Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;seth77, post: 4062791, member: 56653&quot;]This is an interesting and often overlooked type, that seems to get lost in the crowd of early to mid 310s base metal <i>folles</i>. It is also rather scarce, only minted at Antioch and for Maximinus II only.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1063041[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><font size="3"><i>AE23mm 5.35g copper follis, minted at Antioch, in 310.</i></font></p><p><font size="3"><i>IMP C GAL VAL MAXIMINVS P F AVG; laureate head right</i></font></p><p><font size="3"><i> SOLE INVICTO; Sol, holding globe and making imperial gesture, riding in a quadriga to left; Є under the prancing horses</i></font></p><p><font size="3"><i>ANT in exergue</i></font></p><p><font size="3"><i>RIC VI Antioch 142</i></font></p><p><font size="3"><i>Specimen is reverse die match with <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3383331" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3383331" rel="nofollow">this spec</a>.</i></font></p><p><br /></p><p>Interesting orthography, this SOLE instead of the usual SOLI. The look of Sol Invictus is also apart from the usual depictions of an almost naked god (with some drapery), as was the Western interpretation of the Sun God. Here at Antioch, the god is wearing a long traditional garb, with folds hanging over his left hand, in a posture and detail more fitting for an Oriental deity. The SOLE legend might also hint to a lack of familiarity with Latin at this point from the die cutters who worked on the coinage, as earlier types had been known in the East with the usual SOLI INVICTO form (as for instance is the case with the coinage of Gallienus from the mid 260s from Antioch&nbsp; or the one of Aurelian from Cyzicus and Tripolis). An earlier Sol Invictus <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=351509" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=351509" rel="nofollow">type</a> minted for Maximinus as Caesar in 309/10 in Antioch shows the also irregular legend SOLI INVICTAE.</p><p><br /></p><p>The SOLE form seems to have originated around 308/9 -- there is a very rare <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3247799" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3247799" rel="nofollow">aureus</a> of a previously unknown series minted for Maximinus II as Caesar at Alexandria with this spelling -- and was continued with two base metal series from <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=4363164" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=4363164" rel="nofollow">Antioch</a> and <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3578290" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3578290" rel="nofollow">Cyzicus</a>, one ending in 311 and the other in 312. After that, the Sol Invictus standing type ends in the East in 313 with the regular SOLI INVICTO legend form, very likely at the death of Maximinus II.</p><p><br /></p><p>While the design of this coinage is rather pleasing in its familiarity and simplicity, it&#039;s probably classicists that might find these irregularities in Latin legends most interesting, for they might be helpful in understanding perhaps just how standardized was &quot;good Latin&quot; at the time and how accepted were variations from the norm, or perhaps how necessary these minute variations were in official scripts. And perhaps if these variations were due to objective situations (like religious ritual incantations -- Sol Invictus is paramount to the Mithraic mysteries) or it was just about the influence of Greek speakers and writers having to deal with Latin at their jobs.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in