Dear Friends! Pick (AMNG) does know of a small coin for Julia Domna from Nikopolis ad Istrum, AMNG I/1 1486, with the legend IOVΛI[A] ΔO]MN[A] CE and the rev. NIKOΠOΛIT ΠPOC ICTPON, crescent with one star in the cavity, another smaller below the crescent. He writes "On the obv. seems to stand an E before IOVΛI[A]; wether it is to read actually EIOVΛI[A] remains doubtfully. Pick does know only of this type. Meanwhile we know of 4 different types, all struck with the same obv. die. 1st Coin: Nikopolis ad Istrum, Julia Domna, AD 193-217 AE 17, 3.74g, 16.85mm, 195° Obv. EIOVΛI - [Δ]OMN CE Draped bust r. Rev: NIKOΠOΛIT ΠPOC ICTPON Crescent with 2 stars: one star in the cavity, a second one below the crescent Ref. a) AMNG I/1, 1486 corr. (writes IOVΛIA and ΔOMNA; 1 ex., Bukarest) b) Varbanov 2848 corr. (= AMNG 1486) c) Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov (2018) No. 8.17.48.3 (plate coin) rare, about VF, dark green patina Pedigree: ex CNG Electronic Auction 283, Lot 161 This is the very type from AMNG. The legend on the obv. Pick could read only partially. He writes IOVΛI[A - ΔO]MN[A] CE, but obviously it is EIOVΛI - ΔOMN CE! 2nd Coin: Nikopolis ad Istrum, Julia Domna, AD 193-211AE 17, 3.15g, 16.95mm, 0° Obv. EIOVΛI - [ΔOMN] CE Draped bust r. Rev. NI[KOΠOΛI]T ΠPOC ICTPO Big 8-pointed star with dots at the points Ref. a) not in AMNG b) not in Varbanov c) Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov (2018) No. 8.17.48.6 (plate coin) very rare, F/F+, dark green patina, legend only partially readable 3rd Coin: Nikopolis ad Istrum, Julia Domna, AD 193-211AE 17, 3.01g, 16.56mm, 225° Obv. EIOVΛI - [Δ]OM[N] C[E] Draped bust r. Rev. NIKOΠO[ΛIT ΠPO]C ICTPON Big 8-pointed star with dots at the points Ref. a) not in AMNG b) not in Varbanov c) Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov (2018) No. 8.17.48.7 (plate coin) very rare, F/F+, dark green patina, legend only partially readable 4th Coin: Moesia inferior, Nikopolis ad Istrum, Julia Domna, AD 193-211 AE 17, 2.65g, 17.34mm, 45° Obv. EIOVΛI - [ΔOMN] CE Draped bust r. Rev. NIKOΠOΛIT ΠPOC ICTPON Basket with handle, filled with fruits (apples?) Ref. a) not in AMNG b) not in Varbanov c) Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov (2018) No. 8.17.52.3 (same dies) very rare, rev. with central patina damage, probably made by wire brush This phenomenon we know in other relationships too. So some coins of Commodus from Nikopolis show instead of the usual ΠPOC ICTP the rarer ΠPOC EICTP (AMNG I/1, 1242), or the city of ICTPOC at the Black Sea sometimes becomes EICTPOC. The question is: What does that E on our coins mean? Is it only a Greek variant of IOVΛIA as NЄIKOΠOΛITΩN instead of NIKOΠOΛITΩN? Or is there anything more behind it? To explain this phenomenon we have to make a side trip into linguistics, resp. social linguistics. I have taken my examples from my German language. But I hope you understand the point nevertheless. Overgeneralization: The generic term is called "overgeneralization". It is a period children pass through when they are learning their first language. Most frequently it occurs when strong, irregular verbs grammatically were mixed with weak regular verbs, for instance the preterite "fliegte" or "trinkte", instead of "flog" or "trank". Known is a sentence cited by the scientist Els Oksaar "Opa hat gesitzt und gelest", instead of the correct form "Opa hat gesessen und gelesen". It occurs too when plural forms are built. I will never forget the moment when I as young medical doctor stood beside the bed of a three years old boy looking at his picture-book. I pointed to a pic and asked him what he can see there. Answer was "Schäfe". I corrected him with "Schafe", but he teached me that naturally they were called "Schäfe". And wasn't he right? Plural form of "Schwan" is "Schwäne", of "Hahn" "Hähne" and of "Gans" "Gänse". Hypercorrection: What the die cutter has made with the coin of Julia Domna with his EIOVLI is called hypercorrection and is seen as a kind of overgeneralization. It is the attempt to assimilate himself to the dominating speech form. The die cutter had in mind that the Greeks often change the Latin I into Greek EI, for example Antiochia into Antiocheia, Nicomedia into Nikomedeia or Seleucia into Seleukeia. In this way he made I-OVLIA to EI-OVLIA. It is characteristically that this phenomenon has a distinct social component. The speaker or writer will not appear as illiterate and assimilate himself, here to Greek, as he see it. Hypercorrection typically is seen in social upwardly mobiles who want to match the language use of higher classes which they perceive as standard norm (Wikipedia). But often they overshoot the target, then it's just a hypercorrection. And from the viewpoint of the standard norm which they see as exemplary it is a linguistic mistake. (Wikipedia) Something similar I have learned myself with the pronunciation of German words. I was born in North Germany and grown up there, has been socialized there as it is said today. Then I came to South Germany into the land of the Swabians. That was a real cultural shock. Most of them were speaking Swabian, an Upper German dialect, sometimes hard to understand. But it was funny that my Swabian colleagues want to teach me that my pronunciation of some words was incorrect! You must know that the pronunciation of the German language in North Germany is seen as the most correct High German, so that speaking High German in Swabia has a arrogant touch (what I didn't know before!). All the more they were pleased to be able to make clear that "Städte", written with "ä", should be pronounced with "open ä" and not with "wide e", as it was done in North Germany. The same with "Bären (bears)" and "Beeren (berries)". But it is not that simple! The differentiation between these two pronunciations usually happens by the context of the sentence (Wikipedia). They too have fallen into the trap of hypercorrection. Literature: (1) Pick, AMNG I/1, 1898 (2) Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov, Nicopolis ad Istrum, 2018 (3) Wikipedia Best regards
Jochen, My father was born in Bochum, Germany in 1909 & made the same language distinction you have between high & low German. With my brief stay in Germany (18 months) & my weak grasp of the language (3 years of German in high school) I couldn't tell the difference. I noticed while staying there that the younger generation was less prone to make that distinction than us "old fogies".
Do you know of any comparable spelling pecularities of Nicopolis in the early 3rd cent.? It was a productive mint.
That is an exceptionally interesting write-up, Jochen. I really enjoyed reading this. Sort of along the same lines, I have a Nikopolis ad Istrum for Caracalla with the stars and crescent (but no hypercorrection of the legend, so far as I can tell): Caracalla Æ 17 (c. 198-217 A.D.) Roman Prov. - Moesia Inferior- Nicopolis ad Istrum AYKEMAY ANTΩNIN Laureate draped, cuirassed (?) bust right, NIKOΠOΛITΩN ΠΡOC I Legend surrounding crescent and five stars. Roma Numis. 2014 H&J 8.18.48.5; Varb. 2983 var. (3.04 grams / 17 mm)
You have asked for the early 3rd century. Here I have listed the coins from Severus (193-211) until Gordian III (238-244). Thereafter the mint was closed. Referring to Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov (2018) in this time 2561 different types were issued. I focus on signed coins (with the name of the governor on it), that makes 1341 types altogether: Severus 271 Domna 35 Caracalla 160 Plautilla 40 Geta 62 Macrinus 234 Diadumenia 165 Elagabal 277 Gordian III 97 1) Severus (193-211) 271 sign. coins (with EI 6.3%) under Auspex (193-195) 21 types 1x NIKOPOLEITWN = 4.8% under Gentianus (195-198) 15 types always NIKOPOLITWN under Tertullus (198-201) 52 types 1x NIKOPOLEITWN = 1.9% under Gallus (201-204) 168 types 11x NIKOPOLEITWN = 6.5% 4x NEIKOPO = 2.4% under Ulpianus (210-213) 15 types always NIKOPOLITWN 2) Domna (193-211) 35 sign. coins (with EI 28.6%) under Tertullus (198-201) 9 types 1x NIKOPOLEITWN = 11% under Gallus (201-204) 26 types 6x NIKOPOLEITWN = 23% 3x NEIKOPO.. = 11.5% 3) Caracalla (198-217) 160 sign. coins (with EI 4.4%) under Tertullus(198-201) 31 types always NIKOPOLITWN under Gallus (201-204) 83 types 3x NIKOPOLEITWN = 3.6% 3x NEIKOPO... = 3.6% under Ulpianus (210-213) 46 types 1x NIKOPOLEIT = 2.2% 4) Plautilla (202-205) 40 sign. coins (with EI 25%) all under Gallus (201-204) 40 types 7x NIKOPOLEITWN = 17.5% 3x NEIKOPO... = 7.5% 5) Geta (209-212) 62 sign. coins (with EI 3.2%) under Gallus 11 types 1x NEIKOPO... = 9.1% under Ulpianus 51 types 1x NEIKOPO... = 2% 6) Macrinus (217-218) 234 sign. coins (with EI 33.3%) under Agrippa (217-218) 65 types 3x MAKREINOC = 4.6% under Longinus (217-218) 154 types 65x MAKREINOC = 42.2% 3x NIKOPOLITWN = 1.9% under Pontianus (217-218) 15 types 7x NEIKOPOLITWN = 46.7% 7) Diadumenian (217-218) 165 sign. coins (with EI 2.4%) under Agrippa (217-218) 71 types always NIKOPOLITWN under Longinus 94 types 4x NIKOPOLEITWN = 4.3% 8) Elagabal (218-222) 277 sign. coins (with EI 3.2%) all under Rufus (218-222) 277 types 9x NIKOPOLEITWN = 3.2% 9) Severus Alexander (222-235): no coins minted 10) Gordian III (238-244) 97 sign. coins (with Ei = 100%) all under under Modestus (241-244) always NIKOPOLEITWN = 100% 1x EICTRO = 1% Looking at the list you can't make out a trend. It depends on the individual governor. Gallus often hase used EI. Therefore the high rate for Domna. Longinus has often used EI. Therefore the high rate for Macrinus. The name of Diadumenian missed an I that could be Greek EI. And at the end Modestus attracts attention because he always writes NIKOPOLEITWN. Wether this writing has become prevalent I don't know, because after Gordian III the mint in Nikopolis was closed. And I'm not familiar with Latin inscriptions found in Nikopolis thereafter. Best regards
Dear Mike! Your coin has the obv. legend AV K M AV - ANTWNIN It is a variant of HrHJ (2018) 8.18.48.16 which has AV K M A - ANTWNIN. Wether the bust is cuirassed, laureate, r., is difficult to say. But I think so. I would like to add your coin to Nikopolis Addenda #6 in Forum Ancient Coins. Then it would appear in the next edition. Best regards
Dear Mike! I have added your coin to Nikopolis Addenda #6 under: #075 A new die combination for Caracalla Caracalla, AD 198-217 AE 17, 3.04g obv. AV K M AV - ANTWNIN Bust, draped and cuirassed, laureate, r. rev. NIKOPOLITWN PROC I Crescent with 5 stars, one below the crescent ref. a) not in AMNG b) not in Varbanov c) not in Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov (2018): rev. No. 8.18.48.16 obv. e.g. No. 8.18.14.20 (same die) coll. Marsyas Mike, Coin Talk Best regards
Jochen - I am very flattered you have included my coin as a part of the FORVM Nikopolis Addendum! Thank you so much for including me. I will correct my attribution accordingly.
