Justinian's coins at Antioch: http://esty.ancients.info/interesting/Justinian.html If you don't know the story of the calamities at Antioch under Justinian, you will find the page interesting. I added an example of Sear 214, emperor enthroned facing/M over +THEUP, to my page. Antioch is the only mint to use that type.
thanks for that, I've always wondered why in the heck they used the mint mark they do on this coin...now I know.
While I find the article fantastic as it is, great learning always opens new questions so you never reach the end. The coin posted by chrsmat71 not only has the interesting initial u like letter but something else caught my attention. Under the M is what at first appears to be and A over an E. What is this? It is in the usual position for an officina letter but that should be one digit. Not covered in the history of Antioch markings is the common letters delta and E found on Antioch provincials of the third century as shown here on Carcalla and Diadumenian. Of course delta E was also used later to indicate 4+5 = 9 avoiding the unlucky theta alone as a 9. This is shown here on coins of the later third and earlier fourth centuries but ceased to be used in this way under Christian rulers. Am I misreading the A? Is this related to the old city DE mark or what is the pair of letters under the M?
McAlee argues that the ΔЄ is abbreviation for "of the four Eparchies," with an eparchy being a subdivision of a province, of which Syria had four. The initials would indicate that the coinage was current in all four Eparchies, rather than merely in Antioch. If that is the case, then I doubt it can have the same meaning on the Byzantine issues, as the entire provincial structure was rearranged under Diocletian. I don't think the Eparchies survived the shift. Of course, that's not to say they couldn't choose the letters out of civic nostalgia.
i was puzzled by that marking, and the whole reverse in general, myself. strange reverse, there's that third "N" in the "anno" , the "eye" at the bottom right of the M, and so on. when i first received this coin someone (i can't remember who) suggested it was an E offina coin overstruck on a A or delta of the same type? but it just seem to be like the reverse would be even more of a mess if it was overstruck...beats me. one of my favorite coins though!!
Question: at an earlier date you mentioned that for Alexandrian coins L ENATOV was used to avoid the unlucky number scenario, what then is the explanation for the seemingly random spelling out of various years? I've only seen year four substituted, but Emmett lists years one through thirteen (and nineteen also) as having substitutions. Why?
Thanks for the interesting link (well done) ... Here is my good ol' Justinian I (yah, it's been posted numerous times brfore, but it loves to come out once in a while and stretch its legs!!)
L ENATOV is unusual because the other dates in the series were used as numerals. Earlier we see other years spelled out as well so it says nothing about the 9 being unlucky. The earlier coins were larger and had room to spell out 'Thirteen' but by the late period when Diocletian lasted 9 years (few did in those days) the question came up how to represent year 9 after LH was used for year 8. Gallienus used both spelled out and the theta (but I have not seen one inperson). When is the last use of a spelled out date for a year other than 9? I find it interesting that they more often spelled out L (ETOVC) rather than the number.
