Dengis 2012, 20–22 CHRE 9745; Biróné-Sey 1964 Kent 1994, clvii Cesano 1922; Kent 1994, clviii CHRE 9141; Matei 2015 CHRE 7165; Amandry and Gendre 1982

1 (0.1%)

Hill 1946

4 (0.1%)

CHRE 12784; Estiot 1999

352

Appendices

Table A3.8 (cont.) Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Antioch Total (%)

Reference

Western Europe

Woodeaton (Britain)

335 CE

c. 1550 mostly bronze

1 (0.1%)

King 1978

Balkans

Bikić Do (Serbia)

324 CE

10590 nummi

4 (0.0%)

CHRE 2841; Mirnik 1981

Western Europe

Heslington (Britain)

354 CE

c. 2800 bronze

1 (0.0%)

Carson and Kent 1971

Southern Levant

Paneas

408 CE

20 nummi

10 (n/a)

CHRE 7514; Berman and Bijovsky 2008

Balkans

Parecag (Slovenia)

367 CE

27 coins (1 radiate; 26 nummi)

1 (n/a)

CHRE 9043; FMRSI III, 95, no. 44

Southern Levant

Yotvata

358 CE

31+ bronze coins

1 (n/a)

CHRE 7585; Elkins 2011

Contents

Table A3.9 Hoards buried c. 284–450 CE, which contain gold and silver coins attributed to the Antioch mint. No percentages are included for hoards with less than twelve total finds. Find Territory

Find Site

Burial Date

Contents

Antioch Total (%)

Anatolia

Kapulukaya

378 CE

21 gold

21 (100%)

Egypt

Clysma (Suez)

378 CE

80 gold

80 (100%)

Egypt

near Karanis

367 CE

29+ gold

20 (69%)

Egypt Southern Levant Western Europe Western Europe

Qau Khirbet Abu Zu’eize Echt (Netherlands) Obbicht (Netherlands) Ljubljana (Slovenia) Redea (Romania)

361 CE

50 gold

383 CE

17 gold

31 (62%) 10 (58.8%)

411 CE

12 gold

5 (41.7%)

410 CE

17 gold

3 (17.6%)

343 CE

50 gold

7 (14%)

375 CE

27 silver

3 (11.1%)

Balkans Balkans Western Europe

Ahn-Machtum

378 CE

68 gold

6 (8.8%)

Balkans

Budăi (Moldova)

361 CE

126 silver

8 (6.3%)

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Reference CHRE 8170; Arslan 1996b Ford 2000, AU 8; Bruyère 1966, 91 Ford 2000, AU 1; Arce 1987, 181 CH 2.76; Ford 2000, AU 7 CHRE 7629; Kadman 1967, no. 60 CHRE 4838; Roymans and Heeren 2015 CHRE 4457; Bland 1997, table 4, no. 42 CHRE 4258; Duncan 1993, 76 CHRE 4347; Duncan 1993, 123 CHRE 7438; FMRL I, 35–37, no. 1 CHRE 9348; Butnariu 2014

Appendices

353

Table A3.9 (cont.) Find Territory Western Europe Western Europe Western Europe Africa

Find Site Gross Bodungen (Germany) Beilen (Netherlands) Selby (North Yorkshire) Sidi-Bou-Said (Libya)

Western Europe

Allègre (France)

Western Europe Western Europe Western Europe Western Europe

Osbournby (Britain) Holway (Britain) North Mendip (Britain)

Western Europe Western Europe Western Europe

Balkans Western Europe Balkans Western Europe Western Europe Western Europe

Parma (Italy) Springhead, Gravesend (Britain) Compton (Britain)

Sully (Wales)

Drănic (Romania) Suarlée (Belgium) Ušće (Serbia) Venlo (Netherlands) Mainz (Germany) Conimbriga (Portugal)

Burial Date

Contents

Antioch Total (%)

Reference

c. 410 CE

21 gold

1 (4.8%)

Kent 1994, xcix

400 CE

23 gold

1 (4.3%)

Zadoks-Josephus Jitta 1955; CHRE 9855

375 CE

24 silver

1 (4.2%)

PAS 2016T711

388 CE

100+ gold

4 (4%)

CHRE 4358; CH 3.216

311 CE

33 gold

1+ (3%)

CHRE 4156; Brenot & Loriot 1992, 271, no. 49

264 silver

8 (3%)

Kent 1994, cxxiv

432 silver

8 (1.9%)

Kent 1994, cxxi

2045 silver

31 (1.5%)

Kent 1994, cxxiii

265 gold

3 (1.1%)

Kent 1994, cvii

388 CE

447 coins (3 gold; 444 silver)

5 (1.1%)

Carson 1965

c. 405 CE

276 silver

1 (0.4%)

Kent 1994, cxix

293 CE

322 coins (96 denarii; 219 radiates; 1 medallion; 6 aurei)

1 (0.3%)

CHRE 2193; Robertson 2000, 871; Guest and Wells 2007, 557

378 CE

9 silver

5 (n/a)

408 CE

8 gold

3 (n/a)

317 CE

5 gold

1 (n/a)

395 CE

10 gold

2 (n/a)

11 gold

2 (n/a)

10 gold

1 (n/a)

c. 405 CE c. 405 CE c. 405 CE c. 400 CE

c. 408 CE c. 400 CE

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press

CHRE 4312; Duncan 1993, 123–124 CHRE 4492; Bland 1997, table 4, no. 36 CHRE 4194; Duncan 1993 CHRE 10040; Gelder 1967, 478 FMRD IV, no. 1171; Kent 1994, cii Bost, Campo, and Gurt 1983, 153, no. 58; Kent 1994, xcv

Bibliography

Abdy, R. 2012a. “The Severans.” In W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 499–513. 2012b. “Tetrarchy and the House of Constantine.” In W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 584–600. Albeker, M. and Bironé-Sey, K. 1969–1970. “Antoninianus lelet Felsötengelicröl.” Numizmatikai Közlöny 68–69: 13–23. Alcock, S. E. 2007. “The Eastern Mediterranean.” In W. Scheidel, I. Morris, and R. Saller (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge University Press. 671–697. Alföldi, A. A. 1973. “Le GENIUS POPULI ROMANI dans la politique impériale.” In J. Béranger (ed.), Principatus. Études de notion et d’histoire politiques dans l’Antiquité gréco-romaine. Geneva: Droz. 411–427. Alföldy, G. 1974. “The Crisis of the Third Century as Seen by Contemporaries.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 15: 89–111. Amandry, M. I. 1979. “Seltz IV et V.” Trésors monétaires 1: 55–75. 1993. Coinage Production and Monetary Circulation in Roman Cyprus. Nicosia: Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation. 2012. “The Coinage of the Roman Provinces through Hadrian.” In W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 391–404. Amandry, M. and Gendre, P. 1982. “Le trésor de folles de Saint-Quentin (Aisne).” Trésors monétaires 4: 45–50. Amandry, M. and Royet, R. 1997. “Le dépôt valentinien de Dardilly (Rhône), 1991.” Trésors monétaires 16: 129–139. Ando, C. 2000. Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2010. “Imperial Identities.” In T. Whitmarsh (ed.), Local Knowledge and Microidentities in the Imperial Greek World. Greek Culture in the Roman World. Cambridge University Press. 17–45. Andrade, N. 2013. Syrian Identity in the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge University Press. Andreau, J. 1999. Banking and Business in the Roman World. Translated by J. Lloyd. Cambridge University Press.

354

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography

Andrienko, N. and Andrienko, G. 2006. Exploratory Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Data: A Systematic Approach. New York: Springer. Aperghis, G. G. 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge University Press. Arce, J. 1987. “A Solidus Hoard from the Vicinity of Karanis.” Schweizerische numismatische Rundschau 66: 181–187. Ariel, D. T. 1987. “Coins from the Synagogue at ‘En Nashut.” Israel Exploration Journal 37: 147–157. Arslan, M. 1996b. “The Kapulukaya Hoard of Solidi.” In R. Ashton (ed.), Studies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey. London: Royal Numismatic Society. 105–106. Ascough, R. S., Harland, P. A., and Kloppenborg, J. S. 2012. Associations in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. Ashton, R. 2012. “The Hellenistic World: The Cities of Mainland Greece and Asia Minor.” In W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 191–210. Augé, C. 2002. “La place des monnaies de Décapole et d’Arabie dans la numismatique du Proche-Orient à l’époque romaine.” In C. Augé and F. Duyrat (eds.), Les monnayages syriens: Quel apport pour l’histoire du Proche-Orient hellénistique et romain? Actes de la table ronde Damas, 10–12 novembre 1999. Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche-Orient. 153–166. Awianowicz, B. 2013. “Peculiarities and Errors in the Legends Attributed to Antioch Denarii of Pescennius Niger and of Septimius Severus.” Notae Numismaticae: Zapiski Numizmatyczne 8: 125–141. Ayers, E. L. 2001. “The Pasts and Futures of Digital History.” History News 56. 4: 5–9. Baldus, H. R. 1969. MON(eta) URB(is) – ANTIOXIA. Rom und Antiochia als Prägestätten syrischer Tetradrachmen des Philippus Arabs. Frankfurt: B. Peus. 1973. “Zum Rechtsstatus syrischer Prägungen der 1. Hälfte des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.” Chiron 3: 441–450. 1987. “Syria.” In A. M. Burnett and M. H. Crawford (eds.), The Coinage of the Roman World in the Late Republic; Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at the British Museum in September 1985. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 121–151. Ball, W. 2000. Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire. New York: Routledge. Banaji, J. 2001. Agrarian Change in Late Antiquity: Gold, Labour, and Aristocratic Dominance. Oxford University Press. 2016. Exploring the Economy of Late Antiquity: Selected Essays. Cambridge University Press. Barag, D. 1967. “The Countermarks of the Legio Decima Fretensis: Preliminary Report.” In A. Kindler (ed.), The Patterns of Monetary Development in

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

355

356

Bibliography

Phoenicia and Palestine in Antiquity: Proceedings (International Numismatic Convention; Jerusalem; 27–31 December 1963). Tel Aviv: Schocken. 117–125. 1980. “A Note on the Geographical Distribution of Bar Kokhba Coins.” Israel Numismatic Journal 4: 30–33. Baramki, J. 1945. “Coin Hoards from Palestine: A Hoard of Late Roman Coins from Yamun.” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 11: 30–36. Bardy, G. 1923. Paul de Samosate; étude historique. Paris: E. Champion. Barnes, T. D. 2009. “The Persian Sack of Antioch in 253.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 169: 294–296. Barrett, D. G. 1998. “The Coins.” In M. S. Joukowsky (ed.), Petra Great Temple I: Brown University Excavations 1993–1997. Providence, RI: Brown University. 317–324. Bastien, P. 1967. “Trouvaille de folles au Liban (294–307).” Revue Numismatique 9: 166–208. Bastien, P. and Huvelin, H. 1969. “Trésor d’antoniniani en Syrie. La Victoria Parthica de Valérien, les émissions d’Aurélien à Antioche et Tripoli.” Revue Numismatique 11: 231–270. Bauslaugh, R. A. 1997. “Reconstructing the Circulation of Roman Coinage in First Century B.C. Macedonia.” In K. A. Sheedy and C. Papageorgiadou-Banis (eds.), Numismatic Archaeology, Archaeological Numismatics: Proceedings of an International Conference Held to Honour Dr. Mando Oeconomides in Athens 1995. Oxford: Oxbow for the Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens. 118–129. Baxter, M. 2003. Statistics in Archaeology. London: Arnold. Bay, A. 1972. “The Letters SC on Augustan Aes Coinage.” Journal of Roman Studies 62: 111–122. Beebe, H. K. 1983. “Caesarea Maritima: Its Strategic and Political Significance to Rome.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42. 3 (July): 195–207. Beliën, P. 2009. “From Coins to Comprehensive Narrative? The Coin Finds from the Roman Army Camp on Kops Plateau at Nijmegen: Problems and Opportunities.” In H.-M. von Kaenel and F. Kemmers (eds.), Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds. Mainz: P. von Zabern. 61–80. Bellinger, A. R. 1928. “A Constantinian Hoard from Attica.” American Journal of Archaeology 32. 4: 496–501. 1932. “The Coins.” In P. V. Baur, M. I. Rostovtzeff, and A. R. Bellinger (eds.), The Excavations at Dura-Europos Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters III: Preliminary Report of Third Season of Work November 1929–March 1930. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 139–160. 1938. Coins from Jerash, 1928–1934. New York: American Numismatic Society.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography

1940. The Syrian Tetradrachms of Caracalla and Macrinus. New York: American Numismatic Society. 1949a. “The End of the Seleucids.” Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 38: 51–102. 1949b. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Final Report VI: The Coins. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 1951. “The Early Coinage of Roman Syria.” In P. R. Coleman-Norton (ed.), Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan Chester Johnson. Princeton University Press. 58–67. 1961. Troy: The Coins. Princeton University Press. Berenger-Badel, A. 2004. “Antioche et le pouvoir central sous le Haut-Empire.” In B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier, and C. Saliou (eds.), Antioche de Syrie: Histoire, images et traces de la ville antique / Colloque organisé par B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier et C. Saliou, Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 4–6 Octobre 2001. Paris: De Boccard. 43–56. Berger, F. 1996. “Roman Coins beyond the Northern Frontiers: Some Recent Considerations.” In C. E. King and D. G. Wigg (eds.), Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World: The Thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History. Berlin: G. Mann. 55–61. Berman, A. 2009. “The Coins Catalogue.” In A. Segal, J. Młynarczyk, and M. Burdajewicz (eds.), Excavations of the Hellenistic Site in Kibbutz Sha’arHa’Amakim (Gaba), 1984–1998: Final Report. Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeology. 68–96. Berman, A. and Bijovsky, G. 2008. “The Coins.” In V. Tzaferis and S. Israeli (eds.), Paneas II: Small Finds and Other Studies. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 11–99. 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. Bijovsky, G. 2004. “The Coins from Khirbet Badd ‘Isa – Qiryat Sefer: Isolated Coins and Two Hoards Dated to the Bar-Kokhba Revolt.” In Y. Magen et al. (eds.), The Land of Benjamin. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 243–300. 2007. “The Coins.” In Y. Hirschfeld (ed.), En-Gedi Excavations II: Final Report (1996–2002). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 157–233. 2012a. “Coins from Khirbet Fa’ush, Maccabim.” In N. Carmin (ed.), Christians and Christianity III: Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 345–362. 2012b. Gold Coin and Small Change: Monetary Circulation in Fifth–Seventh Century Byzantine Palestine. Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste. Bikerman, E. 1947. “La Coelé-Syrie: notes de géographie historique.” Revue Biblique 54. 2: 256–268. Birley, A. R. 2012. “Cassius Dio and the Historia Augusta.” In M. van Ackeren (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 13–28.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

357

358

Bibliography Biróné-Sey, K. 1964. “A perbáli éremlelet” [A Hoard of Roman Coins from Perbál]. Folia archaeologica 16: 63–77. Bíróné-Sey, K. et al. 1971. “A balozsameggyesi római ékszer-és éremlelet.” Archaeologiai Értesítő 98: 190–204. Bittel, K. 1955. “Funde im östlichen Galatien.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 6: 22–41. Bizard, L. 1920. “Fouilles du Ptoïon (1903) II. Inscriptions.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 44: 227–262. Bland, R. 1981. “Two Late Roman Hoards from Beth Shean.” Israel Numismatic Journal 5: 52–56. 1988. “A Syrian Hoard of c. AD 310.” Numismatic Chronicle 148: 152–169. 1989. “Two Mid-Fourth Century Coin Hoards from North Africa.” Numismatic Chronicle 149: 173–190. 1990–1991. “A Hoard of Syrian Tetradrachms of the Third Century A.D. from Trans-Jordan.” Israel Numismatic Journal 11: 81–88. 1991a. The Coinage of Gordian III from the Mints of Antioch and Caesarea. PhD Thesis. University of London. 1991b. “Six Hoards of Syrian Tetradrachms of the Third Century AD.” Numismatic Chronicle 151: 1–33. 1997. “The Changing Patterns of Hoards of Precious-Metal Coins in the Late Empire.” Antiquité Tardive 5: 29–55. 2011. “The Coinage of Vabalathus and Zenobia from Antioch and Alexandria.” Numismatic Chronicle 171: 133–186. 2012. “From Gordian III to the Gallic Empire.” In W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 514–537. Bland, R. and Aydemir, P. 1991. “The Haydere Hoard and Other Hoards of the Mid-third Century from Turkey.” In C. S. Lightfoot (ed.), Recent Turkish Coin Hoards and Numismatic Studies. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 91–180. Bland, R. and Burnett, A. (eds.). 1988. The Normanby Hoard and Other Roman Coin Hoards. London: British Museum. Bland, R., Burnett, A. M., and Bendall, S. 1987. “The Mints of Pescennius Niger in the Light of Some New Aurei.” Numismatic Chronicle 147: 65–83. Boatwright, M. T. 2000. Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire. Princeton University Press. Bodard, G. and Mahony, S. (eds.). 2010. Digital Research in the Study of Classical Antiquity. New York: Routledge. Bodenhamer, D. J. 2008. “History and GIS: Implications for the Discipline.” In A. K. Knowles (ed.), Placing History: How Maps, Spatial Data, and GIS Are Changing Historical Scholarship. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press. 219–233. Bost, J. P., Campo, M., and Gurt, J. M. 1983. “Hallazgos de aurei y solidi en la Península ibérica: introducción a su circulación en época imperial.” Numisma 33: 137–176. Bouchier, E. S. 1916. Syria as a Roman Province. Oxford: B. H. Blackwell.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography

1921. A Short History of Antioch, 300 B.C.–A.D. 1268. London: Blackwell. Bowersock, G. W. 1985. “Hadrian and Metropolis.” In J. Béranger et al. (eds.), Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1982/1983. Bonn: R. Habelt. 75–88. 1994. Studies on the Eastern Roman Empire: Social, Economic and Administrative History, Religion, Historiography. Goldbach: Keip Verlag. Bowersock, G. W., Brown, P., and Grabar, O. (eds.). 1999. Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Bowman, A., Cameron, A., and Garnsey, P. (eds.). 2005. The Cambridge Ancient History XII: The Crisis of Empire, AD 193–337. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press. Bowman, A. and Wilson, A. (eds.). 2009. Quantifying the Roman Economy: Methods and Problems. Oxford University Press. Bowsher, J. 2007. “Monetary Interchange in Nabataean Petra.” In K. D. Politis (ed.), The World of the Nabataeans II: The World of the Herods and the Nabataeans Held at the British Museum, 17–19 April 2001. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. 337–343. Bozhkova, B. 2002. “Sakrovishte ot rimski moneti ot s. Razhevo Konare (Plovdivsko).” Izvestiya na Narodniya Muzey Burgas 2: 174–185. Braidwood, R. 1937. Mounds in the Plain of Antioch, An Archaeological Survey. The University of Chicago Press. Brandes, W. and Haldon, J. 2000. “Towns, Tax and Transformation: State, Cities and Their Hinterlands in the East Roman World, c. 500–800.” In G. P. Brogiolo, N. Gauthier, and N. Christie (eds.), Towns and Their Territories between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Leiden: Brill. 141–172. Brands, G. 2016. Antiochia in der Spätantike: Prolegomena zu einer archäologischen Stadtgeschichte. Berlin: de Gruyter. Brenot, C. and Loriot, X. (eds.). 1992. L’or monnayé III: Trouvailles de monnaies d’or dans l’Occident romain. Actes de la Table Ronde tenue à Paris les 4 et 5 décembre 1987. Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. Brenot, C. and Pflaum, H.-G. 1965. “Les émissions orientales de la fin du IIIe s. après J.-C. à la lumière de deux trésors découverts en Syrie.” Revue Numismatique (6e série) 7: 134–205. Bresson, A. 2005. “Coinage and Money Supply in the Hellenistic Age.” In Z. H. Archibald, J. K. Davies, and V. Gabrielsen (eds.), Making, Moving and Managing: The New World of Ancient Economies, 323–31 BC. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 44–72. Browning, R. 1952. “The Riot of A.D. 387 in Antioch: The Role of the Theatrical Claques in the Later Empire.” The Journal of Roman Studies 42. 1–2: 13–20. Bru, H. 2011. Le pouvoir impérial dans les provinces syriennes: Représentations et célébrations d’Auguste à Constantin (31 av. J.-C.–337 ap. J.-C.). Leiden: Brill.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

359

360

Bibliography Brunk, G. G. 1980. “A Hoard from Syria Countermarked by the Roman Legions.” American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 25: 63–76. Bruun, P. 1962. “The Christian Signs on the Coins of Constantine.” Arctos 3: 5–35. 1999. “Coins and the Roman Imperial Government.” In G. M. Paul (ed.), Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire: E. Togo Salmon Papers II. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 19–40. Bruyère, B. 1966. Fouilles de Clysma-Qolzoum (Suez) 1930–1932. Cairo: l’Institut français d’Archeologie Orientale. Burger, A. S. 1978. “Ein spätrömischer Münzschatz aus Mernye.” Folia archaeologica 29: 135–150. Burnett, A. 1977a. “The Authority to Coin in the Late Republic and Early Empire.” Numismatic Chronicle 137: 37–63. 1977b. The Coins of Late Antiquity AD 400–700. London: British Museum Publications. 1987. Coinage in the Roman World. London: Seaby. 2002. “Syrian Coinage and Romanisation from Pompey to Domitian.” In C. Augé and F. Duyrat (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: Institut Français d’’Archéologie du Proche-Orient. 115–122. 2011. “The Augustan Revolution Seen from the Mints of the Provinces.” Journal of Roman Studies 101: 1–30. Burrell, B. 2004. Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors. Leiden: Brill. Butcher, K. 1986–1987. “Two Related Coinages of the Third Century AD: Philippopolis and Samosata.” Israel Numismatic Journal 9: 73–84. 1988a. “The Colonial Coinage of Antioch-on-the-Orontes, c. AD 218–253.” Numismatic Chronicle 148: 63–75. 1988b. Roman Provincial Coins: An Introduction to the “Greek Imperials.” London: Seaby. 1996. “Coinage and Currency in Syria and Palestine to the Reign of Gallienus.” In C. E. King and D. G. Wigg (eds.), Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World; The Thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History 25–27.3.1993; A Nato Advanced Research Workshop. Berlin: G. Mann. 101–112. 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. 2002. “Circulation of Bronze Coinage in the Orontes Valley in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods.” In C. Augé and F. Duyrat (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: Institut Français d’’Archéologie du Proche-Orient. 145–152.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography

2003. Roman Syria and the Near East. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum. 2004. Coinage in Roman Syria: Northern Syria, 64 BC–AD 253. London: Royal Numismatic Society. 2012. “Syria in the Roman Period, 64 BC–AD 260.” In W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 468–484. 2013. “Coins and Hoards.” In W. Aylward (ed.), Excavations at Zeugma Conducted by Oxford Archaeology III. Los Altos: Packard Humanities Institute. 1–92. 2017. “From the Achaemenids to the Arsacids.” In S. Heidemann and K. Butcher (eds.), Regional History and the Coin Finds from Assur: From the Achaemenids to the Nineteenth Century. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 7–48. Butcher, K. and Ponting, M. 2009. “The Silver Coinage of Roman Syria under the Julio-Claudian Emperors.” Levant 41: 59–78. 2014. The Metallurgy of Roman Silver Coinage: From the Reform of Nero to the Reform of Trajan. Cambridge University Press. Butnariu, V. 2014. Monnaies et parures du Musée d’Histoire d’Ethnographie et d’Histoire Naturelle de Chișinău. Corpus Nummorum Moldaviae. Chișinău: Bons Offices. Buttrey, T. V. 1970. “Observations on the Behavior of Tiberian Counterstamps.” The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 16: 57–68. 1992. “The President’s Address.” Numismatic Chronicle 152: i–xxii. 1993. “Calculating Ancient Coin Production: Facts and Fantasies.” Numismatic Chronicle 153: 335–351. 1994. “Calculating Ancient Coin Production II: Why It Cannot Be Done.” Numismatic Chronicle 154: 341–352. 2011. “Quantification of Ancient Coin Production: The Third Element.” In F. de Callataÿ (ed.), Quantifying Monetary Supplies in Greco-Roman Times. Bari: Edipuglia. 105–112. Buttrey, T. V., Johnston, A., MacKenzie, K. M., and Bates, M. L. 1981. Greek, Roman, and Islamic Coins from Sardis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cabouret, B. 2004. “Pouvoir municipal, pouvoir impérial à Antioche au IVe siècle.” In B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier, and C. Saliou (eds.), Antioche de Syrie: Histoire, images et traces de la ville antique / Colloque organisé par B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier et C. Saliou, Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 4–6 octobre 2001. Paris: De Boccard. 117–142. Cabouret, B., Gatier, P.-L., and Saliou, C. (eds.). 2004. Antioche de Syrie: Histoire, images et traces de la ville antique / Colloque organisé par B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier et C. Saliou, Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 4–6 octobre 2001. Paris: De Boccard. Callataÿ, F. de 1993. “Les tétradrachmes hellénistiques de Tripolis.” Quaderni Ticinesi 22: 111–126.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

361

362

Bibliography 1999. “Les monnayages syriens: quel apport pour l’histoire du Proche-Orient hellénistique et romain? (IFAPO-Damas, 10–11 novembre 1999).” Topoi 9/ 1: 467–471. 2002. “La production des tetradrachmes civiques de la Cilicie jusqu’à la Palestine à la fin du IIe et dans la première moitié du Ier s. av. J.-C. (Elaiussa Sébastè, Aigeai, Séleucie-de-Piérie, Laodicée, Arados, Tripolis, Sidon, Tyr, Ascalon).” In C. Augé and F. Duyrat (eds.), Les monnayages syriens. Quel apport pour l’histoire du Proche-Orient hellénistique et romain? Actes de la table ronde de Damas, 10–11 novembre 1999. Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche-Orient. 71–89. 2006. “Greek Coins from Archaeological Excavations: A Conspectus of Conspectuses and a Call for Chronological Tables.” In P. G. van Alfen (ed.), Agoranomia: Studies in Money and Exchange Presented to John H. Kroll. New York: The American Numismatic Society. 177–200. 2011a. “More Than It Would Seem: The Use of Coinage by the Romans in Late Hellenistic Asia Minor (133–63 BC).” American Journal of Numismatics 23: 55–86. 2011b. “Quantifying Monetary Production in Greco-Roman Times: A General Frame.” In F. de Callataÿ (ed.), Quantifying Monetary Supplies in GrecoRoman Times. Bari: Edipuglia. 7–29. 2012a. “Control Marks on Hellensitic Royal Coinages: Use, and Evolution toward Simplification?” Revue Belge de Numismatique et de Sigillographie 158: 39–62. 2012b. “Royal Hellenistic Coinages: From Alexander to Mithridates.” In W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 175–190. 2013. “The Coinages of the Attalids and Their Neighbours: A Quantified Overview.” In P. Thonemann (ed.), Attalid Asia Minor: Money, International Relations, and the State. Oxford University Press. 207–244. Callu, J.-P. 1979. Fouilles d’Apamée de Syrie VIII.1: Les monnaies romaines. Brussels: Centre belge de recherches archéologiques à Apamée de Syrie. Capdetrey, L. 2007. Le pouvoir séleucide: Territoire, administration, finances d’un royaume hellénistique (312–129 avant J.-C.). Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Căpitanu, V. and Ʈarălungă, P. 1992. “Tezaurul de denari romani imperiali descoperit la Prăjeşti, comuna Traian, judeţul Bacău.” Carpica 23: 167–183. Carbone, L. F. 2014. “Money and Power: The Disappearance of Autonomous Silver Issues in the Roman Province of Asia.” OMNI 8 (November): 10–34. Carradice, I. 1983. “Coinage in Judaea in the Flavian Period, A.D. 70–96.” Israel Numismatic Journal 6–7: 14–21. 2012. “Flavian Coinage.” In W. E. Oxford (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 375–390. Carradice, I. and Cowell, M. 1987. “The Minting of Roman Imperial Bronze Coins for Circulation in the East: Vespasian to Trajan.” Numismatic Chronicle 147: 26–50.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography Carrié, J.-M. 2005. “Developments in Provincial and Local Administration.” In A. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and A. Cameron (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History XII: The Crisis of Empire, AD 193–337. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press. 269–312. Carson, R. A. G. 1965. “Springhead, Gravesend (Kent), Roman Imperial Treasure Trove.” Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society (Seventh Series) 5: 177–182. 1967–1968. “The Hama Hoard and the Eastern Mints of Valerian and Gallienus.” Berytus 17: 123–142. Carson, R. A. G. and Kent, J. P. C. 1971. “A Hoard of Roman Fourth-Century Bronze Coins from Heslington, Yorkshire.” Numismatic Chronicle 11: 207–225. Carter, G. F. 1983. “Chemical Compositions of Copper-Based Roman Coins: Bronze Coins Minted in Antioch.” Israel Numismatic Journal 6–7: 22–38. Carter, M. 2001. “The Roman Spectacles of Antiochus IV Epiphanes at Daphne, 166 B.C.” Nikephoros 14: 45–62. Casana, J. 2003. From Alalakh to Antioch: Settlement, Land Use, and Environmental Change in the Amuq Valley of Southern Turkey. PhD Thesis. University of Chicago. 2004. “The Archaeological Landscape of Late Roman Antioch.” In I. Sandwell and J. Huskinson (eds.), Culture and Society in Later Roman Antioch: Papers from a Colloquium, London, 15th December 2001. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 102–125. 2007. “Structural Transformations in Settlement Systems of the Northern Levant.” American Journal of Archaeology 111.2: 195–221. Caseau, B. 2001. “Sacred Landscapes.” In G. W. Bowersock, P. Brown, and O. Grabar (eds.), Interpreting Late Antiquity: Essays on the Postclassical World. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 21–59. Casey, P. J. 1986. Understanding Ancient Coins. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1988. “The Interpretation of Romano-British Site Finds.” In P. J. Casey and R. Reece (eds.), Coins and the Archaeologist. 2nd edition. London: Seaby. 39–56. Casey, P. J. and Brickstock, R. J. 2010. “The Coins.” In J. N. Dore (ed.), Haltonchesters: Excavations Directed by J. P. Gillam at the Roman Fort, 1960–61. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 91–107. Casey, P. J. and Reece, R. 1988. Coins and the Archaeologist. 2nd edition. London: Seaby. Cesano, L. 1921. “Gli antoniniani della riforma aurelianea ed il ripostiglio di Antiochia di Pisidia.” Atti e memorie dell’Istituto italiano di numismatica 4: 63–104. Christiansen, E. 2004. Coinage in Roman Egypt: The Hoard Evidence. Aarhus University Press. Christensen-Ernst, J. 2012. Antioch on the Orontes: A History and a Guide. Lanham, MD: Hamilton Books.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

363

364

Bibliography

Chrubasik, B. 2016. Kings and Usurpers in the Seleukid Empire: The Men Who Would Be King. Oxford University Press. Cimok, F. 1994. Antioch on the Orontes. 2nd edition. Istanbul: A Turizm Yayınları. 2000. Antioch Mosaics. Istanbul: A Turizm Yayınları. Çizmeli-Öğün, Z. 2000. “La circulation monétaire des monnaies du Pont intérieur à l’époque romaine.” In C. Işik (ed.), Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens und des ägäischen Bereiches. Festschrift für Baki Öğün zum 75. Geburtstag. Bonn: R. Habelt. 205–224. Claes, L. 2015. “Coins with Power? Imperial and Local Messages on the Coinage of the Usurpers of the Second Half of the Third Century (AD 253–285).” Jaarboek voor Munt-en Penningkunde 102: 15–60. Clark, J. R. 1978. “Measuring Changes in the Ease of Trade with Archaeological Data: An Analysis of Coins Found at Dura Europos in Syria.” The Professional Geographer: The Journal of the Association of American Geographers 30.3: 256–263. Cohen, G. 2006. The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cohen, J. 1994. “The Earth Is Round (p < .05).” American Psychologist 49.12: 997–1003. Cole, T. J. 1976. “The Lifetime of Coins in Circulation.” Numismatic Chronicle 16: 201–218. Collis, J. 1988. “Data for Dating.” In P. J. Casey and R. Reece (eds.), Coins and the Archaeologist. 2nd edition. London: Seaby. 189–200. Conolly, J. and Lake, M. 2006. Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press. Corbier, M. 2005. “Coinage and Taxation: The State’s Point of View, A.D. 193–337.” In A. K. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and A. Cameron (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History XII: The Crisis of Empire, AD 193–337. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press. 327–392. Cox, D. H. 1959. Coins from the Excavations at Curium, 1932–1953. New York: American Numismatic Society. Crane, G. 2004. “Classics and the Computer: An End of the History.” In S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, and J. Unsworth (eds.), A Companion to Digital Humanities. Oxford: Blackwell. 46–55. Crawford, M. 1970. “Money and Exchange in the Roman World.” Journal of Roman Studies 60: 40–48. 1975. “Finance, Coinage and Money from the Severans to Constantine.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung 2.2: 560–593. 1983. “Roman Imperial Coin Types and the Formation of Public Opinion.” In C. N. L. Brooke (ed.), Studies in Numismatic Method Presented to Philip Grierson. Cambridge University Press. 47–64. 1985. Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic: Italy and the Mediterranean Economy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography 1989. “Review of A. M. Burnett: Coinage in the Roman World.” Numismatic Chronicle 149: 244–245. Cribiore, R. 2007. The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch. Princeton University Press. Crowther, C. 2007. “The Dionysia at Iasos: Its Artists, Patrons, and Audience.” In P. Wilson (ed.), The Greek Theatre and Festivals: Documentary Studies. Oxford University Press. 294–334. Dąbrowa, E. 1993. Legio X Fretensis: A Prosopographical Study of Its Officers (I–III c. A.D.). Stuttgart: F. Steiner. 1998. The Governors of Roman Syria from Augustus to Septimius Severus. Bonn: Habelt. Daux, G. 1936. Delphes au IIe et au Ier siècle, depuis l’abaissement de l’Étolie jusqu’à la paix romaine, 191–31 av. J. C. Paris: E. de Boccard. Davies, J. and Gregory, T. 1991. “Coinage from a ‘Civitas’: A Survey of the Roman Coins Found in Norfolk and Their Contribution to the Archaeology of the ‘Civitas Icenorum’.” Britannia 22: 65–101. Decker, M. 2001. “Food for an Empire: Wine and Oil Production in North Syria.” In S. Kingsley and M. Decker (eds.), Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 69–86. De Giorgi, A. U. 2007. “The Formation of a Roman Landscape: The Case of Antioch.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 20: 283–298. 2008. “Town and Country in Roman Antioch.” In R. Alston and O. M. van Nijf (eds.), Feeding the Ancient Greek City. Leuven: Peeters Publishers. 63–83. 2016. Ancient Antioch: From the Seleucid Era to the Islamic Conquest. Cambridge University Press. Dembski, G. 1974. “Ein Münzschatzfund aus der römischen Münzstätte Antiochia?” Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft: 113–118. Dengis, J.-L. 2012. Trouvailles et Trésors monétaires en Belgique XV: Province du Limbourg: De l’antiquité à 1794. Wetteren: Moneta. Depeyrot, G. and Passelac, M. 1979. “Le trésor et les monnaies de l’Estrade, IVe siècle après J.C., commune de Laurabuc-et-Mireval, Aude.” Trésors monétaires 1: 93–107. De Saulcy, F. 1868. “Trouvaille de Iafa de Galilée, près Nazareth.” Annuaire de la Société Française de Numismatique et d’Archéologie 3: 350–369. Diaz Tabernero, J. et al. 1998. “Der römische Münzhort von Bäretswil, AdetswilPulten 1993. Mit Bemerkungen zum Münzhort von 1880.” Archäologie im Kanton Zürich 1995–1996 / Berichte der Kantonsarchäologie Zürich 14: 73–154. Dieudonné, A. 1907. “Les dernières monnaies pseudo-autonomes d’Antioche et de Nicomédie sous l’Empire romain.” Mémoires de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France 67: 246–267. 1909. “L’Aigle d’Antioche.” Revue Numismatique 4.13: 458–480. Dima, M. and Elefterescu, D. 2009. Monnaies de Durostorum – Ostrov: (4e siècle av. J.-C. – 6e siècle ap. J.-C.). Wetteren: Moneta.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

365

366

Bibliography

Dittenberger, W. and Purgold, K. 1896. Die Inschriften von Olympia. Berlin: Asher. Diwan, G. A. 2013. “A Hoard of Antoniniani from South-Eastern Bekaa (Lebanon).” Numismatic Chronicle 173: 345–347. Dodgeon, M. and Lieu, S. N. C. (eds.). 1991. The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars. London: Routledge. Downey, G. 1938. “Imperial Building Records in Malalas.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 38: 1–15. 1951. “The Occupation of Syria by the Romans.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 82: 149–163. 1958. “The Size of the Population of Antioch.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 89: 84–91. 1961. A History of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Princeton University Press. 1963. Ancient Antioch. Princeton University Press. Doyen, J.-M. 1987. Les monnaies antiques du Tell Abou Danné et d’Oumm elMarra (Campagnes 1976–1985): Aspects de la circulation monétaire en Syrie du Nord sous les Séleucides. Brussels: Archaion. 2007. Economie, monnaie et société à Reims sous l’Empire romain. Recherches sur la circulation monétaire en Gaule septentrionale intérieure. Reims: Société archéologique champenoise. Drennan, R. D. 1996. Statistics for Archaeologists: A Common Sense Approach. New York: Springer. Duncan, G. L. 1993. Coin Circulation in the Danubian and Balkan Provinces of the Roman Empire AD 294–578. London: Royal Numismatic Society. Duncan-Jones, R. 1994. Money and Government in the Roman Empire. Cambridge University Press. 1999. “The Monetization of the Roman Empire: Regional Variations in the Supply of Coin Types.” In G. M. Paul (ed.), Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire: E. Togo Salmon Papers II. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 61–82. Dundua, T. 2008. “Influx of Roman Coins in Georgia.” In A. Bursche, R. Ciolek, and R. Wolters (eds.), Roman Coins outside the Empire: Ways and Phases, Contexts and Functions: Proceedings of the ESF/SCH Exploratory Workshop, Radziwill Palace, Nieborow (Poland), 3–6 September 2005. Wetteren: Moneta. 309–319. Duyrat, F. 2002. “Georges Le Rider, Antioche de Syrie sous les Séleucides. Corpus des monnaies d’or et d’argent, I: De Séleucos I à Antiochos V, c. 300–161.” Revue Numismatique 158: 408–417. 2004. “La circulation monétaire dans l’Orient séleucide (Syrie, Phénicie, Mésopotamie, Iran.” In V. Chankowsi and F. Duyrat (eds.), Le roi et l’économie: autonomies locales et structures royales dans l’économie de l’empire séleucide. Actes des rencontres de Lille, 23 juin 2003, et d’Orléans, 29–30 janvier 2004. Lyon: Maison de l’orient méditerranéen. 381–424.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography 2012. “Tigrane en Syrie. Un roi sans images.” In A. Suspène and F. Duyrat (eds.), Le Charaktèr du Prince. Expressions monétaires du pouvoir en temps de troubles. Université d’Ottawa. 167–209. 2015. “The Circulation of Coins in Syria and Mesopotamia in the Sixth to First Centuries BC.” In R. J. van der Spek, B. van Leeuwen, and J. L. van Zanden (eds.), A History of Market Performance: From Ancient Babylonia to the Modern World. New York: Routledge. 363–395. 2016. Wealth and Warfare: The Archaeology of Money in Ancient Syria. New York: The American Numismatic Society. Eddy, S. K. 1967. The Minting of Antoniniani 238–249 and the Smyrna Hoard. New York: The American Numismatic Society. Edelstein, L. and Kidd, I. G. (eds.). 1972. Posidonius I: The Fragments. Cambridge University Press. Edwards, K. M. 1933. Corinth VI: Coins, 1896–1929. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Edwell, P. 2008. Between Rome and Persia: The Middle Euphrates, Mesopotamia and Palmyra under Roman Control. Abingdon: Routledge. Eiteljorg, H. 2004. “Computing for Archaeologists.” In S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, and J. Unsworth (eds.), A Companion to Digital Humanities. Oxford: Blackwell. 20–30. Elderkin, G. (ed.). 1934. Antioch-on-the-Orontes I: The Excavations of 1932. Princeton University Press. Elkins, N. T. 2009. “Coins, Contexts, and an Iconographic Approach for the 21st Century.” In H.-M. von Kaenel and F. Kemmers (eds.), Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds. Colloquium Frankfurt a. M., October 25–27, 2007. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. 25–46. 2011. “A Mid-Fourth Century Purse Hoard from the Roman Auxiliary Fort at Yotvata.” Israel Numismatic Research 6: 139–146. Elks, K. J. J. 1975. “The Eastern Mints of Valerian and Gallienus: The Evidence of Two New Hoards from Western Turkey.” Numismatic Chronicle (Seventh Series) 15: 91–109. Ellis, S. 2004. “The Seedier Side of Antioch.” In I. Sandwell and J. Huskinson (eds.), Culture and Society in Later Roman Antioch: Papers from a Colloquium, London, 15th December 2001. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 126–133. Engels, J. 2011. “Posidonius of Apamea and Strabo of Amasia on the Decline of the Seleucid Kingdom.” In K. Erickson and G. Ramsey (eds.), Seleucid Dissolution: The Sinking of the Anchor. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 181–194. Erarslan, F. and Facella, M. 2006. “Royal Coinage of Commagene in Adiyaman Museum Numismatic Collection.” Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 24.1: 253–260. Erickson, K. G. 2009. The Early Seleucids, Their Gods and Their Coins. PhD Thesis. University of Exeter.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

367

368

Bibliography Eshel, H., Zissu, B., and Barkay, G. 2009. “Sixteen Bar Kokhba Coins from Roman Sites in Europe.” Israel Numismatic Journal 17: 91–97. Estiot, S. 1996. “Le troisième siècle et la monnaie: crise et mutations.” In J.-L. Fiches (ed.), Le IIIe siècle en Gaule Narbonnaise. Donnees regionales sur la crise de l’Empire. Sophia Antipolis: Editions APDCA. 33–70. 1998. “Le double trésor de Colonne (Jura), terminus 298 A.D.” Trésors monétaires 17: 107–180. 1999. “Le trésor de Troussey (Meuse): 5864 antoniniens et nummi, 303 A.D.” Trésors monétaires 17: 181–303. 2012. “The Later Third Century.” In W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 538–560. Esty, W. 1986. “Estimation of the Size of a Coinage: A Survey and Comparison of Methods.” Numismatic Chronicle 146: 185–215. 2005. “Statistical Analysis of Hoard Data in Ancient Numismatics.” In C. Alfaro Asins, C. Marcos Alonso, and P. Otero Morán (eds.), Proceedings of the XIIIth International Numismatic Congress, Madrid, 2003. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura, Secretaría General Técnica. 173–177. Evans, J. DeRose 2006. The Coins and the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Economy of Palestine. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. 2013. “Five Small Bronze Hoards from Sardis and Their Implications for Coin Circulation in the Fifth Century C. E.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 369: 137–156. Evers, J. H. 1970. “Syrische Muntvondst (I).” De Geuzenpenning 20.3: 29–34. Farhi, Y. et al. 2009–2010. “The Ramat Rahel Hoard of Tyrian Shekels.” Israel Numismatic Journal 17: 59–76. Feissel, D. 1985. “Deux listes de quartiers d’Antioche astreints au creusement d’un canal (73–74 après J.-C.).” Syria 62: 77–103. Flinders Petrie, W. M. 1900. Dendereh 1898 (Memoirs of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 17). London. 1930. Beth-Pelet I: Tell Fara. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Ford, M. 2000. “The Coin Hoards of Late Roman/Early Byzantine Egypt from the Reform of Diocletianus to the Reform of Anastasius, AD 294–491.” Numismatic Chronicle 160: 335–367. Foss, C. 1986. “The Coinage of Tigranes the Great: Problems, Suggestions and a New Find.” Numismatic Chronicle 146: 19–66. Freeman, P. W. M. 1994. “Pompey’s Eastern Settlement: A Matter of Presentation?” Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 7: 143–179. French, D. R. 1998. “Rhetoric and the Rebellion of A.D. 387 in Antioch.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 47.4: 468–484. Frye, R. 1984. The History of Ancient Iran. Munich: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Fulco, W. J. 1996. “The Coins and Stamped Handles.” In P. M. Bikai, W. J. Fulco, and J. Marchand (eds.), Tyre: The Shrine of Apollo. Amman: National Press. 41–56.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography Fulford, M. 1978. “Coin Circulation and Mint Activity in the Late Roman Empire: Some Economic Implications.” The Archaeological Journal 135: 67–114. Garnsey, P. and Saller, R. 1987. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. Garnsey, P. and Whittaker, C. R. 1998. “Trade, Industry and the Urban Economy.” In A. Cameron and P. Garnsey (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History XIII: The Late Empire, AD 337–425. Cambridge University Press. 312–337. Gattiglia, G. 2015. “Think Big About Data: Archaeology and the Big Data Challenge.” Archäologische Informationen 38: 113–124. Gauthier, P. 1985. Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (IVe-Ier siècle avant J.-C): contribution à l’histoire des institutions. Paris: École Française d’Athènes. Găzdac, C. 2002. Monetary Circulation in Dacia and the Provinces from the Middle and Lower Danube from Trajan to Constantine I (AD 106–337). ClujNapoca: Nereamia Napocae. Gebhardt, A. 2002. Imperiale Politik und provinziale Entwicklung. Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Kaiser, Heer und Städten im Syrien der vorseverischen Zeit. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Geissen, A. 2012. “The Coinage of Roman Egypt.” In W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 561–583. Gelder, H. E. van and Boersma, J. S. 1967. Munten in muntvondsten. Bussum: Fibula-Van Dishoeck. Gerasimov, T. 1979. “Trésors monétaires trouvés en Bulgarie au cours de 1968, 1969 et 1970.” Bulletin de l’Institut Archéologique Bulgare 35: 134–141. Gerson, S. 2006. “A New Countermark of the Fifth Legion.” Israel Numismatic Research 1: 97–99. Giard, J.-B. 1980. “Le trésor de Clamerey.” Trésors monétaires 2: 9–29. Gitler, H. 2012. “Roman Coinages of Palestine.” In W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 485–498. Gitler, H. and Kahanov, Y. 2002. “The Ascalon 1988 Hoard (CH 9.548): A Periplus to Ascalon in the Late Hellenistic Period?” In A. Meadows and U. Wartenberg (eds.), Coin Hoards 9. London: Royal Numismatic Society. 259–268. Gitler, H. and Ponting, M. 2003. The Silver Coinage of Septimius Severus and His Family (192–211 AD): A Study of the Chemical Composition of the Roman and Eastern Issues. Milan: Ennerre. 2007. “Rome and the East: A Study of the Chemical Composition of Roman Silver Coinage during the Reign of Septimius Severus AD 193–211.” Topoi Supplement 8: 375–397. Gleason, M. W. 1986. “Festive Satire: Julian’s Misopogon and the New Year at Antioch.” The Journal of Roman Studies 76: 106–119. Gold, M. K. (ed.). 2012. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

369

370

Bibliography Golenko V. K. 1993. “Notes on the Coinage and Currency of the Early Seleucid State – I. The Reign of Seleucus I.” Mesopotamia 28: 71–167. Gordon, J. 2012. Between Alexandria and Rome: A Postcolonial Archaeology of Cultural Identity in Hellenistic and Roman Cyprus. PhD Thesis. University of Cincinnati. Gouw, P. 2009. Griekse atleten in de Romeinse keizertijd (31 v. Chr.–400 n. Chr.). PhD Thesis. University of Amsterdam. Gozalbes, M. 1996–1997. “El Tesoro de Almenara.” Annals de l’Institut d’Estudis Gironins 36–38: 599–621. Grainger, J. 1990. The Cities of Seleukid Syria. Oxford University Press. 1997. A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer. New York: Brill. 2015. The Fall of the Seleucid Empire 187–75 BC. South Yorkshire: Pen and Sword Military. Grant, M. 1946. From Imperium to Auctoritas: A Historical Study of AES Coinage in the Roman Empire (49 BC–AD 14). Cambridge University Press. 1953. The Six Main Aes Coinages of Augustus: Controversial Studies. Edinburgh University Press. 1956. “The Pattern of Official Coinage in the Early Principate.” In R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Sutherland (eds.), Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly. Oxford University Press. 96–112. Green, P. 1990. Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gruen, E. 1984. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press. Guest, P. 1994. A Comparative Study of Coin Hoards from the Western Roman Empire. PhD Thesis. University of London. 2012. “The Production, Supply and Use of Late Roman and Early Byzantine Copper Coinage in the Eastern Empire.” Numismatic Chronicle 172: 105–131. Guest, P. and Wells, N. 2007. Iron Age and Roman Coins from Wales. Collection Moneta 66. Wetteren: Moneta. Gurt Esparraguera, J. M. 1985. Clunia III. Hallazgos monetarios. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. Gutzwiller, K. and Çelik, Ö. 2012. “New Menander Mosaics from Antioch.” American Journal of Archaeology 116.4: 573–623. Habicht, C. 1992. “‘Aντιóχεια η πρòς Δαφνηι.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 93: 50–51. 2006. The Hellenistic Monarchies: Selected Papers. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Haddad, G. 1949. Aspects of Social Life in Antioch in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. New York: Hafner Publishing Company. Hadley, J. 1858–1860. “A Greek Inscription from Daphne: Near Antioch, in Syria.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 6: 550–555. Haensch, R. 1997. Capita Provinciarum: Statthaltersitze und Provinzialverwaltung in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography 2007. “Types of Provincial Capitals.” In J. Santos Yanguas and E. Torregaray Pagola (eds.), Laudes provinciarum: Retórica y politíca en la representación del imperio romano (Revisiones de Historia Antigua V). Vitoria: Servivio Editorial, Universidad del País Vasco. 265–276. Halfmann, H. 1979. Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Hamburger, H. 1954. “A Hoard of Syrian Tetradrachms and Tyrian Bronze Coins from Gush Halav.” Israel Exploration Journal 4.3/4: 201–226. 1959. “A Hoard of Syrian Tetradrachms from Tiberias.” Atiqot 2: 133–145. 1964. “A Hoard of Antoniniani of Late Roman Emperors from Tiberias.” Israel Numismatic Journal 2: 71–83. Harl, K. W. 1987. Civic Coins and Civic Politics in the Roman East, A.D. 180–275. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1996. Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 B.C. to A.D. 700. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Harries, J. 2012. Imperial Rome AD 284 to 363: The New Empire. Edinburgh University Press. Harris, W. V. (ed.). 2008a. The Monetary Systems of the Greeks and Romans. Oxford University Press. 2008b. “The Nature of Roman Money.” In W. V. Harris (ed.), The Monetary Systems of the Greeks and Romans. Oxford University Press. 174–207. Harvey, S. Ashbrook. 2000. “Antioch and Christianity.” In Kondoleon (ed.), Antioch: The Lost Ancient City. Princeton University Press in association with the Worcester Art Museum. 38–49. Hebblewhite, M. 2017. The Emperor and the Army in the Later Roman Empire, AD 235–395. New York: Routledge. Hendin, D. 2001. Guide to Biblical Coins. 4th edition. New York: Amphora. Hendy, M. F. 1985. Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300–1450. Cambridge University Press. Herman Hansen, M. 2006. Polis: An Introduction to the Ancient Greek City-State. Oxford University Press. Herrmann, P. 1965. “Antiochos der Grosse und Teos.” Anadolu (Anatolia) 9: 29–159. 2016. Kleinasien im Spiegel epigraphischer Zeugnisse: Ausgewählte kleine Schriften. Berlin: de Gruyter. Heuchert, V. 2005. “The Chronological Development of Roman Provincial Coin Iconography.” In C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, and A. Burnett (eds.), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Oxford University Press. 29–56. Hill, G. F. 1916. “The Mints of Roman Arabia and Mesopotamia.” Journal of Roman Studies 6: 135–169. 1931. “A Hoard of Coins from Nineveh.” Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society (Fifth Series) 11.43: 160–170.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

371

372

Bibliography Hill, P. V. 1946. “The Wiveliscombe (Somerset) Hoard), 1946.” Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society (Sixth Series) 6.3/4: 163–165. Hoaglin, D. C., Mosteller, F., and Tukey, J. W. (eds.). 2000. Understanding Robust and Exploratory Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley. Hobley, A. 1998. An Examination of Roman Bronze Coin Distribution in the Western Empire, A.D. 81–192. Oxford: Archeopress. Hogg, R. V., McKean, J. W., and Craig, A. T. 2013. Introduction to Mathematical Statistics. 7th edition. Boston: Pearson. Hollard, D. 1995. “La crise de la monnaie dans l’Empire romain au IIIe siècle après J.-C. Synthèse des recherches et résultats nouveaux.” Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 50.5: 1045–1078. Hollard, D. and Bingöl, O. 1994. “Le trésor de Göktepe.” In G. Le Rider (ed.), Trésors et circulation monétaire en Anatolie antique. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France. 65–72. Holleaux, M. 1942. Etudes d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecque III. Paris: de Boccard. Hoover, O. D. 2001. “Quasi-municipal Coinage in Seleucid Apamea: Countermarks and Counterrevolution.” Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 80: 21–34. 2004a. “Anomalous Tetradrachms of Philip I Philadelphus Struck by Autonomous Antioch (64–58 BC).” Schweizer Münzblätter 214: 31–35. 2004b. “Ceci n’est pas l’autonomie: The Coinage of Seleucid Phoenicia as Royal and Civic Power Discourse.” In V. Chankowsi and F. Duyrat (eds.), Le roi et l’économie: Autonomies locales et structures royales dans l’économie de l’empire séleucide. Actes des rencontres de Lille, 23 juin 2003, et d’Orléans, 29–30 janvier 2004. Lyon: Maison de l’orient méditerranéen. 485–508. 2007. “A Revised Chronology for the Late Seleucids at Antioch (121/0–64 BC).” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 56.3: 280–301. 2009. Handbook of Syrian Coins: Royal and Civic Issues, Fourth to First Centuries BC. London: Classical Numismatic Group. Hopkins, K. 1980. “Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire (200 B.C.–A.D. 400).” Journal of Roman Studies 70: 101–125. 2002. “Rome, Taxes, Rents and Trade.” In W. Scheidel and S. von Reden (eds.), The Ancient Economy. Edinburgh University Press. 190–230. Houghton, A. 1982. “A Tetradrachm of Seleucia Pieria at the Getty Museum: An Archaizing Zeus and the Accession of Alexander Balas in Northern Syria.” The J. Paul Getty Museum Journal 10: 153–158. 2004. “Seleucid Coinage and Monetary Policy of the 2nd Century BC: Reflections on the Monetization of the Seleucid Economy.” In V. Chankowsi and F. Duyrat (eds.), Le roi et l’économie: Autonomies locales et structures royales dans l’économie de l’empire séleucide. Actes des rencontres de Lille, 23 juin 2003, et d’Orléans, 29–30 janvier 2004. Lyon: Maison de l’orient méditerranéen. 49–79. 2012. “The Seleucids.” In W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 235–251.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography Howgego, C. 1982. “Coinage and Military Finance: The Imperial Bronze Coinage of the Augustan East.” Numismatic Chronicle 142: 1–20. 1992. “The Supply and Use of Money in the Roman World 200 B.C. to A.D. 300.” Journal of Roman Studies 82: 1–31. 1994. “Coin Circulation and the Integration of the Roman Economy.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 7: 5–21. 1995. Ancient History from Coins. London: Routledge. 1996. “The Circulation of Silver Coins, Models of the Roman Economy, and Crisis in the Third Century A.D.: Some Numismatic Evidence.” In C. E. King and D. G. Wigg (eds.), Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World: The Thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History 25.– 27.3.1993. Berlin: G. Mann. 219–236. 2005. “Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces.” In C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, and A. Burnett (eds.), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Oxford University Press. 1–17. 2014. “Questions of Coin Circulation in the Roman Period.” In K. Dörtlük, O. Tekin, R. Boyraz Seyha, and M. Wilson (eds.), Proceedings: First International Congress of the Anatolian Monetary History and Numismatics, 25–28 February 2013. Istanbul: Suna & İnan Kıraç Research Institute on Mediterranean Civilizations. 307–317. Howgego, C., Heuchert, V., and Burnett, A. (eds.). 2005. Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Oxford University Press. Hunt, D. 1998. “The Church as a Public Institution.” In A. Cameron and P. Garnsey (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History XIII: The Late Empire, AD 337–425. Cambridge University Press. 238–276. Huskinson, J. 2004. “Surveying the Scene: Antioch Mosaic Pavements as a Source of Historical Evidence.” In I. Sandwell and J. Huskinson (eds.), Culture and Society in Later Roman Antioch: Papers from a Colloquium, London, 15th December 2001. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 134–152. Iossif, P. P. 2014. “The Last Seleucids in Phoenicia: Juggling Civic and Royal Identity.” American Journal of Numismatics 26: 61–87. 2016. “Using Site Finds as Basis for Statistical Analyses of the Seleucid Numismatic Production and Circulation. An Introduction to the Method.” In F. Duyrat and C. Grandjean (eds.), Les monnaies de fouille du monde grec (VIe-Ier s. a.C.): Apports, approches et méthodes. Bordeaux: Ausonius. 263–296. Isaac, B. 1990. The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East. Oxford University Press. 1998. “The Eastern Frontier.” In A. Cameron and P. Garnsey (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History XIII: The Late Empire, AD 337–425. Cambridge University Press. 437–460. Isser, S. 1999. “The Samaritans and Their Sects.” In W. Horbury, W. D. Davies and J. Sturdy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism III: The Early Roman Period. Cambridge University Press. 569–595.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

373

374

Bibliography Johnston, A. 1985. “The So-called Pseudo-autonomous Greek Imperials.” American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 30: 89–112. 2007. Greek Imperial Denominations, ca 200–275: A Study of the Roman Provincial Bronze Coinages of Asia Minor. London: Royal Numismatic Society. 2012. “The Provinces after Commodus.” In W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 453–467. Jónás, E. 1930. “Az öcsödi éremlelet.” Numizmatikai Közlöny 28–29: 30–43. Jones, A. H. M. 1928. “Inscriptions from Jerash.” Journal of Roman Studies 18: 144–178. 1971. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jones, B. 2014. Communicating Data with Tableau: Designing, Developing, and Delivering Data Visualizations. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media. Jones, T. B. 1963. “A Numismatic Riddle: The So-called Greek Imperials.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107.4 (August 15): 308–347. Josifovska-Dragojević, B. 1990. “Depo folesa iz s. Petralice (Makedonija). Dépôt de folles de Petralica.” Živa Antika 40: 125–144. Kadman, L. 1967. “The Monetary Development of Palestine in the Light of Coin Hoards.” In A. Kindler (ed.), The Patterns of Monetary Development in Phoenicia and Palestine in Antiquity. International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem, 27–31 December 1963. Jerusalem: Schocken Publishing House. 311–325. Kasher, A. 1982. “The Rights of the Jews of Antioch on the Orontes.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 49: 69–85. Katsari, C. 2003. “The Organisation of Roman Mints during the Third Century CE: The View from the Eastern Provinces.” Classics Ireland 10: 27–53. 2008. “The Monetization of Rome’s Frontier Provinces.” In W. V. Harris (ed.), The Monetary Systems of the Greeks and Romans. Oxford University Press. 242–266. 2011. The Roman Monetary System: The Eastern Provinces from the First to the Third Century AD. Cambridge University Press. Kelly, C. 1998. “Emperors, Government and Bureaucracy.” In A. Cameron and P. Garnsey (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History XIII: The Late Empire, AD 337–425. Cambridge University Press. 138–183. Kemmers, F. 2006. Coins for a Legion: An Analysis of the Coin Finds from Augustan Legionary Fortress and Flavian Canabae Legionis at Nijmegen. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp Von Zabern. 2009. “Sender or Receiver? Contexts of Coin Supply and Coin Use.” In H.-M. von Kaenel and F. Kemmers (eds.), Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds. Mainz: P. von Zabern. 137–156. Kemmers, F. and Myrberg, N. 2011. “Rethinking Numismatics. The Archaeology of Coins.” Archaeological Dialogues 18.1: 87–108.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography Kennedy, D. L. 1989. “The Military Contribution of Syria to the Roman Imperial Army.” In D. H. French and C. S. Lightfoot (eds.), The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at Ankara in September 1988 I. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 235–246. Kent, J. P. C. 1994. The Roman Imperial Coinage X: The Divided Empire and the Fall of the Western Parts 395–491. London: Spink. Kienast, D. 1962. “Der Münzfund von Anakara (270–310 n. Chr.).” Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 12: 65–112. Kindler, A. 1982–1983. “The Status of Cities in the Syro-Palestinian Area as Reflected by Their Coins.” Israel Numismatic Journal 6–7: 79–87. 1999. “The Coin Finds at the Excavations of Bethsaida.” In R. Arav and R. A. Freund (eds.), Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee II. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press. 250–268. King, C. E. 1978. “The Woodeaton (Oxfordshire) Hoard and the Problem of Constantinian Imitations, A.D. 330–41.” Numismatic Chronicle (Seventh Series) 18: 38–65. 1979. “The Value of Hoards and Site Finds in Relation to Monetary Circulation in the Late Third and Early 4th Centuries A.D.” Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 1: 79–98. 1986. “A Small Hoard of Fourth Century Bronze Coins from Egypt.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 66: 285–291. King, C. E. and Spaer, A. 1977. “A Hoard of Folles from Northern Sinai.” Numismatic Chronicle (Seventh Series) 17: 64–112. Kingsley, S. and Decker, M. 2001. “New Rome, New Theories on Inter-Regional Exchange. An Introduction to the East Mediterranean Economy in Late Antiquity.” In S. Kingsley and M. Decker (eds.), Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity: Proceedings of a Conference at Somerville College, Oxford, 29th May, 1999. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 1–27. Kirkman, J. S. 1957. “The Evidence of the Coins.” In J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot, and K. Kenyon (eds.), Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. 43–70. Kiwan, K. 2012. “Cinq trésors romains de Syrie.” American Journal of Numismatics 24: 123–132. Klose, D. O. A. 2005. “Festivals and Games in the Cities of the East during the Roman Empire.” In C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, and A. Burnett (eds.), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Oxford University Press. 125–133. Knowles, A. K. 2008. “GIS and History.” In A. K. Knowles (ed.), Placing History: How Maps, Spatial Data, and GIS Are Changing Historical Scholarship. Redland, CA: ESRI Press. 1–26. Kondić, V. 1969. Beogradski nalaz denara i antoninijana. Septimije Sever-Valerijan [The Singidunum Hoard of Denarii and Antoniniani. Septimius SeverusValerian]. Belgrade: Muzej grada.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

375

376

Bibliography

Kondoleon, C. (ed.). 2000. Antioch: The Lost Ancient City. Princeton University Press in association with the Worcester Art Museum. Kool, R. 2016. “A Hoard of Antoniniani from Qula.” ‘Atiqot 84: 69–113. Kosmin, P. J. 2014. The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kraeling, C. H. 1932. “The Jewish Community at Antioch.” Journal of Biblical Literature 51.2 (June): 130–160. Kraemer, C. J. and Miles, T. G. 1952. “An Early Fourth-Century Hoard from Egypt.” Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society) 5: 65–88. Kramer, N. 2004. Gindaros: Geschichte und Archäologie einer Siedlung im nordwestlichen Syrien von hellenistischer bis in frühbyzantinische Zeit. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf. Krmnicek, S. 2008. “Relations between the Patterns of Coin Circulation in Venetia et Histria and the Provinces of Noricum Mediterraneum and Ripense in Late Roman Times.” In O. Menozzi, M. L. Di Marzio, and D. Fossataro (eds.), Proceedings of the IX Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Chieti (Italy), 24–26 February 2005. Oxford: Archaeopress. 251–258. Kroll, J. H. 1993. The Athenian Agora XXVI: The Greek Coins. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Krzyżanowska, A. 2014. “Monnaies grecques et romaines.” In A. Krzyżanowska and M. Gawlikowski (eds.), Studia Palmyrenskie XIII: Monnaies des fouilles polonaises à Palmyre. Warsaw: Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology. 13–70. Kunisz, A. 1987. Le trésor d’Antoniniens et de folles des “principia” de la légion de Novae, Bulgarie. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Kushnir-Stein, A. 2001. “Was Late Hellenistic Silver Coinage Minted for Propaganda Purposes?” Numismatic Chronicle 161: 41–52. Laffranchi, L. 1907. “I diversi stili nella Monetazione Romana: I. le monete autonome del IV Secolo.” Rivista Italiana di numismatica e scienze affini 20: 49–60. Lassus, J. 1972. Antioch-on-the-Orontes V: Les Portiques d’Antioche. Princeton University Press. Lavan, L. A. 2003. “The Political Topography of the Late Antique City: Activity Spaces in Practice.” In L. Lavan and W. Bowden (eds.), Theory and Practice in Late Antique Archaeology. Leiden: Brill. 314–337. 2006a. “Fora and Agorai in Mediterranean Cities during the 4th and 5th c. A.D.” In W. Bowden and C. Machado (eds.), Social and Political Life in Late Antiquity (Late Antique Archaeology 3.1). Leiden: Brill. 195–249. 2006b. “Political Life in Late Antiquity: A Bibliographic Essay.” In W. Bowden and C. Machado (eds.), Social and Political Life in Late Antiquity (Late Antique Archaeology 3.1). Leiden: Brill. 3–40. Leblanc, J. and Poccardi, G. 1999. “Étude de la permanence de tracés urbains et ruraux antiques à Antioche-sur-l’Oronte.” Syria 76: 91–126. 2004. “L’eau domestiquée et l’eau sauvage à Antioche-sur-l’Oronte: problèmes de gestion.” In B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier, and C. Saliou (eds.), Antioche de

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography

Syrie: Histoire, images et traces de la ville antique / Colloque organisé par B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier et C. Saliou, Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 4–6 octobre 2001. Paris: De Boccard. 239–256. Le Gentilhomme, P. 1947. “La trouvaille de Nanterre.” Revue Numismatique 9: 15–114. Lehmann, G. and Schneider, T. J. 2000. “Notes and News – Tell el-Far’ah (South), 1999 and 2000.” Israel Exploration Journal 50.3/4: 258–261. Leonard, R. D. 1993. “Cut Bronze Coins in the Ancient Near East.” In T. Hackens et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the XIth International Numismatic Congress Organized for the 150th Anniversary of the Société Royale de Numismatique de Belgique Brussels, September 8th–13th 1991 I: Monnaies grecques et grecques d’époque impériale. Louvain-la-Neuve: Association Professeur Marcel Hoc. 363–370. Le Rider, G. 1965. Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes: Les trouvailles monétaires et l’histoire de la ville. Paris: P. Geuthner. 1986. “Les Alexandres d’argent en Asie Mineure et dans l’Orient Séleucide au IIIe siècle av. J.-C. (c. 275–c. 225): Remarques sur le système monétaire des Séleucides et des Ptolémées.” Journal des savants 1–3: 3–57. 1995. “La politique monétaire des Séleucides en Coelé Syrie et en Phénicie après 200.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 119.1: 391–404. 1998. Séleucie du Tigre: Les monnaies séleucides et parthes. Florence: Le Lettere. 1999. Antioche de Syrie sous les Séleucides: corpus des monnaies d’or et d’argent I: De Séleucos I à Antiochos V, c. 300–161. Paris: Institut de France. 2001. “Un essai de réforme monétaire sous Antiochos IV en 173/2? Remarques sur l’idée d’une pénurie d’argent dans les états hellénistiques au IIe siècle.” In R. Frei-Stolba and K. Gex (eds.), Recherches récentes sur le monde hellénistique. Actes du colloque international organisé à l’occasion du 60e anniversaire de Pierre Ducrey, Lausanne 20 – 21 novembre 1998. New York: Peter Lang. 269–280. Le Rider, G. and de Callataÿ, F. 2006. Les Séleucides et les Ptolémées: L’héritage monétaire et financier d’Alexandre le Grand. Monaco: Rocher. Levi, D. 1947. Antioch Mosaic Pavements. 2 vols. Princeton University Press. Levick, B. 1999. “Messages on the Roman Coinage: Types and Inscriptions.” In G. M. Paul (ed.), Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire: E. Togo Salmon Papers II. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 41–60. Levy, B. 1995. “Tyrian Shekels: The Myth of the Jerusalem Mint.” Journal of the Society for Ancient Numismatics 19.2: 33–35. Lichtenberger, A. 2008. “Artemis and Zeus Olympios in Roman Gerasa and Seleucid Religious Policy.” In T. Kaizer (ed.), The Variety of Local Religious Life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Leiden: Brill. 133–153. Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. 1959. “The Syriarch in the Fourth Century.” Historia 8: 113–126. 1972. Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

377

378

Bibliography 1992. “The End of the Ancient City.” In J. Rich (ed.), The City in Late Antiquity. New York: Routledge. 1–49. 2001. Decline and Fall of the Roman City. Oxford University Press. 2004. “Malalas on Antioch.” In B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier, and C. Saliou (eds.), Antioche de Syrie: Histoire, images et traces de la ville antique / Colloque organisé par B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier et C. Saliou, Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 4–6 octobre 2001. Paris: De Boccard. 143–153. 2015. East and West in Late Antiquity: Invasion, Settlement, Ethnogenesis and Conflicts of Religion. Leiden: Brill. Lo Cascio, E. 1981. “State and Coinage in the Late Republic and Early Empire.” Journal of Roman Studies 71: 76–86. 1996. “How Did the Romans View Their Coinage and Its Function?” In C. E. King and D. G. Wigg (eds.), Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World: The Thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History. Berlin: G. Mann. 273–287. 2005. “The Emperor and His Administration.” In A. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and A. Cameron (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History XII: The Crisis of Empire, AD 193–337. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press. 131–183. Lockyear, K. 1996. Multivariate Money: A Statistical Analysis of Roman Republican Coin Hoards with Special Reference to Material from Romania. PhD Thesis. University of London. 2000. “Site Finds in Roman Britain: A Comparison of Techniques.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19.4: 397–423. 2007. “Where Do We Go from Here? Recording and Analysing Roman Coins from Archaeological Excavations.” Britannia 38: 211–224. 2012. “Dating Coins, Dating with Coins.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 31.2: 191–211. 2013. “Applying Bootstrapped Correspondence Analysis to Archaeological Data.” Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 4744–4753. Lönnqvist, K. 2008. “The Tax Law of Palmyra and the Introduction of the Roman Monetary System to Syria – A Re-Evaluation.” In M. Lönnqvist (ed.), Jebel Bishri in Context: Introduction to the Archaeological Studies and the Neighbourhood of Jebel Bishri in Central Syria. Proceedings of a Nordic Research Training Seminar in Syria, May 2004. Oxford: Archaeopress. 73–88. Lönnqvist, K. and Lönnqvist, M. 2006. “The Numismatic Chronology of Qumran: Fact and Fiction.” Numismatic Chronicle 166: 121–165. Lorber, C. 2012. “The Coinage of the Ptolemies.” In W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 211–234. Loseby, S. T. 2009. “Mediterranean Cities.” In P. Rousseau (ed.), A Companion to Late Antiquity. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 139–155. Lund, J. 2003. “Eastern Sigillata B: A Ceramic Fine Ware Industry in the Political and Commercial Landscape of the Eastern Mediterranean.” In C. AbadieReynal (ed.), Les céramiques en Anatolie aux époques hellénistique et

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography

romaine. Istanbul: Institut français d’études anatoliennes Georges Dumézil. 125–136. Ma, J. 1999. Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor. Oxford University Press. MacDonald, D. J. 1976. Greek and Roman Coins from Aphrodisias. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. MacDonald, G. 1902. “The Coinage of Tigranes I.” Numismatic Chronicle 2: 193–201. 1904. “The Pseudo-autonomous Coinage of Antioch.” Numismatic Chronicle 4: 105–135. Mack, W. 2015. Proxeny and Polis: Institutional Networks in the Ancient Greek World. Oxford University Press. Macro, A. D. 1976. “Imperial Provisions for Pergamum: OGIS 484.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 17.2: 169–179. Manuwald, G. 2011. Roman Republican Theatre. Cambridge University Press. Marot, T. 1998. Las monedas del Macellum de Gerasa (Ŷaraš, Jordania): Aproximación a la circulación monetaria en la provincia de Arabia. Madrid: Museo Casa de la Moneda. Martínez Mira, I. 1995–1997. “Tesorillos del s. III d.C. en la Península Ibérica (I).” Lucentum 14–17: 119–180. Martinez-Sève, L. 2004. “Peuple d’Antioche et dynastie séleucide.” In B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier, and C. Saliou (eds.), Antioche de Syrie: Histoire, images et traces de la ville antique / Colloque organisé par B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier et C. Saliou, Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 4–6 octobre 2001. Paris: De Boccard. 21–41. Matei, C. 2015. Circulația monetară romană pe teritoriul anticului Tibiscum (sec. I-IV p. Chr.) 2. Szeged: JATEPress Kiadó. 18–356. Matthews, J. F. 1984. “The Tax Law of Palmyra: Evidence for Economic History in a City of the Roman East.” Journal of Roman Studies 74: 157–80. Mattingly, D. J. 2011. Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire. Princeton University Press. Mattingly, H. 1932. “The Coinage of Septimius Severus and His Times. Mints and Chronology.” Numismatic Chronicle 12.47: 177–198. 1933. “FEL. TEMP. REPARATIO.” Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society 13.51: 182–202. 1939. “The Great Dorchester Hoard of 1936.” Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society (Fifth Series) 19.73: 21–61. 1956. “A Fourth-Century Roman Hoard from Egypt.” Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society (Sixth Series) 16: 179–188. Mattingly, H. and Salisbury, F. S. 1924. “A Find of Roman Coins from Plevna in Bulgaria.” Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society (Fifth Series) 4: 210–238. Maxwell, J. L. 2006. Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity: John Chrysostom and His Congregation in Antioch. Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

379

380

Bibliography

Mayer, W. and Allen, P. 2012. The Churches of Syrian Antioch (300–638 CE). Leuven: Peeters. McAlee, R. 2007. The Coins of Roman Antioch. Lancaster, PA: Classical Numismatic Group. McCormick, M. 2001. Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce, A.D. 300–900. Cambridge University Press. Meadows, A. 2001. “Money, Freedom, and Empire in the Hellenistic World.” In A. Meadows and K. Shipton (eds.), Money and Its Uses in the Ancient Greek World. Oxford University Press. 53–63. 2009. “The Eras of Pamphylia and the Seleucid Invasions of Asia Minor.” American Journal of Numismatics 21: 51–88. Meadows A. and Gruber, E. 2014. “Coinage and Numismatic Methods. A Case Study of Linking a Discipline.” ISAW Papers 7.15. Meeks, W. A. 2003. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. 2nd edition. New Haven: Yale University Press. Meeks, W. A. and Wilken, R. L. 1978. Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature. Meir, C. 2000. “Coins: The Historical Evidence of the Ancient City of Jaffa.” In B. Kluge and B. Weisser (eds.), XII. Internationaler Numismatischer Kongress, Berlin 1997. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. 123–130. Meshorer, Y. 1985. “A Coin Hoard of Bar-Kokhba’s Time.” Israel Museum Journal IV: 43–50. 1989. “The Coins of Masada.” In Masada: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports I. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 69–132. 2001. A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press. Metcalf, W. E. 1974. “The “Cairo” Hoard of Tetrarchic Folles.” Revue Belge de Numismatique 120: 73–107. 1975. “The Tell Kalak Hoard and Trajan’s Arabian Mint.” Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society) 20: 39–108. 1977. “The Antioch Hoard of Antoniniani and the Eastern Coinage of Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian.” Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society) 22: 71–94. 1980. The Cistophori of Hadrian. Numismatic Studies 15. New York: The American Numismatic Society. 1982. “The Flavians in the East.” In T. Hackens and R. Weiler (eds.), Actes du 9ème Congrès International de Numismatique: Berne, Septembre 1979. Louvain-la-Neuve: Association internationale des numismates professionnels. 321–339. 2002. “The End of Antioch’s Silver Coinage.” In C. Auge and F. Duyrat (eds.), Les monnayages syriens – Quel apport pour l’histoire du Proche-Orient

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography

hellénistique et romain? Actes du table-ronde de Damas, 10–12 novembre 1999. Beirut: Bibliothèque archéologique et historique. 175–180. 2008. “Regionalism in the Coinage of Asia Minor.” In G. Reger and H. Elton (eds.), Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor: Acts of the Conference Hartford, Connecticut (USA), August 22–24 1997. Paris: De Boccard. 147–159. Metcalf, W. E. (ed.). 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. Meyer, E. 1987/88 (1991). “Die Bronzeprägung von Laodikeia in Syrien 194–217.” Jahrbuch f. Numismatik u. Geldgeschichte 37/38: 57–92. Meyer, M. 2006. Die Personifikation der Stadt Antiocheia: Ein neues Bild für eine neue Gottheit. Berlin: de Gruyter. Michaelidou-Nicolaou, I. 1993. “Four Ptolemaic/Roman Hoards from Cyprus.” Numismatic Chronicle 153: 11–29. Millar, F. 1977. The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC–AD 337). London: Duckworth. 1993. The Roman Near East, 31 BC–AD 337. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2006. Rome, the Greek World, and the East III: The Greek World, the Jews, and the East. H. M. Cotton and G. M. Rogers (eds.). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Milne, J. G. 1920. “Two Roman Hoards of Coins from Egypt.” The Journal of Roman Studies 10: 169–184. 1926. “The Currency of Egypt in the Fifth Century.” Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society (Fifth Series) 6: 43–92. 1934. “Late Roman Coins from Mesopotamia.” Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society (Fifth Series) 14.54: 132–134. Mirnik, I. A. 1981. Coin Hoards in Yugoslavia. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Mitchell, S. 1987. “Imperial Building in the Eastern Roman Provinces.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 91: 333–365. Mitrea, B. 1971. “Un document numismatic din a doua jumátate a secolului al IIIlead: tezaurul de monede romane imperiale de la Olteni (Județul Vîlcea).” Studii și Cercetări de Numismatică 5: 115–143. Monson, A. 2015. “Hellenistic Empires.” In A. Monson and W. Scheidel (eds.), Fiscal Regimes and the Political Economy of Premodern States. Cambridge University Press. 169–207. Moorhead, S. 2012. “The Coinage of the Later Roman Empire, A.D. 364–498.” In W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 601–632. Mørkholm, O. 1959. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum XXXV: Syria: Seleucid Kings. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

381

382

Bibliography

1963. Studies in the Coinage of Antiochus IV of Syria. Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser udgivet af Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab XXXX.3. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. 1982. “Some Reflections on the Production and Use of Coinage in Ancient Greece.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 31.3: 290–305. 1983. “The Autonomous Tetradrachms of Laodicea ad Mare.” American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 28: 89–107. 1984. “The Monetary System in the Seleucid Empire after 187 B.C.” In W. Heckel and R. Sullivan (eds.), Ancient Coins of the Graeco-Roman World (The Nickle Numismatic Papers). Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press for the Calgary Institute for the Humanities. 93–113. 1991. Early Hellenistic Coinage: From the Accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336–188 B.C.). Cambridge University Press. Morrell, K. 2017. Pompey, Cato, and the Governance of the Roman Empire. Oxford University Press. Müller, C. 1839. Antiquitates Antiochenae: Commentationes Duae. Göttingen: e Libraria Dieterichiana. Netzer, E. 2006. The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Neumann, K. and Wallrodt, J. 2017. “The Third Side of the Coin: Using Google Earth to Visualize Numismatic Data.” Digital Classics Online 3.3: 37–60. Newell. E. T. 1918 [1978]. The Seleucid Mint of Antioch. [Chicago: Obol International]. New York: American Numismatic Society. 1919. “The Pre-Imperial Coinage of Roman Antioch.” Numismatic Chronicle 19: 69–113. 1941 [1977]. The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III. New York: American Numismatic Society. Newton, D. 2006. “Found Coins as Indicators of Coins in Circulation: Testing Some Assumptions.” European Journal of Archaeology 9.2–3: 211–227. Nicklas, S. D. 1995. A General Survey of Coinage in the Roman Empire A.D. 294–408 and Its Relationship to Roman Military Deployment. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen. Nicolaou, I. 1990. Paphos II: The Coins from the House of Dionysos. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. Nixon, C. E. V. 2002. “The Coins.” In G. W. Clarke et al. (eds.), Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates I: Report on Excavations 1986–1996. Sydney: Meditarch. 291–335. Noe, S. P. 1937. A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards. 2nd edition. New York: The American Numismatic Society. Noeske, H.-C. 2000. Münzfunde aus Ägypten I: Die Münzfunde des ägyptischen Pilgerzentrums Abu Mina und die Vergleichsfunde aus den Dioecesen Aegyptus und Oriens vom 4.-8. Jh. n. Chr.: Prolegomena zu einer Geschichte des spätrömischen Münzumlaufs in Ägypten und Syrien. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. Nony, M. D. 1967. “Un trésor monétaire du Bas-Empire à Tarifa (Cádiz).” Mélanges de la Casa de Velázquez 3: 93–114.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography

Noreña, C. F. 2011. Imperial Ideals in the Roman West: Representation, Circulation, Power. Cambridge University Press. 2016. “Heritage and Homogeneity: The Civic Coinage of Roman Antioch.” In S. Alcock, M. Egri, and J. Frakes (eds.), Beyond Boundaries: Connecting Visual Cultures in the Provinces of Ancient Rome. Los Angeles: Getty Publications. 294–306. Norman, A. F. (trans.) 2000. Antioch as a Centre of Hellenic Culture as Observed by Libanius. Liverpool University Press. Norris, F. W. 1982. “Isis, Sarapis and Demeter in Antioch of Syria.” The Harvard Theological Review 75.2 (April): 189–207. 1984. “Paul of Samosata: Procurator Ducenarius.” The Journal of Theological Studies 35.1 (April): 50–70. Noy, D. 2000. Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers. London: Gerald Duckworth and Co. Nurpetlian, J. A. 2013. Coinage in Late Hellenistic and Roman Syria: The Orontes Valley (1st Century BC–3rd Century AD). PhD Dissertation. University of Warwick. Odahl, C. M. 2004. Constantine and the Christian Empire. London: Routledge. Oettel, A. 2005. “Die antiken Münzen aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad: Die Funde der Grabungskampagnen 1978 bis 2000.” In H. Kühne (ed.), Magdalu/ Magdala: Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad von der postassyrischen Zeit bis zur römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin: Reimer. 161–186. Ogden, D. 2017. The Legend of Seleucus: Kingship, Narrative and Mythmaking in the Ancient World. Cambridge University Press. Orton, C. R. 1980. Mathematics in Archaeology. London: Collins. Pamir, H. 2012. “Preliminary Results of the Recent Archaeological Researches in Antioch on the Orontes and Its Vicinity.” In C. Saliou (ed.), Les sources de l’histoire du paysage urbain d’Antioche sur l’Oronte: Actes des journées d’études des 20 et 21 septembre 2010. Saint-Denis: Université Paris. 259–270. 2014. “Archaeological Research in Antioch on the Orontes and Its Vicinity: 2002–12.” In S. Redford (ed.), Antioch on the Orontes: Early Explorations in the City of Mosaics. Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları. 78–127. Pamir, H. and Sezgin, N. 2016. “The Sundial and Convivium Scene on the Mosaic from the Rescue Excavation in a Late Antique House of Antioch.” Adalya 19: 251–280. Parks, D. A. 2004. The Roman Coinage of Cyprus. A. G. Pitsillides (ed.). Nicosia: Cyprus Numismatic Society. Pekáry, T. 1971. Die Fundmünzen von Vindonissa von Hadrian bis zum Ausgang der Römerherrschaft. Brugg: Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa. Pflaum, H.-G. 1980. “Trésor d’antoniniani de la seconde moitié du III siècle trouvé en Syrie.” In P. Bastien, F. Dumas, H. Huvelin, and C. Morrisson (eds.), Melanges de numismatique d’archéologie et d’histoire, offerts à Jean Lafaurie. Paris: Société française de numismatique. 145–152.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

383

384

Bibliography

Picard, O. (ed.). 2012. Les monnaies de fouilles du Centre d’études alexandrines. Les monnayages de bronze à Alexandrie, de la conquête d’Alexandre à l’Égypte moderne. Alexandria: Centre d’Études Alexandrines. Pink, K. 1963. “Der Schatz von Nahr Ibrahim in Syrien.” Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 13.1: 1–3. Pollard, N. 2000. Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians in Roman Syria. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 2004. “Roman Material Culture across Imperial Frontiers? Three Case Studies from Parthian Dura-Europos.” In S. Colvin (ed.), The Greco-Roman East: Politics, Culture, Society. Cambridge University Press. 119–144. Pollitt, J. J. 1986. Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge University Press. Polosa, A. 2010. “The Coins.” In E. E. Schneider (ed.), Elaiussa Sebaste III: L’Agora Romana. Istanbul: Ege Yaynıları. 164–185. Potter, D. S. 1990. Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire: A Historical Commentary on the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle. Oxford University Press. Prawdzic-Golemberski, E. J. and Metcalf, D. M. 1963. “The Circulation of Byzantine Coins on the South-Eastern Frontiers of the Empire.” Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society (Seventh Series) 3: 83–92. Prieur, M. and Prieur, K. 2000. A Type Corpus of the Syro-Phoenician Tetradrachms and Their Fractions from 57 BC to AD 253. Lancaster, PA: Classical Numismatic Group. Psoma, S. 2013. “War or Trade? Attic-Weight Tetradrachms from Second-Century BC Attalid Asia Minor in Seleukid Syria after the Peace of Apameia and Their Historical Context.” In P. Thonemann (ed.), Attalid Asia Minor: Money, International Relations, and the State. Oxford University Press. 265–300. Raphael, K. and Bijovsky, G. 2014. “The Coin Hoard from Caeasarea Maritima and the 363 CE Earthquake.” Israel Numismatic Research 9: 173–191. Raschke, M. G. 1978. “New Studies in Roman Commerce with the East.” In H. Temporini (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.9.2. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. 604–1378. Ravetz, A. 1964. “The Fourth-century Inflation and Romano-British Coin Finds.” Numismatic Chronicle (Seventh Series) 4: 201–231. Redford, S. (ed.). 2014. Antioch on the Orontes: Early Explorations in the City of Mosaics. Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları. Reece, R. 1993. “The Interpretation of Site Finds – A Review.” In C. E. King and D. G. Wigg (eds.), Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World: The Thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History 25– 27.3.1993. Berlin: G. Mann. 341–356. 1995. “Site-Finds in Roman Britain.” Britannia 26: 179–206. 2003. “Coins and the Late Roman Economy.” Late Antique Archaeology 1.1: 139–168.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography 2006. “Coins and Politics in the Late Roman World.” In W. Bowden, A. Gutteridge, and C. Machado (eds.), Social and Political Life in Late Antiquity. Leiden: Brill. 113–140. Reece, R., Brown, H., Butcher, K., and Metcalf, M. 2008. “Jerusalem: The Coins.” In K. Prag and K. Kenyon (eds.), Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967 V: Discoveries in Hellenistic to Ottoman Jerusalem. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 411–431. Reger, G. 2003. “The Economy.” In A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 331–353. 2007. “Hellenistic Greece and Western Asia Minor.” In W. Scheidel, I. Morris, and R. Saller (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge University Press. 460–483. Regling, K. 1927. Die Münzen von Priene. Berlin: H. Schoetz & Co. Reisner, G. A., Fisher, C. S., and Lyon, D. G. (eds.). 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908–1910. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Remijsen, S. 2010. “The Introduction of the Antiochene Olympics: A Proposal for a New Date.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 50: 411–436. Rey-Coquais, J.-P. 1978. “Syrie Romaine, de Pompée à Dioclétien.” Journal of Roman Studies 68: 44–73. 1989. “La Syrie, de Pompée à Dioclétien: histoire politique et administrative.” In J.-M. Dentzer and W. Orthmann (eds.), Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie 2: La Syrie de l’époque achéménide à l’avènement de l’Islam. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. 45–61. Rigsby, K. J. 1980. “Seleucid Notes.” Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974–) 110: 233–254. 1996. Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ringel, J. 1974. “Un trésor de tétradrachmes séleucides retiré de la mer de Haïfa (Israël).” Revue Numismatique 6.16: 42–48. Robert, L. 1951. “Contribution à la topographie de villes de l’Asie Mineure méridionale.” Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres: 254–259. 1977. “La titulature de Nicée et de Nicomédie: la gloire et la haine.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 81: 1–39. Robertson, A. S. 2000. An Inventory of Romano-British Coin Hoards. R. Hobbs and T. V. Buttrey (eds.). London: Royal Numismatic Society. Roller, D. W. 1998. The Building Program of Herod the Great. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rostovtzeff, M. I. 1943. “Res Gestae Divi Saporis and Dura.” Berytus Archaeological Studies 8: 17–60. Rostovtzeff, M. I., Brown, F. E., and Welles, C. B. (eds.). 1939. Preliminary Report of the Seventh and Eighth Seasons of Work 1933–1934 and 1934–1935. The Excavations at Dura Europos Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. New Haven: Yale University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

385

386

Bibliography Roueché, C. 1984. “Acclamations in the Later Roman Empire: New Evidence from Aphrodisias.” The Journal of Roman Studies 74: 181–199. Roussel, P. 1934. “Un Syrien au service de Rome et d’Octave.” Syria 15: 33–74. Roussel, P. and de Visscher, F. 1942–1943. “Les Inscriptions du temple de Dmeir.” Syria 23.3/4: 173–200. Roymans, N. and Heeren, S. 2015. “A Late Roman Solidus Hoard with Hacksilber from Echt (Prov. Limburg / NL).” Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 45.4: 549–562. Ryan, N. S. 1988. Fourth-Century Coin Finds from Roman Britain: A Computer Analysis. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Saliou, C. 2012a. “Les sources antiques: esquisse de présentation générale.” In C. Saliou (ed.), Les sources de l’histoire du paysage urbain d’Antioche sur l’Oronte: Actes des journées d’études des 20 et 21 septembre 2010. SaintDenis: Université Paris. 25–42. (ed.) 2012b. Les sources de l’histoire du paysage urbain d’Antioche sur l’Oronte: Actes des journées d’études des 20 et 21 septembre 2010. Saint-Denis: Université Paris. Salmeri, G. 2011. “Reconstructing the Political Life and Culture of the Greek Cities of the Roman Empire.” In O. M. van Nijf and R. Alston (eds.), Political Culture in the Greek City after the Classical Age. Leuven: Peeters. 197–214. Salmon, E. T. 1956. “The Evolution of Augustus’ Principate.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 5: 456–478. Sandwell, I. 2004a. “Introduction.” In I. Sandwell and J. Huskinson (eds.), Culture and Society in Later Roman Antioch: Papers from a Colloquium, London, 15th December 2001. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 1–11. 2004b. “Christian Self-Definition in the Fourth Century AD: John Chrysostom on Christianity, Imperial Rule and the City.” In I. Sandwell and J. Huskinson (eds.), Culture and Society in Later Roman Antioch: Papers from a Colloquium, London, 15th December 2001. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 35–58. 2007. Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks, Jews and Christians in Antioch. Cambridge University Press. Sandwell, I. and Huskinson, J. (eds.). 2004. Culture and Society in Later Roman Antioch: Papers from a Colloquium, London, 15th December 2001. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Sartre, M. 1991. L’Orient romain: provinces et sociétés provinciales en Méditerranée orientale d’Auguste aux Sévères (31 avant J.-C.–235 après J.-C.). Paris: Éditions du Seuil. 1996. “Les progrès de la citoyenneté romaine dans les provinces romaines de Syrie et d’Arabie sous le Haut-Empire.” In A. D. Rizakis (ed.), Roman Onomastics in the Greek East: Social and Political Aspects: Proceedings of the International Colloquium Organized by the Finnish Institute and the Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity, Athens 7–9, September 1993. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard. 239–250.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography

2001. D’Alexandre à Zénobie: Histoire du Levant antique, IVe siècle avant J.-C., IIIe siècle après J.-C. Paris: Fayard. 2005. The Middle East under Rome. C. Porter, E. Rawlings, and J. Routier-Pucci (trans.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Sawaya, Z. 2005. “Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Coins from Baalbek: Preliminary Report and Historical Problems.” BAAL 9: 147–160. 2011. “The Coin Finds from Hellenistic and Roman Berytos (Fourth Century BC–Third Century AD).” In N. Holmes (ed.), Proceedings of the XIVth International Numismatic Congress, Glasgow, 2009. London: Spink and Son. 376–381. Schachner, L. 2006. “Social Life in Late Antiquity: A Bibliographic Essay.” In W. Bowden and C. Machado (eds.), Social and Political Life in Late Antiquity (Late Antique Archaeology 3.1). Leiden: Brill. 41–93. Schäfer, P. 2003. The History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World. London: Routledge. Schreibman, S., Siemens, R., and Unsworth, J. (eds.). 2004. A Companion to Digital Humanities. Oxford: Blackwell. 2016. A New Companion to Digital Humanities. 2nd edition. Oxford. Blackwell. Schwartz, J. 1982. “Antioche et la tétrachie.” Schweizer Münzblätter 127: 63–67. Scott, M. 2015. “Temples and Sanctuaries.” In E. Eidinow and J. Kindt (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion. Oxford University Press. 227–240. Segal, A. 1997. From Function to Monument: Urban Landscapes of Roman Palestine, Syria and Provincia Arabia. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Sellwood, D. G. and Bendall, S. 1976. “Mis-strikes from an Eastern Hoard of Folles.” In H. A. Cahn and G. Le Rider (eds.), Actes du 8e Congrès international de numismatique, New York-Washington 1973. Paris: Association internationale des Numismates professionnels. 371–376. Seyrig, H. 1950a. “Antiquités syriennes.” Syria 27.1: 5–56. 1950b. Notes on Syrian Coins. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 119. New York: American Numismatic Society. 1955. “Trésor monétaire de Nisibe.” Revue Numismatique 17: 85–128. 1966. “VHABALATHVS AVGVSTVS.” In M. L. Bernhard (ed.), Mélanges offerts à Kazimierz Michałowski. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawn. 659–662. 1970. “Antiquités syriennes.” Syria 47.3/4: 287–311. 1973. Trésors du Levant anciens et nouveaux. Paris: P. Geuthner. Shennan, S. 1997. Quantifying Archaeology. 2nd edition. Edinburgh University Press. Shepardson, C. 2014. Controlling Contested Places: Late Antique Antioch and the Spatial Politics of Religious Controversy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sherk, R. K. 1969. Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

387

388

Bibliography

Sherwin-White, A. N. 1983. Roman Foreign Policy in the East: 168 B.C. to A.D. 1. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1994. “Lucullus, Pompey and the East.” In J. A. Crook, A. Lintott, and E. Rawson (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History IX: The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 146–43 BC. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press. 229–273. Sherwin-White, S. and Kuhrt, A. 1993. From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press. Slocum, J. J. 1977. “Another Look at the Coins of Hatra.” The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 22: 37–47. Slootjes, D. 2006. The Governor and His Subjects in the Later Roman Empire. Leiden: Brill. Smallwood, E. M. 1976. The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations. Leiden: Brill. Soler, E. 2006. Le sacré et le salut à Antioche au IVe siècle apr. J.-C.: Pratiques festives et comportements religieux dans le processus de christianisation de la cité. Beirut: Institut français du Proche-Orient. Solin, H. 1983. “Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt: Eine ethnisch- demographische Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der sprachlichen Zustände.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung 2.29.2: 587–789. Southern, P. 2001. The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine. London: Routledge. Spijkerman, A. 1958–1959. “A Hoard of Syrian Tetradrachms and Eastern Antoniniani from Capharnaum.” Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus 9: 283–329. 1961. “Trésor de sicles juifs trouvé au Mont des Oliviers à Jérusalem.” Schweizer Münzblätter 11.42: 25–32. 1978. The Coins of the Decapolis and Provincia Arabia. M. Piccirillo (ed.). Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. Spoerri Butcher, M. and Casoli, A. 2012. “Un trésor d’antoniniens trouvé à Erétrie (Eubée) en 2011: Questions de circulation monétaire en Grèce au IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.” Revue Suisse de Numismatique 91: 111–205. Stahl, A. 2017. “New Archaeology from Old Coins: Antioch Re-examined.” In P. Bogucki and P. Crabtree (eds.), European Archaeology as Anthropology: Essays in Memory of Bernard Wailes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 225–44. Stansbury-O’Donnell, M. D. 1994. “Reflections of the Tyche of Antioch in Literary Sources and on Coins.” Yale University Art Gallery Bulletin: 50–63. Steinsapir, A. I. 2005. Rural Sanctuaries in Roman Syria: The Creation of a Sacred Landscape. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges. Stevenson, S. W. 1889. A Dictionary of Roman Coins, Republican and Imperial. London: George Bell and Sons.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography Stewart, P. 1999. “The Destruction of Statues in Late Antiquity.” In R. Miles (ed.), Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge. 159–189. Stillwell, R. 1961. “Houses of Antioch.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 15: 45–57. (ed.). 1938. Antioch-on-the-Orontes II: The Excavations 1933–1936. Princeton University Press. 1941. Antioch-on-the-Orontes III: The Excavations 1937–1939. Princeton University Press. Strootman, R. 2014. Courts and Elites in the Hellenistic Empires: The Near East after the Achaemenids, c. 330 to 30 BCE. Edinburgh University Press. Stroud, R. S. 1974. “An Athenian Law on Silver Coinage.” Hesperia 43.2: 157–188. Stucky, R. A. 1990. “Hellenistisches Syrien.” In Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988. Mainz: P. von Zabern. 25–31. Sutherland, C. H. V. 1965. “The Symbolism of the Early Aes Coinages under Augustus.” Revue Numismatique 7: 94–109. 1976. The Emperor and the Coinage: Julio-Claudian Studies. London: Spink. Svoronos, I. N. 1907. “Eurema Eleutheropoleos Palaistines.” Journal international d’archéologie numismatique 10: 230–248. Sweeney, W. B. and Visonà, P. 1991. “A Hoard of Antoniniani from the Mount of Olives.” Revue Numismatique (6e série) 33: 263–268. Syon, D. 1992–1993. “The Coins from Gamala: Interim Report.” Israel Numismatic Journal 12: 34–55. 2002. “The Coins from Burial Caves D and E at Hurfeish.” In Z. Gal (ed.), Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 167–175. 2014. “Coins.” In D. Syon (ed.), Gamla III: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989. Finds and Studies: Part 1. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 109–231. 2015. Small Change in Hellenistic-Roman Galilee: The Evidence from Numismatic Site Finds as a Tool for Historical Reconstruction. Jerusalem: Israel Numismatic Society. 2016. “The Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Coins.” In M. Hartal, D. Syon, E. Stern, and A. Tatcher (eds.), ’Akko II: The 1991–1998 Excavations: The Early Periods. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 203–226. Takács, S. A. 2000. “Pagan Cults at Antioch.” In Kondoleon (ed.), Antioch: The Lost Ancient City. Princeton University Press in association with the Worcester Art Museum. 198–202. Tal, O. 2012. “Greek Coinages of Palestine.” In W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 252–274. Tchalenko, G. 1953–1958. Villages antiques de la Syrie du Nord; le massif du Bélus à l’époque romaine. 3 vols. Paris: P. Geuthner. Temizsoy, I. 1996. “The Ihsaniye Hoard of Antoniniani.” In R. Ashton (ed.), Studies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey. London: Royal Numismatic Society. 99–103.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

389

390

Bibliography Tepper, Y. 2010. “A Pagan Cemetery from the Roman Period at the Foot of Tel Akko: Evidence of the Burial of Roman Soldiers and Citizens of Colonia Ptolemais.” In A. E. Killebrew et al. (eds.), One Thousand Nights and Days, Akko Through the Ages. Hecht Museum, University of Haifa. 33–39. Thompson, E. A. 1943. “Ammianus’ Account of Gallus Caesar.” The American Journal of Philology 64.3: 302–315. Thompson, M. 1954. The Athenian Agora II: Coins from the Roman through the Venetian Period. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Thonemann, P. 2015. The Hellenistic World: Using Coins as Sources. Cambridge University Press. Tougher, S. 2004. “Julian’s Bull Coinage: Kent Revisited.” The Classical Quarterly 54.1: 327–330. Tracy, S. V. and Habicht, C. 1991. “New and Old Panathenaic Victor Lists.” Hesperia 60.2 (April–June): 187–236. Trombley, F. R. 2004. “Christian Demography in the Territorium of Antioch (4th–5th c.): Observations on the Epigraphy.” In I. Sandwell and J. Huskinson (eds.), Culture and Society in Later Roman Antioch: Papers from a Colloquium, London, 15th December 2001. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 59–85. Tudor, D. 1968. Oltenia romană. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Tukey, J. W. 1977. Exploratory Data Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Tuplin, C. 1987. “The Administration of the Achaemenid Empire.” In I. Carradice (ed.), Coinage and Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires: The Ninth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 109–166. Turcan, R. 1961. “Trésors monétaires trouvés à Tipasa. La circulation du bronze en Afrique romaine et vandale aux Ve et VIe siècles apres J.-C.” Libyca 51: 201–257. Turner, P. J. 1989. Roman Coins from India. London: Royal Numismatic Society. Underwood, D. 2019. (Re)Using Ruins: Public Building in the Cities of the Late Antique West, A.D. 300–600. Leiden: Brill. van Berchem, D. 1983. “Une inscription flavienne du Musée d’Antioche.” Museum Helveticum 40.3: 185–196. van der Spek, R. J. 2007. “The Hellenistic Near East.” In W. Scheidel, I. Morris, and R. Saller (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge University Press. 409–433. van Heesch, J. 1975. “Une frappe semi-autonome sous Maximin Daza.” Revue belge de Numismatique 121: 91–108. 1993. “The Last Civic Coinages and the Religious Policy of Maximinus Daza (AD 312).” Numismatic Chronicle 153: 65–75. 2011. “Quantifying Roman Imperial Coinage.” In F. de Callataÿ (ed.), Quantifying Monetary Supplies in Greco-Roman Times. Bari: Edipuglia. 311–328.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography 2012. “Control Marks and Mint Administration in the Fourth Century AD.” Revue Belge de Numismatique 158: 161–178. Varbanov, V. 2017. “Находка от антониниани от с. Панайот Волов, Шуменско (Coin Hoard from Village of Panayot Volov, Shumen District.” ЖУРНАЛ ЗА ИСТОРИЧЕСКИ И АРХЕОЛОГИЧЕСКИ ИЗСЛЕДВАНИЯ (Journal of Historical and Archaeological Research) 1: 26–34. Velázquez Jiménez, A. 1983. “El Tesorillo de ‘Torrecaños’ Guareña (Badajoz). Contribución al estudio de la circulación monetària durante el Bajo Imperio en el territorium emeritense.” In M. Pilar Caldera de Castro and A. Velázquez Jiménez (eds.), Augusta Emerita I. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura, Dirección General de Bellas Artes y Archivos, Subdirección General de Arqueología y Etnografía. 81–190. Verboven, K. 1994. “The Monetary Enactments of M. Marius Gratidianus.” Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VII: 117–131. 2007. “Demise and Fall of the Augustan Monetary System.” In O. Hekster, G. de Kleijn, and D. Slootjes (eds.), Crises and the Roman Empire: Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Nijmegen, June 20–24, 2006). Leiden: Brill. 245–257. Vinčić, Ž. and Maneva, M. 2000. “Hoard of Bronze Roman Coins from the Stobi Antique Theatre.” Macedonian Numismatic Journal 4: 55–73. Vitale, M. 2013. Koinon Syrias: Priester, Gymnasiarchen und Metropoleis der Eparchien im kaiserzeitlichen Syrien. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Voetter, O. 1913. “Münzfund aus Ephesus.” Monatsblatt der Numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien 9: 168–171. von Reden, S. 2010. Money in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge University Press. 2012. “Money and Finance.” In W. Scheidel (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy. Cambridge University Press. 266–291. Vorderstrasse, T. 2004. “The Romanization and Christianization of the Antiochene Region: The Material Evidence from Three Sites.” In I. Sandwell and J. Huskinson (eds.), Culture and Society in Later Roman Antioch: Papers from a Colloquium, London, 15th December 2001. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 86–101. Waagé, D. (ed.). 1952. Antioch-on-the-Orontes IV.2: Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and Crusader Coins. Princeton University Press. Waagé, F. O. (ed.). 1948. Antioch-on-the-Orontes IV.1: Ceramics and Islamic Coins. Princeton University Press. Walbank, F. W. 1993. The Hellenistic World. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walker, D. R. 1976. The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage I: From Augustus to Domitian. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1977. The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage II: From Nerva to Commodus. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1978. The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage III: From Pertinax to Uranius Antoninus. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

391

392

Bibliography 1988. “The Roman Coins.” In B. Cunliffe (ed.), The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath II: The Finds from the Sacred Spring. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. 281–358. Walker, J. 1958. “The Coins of Hatra.” Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society 18: 167–172. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1986. “Image and Authority in the Coinage of Augustus.” Journal of Roman Studies 76: 66–87. Wallace-Hadrill, D. S. 1982. Christian Antioch: A Study of Early Christian Thought in the East. Cambridge University Press. Walton, P. J. 2011. Rethinking Roman Britain: An Applied Numismatic Analysis of the Roman Coin Data Recorded by the Portable Antiquities Scheme. PhD Dissertation. Institute of Archaeology. University College London. Waner, M. and Safrai, Z. 2001. A Catalogue of Coin Hoards and the Shelf Life of Coins in Palestine Hoards during the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Ward-Perkins, B. 1998. “The Cities.” In A. Cameron and P. Garnsey (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History XIII: The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425. Cambridge University Press. 371–410. 2001. “Specialisation, Trade, and Prosperity: An Overview of the Economy of the Late Antique Eastern Mediterranean.” In S. Kingsley and M. Decker (eds.), Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity: Proceedings of a Conference at Somerville College, Oxford, 29th May, 1999. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 167–178. Warfield, B. B. 1883. “The Readings “Ελληνας and ‘Ελληνιστάς, Acts xi. 20.” Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis 3.2 (December): 113–127. Weiser, W. 1988. “SC als Revers einer Münze der ersten Emission aus Neokaisareia in Galatia unter Traianus.” Schweizer Münzblätter 38: 9–12. Weiss, P. 2005. “The Cities and Their Money.” In C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, and A. Burnett (eds.), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Oxford University Press. 57–68. Welles, C. B. 1938. “The Inscriptions.” In C. H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa: City of the Decapolis. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. 355–494. West, L. C. 1924. “Commercial Syria under the Roman Empire.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 55: 159–189. Wheatley, A. B. 2011. Patronage in Early Christianity: Its Use and Transformation from Jesus to Paul of Samosata. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications. Wheatley, D. and Gillings, M. 2002. Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Applications of GIS. London: Taylor and Francis. Wheeler, E. 1996. “The Laxity of Syrian Legions.” In D. L. Kennedy (ed.), The Roman Army in the East. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology. 229–276. Whittow, M. 1990. “Ruling the Late Roman and Early Byzantine City: A Continuous History.” Past & Present 129: 3–29.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Bibliography Wigg-Wolf, D. 2009. “Sites as Context.” In H.-M. von Kaenel and F. Kemmers (eds.), Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds. Mainz: P. von Zabern. 109–126. Will, E. 1985. Le sanctuaire de la déesse syrienne. Paris: de Boccard. 1989. “Les villes de la Syrie à l’époque hellénistique et romaine.” In J.-M. Dentzer and W. Orthmann (eds.), Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie II. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. 223–250. 1990. “La Capitale des Seleucides.” In Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988. Mainz: P. von Zabern. 259–265. 1997. “Antioche sur l’Oronte, métropole de l’Asie.” Syria 74: 99–113. Williamson, G. 2005. “Aspects of Identity.” In C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, and A. Burnett (eds.), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Oxford University Press. 19–27. Wolters, R. 2012. “The Julio-Claudians.” In W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 335–355. Woods, D. 2000. “Julian, Gallienus, and the Solar Bull.” American Journal of Numismatics 12: 157–169. Woolf, G. 1992. “Imperialism, Empire and the Integration of the Roman Economy.” World Archaeology 23.3: 283–293. 1994. “Becoming Roman, Staying Greek: Culture, Identity and the Civilizing Process in the Roman East.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 40: 116–143. 1997. “The Roman Urbanization of the East.” In S. E. Alcock (ed.), The Early Roman Empire in the East. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 1–14. Woytek, B. E. 2011. “Die Cutters at Work: New Light on the Coinage Struck for the Syrian ‘Koinon’.” American Journal of Numismatics 23: 153–167. 2012. “The Denarius Coinage of the Roman Republic.” In W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford University Press. 315–334. Wright, N. L. 2005. “Seleucid Royal Cult, Indigenous Religious Traditions, and Radiate Crowns: The Numismatic Evidence.” Mediterranean Archaeology 18: 67–82. Yener, K. A. (ed.). 2005. The Amuq Valley Regional Projects I: Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995–2002. Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Yon, J.-B. 2012. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, XVII/1: Palmyre. Beirut: Presses de l’IFPO. Young, G. K. 2001. Rome’s Eastern Trade: International Commerce and Imperial Policy, 31 BC–AD 305. London: Routledge. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta, A. N. 1955. “The Late Roman Gold Hoard of Beilen. II. The Coins.” Palaeohistoria 4: 103–111. Zetterholm, M. 2003. The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity. London: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

393

394

Bibliography Ziegler, R. 1978. “Antiochia, Laodicea und Sidon in der Politik der Severer.” Chiron 8: 493–514. 1996. “Civic Coins and Imperial Campaigns.” In D. L. Kennedy (ed.), The Roman Army in the East. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology. 119–134. Ziolkowski, A. 2011. “The Background to the Third-Century Crisis of the Roman Empire.” In J. P. Arnason and K. A. Raaflaub (eds.), The Roman Empire in Context: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Chichester: WileyBlackwell. 113–133. Zissu, B. et al. 2009. “Coins from the Bar Kokhba Revolt Hidden in Me’arat HaTe‘omim (Mughâret Umm et Tûeimîn), Western Jerusalem Hills.” Israel Numismatic Journal 17: 113–147. Zissu, B. and Eshel, H. 2013. “Coins and Hoards from the Time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” In Hoards and Genizot as Chapters in History. Hecht Museum, University of Haifa. 31–39.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Index

Page numbers in italics indicate illustrations. acclamations, Antiochian use of, 289 Achaemenids, 70n160 Achaeus (satrap), 56 Actium, Battle of, 163 Agathokles (Antiochian), 59n102 Ake. See Ptolemais Aleppo. See Beroea Alexander the Great, 44, 51–52, 54, 70n160 Alexander I Balas (Seleucid ruler), 61, 64–65, 66, 67, 91 Alexander II Zabinas (Seleucid ruler), 102, 103, 107 “Alexanders” (coins), 71n161 Alexandria coin finds from mint at, 281, 283, 286 compared to Antioch, 100, 151, 265 late antique minting of civic coins at, 288 third-century CE imperial mint at, 212, 282 Amasia in Pontus, coins minted at, 244 Ammianus Marcellinus, 6, 225, 266 Amuq Valley, 2 Amuq Valley Regional Project (AVRP), 48n31 Annual Average Coin Loss Equation, 37, 313 Antigonus (Jewish leader), 122 Antioch. Syria, 1–18, 295–306. See also civic body between Seleucids and Romans; late antique imperial Antioch; provincial Roman Antioch; Seleucid Antioch; Tetrapolis; theoretical models and methodologies; third-century CE Antioch chronology of rulers of, xx–xxii coins, minting of, 19, 23 coins as medium for exploring, 2, 10–15, 296–306, 297, 299–300, 302, 304 earthquakes in, 1, 6, 151, 165, 264 geographic and strategic importance, 2–6 imperial power and local agency, intersection of, 1–2, 7, 15 modern scholarship on, 6–7, 296

as polis, 151, 295–304, 306 pre-Seleucid inhabitation of, 48n31 Seleucus I, foundation by, 4, 44, 47–56, 74, 303 textual and archaeological evidence, problems of, 7–9, 295–296 Antiochians acclamations, use of, 289 civic body between Seleucids and Romans, agency of Antiochians in, 96, 107–111 at festivals and games outside Antioch, 100 fickleness associated with, 168, 206, 226, 305 John Malalas on, 6, 8, 100, 120 Polybius, on Antioch as city of Antiochians, 46 in Roman administration, 170 spreading throughout Mediterranean world, 171 (See also specific locations) Strabo on, 4, 8, 159 trade and commercial activity, involvement in, 100 Antiochis (daughter of Antiochus III), 58n93 Antiochus I (Seleucid ruler), 50n42, 57, 57 Antiochus II (Seleucid ruler), 57, 58n93 Antiochus III (Seleucid ruler), 44, 56, 58–60, 58n93, 87, 89, 91, 97, 278 Antiochus IV (Seleucid ruler), 91 Antiochus IV Epiphanes/Epimanes (Seleucid ruler), 43–44, 60–62, 63, 65–67, 69, 90 Antiochus IX (Seleucid ruler), 101, 132n212 Antiochus V (Seleucid ruler), 61 Antiochus VI (Seleucid ruler), 61–62 Antiochus VII (Seleucid ruler), 69, 77, 91, 100 Antiochus VIII (Seleucid ruler), 101, 103, 104, 132n212 Antiochus X (Seleucid ruler), 103, 110n105 Antiochus XI (Seleucid ruler), 110n105

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press

395

396

Index

Antiochus XIII (Seleucid ruler), 101n43, 103, 113, 119 antoninianus or radiate coins, third-century CE, 210, 216–223, 223, 254, 256 Antoninus Pius (emperor), 179, 183, 231 Apamea. See also Tetrapolis Antioch region, geography of, 2 coins minted at, 50, 66, 109, 193n228 Larissa, intercity rivalry with, 106n76 late antique Antioch coins found at, 282 as military center, 49, 60 pre-Roman coin finds at, 142n229 provincial issues at, 193, 243 revolts in, 104, 114 Seleucus I, foundation by, 48 Apamea, Peace of (188 BCE), 74, 100 Apollo (deity) Antioch and Daphne, founding of, 47 on civic/provincial bronze coins from thirdcentury CE Antioch, 231 late antique Antioch, on civic coins from, 288, 288 late Seleucid period, on civic coins from, 108, 109 late Seleucid period, on royal coins from, 103, 103 provincial Roman Antioch, on civic coins from, 158, 159 provincial Roman Antioch/Daphne, celebration of cult in, 159 Roman Republican period, on civic coins from, 115 Seleucia Pieria, on coins from, 65 Seleucid Antioch, on coins from, 52, 57, 57 aqueducts, 58, 60, 148, 165 Aradus coins minted at, 90, 109, 200n246 Marathus, intercity rivalry with, 106n76 Ariarathes IV (of Cappadocia), 58n93 Aries (ram), coins with, 153, 159, 230, 231–232, 232 Aristocreon (Antiochian scholar), 61n113 Armenia fall of Seleucid Empire and, 96 Roman Empire and control of, 162, 164 Tigranes II in Syria, 111–113, 112 Artemis (deity) late Seleucid period, on civic coins from, 108, 109 late Seleucid period, on royal coins from, 103, 103

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press

provincial Roman Antioch/Daphne, celebration of cult in, 159 Roman Republican period, on civic coins from, 115 Seleucid Antioch, on coins from, 57 Asclepiades (Marcus Aemilius Marcianus), 151, 170 Assur, provincial issues found at, 194n233 Athena (deity) on Antioch coins, 57, 66, 103 as countermark, 203 Athens Antiochians in, 61n113, 68, 100 civic coins of, 193n229 third-century CE Antioch coins found at, 251 Augustus Caesar (emperor), 147, 157, 161, 163, 166, 166, 168, 173, 173, 181, 182 Aulus Gabinius (Roman governor), 118–120 aurei. See also royal/imperial coins minted at Antioch Antioch, circulation from, 163, 163, 214 Antioch, production at, 207, 210, 212, 215 Aurelian (emperor), 216–217, 226 Austria: third-century CE Antioch coins found in, 214 autonomos as civic title, 104, 106, 115, 120 on coins of Antioch, 120 Avidius Cassius (governor of Syria), revolt against Marcus Aurelius, 146–148, 152n34, 164, 169, 207 AVRP (Amuq Valley Regional Project), 48n31 Babylon, coins minted at, 52 Bar Kokhba Revolt, 164, 179n180 Belen Pass (Syrian Gates), 4 Berenice (sister of Ptolemy III and second wife of Antiochus II), 58–59, 64n128 Beroea (modern Aleppo) access from Antioch to, 4 Antioch coins traveling to, 143 coins minted at, 200n246 Syriarch appointed from, 292n155 Berytus Antioch civic/provincial coins found at, 86, 88, 89, 185, 193, 199, 236, 244n176 coins minted at, 152, 155, 193n227, 243 hiera kai asylos (sacred and inviolable), as city title, 104n59 late Seleucid/early Roman-era coins found in, 136n217 Ptolemaic control of, 87 Vespasian, war council under, 19

Index

Bethsaida, Antioch bronze coins found at, 86n198 binary logarithms, 39, 314–315 boule, at Antioch, 7, 45, 59, 151, 157–159, 258, 293 bouleuterion, 60, 151n27 bouleutes, 151 Britain, coin finds in, 31n70, 32, 163n95, 185, 191, 214n56, 219, 251, 271, 281 Brundisium, Antiochian in, 170 Caecilius Bassus (ally of Pompey), 114 Caesarea in Cappadocia coins from, 200n246 third-century CE Antioch-minted radiates found at, 220n87 third-century CE Roman imperial mint at, 212 Caesarea Maritima Antioch bronze coins found at, 86, 89n206 as provincial caput of Judea, 147 Caligula (emperor), 165, 183 Calpurnius Bibulus (governor of Syria), 120 capital, Antioch viewed as, 296, 305 as civic body between Seleucids and Romans (129–31 BCE), 98–99 as provincial Roman capital (31 BCE–192 CE) (See provincial Roman Antioch) as Seleucid capital (300–129 BCE), 44, 49–50, 54, 60–63 Caracalla (emperor), 207, 209, 211, 224, 229, 233, 235, 247–249, 247 Carrhae, coins minted at, 200n246, 252 Cassius (Gaius Cassius Longinus; assassin of Caesar and governing official in Syria), 114, 118, 120, 122 Cassius Dio anonymous continuer of, 225 Antioch, military in, 169n137 on earthquake (115 CE) in Antioch, 1, 151 on Parthian invasions, 123 Cato the Younger, 114 Chalcedon, Council of (451 CE), 290 Charitesia festival in Orchomenos, Antiochians at, 100 chartalism/nominalism, 22n13 CHRE Project (Coin Hoards of the Roman Empire), 14n68, 274n92, 308 Christianity. See also New Testament Antioch, councils held at, 290 Antioch for early Christians, centrality of, 6, 160

Antioch, monastic movement in and around, 291 civic coins temporarily issued in late antique Antioch, as anti-Christian propaganda, 289 coins with symbols of, 269, 270, 271, 291 episcopal see, Antioch as, 290 insurrection due to imperial tax (Riot of the Statues) and, 258–259, 291 in late antique imperial Antioch, 261, 263–264, 290–293 Paul of Samosata, accusations against, 226–227 state-sponsored persecutions of, 226, 263 theological school at Antioch, 290 in third-century CE Antioch, 226–227 Zenobia’s patronage of, 227 Cicero, 6, 26, 100, 118, 120, 122 Cilicia late antique Antioch coins found in, 277 late Seleucid/early Roman-era coins found in, 126–127, 132n208 as Roman province, 161 Seleucid-era coins found in, 91 third-century CE Antioch-minted coins found in, 220, 250 circulation/distribution of coins bronze provincial coins (31 BCE–192 CE), 181–189, 195, 197, 200–201, 204 comparison of Seleucid versus late antique Antioch coins, 273 denominations, effect of, 26, 127, 132 foreign Greek coins circulating within Syria, 70–71, 72 holistic examination of, 298–304, 304 of late antique Antioch, 271–284, 271–272, 274–275, 277–280, 282 Seleucid Antioch, bronze coins from, 78–93, 79–81, 128 Seleucid Antioch, silver coins from, 69–78 silver provincial coins (31 BCE–192 CE), 172–180, 173–174, 176–178 theoretical models and methodologies, 25–30, 38–41 third-century CE bronze civic/provincial coins, 235–246, 236–238, 240, 243, 245, third-century CE silver antoninianus or radiate coins, 218–223, 218–221, 223 third-century CE silver provincial coins, 250–252, 251–252 trade and commercial activity, affecting, 19, 53, 75, 77, 80, 92, 144, 194, 272–273, 278, 303

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press

397

398

Index

civic body between Seleucids and Romans (129–31 BCE), 17, 95–145 agency of Antiochians in, 96, 104–111 as autonomos under Pompey, 115 circulation/distribution of coins produced by, 125–144 civic authorities and circulation/ distribution of coins, 135–137, 135–144, 141 civic coins, produced in late Seleucid period, 105–111, 109 civic coins, produced under Romans, 115–116, 119, 121–125, 122 civic coins, produced under Tigranes, 112 client kings of Romans, installation of Seleucids as, 113 coins as means of exploring, 297 dating system on coins of, 124 dominance of local coins found at Antioch, 135–137, 135, 140 foreign (non-Antioch) coins found in, 140, 141 Julius Caesar and, 95–96, 114, 120–122, 124 late Seleucid period, 99–111 Mark Antony and, 23n18, 114, 122–123, 123 as metropolis, 110–112, 115, 120–121 monograms on Antioch coins of, 118–120 Pompey the Great and, 5, 95–96, 113–115, 124 posthumous portrait of Philip I Philadelphus, coins with, 117–119, 117, 122, 122, 130 “provincial capital” of Roman world, viewed as, 98–99 Roman presence in Antioch during late Seleucid period, 97–99 Roman Republic’s annexation of greater Syria, 111–125, 297 Roman silver tetradrachms, production of, 116–120, 117 royal authority and circulation/distribution of coins, 125–133, 126–130, 134 royal late Seleucid coins, 101–104, 103, 105n67 royal Seleucid client kings, coins of, 113 Seleucid Empire, decline and fall of, 96–97 taxes, Roman collection of, 116 Tigranes II of Armenia, tenure of, 111–113, 112 civic coins, 23 of civic body between Seleucids and Romans, gap in minting, 113

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press

of civic body between Seleucids and Romans, under late Seleucid rulers, 105–111, 109 of civic body between Seleucids and Romans, under Roman Republic, 115–116, 119, 121, 122, 125 of civic body between Seleucids and Romans, under Tigranes of Armenia, 112 halving of, 203 late antique Antioch issuing for short period of time, 287–289, 288 provincial coins compared, 171, 193, 196–200 of provincial Roman Antioch, 152–159, 153–154, 158, 166, 166, 168, 202 of Seleucid Antioch, 54–56, 65–69 significance of, 303, 304 termination of, 202, 252–256, 253–255 in third-century CE Antioch, 210, 227–246, 230 civic ethnics, 24, 55, 66n140, 181, 231–232, 236, 242, 250 civic legends, 23 civitas libera (free city), Latin status of, 115 Claudius (emperor), 165, 182, 197n241 Cleopatra VII Philopater (Egyptian ruler), 114, 123, 123, 139n220 closed currency system under Rome, 178–179 coin finds. See also specific entries at hoard data and informational requirements, 308–311 excavation reports listing Antioch coins, 15, 33–34, 36, 307, 321–333 as historical evidence, 22–32 methodology for studying, 32–42 nature of find (single find or hoard), establishing, 308 quantity of coins in find, 311 recovery of coins in archaeological record, 30–32 single coin finds, generally of base metals, 33n78 Coin Hoards of the Roman Empire. See CHRE Project coins, authority issuing, defined, 310 coins, defined, 22 coins of Antioch. See Antioch, Syria colonia status of third-century CE Antioch, 224, 229 comes Orientis, Antioch as headquarters for, 266 Commagene currency in, 194 Roman Empire and, 162

Index

commercial activity. See trade and commercial activity Commodeia (Antiochene festival), 166 Commodus (emperor), 183, 206 Constans (emperor), 270 Constantine I (emperor), 263, 269, 270 Constantinople Antioch compared to, 265, 267 coins minted in, 282–283 Constantius II (emperor), 264 Constitutio Antoniniana, 209, 224 Corinth, civic coins of, 193n229 Cornelius Dolabella (governor of Syria), 122 countermarks, 26–27, 29, 50n43 circulation, extending of, 203 Cleopatra, head of, 139n220 Commagene, 194 legionary, 190–192 Parthian, 131 on provincial bronze coins, 185, 190 Seleucid anchor countermark, coins found with, 86n195 Crassus (triumvir), 118 Crateros of Antioch, 107n77 Cyprus hoards with mixture of Cypriot and coastal Anatolian coins, 129n198 late antique Antioch coins found in, 277, 283 third-century CE Antioch civic/provincial coins found at, 237 third-century CE Antioch-minted radiates found at, 220 Cyrrhus, coins minted in, 66 Cyzicus, coins from, 256, 282 Damascus as metropolis, 167 mint of Tigranes II in, 112n113 royal Seleucid coins struck in, 108 Daphne, suburb and sanctuary of foundation by Seleucus I, 47 geography of Antioch and, 2 Polybius on festivals at, 5, 68 religious cults and communities at, 68, 159 royal entourage, chief priest appointed from, 58 Strabo on, 6 Delos, Antiochians at, 100, 107n77 Delphi, Antiochians in, 59n98 delta-epsilon on third-century CE Antioch coins, 232, 233–235, 247, 249 Demetrius I (Seleucid ruler), 62, 63, 64 Demetrius II (Seleucid ruler), 61, 64, 104, 107

Demetrius III (Seleucid ruler), 110n105, 111 demonetization. See monetization/ demonetization demos, at Antioch, 7, 45–46, 59, 64, 120, 151, 258, 293 denarii. See also royal/imperial coins minted at Antioch circulation in Syria, 116, 176, 179 exchange of, 27, 178n176 production at Antioch, 123, 163–164, 207, 210, 212–215, 213 denominations. See also specific denominations, e.g., tetradrachms of bronze coins of Antioch, 54, 67, 108–109, 115, 122, 158, 202, 231 circulation/distribution, effect on, 26, 127, 132 lack of imperial portrait as marker of, 157 non-Syrian provincial denominations minted in Antioch, 179 in reckoning taxation, 27, 192n225 standardization, lack of, 115–116 digital humanities, 14 digital mapping, 39, 318–320 Diocletian (emperor), 218, 263, 267, 269, 270 Diodorus Siculus, 106n76 Dionysus (deity), on Seleucid coins from Antioch, 52 discrepant identities in/experiences of Antioch, 16 distribution of coins. See circulation/ distribution of coins Domitian (emperor), 190, 203 Downey, Glanville on civic body between Seleucid and Roman rule, 98, 107, 113, 115 modern scholarship on Antioch and, 6, 9 polis, on Antioch as, 295 on provincial Roman Antioch, 147 on Seleucid Antioch, 44, 54n73, 60, 65 on third-century CE Antioch, 209, 227 drachms, production of, 50, 103, 121, 123, 179 Dura Europos imperial reigns represented by coins at, 203n255 late Seleucid/early Roman-era coins found at, 129–131 Parthian conquest of, 129–131 provincial Antioch issues found at, 26, 174n164, 185, 190, 194, 195, 197n241, 200 Seleucid anchor countermark, coins found with, 86n195

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press

399

400

Index

Dura Europos (cont.) Seleucid bronze Antioch coins found at, 82, 87 Seleucid-era coin assemblages at, 91–92 third-century CE Antioch coins found at, 214, 236, 239, 244–246, 245–246 eagle, provincial coins with, 174, 174, 231, 232, 247, 249–250, 250 earthquakes, 1, 6, 151, 165, 264 Ectabana, coins minted at, 52, 75 EDA. See Exploratory Data Analysis Edessa, coins minted at, 200n246, 244, 252 Edict of Gratidianus, 27 Egypt. See Alexandria; Ptolemaic Egypt; Roman Egypt Elagabalus (emperor), 211, 213n54, 225, 229, 230, 232–233, 232, 237, 249 Emesa, annexation of, 162 Epiphanea. See Hama Ergeas, son of Ergeas (Antiochian), 100 Eugenius (commander), revolt in name of, 263 Euphorion of Chalcis, 58 Eusebius of Caesarea, 107n77, 226 Eutychides’s statue of Tyche, 48, 62, 109, 112, 159, 173, 180, 231, 242, 287 excavation reports consulted, 15, 33–34, 36, 307, 321–333 Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA), 14, 19–21, 37–42, 306, 313–318 Expositio totius mundi, 267n64 festivals and games Charitesia festival in Orchomenos, Antiochians at, 100 Panathenaic Games, 68 Ptoïon, Antiochians at festival in, 100 festivals and games in Antioch/Daphne, 5, 6–7 Commodeia, 166 Hadrianeia (Antiochian festival), 166 John Malalas on, 159, 165 late antique imperial Antioch, 265 loss/regaining of rights to, 146, 149, 207 Olympics, 224, 265 Polybius on, 5, 68 in provincial Roman Antioch, 146, 149, 159, 165 in Seleucid Antioch, 61, 149 third-century CE Antioch, 206, 209, 224, 228 fickle, Antiochians portrayed as, 168, 206, 226, 305 fiduciary monetary system, 22 Flavianus (bishop of Antioch), 258–259

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Flavius Josephus. See Josephus foreign (non-Antioch) coins found in late antique imperial Antioch, 285, 286 found in late Seleucid/early Roman Antioch, 140, 141 found in provincial Roman Antioch, 196–198, 204 found in Seleucid Antioch, 84n192, 84–86 found in Syrian hoards, 70–72 found in third-century CE Antioch, 255 free city (civitas libera), Latin status of, 115 fullers’ channel for water at Antioch, inscription on, 151 Gallus (caesar), in Antioch, 264, 266 games. See specific entries at festivals and games Gamla, provincial coins from Antioch found at, 175, 190n216 Genius of the Roman people, on coins, 269, 270 Gennaeus (Antiochian), 60 Georgia, Antioch coins found in, 273n90 Gerasa. See Jerash Germanicus, on reckoning taxes in Roman denominations, 28 Geta (son of Septimius Severus), 211 Gindaros Antioch coins, dependence on, 91, 142, 303 late Seleucid/early Roman coins found at, 142 Roman defeat of Parthians at, 139 Roman provincial Antioch, civic coins of, 152n35, 303 Gordian III (emperor), 25n29, 215n62, 216, 217, 232, 249 Gratidianus, Edict of, 27 Greece, coin finds in, 219 Gresham’s Law, 254 Gurob papyrus, 58 Hadrian (emperor), 164, 168, 180, 182, 212 Hadrianeia (Antiochian festival), 166 Haifa, late Seleucid/early Roman-era coin found in, 132n212 halving of coins, 203 Hama (Epiphanea), coins minted/found at, 142, 193, 243 Hannibal of Carthage, 56 Hasmoneans, 77, 100, 128, 132 Hatra Antioch coins found at, 131, 248n191 “SC” on coins from, 185n207 Hauran (Si), third-century CE Antioch coins found at, 239

Index

Heliodoros of Antioch, 58 Hellenistic Antioch. See Seleucid Antioch Heraclea, coins from, 256, 282 Heracles-Melqart (deity), on coins from Tyre, 106 Herod the Great (king of Judea), 122, 139, 165, 191 Herodian of Antioch, 8, 206, 209 Herodotus, 110 hiera kai asylos (sacred and inviolable), as city title, 104, 106, 110–111, 120–121, 168 Hierapolis, coins from, 184n206, 200n246, 252 historical evidence, coins as, 22–32 hoards Syrian hoards with nonlocal coins, 70, 72 termination of production of civic and provincial coins, evidence of, 253–255, 253–256 hoards with Antioch coins bronze provincial coins (31 BCE–192 CE), 185n207, 191 civic authorities and late Seleucid/early Roman coins, 142–143 data preparation for coins found in, 312 holistic examination of, 298–303 late antique Antioch coins, 271–284 lists of, 15, 307, 334–357 quantity of coins in hoard, 311 royal late Seleucid coins, 125–133, 126–130, 134 Seleucid-era coins, 71–78, 73, 76 silver provincial coins (31 BCE–192 CE), 172–180, 176–178 third-century CE bronze civic/provincial coins, 244, 246 third-century CE imperial denarii and aurei, 214 third-century CE silver antoninianus or radiate coins, 218–223, 218–221, 223 third-century CE silver provincial coins, 248, 250–252, 251–252 Iasos, Antiochians in, 68 Icadion (Antiochian), 60 iconography on coin, defined, 311. See also specific iconographies, e.g., royal/ imperial portraits and images on coins imperial coins. See royal/imperial coins minted at Antioch imperial cult in provincial Roman Antioch, 166–167, 166–167 title of metropolis in relation to, 167

imperial portraits and images. See royal/ imperial portraits and images on coins intercity rivalries between Aradus and Marathus, 106n76 coins expressing, 106 between Laodicea ad Mare and Antioch, 207n5, 233 between Larissa and Apamea, 106n76 between Sidon and Tyre, 106 intersection of imperial power and local agency, 1–2, 7 129–31 BE (See civic body between Seleucids and Romans) in late antique imperial Antioch (284–450 CE), 259–263 in provincial Roman Antioch (31 BCE–192 CE), 146–150, 164–171 in Seleucid Antioch (300–129 BCE), 43–44, 46–47, 58–60, 64–69 in third-century CE Antioch (192–284 CE), 209–210 Isis (Egyptian deity), on coins from Seleucid Antioch, 62, 63 issuing city or mint, defined, 308–310, 309 issuing date of coin, defined, 310 Jebel Khalid late Seleucid/early Roman coins found at, 142 Seleucid-era coins found at, 91–92 Jerash (Gerasa) provincial Roman Antioch, provincial coins from, 190n212 third-century CE Antioch civic/provincial coins found at, 239 Jewish coins of first century CE, wide dispersal of, 196 Jews. See also Josephus; Judea living in Antioch, 6, 49n35, 69, 122, 160, 169, 291 Temple requirements for silver content of coins and, 132 Zenobia’s patronage of, 227n111 John Chrysostom, 8, 258–259, 262, 291–293 John Malalas on Antioch and Antiochians, 6, 8, 100, 120 on colonia status for Antioch, 224n92 on festivals and games in Antioch/Daphne, 159, 165 on fire in Antioch, 151n27 on Tigranes’s capture of Antioch, 111n110 on urban development of Antioch, 165 on Zenobia, 216

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press

401

402

Index

Josephus on Antioch, 5, 8, 151 on Jewish population of Antioch, 6, 49n35, 160, 169 on Mark Antony, 122 on Philip Philadelphus, 101 on Roman defeat of Parthians at Gindaros, 139 on Roman governors in Antioch, 162 on Seleucids in Antioch, 4n7, 61 Jovian (emperor), 270 Judea. See also Jews; specific locations Bar Kokhba Revolt, 164, 179n180 First Jewish War, 162–163, 190 Hasmoneans, 77, 100, 128, 132 Herod the Great, 122, 139, 165, 191 Maccabees (Old Testament books) and Maccabean revolt, 60–61, 90, 100 Roman military campaigns against, 190 Roman province of, 162 Julia Domna (mother of Caracalla), 211 Julia Mamaea (mother of Severus Alexander), 212 Julian (emperor), 264, 266, 270, 270, 287, 289 Julius Caesar, 95–96, 114, 120–122, 124 Justinus, 107 Juvenal, 171 Lake of Antioch, 2 Lamedon (Antiochian), 59n98 Laodice (wife of Antiochus II), 58n93 Laodicea ad Mare. See also Tetrapolis Antioch temporarily a municipality of, 207, 229 coins minted at, 50, 50n42, 66, 109, 152, 155, 200n246, 236, 247, 249, 252 foundation by Seleucus I, 48 intercity rivalry with Antioch, 207n5, 233 as metropolis, 207n5 as naval base, 49 Teos, Syrians granted citizenship by, 59 Larissa’s intercity rivalry with Apamea, 106n76 late antique imperial Antioch (284–450 CE), 18, 258–294 acclamations, Antiochian use of, 289 Christianity in, 261, 263–264, 290–293 civic body, increasing inefficiency of, 259–263, 284–290 civic coins, short-term issuance of, 287–289, 288 coin finds from, 285–286, 285–287

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press

coin minted in, 267–284, 268, 270–272, 274–275, 277–280, 282, 287–289 coins as means of exploring, 298 emperors residing in, 264, 267 festivals and games, 265 foreign (non-Antioch) coins found in, 285, 286 historical survey of, 263–266 homogenization of currency throughout empire, 298 imperial state, intensified involvement of, 259–263, 266–284 imperial tax, insurrection due to (Riot of the Statues), 258–259, 261, 264, 266, 291 intersection of imperial power and local agency in, 259–263 military, as launching point for, 267 mint, locals working at, 287 pluralistic religious community in, 291 Sasanians, threat of, 264, 267 size, population, and wealth of, 264–266 late Seleucid period. See civic body between Seleucids and Romans (129–31 BCE) Libanius Antioch, encomium on, 4, 8, 98, 262, 264–266 on civic body of late antique Antioch, 284 on early Seleucid imperial women in Antioch, 58 on Eugenius revolt, 263 on insurrection due to imperial tax (Riot of the Statues), 258–259 metropolis, on late antique Antioch as, 292 on Sasanian attacks, 225, 267 Licinius (emperor), 263, 269, 289 liturgies, 50n43, 247, 249, 284 location or find spot of coin, defined, 310 loss of coins in archaeological record, 30 Lucian, 157n50 Lucilla (daughter of Marcus Aurelius), 234 Lucius Verus (emperor), 164, 183n201 Lysias (guardian of Antiochus V), 61 Maccabees (Old Testament books) and Maccabean revolt, 60–61, 90, 100 Macrinus (emperor), 211, 213n54 Malalas. See John Malalas Malchion (Christian Antiochian), 226 Manilius (Antiochian astrologer), 111n108 Marathus’s intercity rivalry with Aradus, 106n76

Index

Marcus Aurelius (emperor) Antiochian as son-in-law to, 170 coins produced during reign of, 180, 183n201, 183, 231 revolt of Avidius Cassius against, 146–148, 152n34, 164, 169, 207 Mariades (Antiochian), 225 Marius Maximus, 146 Mark Antony, 23n18, 114, 122–123, 123 Masada, provincial coins from Antioch found at, 175, 179n180, 190 Maximinus II (emperor), 270, 289 Menelaus (Jewish High Priest), 69 merchants. See trade and commercial activity metal used for coins, defined, 310 metallism, 22n13 metropolis, Antioch known as John Chrysostom on, 291–292 under late Seleucid/early Roman Republic, 110–112, 115, 120–121 Libanius on, 292 as provincial Roman town, 152, 166–168 temporary losses of status, 147, 207, 259 metropolis, other cities of region known as, 167–168 Milan compared to Antioch, 265 silver radiates from, 256 military Apamea, as Seleucid military center, 49, 60 Cassius Dio, on military in Antioch, 169n137 circulation/distribution of coins due to movements of, 271 Eugenius (commander), revolt in name of, 263 late antique Antioch as launching point for, 267 provincial bronze coins used by, 190–192, 201 provincial Roman Antioch’s civic relations with, 169–170 mints and minting. See also reforms of currency/mints at Antioch, 19, 23 (See also Antioch in Syria) of late Roman imperial government, 268 Misopogon (Julian), 264, 266, 287, 289 Mithridates of Pontus, 58n93, 111 monastic movement in and around Antioch, 291 monetization/demonetization, 16, 29–30, 32, 53–54, 70n159, 84 moneychangers, 27, 140 mosaics in Antioch, 8, 159, 215n65, 265

Mount Silpius, 2 Mucianus (Roman governor), 169 Mysta (courtesan of Seleucus II), 58n93 Nabataean coins found at Antioch, 196 Neokaisareia, “SC” on coins from, 184n206 Nero (emperor), 162, 170, 174–178, 174, 180, 248n191 New Testament centrality of Antioch for early Christians in, 6 on issuing authority, 28–29 Nicomedia, coins from, 282, 288 Niger. See Pescennius Niger Nimrud, bronze coins from Seleucid Antioch found at, 82 Nineveh, Antioch coins found at, 131, 248n191 Nisibis coins minted at, 244 late Seleucid/early Roman-era coins found in, 131, 143 nominalism/chartalism, 22n13 non-Antioch coins. See foreign (non-Antioch) coins normal distribution, 39, 315–318, 318 North Africa, coin finds in, 271–272, 277 numismatics for Antioch. See Antioch in Syria nummus, 269, 288 Odenathus (husband of Zenobia), 216 Olympics, 224, 265 Onias (Jewish High Priest), 69 open currency policy of Seleucids, 70–71, 129 Orchomenos, Antiochians at Charitesia festival in, 100 Oriens administrative unit, 260 Antioch as headquarters for comes Orientis, 266 Antioch coins found within, 280, 280–284, 282 origin/issuing city or mint, establishing, 308–310, 309 Orontes River and Valley as coin iconography, 48, 112, 159, 173, 230n128, 230, 231, 287 political geography of, 2, 47–48, 139, 142 Orophernes of Cappadocia, 64 Palaestina, coin finds in late antique provinces of, 283 Palmyra Antioch provincial issues found at, 193, 199, 244 Antiochians in, 151

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press

403

404

Index

Palmyra (cont.) coins minted at, 193, 243 tax payments in, 27, 192n225 under Zenobia, 5, 208, 216, 226–227 Panathenaic Games, 68 Paneas, third-century CE Antioch coins found at, 239 Parthians Dura Europos, conquest of, 129 efforts to conquer Antioch by, 5 fall of Seleucid Empire and, 96 Gindaros, Roman defeat of Parthians at, 139 late Seleucid/early Roman-era coins found in areas of empire of, 131 Pompey and, 96 Roman Empire, negotiations with, 162–163 Roman imperial military campaigns against, 190–191, 208, 213 Roman Republican incursions into Syria and, 97 Roman Syria, Parthian invasions of, 114, 120, 123–124 Sasanian overthrow of, 208 Seleucid Empire, conflicts with, 44, 75, 100, 111 Tigranes II of Armenia and, 111 Trajanic campaigns against, 163–164 PAS. See Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) Project Patrobius (Tiberius Claudius), 170 Paul of Samosata, 226–227 Paulus, on money and coinage, 22n11, 22n12 Pausanias, on Eutychides’s statue of Tyche, 109 Peace of Apamea (188 BCE), 74, 100 people of Antioch. See Antiochians Pergamum civic coins of, 193n229 moneychangers at, 27 permissus to mint, sought from Roman government, 157 Persians. See Sasanian Empire Pescennius Niger (governor of Syria), 206–212, 213, 214, 224, 228, 247 Petra Antioch coins found at, 185n207 as metropolis, 167 Philip I (Roman emperor), 230–231, 237, 250, 250 Philip I Philadelphus (Seleucid ruler), 101, 103, 110n105, 117–119, 117, 122, 122, 130, 132n208, 173

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Philip II (Seleucid ruler), 101n43, 113 Philip II the Younger (Roman emperor), 250 Philippopolis, “SC” on coins from, 184n206 Pliny the Elder, 48n27, 111n108, 161 Plutarch, 114 polis, Antioch as, 7, 45, 151, 295, 304, 306 Polybius on Achaeus (satrap), 56 on Antioch as city, 7, 45 on Antioch as city of Antiochians, 46 on Antioch as imperial Seleucid center, 44 on Antiochus IV Epiphanes/Epimanes in Antioch, 43–44, 68 on Daphne, 5, 68 on games and spectacles in Antioch/ Daphne, 5, 68 Pompeianus (Tiberius Claudius), 170 Pompey the Great, 5, 95–96, 113–115, 124 Porphyry of Tyre, 113 Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) Project, 14n68, 33n79, 163n95, 214n56 portraits, royal/imperial. See royal/imperial portraits and images on coins Posidonius, 106n76, 110n105 praetorian prefect of eastern empire, Antioch as headquarters for, 267 production of coins, 22–25 provincial coins minted in Antioch, 24. See also “SC” on provincial coins 31 BCE–192 CE, 171–204 bronze provincial coins (31 BCE–192 CE), 181–204 bronze provincial coins (third century CE), 210, 227–246, 232 civic coins compared, 171, 193, 196 denominational role of, 202 forces affecting use of, 200–204 halving of, 203 holistic examination of circulation/ distribution of, 301–302, 302 military use of bronze coins, 190–192, 201 non-Syrian provincial denominations minted in Antioch, 179 royal/imperial coins compared, 171 silver provincial coins (31 BCE–192 CE), 172–181, 173–174, 176–178, 180 silver provincial coins (third century CE), 210, 246–252, 247, 250–252 size of, 202n250 Syrian provincial coins minted outside of Antioch, 179, 247–249 termination of production of, 252–256, 253–255

Index

weakening of Roman standardization effort through, 200–202 provincial Roman Antioch (31 BCE–192 CE), 17, 146–205 Antiochians in Roman administration, 170 Avidius Cassius (governor of Syria), revolt against Marcus Aurelius, 146–148, 152n34, 164, 169 bronze provincial coins, 181–204, 182, 186–187, 189, 195, 197, 200 chronology of, 150 circulation/distribution of civic coins, 152n35 civic coins minted in, 152–159, 153–154, 158, 166, 166, 168, 202 as civic entity, 151–161 civic institutions and construction projects, 151–152 closed currency system under Rome, 178–179 coins as means of exploring, 297–298 earthquakes, 1, 6, 151, 165 eastern empire, Roman imperial strategies for managing civic communities in, 148–150, 161 emperor/imperial cult, civic celebration of, 166–167, 166–167 emperors visiting/residing in, 147, 163–164 festivals and games in, 146, 149, 159, 165 foreign (non-Antioch) coins found in, 196–198, 204 imperial use of mint, 163–164, 163 intersection of imperial power and local agency in, 146–150, 164–171 koinon (provincial assembly) and, 166, 167 local industry and trade, 161 Mediterranean world, Antiochians spreading throughout, 171 as metropolis, 152, 166–168 military, civic relations with, 169–170 non-Syrian provincial denominations produced in, 179 polis character of, 151 political voice in, 168–169 population and size, 151 provincial coins minted in, 171–204 religious and cultural values in, 159–160, 166–167 Roman imperial rule in, 161–164 rural-urban connections in, 161 silver provincial coins, 172–181, 173–174, 176–178, 180

urban development of, 164–165 Ptoïon, Antiochians at festival in, 100 Ptolemaic Egypt coins found in areas controlled by, 87 fall of Seleucid Empire, 96 Seleucids, Syrian Wars with, 56, 61n114 Ptolemais (Ake) coins minted at, 90n213, 90 hiera kai asylos (sacred and inviolable), as city title, 104n59 silver provincial coins from Antioch found at, 179n180 Ptolemy III (Egyptian ruler), 58, 64n128 Ptolemy IV (Egyptian ruler), 64 Publilius Syrus (Antiochian), 111n108 Qiryat Sefer, provincial Antioch issues found at, 190, 191n218 Quinctilius Varus (governor of Syria), 181n192 radiate or antoninianus coins, third-century CE, 210, 216–223, 217–221, 223, 252–256 ram (Aries), coins with, 153, 159, 230, 231–232, 232 recovery of coins in archaeological record, 30–32 reforms of currency/mints under Aulus Gabinius, 118 under Aurelian, 217 under Caracalla, 248 under Diocletian, 267, 269 under Nero, 174–176, 174, 180, 301 religious cults and communities. See also Christianity; Daphne, suburb and sanctuary of; festivals and games; Jews; specific deities in civic body between Seleucids and Romans, 100, 108 late antique imperial Antioch, as pluralistic religious body, 291 priests, 58, 68–69, 68n153, 166–167 in provincial Roman Antioch, 159–160, 166–167 in Seleucid Antioch, 68 Syrian gods, Antiochians making dedications to, 100 Temple tax, 132 remelting and recycling of coins, 203 Riot of the Statues (insurrection due to imperial tax), 258–259, 261, 264, 266, 291 Roman Egypt Alexandrian coins mainly found in, 281, 283

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press

405

406

Index

Roman Egypt (cont.) circulation/distribution of Antioch coins in, 274, 277–278 Roman governors of Syria, Antioch as headquarters for, 162, 211n33, 259, 266 Roman governors of Syria, mentioned on Antioch coins provincial Roman Antioch, 153, 156–157, 158 Roman Republican period, 118–120 Roman Principate, Antioch under. See also late antique imperial Antioch; provincial Roman Antioch; third-century CE Antioch importance of city to empire, 5, 304–305 Roman Republic annexation of greater Syria by, 111–125, 297 Antioch and. See civic body between Seleucids and Romans Rome, Antioch compared to, 265 Rome, coins minted at koinon of Syria, minted at Rome for, 167, 167 provincial finds of, 204 silver radiates, 256 third-century CE Antioch coins compared, 229n125 royal/imperial coins minted at Antioch civic and provincial coins overtaken by, 216–256 civic body between Seleucids and Romans, Roman Republic, 125–133, 126–130, 134 civic body between Seleucids and Romans, royal late Seleucid coins, 101–104, 103, 105n67 civic body between Seleucids and Romans, Seleucid client kings, 113 in Late Antiquity, 267–284, 268, 270–272, 274–275, 277–280, 282 provincial coins compared, 171 provincial Roman Antioch, 163–164, 163 Seleucid Antioch, 23, 50–54, 56–57, 62–63 in third century CE, 210, 212–223, 213 third-century CE imperial gold aurei, 210, 212–215 third-century CE imperial silver denarii, 210, 212–215, 213 third-century CE silver antoninianus or radiate coins, 210, 216–223, 217–221, 223, 252–256

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press

royal/imperial portraits and images on coins. See also specific royal/imperial personages denominational marker, lack of imperial portrait as, 157 in Late Antiquity, 269, 270 from late Seleucid period, 102–103 local patron gods replacing, 106–108 posthumous portrait of Philip I Philadelphus, in Roman Republican period, 117–119, 117, 122, 122, 130 provincial Roman Antioch, civic coins, 157, 158 provincial Roman Antioch, provincial coins, 173, 174, 183 from Seleucid Antioch, 57, 57, 65 third-century CE Antioch, civic/provincial bronze coins, 230, 231, 232 third-century CE Antioch, imperial coins, 217 third-century CE Antioch, provincial silver coins, 250 Samaria-Sebaste, late Seleucid/early Roman coins from Antioch found at, 136, 139 Samosata coins from, 194 as metropolis, 167 Sardis, civic coins of, 193n229 Sasanian Empire late antique Antioch, as threat to, 264, 267 Parthians, overthrow of, 208 third-century CE Antioch, as threat to, 5, 208, 215–216, 225–226 Saturninus (Gaius Sentius; Roman governor of Syria), 162 Saxa (Roman governor), 123 “SC” on provincial coins bronze coins from provincial Roman Antioch, 182, 183–184 bronze coins from third-century CE Antioch, 210, 231–233, 232, 243 silver coins from third-century CE Antioch, 250, 250 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 8, 146, 168 Seleucia on the Tigris bronze coins from Seleucid Antioch found at, 92 compared by Strabo to Antioch, 151 mint at, 52, 75, 92 Seleucia Pieria. See also Tetrapolis as administrative center, 58 Antioch bronze coins found at, 86, 88

Index

autonomous status, celebration of, 104 “of the brother peoples” coins with Antioch, 65, 65 civic coins minted at, 193n227 coins minted in, 50n42, 50, 54n73, 65, 65, 66, 78, 91, 109, 153, 155, 243 coins of late Seleucid/early Roman period from, 106n68, 105n71, 141 Eugenius revolt and, 263 foundation by Seleucus I, 48 late Seleucid/early Roman Antioch coins found at, 140 as naval base, 49 provincial issues at, 193, 199 Ptolemaic control of, 87 Roman coins found at, 204, 256 Roman provincial Antioch, civic coins of, 152n35 as Seleucid capital, 49, 54n73 Teos, Syrians granted citizenship by, 59 third-century CE Antioch, civic/provincial coins of, 244 Seleucid anchor countermark, coins found with, 86n195 Seleucid Antioch (300–129 BCE), 17, 43–94 bronze coins, limited distribution of, 78–93, 79–81, 83, 90 as capital, 44, 49–50, 54, 60–63 as city, 45–46 civic coins minted in, 54–56, 65–69 coins as medium for exploring, 297 coins reflecting character of, 46–47 in early Hellenistic period after Seleucus I, 56–60 festivals and games in, 61, 149 first royal coins produced in, 50–54 foreign (non-Antioch) coins found at, 84n192, 84–85 foundation of Antioch by Seleucus I, 4, 44, 47, 56, 74, 303 as imperial center, 44 intersection of imperial power and local agency in, 43–44, 46–47, 58–60, 64–69 Jewish population of, 49n35, 69 other Seleucid cities striking civic coins, 66 as regional administrative center, 58 royal library at, 58 royal minting of coins at Antioch and, 23, 50–54, 56–57, 62–63 royal portraits and images on coins of, 57, 57, 65

silver coins, distribution of, 69–78 in Tetrapolis, 48–50 transition to Roman rule (See civic body between Seleucids and Romans) Seleucus I (Seleucid ruler) boundaries of Seleucid Empire, establishment of, 44 civic coinage issued under, 54–56, 91 coins minted in Antioch by, 51–56, 51–52 foundation of Antioch by, 4, 44, 47, 56, 74, 303 Seleucus II (Seleucid ruler), 56, 58n93 Seleucus IV (Seleucid ruler), 59 Septimius Severus (emperor) in Antioch, 211 coins produced under, 212, 228, 247 Pescennius Niger’s revolt and punishment of Antioch, 206–212, 224–225, 228 Serapis (Egyptian deity), on coins from Seleucid Antioch, 62, 63 Sestos, civic coinage issued in, 105n65 Severus Alexander (emperor), 212, 232, 237 Shapur (Sasanian ruler), 215 Si (Hauran), third-century CE Antioch coins found at, 239 Side, coins with Seleucid anchor countermark found at, 86n195 Sidon coins minted at, 66, 90, 110n104, 128 intercity rivalries, coins expressing, 106 single coin finds, generally of base metals, 33n78 Siscia, silver radiates from, 256 Smyrna, third-century CE Antioch-minted radiates found at, 220n87 solidus, 269 Sosibios (Antiochian), 159 Spain, coin finds in, 185, 219, 271–272 Strabo on Antioch and Antiochians, 4, 8, 159 comparing Antioch and Alexandria, 100, 151 comparing Antioch and Seleucia on the Tigris, 151 on Daphne, 6 Suetonius, on circulation of coins, 28 Susa absence of late Seleucid/early Roman-era coins from, 131n203 coins minted at, 52, 75 provincial Antioch coins found at, 185 Seleucid Antioch coins found at, 92 Sibylline Oracle (thirteenth), 215

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press

407

408

Index

Syria, as Roman province. See also provincial coins minted in Antioch; Roman governors of Syria; specific locations administration of, 161–162, 208, 235 koinon (provincial assembly) at Antioch, 166–167, 167 Roman annexation, 111–125, 297 Syrian Gates (Belen Pass), 4 Syrian gods, Antiochians making dedications to, 100 Syriarch, 292n155 Tacitus, 5, 8, 19, 147, 163, 169 Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad provincial Roman Antioch, civic coins of, 152n35 provincial Roman Antioch, provincial coins of, 185, 194, 200 third-century CE Antioch, civic/provincial coins of, 244n177 Tanagra, Boeotia, Antiochians in, 59 Tarsus Antioch bronze coins found at, 87 coins minted at, 173n160 as metropolis, 110n103 taxation. See also liturgies civitas libera and exemption from, 115 denominations used in reckoning, 27, 192n225 Jesus on legality of paying, 28 officials, 28 in Palmyra, 27, 192n225 production/circulation/distribution, affecting, 25, 53, 98, 116 Riot of the Statues (insurrection due to imperial tax), 258–259, 261, 264, 266, 291 Roman collection of (129–31 BCE), 116 Temple tax, 132 Tel Anafa, Antioch coins found at, 128 Tel Kalak hoard, 248n191 Tell Abou Danné halved coin found at, 203n254 late Seleucid/early Roman coins found at, 142 Roman provincial Antioch, civic coins of, 152n35 Roman provincial Antioch, no provincial coins from, 185n210 Seleucid-era coins found at, 91 Tell el Hajj late Seleucid/early Roman coins found at, 142–143 provincial issues at, 193 Temple tax, 132

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Teos, Syrians granted citizenship by, 59 tetradrachms civic production of, 105–106, 116–120 iconography, 51, 62, 117, 174, 232–233, 247–249 provincial Roman Antioch (31 BCE–192 CE), silver provincial coins from, 172–180, 173–174, 176–178, 180 reforms of, 118, 174, 248, 301 royal/provincial production of, 113, 117–118, 122 Seleucid silver coins, 69–78 third-century CE silver provincial coins, 210, 246–252, 247, 250–252 weight standard, 51, 54, 62, 102, 248 Tetrapolis, 4, 48–50. See also Antioch; Apamea; Laodicea ad Mare; Seleucia Pieria Tetrarchy, 259, 289 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 207n5 Theodosius I (emperor), 258, 264 Theodosius II (emperor), 270 theological school at Antioch, 290 theoretical models and methodologies, 13–17, 19–42, 307–320. See also monetization/ demonetization active status of coins as currency, 29–30 Annual Average Coin Loss Equation, 37, 313 Antioch, minting of coins at, 19–23 assemblage size, 39n98 binary logarithms, 39, 314–315 challenges and opportunities of, 20–21 chronological groupings, 40, 311 circulation/distribution of coins, 25–30, 38–41 civic coins, 23 coin finds, methodology for studying, 32–42 coins, defined, 22 data collection, 307–311 data preparation, 311–312 database assembly, 33–37 digital mapping, 39, 318–320 EDA (Exploratory Data Analysis), use of, 14, 19–21, 37–42, 306, 313–318 graphical techniques and tools, 39, 313–318 historical evidence, coin finds as, 22–32 loss of coins in archaeological record, 30 production of coins, 22–25 provincial coins, 24 recovery of coins in archaeological record, 30–32 royal/imperial coins, 23 silver versus bronze finds, 40

Index

Thessalonica, coins from, 282 third-century CE Antioch (192–284 CE), 18, 206–257 antoninianus or radiate coins, 210, 216–223, 217–221, 223, 252–256 bronze civic and provincial coins, 210, 227–246, 230, 232 as civic body, 224–227 coins as means of exploring, 298 colonia status, 224, 229 crisis of, 206–211 diversity of issues from mint of, 210 emperors and would-be emperors, as seat of, 211–223 festivals and games in, 206, 209, 224, 228 foreign (non-Antioch) coins found in, 255 governor of Syria, continuing as seat of, 211n33 imperial gold aurei, 210, 212–215 imperial silver denarii, 210, 212–215, 213 intersection of imperial power and local agency in, 209–210 mintings for other cities in, 210 Pescennius Niger and Septimius Severus, 206–212, 224–225, 228 Roman mint compared, 229n125 Sasanian threat, 5, 208, 215–216, 225–226 “SC” on bronze provincial coins, 210, 231–233, 232, 243 “SC” on silver provincial coins, 250, 250 silver provincial coins, 210, 246–252, 247, 250–252 termination of civic and provincial coin production, 202, 252–256, 253–255 Zenobia and Palmyrans, 5, 208, 216, 226–227 Thucydides, 110 Tiberius (emperor), 157, 158, 165 Tiberius Gracchus (senior), 61 Tigranes II of Armenia, 111–113, 112 Tille, Antioch provincial coins found at, 185, 191n220 Timon and Timaios of Antioch (artists), 109n95 Tisamenus (governor of Syria), 292 Titus (emperor), 169, 203n255 trade and commercial activity Antioch, trade routes through and around, 74–75, 80, 85, 143, 161 Antiochians involved in, 100 coin circulation/distribution, effect on, 19, 53, 75, 77, 80, 92, 144, 194, 272–273, 278, 303

Trajan (emperor), 1, 163–165, 167, 167, 180, 180, 191, 235 Trajan Decius (emperor), 230, 250 Trajanus (M. Ulpius; Roman governor of Syria), 152, 162, 165 Trebonianus Gallus (emperor), 217, 248n191, 249, 254 Trier, compared to Antioch, 265 Tripolis autonomous status, celebration of, 104 silver coins of late Seleucid period from, 106n68 Tryphon (guardian of Antiochus VI), 61–62, 63 Tyche (deity) on civic coins from Antioch in late Seleucid period, 109, 109 on civic coins from late antique Antioch, 287–289, 288 on civic coins from Roman provincial Antioch, 153, 158, 159 on civic coins from Roman Republican period, 115 on civic/provincial bronze coins from third-century CE Antioch, 230n128, 230, 231 on coins from Seleucia Pieria, 65, 65 on coins from Seleucid Antioch, 48, 62, 63 Eutychides’s statue of, 48, 62, 109, 112, 159, 173, 180, 231, 242, 287 koinon of Syria, on coin minted at Rome for, 167, 167 on Mark Antony’s coins from Antioch, 123 on provincial silver coins (31 BCE–192 CE), 173, 173, 180, 180 on royal coins from Antioch in late Seleucid period, 102–103, 103 Tarsus, on coins minted at, 173n160 on Tigranes II silver tetradrachm from Antioch, 112, 112 on Vespasian’s coins minted at Antioch, 163, 163 Tyre coins minted at, 77, 90n213, 90, 153, 155, 172, 174–175, 178, 199n246, 243, 247 coins of late Seleucid/early Roman period from, 106, 110n104, 128 Hasmonean state, use of Tyrian coins in, 132 hiera kai asylos (sacred and inviolable), as city title, 104n59 intercity rivalries, coins expressing, 106 as metropolis, 167

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press

409

410

Index

Tyre (cont.) Roman provincial Antioch, no provincial coins from, 185n210 silver reforms of Nero and, 174–175, 174, 178 third-century CE Antioch coins found at, 244n176 Vaballathus (son of Zenobia), 216, 217 Valerian (emperor), 216 Ventidius Bassus, 139 Vespasian (emperor), 19, 162–163, 169, 203n255, 212 water channel for fullers, 151 weight standard, for coins Attic, 51, 53, 70–71, 75, 77 circulation/distribution, effect on, 53, 71, 77, 88, 131–132, 248 Ptolemaic, 77 reduction of, 62, 102, 217 Xenophon, 110 Zamaris (Babylonian Jewish leader), 162

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938471.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Zenobia (queen of Palmyra), 5, 208, 216, 226–227 Zeugma Antioch coins found at, 185, 236, 244n176 coins minted at, 200n246, 244 Zeus (deity)/Zeus Nicephorus (Zeus with Nike) founding of Antioch and, 47 late Seleucid period, civic coins from, 108, 109 late Seleucid period, royal coins from, 102–103, 103, 113 provincial Roman Antioch, civic coins from, 158, 158 on provincial silver coins (31 BCE–192 CE), 173 Roman Republican period, civic coins from, 115 Roman Republican period, posthumous Philip I Philadelphus coins in, 116, 117, 122 Seleucia Pieria, coins from, 65, 65 Seleucid Antioch, coins from, 51, 55, 57, 57, 62n119, 62, 63, 66, 66 Zosimus, 216, 258