A mule antoninianus of Volusian

Doug,

I doubt we will differ much on these four coins.

All of them are official, the first two from the mint of Alexandria, 3-4 from the main Syrian mint, Antioch, which Pescennius Niger probably brought along on his march to northwestern Asia Minor to oppose Septimius, but which was captured there by Septimius after defeating Niger at Cyzicus and Nicaea, causing him to retreat to Cilicia. So from late 193-early 194 on, that mint was striking for Septimius and Domna rather than Niger. Your two Domnas are early judging from their style, fabric, and rev. types, so were probably struck while Septimius, his army, and his captured mint were still in Asia Minor north of the Taurus Mountains. After defeating Niger for good later in 194 at the battle of Issus, Septimius may have relocated this Antioch mint to Laodicea, as part of his punishment of Antioch for supporting Niger.

The Eastern denarius mints were much more careless than Rome in copying rev. types and combining them with obverses. AEQVIT AVG TR P COS II was a type of Pertinax's, though Alexandria had struck it earlier with the enigmatic legend AEQVITAS II. Neither legend, of course, was used for Septimius at Rome. VENERI VICTRICI was Domna's first rev. type at Rome; Alexandria struck it for both Domna and Septimius. VICTOR IVST AVG with Victory advancing was a type of Niger's, oddly carried on by the "Antioch" mint for Septimius, whose names didn't include Justus. Your seated type with the same legend is known only for Domna, though as you write on your website a corresponding denarius for Septimius may turn up someday. At Rome, Victory was generally a type of emperors only, not empresses. The same could be said of the Fides type, oddly joined by Antioch with a Bonus Eventus legend; here the added title II COS shows that the die was engraved with Septimius in mind. So four regular coins, but we can't explain with certainty how some of the rev. types were selected, and whether the use of Septimius' types by Domna and of Domna's types by Septimius was intentional or merely careless.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Where we differ is the assumption that using what RIC authors thought was an inappropriate reverse was an error requiring calling them 'Hybrid'. The question is whether not following the Rome mint way is by definition an error. I doubt we will ever find the seated IVST for Septimius or for Pescennius but anything is possible. I am only aware of five of the Domnas (all die duplicates) and would be much less surprised if that many more turn up.

I know you meant VENERI VICTR but I also assume you know of the spelled out version from the mint formerly known as "Emesa". I don't see renaming it to another city ("Antioch") which is equally unproven. I still prefer the travelling mint idea but don't care what you call it as long as you use quotation marks. When you publish the new RIC IV and explain the matter more fully will be time enough to change my labels.