Help in identification of Trajan Decius

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by gogili1977, Apr 13, 2018.

  1. gogili1977

    gogili1977 Well-Known Member

    Please help me in identification of this ant. I can't find this reverse.
    image-0-02-05-6e476e34990a954e9f0cddcdb53f3506efd53cb1e1373377788f3ab71752c484-V.jpg image-0-02-05-90d3e7e732a2c1bb20dd74a33babc8c2c2e2fb62ab707d46ee4fa2cfae512518-V.jpg
    Thanks.
     
    Marsyas Mike, ominus1 and Bing like this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. ancient coin hunter

    ancient coin hunter in hoc signo vinces

    It appears at first to be a PANNONIA type but the middle letters don't match this spelling. Either an error(?) or something else entirely. I'm stumped.
     
  4. Ken Dorney

    Ken Dorney Yea, I'm Cool That Way...

    Appears to be an ancient counterfeit. The reverse seems to read VRANOVIALITAS AV, which would be gibberish. Then again, who knows? Sometimes the obvious is there but we cant see it.
     
    Alegandron likes this.
  5. gogili1977

    gogili1977 Well-Known Member

    Does little looks like nobilitas reverse figure?
     
    ominus1 likes this.
  6. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member Supporter

    TRANQVILLITAS AVGG is a perfectly good reverse type for Philip but not for Decius.
    ro0940bb2008.jpg
     
  7. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member Supporter

    gogili1977 mentioned NOBILITAS which was another Philip type from the same issue where the officina was shown in the reverse field by Greek numerals. It is one of my favorite series.
    ro0960bb2058.jpg
     
  8. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member Supporter

    The capricorn is more obvious on the larger sestertius.
    ro1060bb1604.jpg
     
  9. gogili1977

    gogili1977 Well-Known Member

    Thank you all. This offered me one reliable dealer. Maybe I risk with this ant for 30-40 eur.
     
    ominus1 likes this.
  10. Ken Dorney

    Ken Dorney Yea, I'm Cool That Way...

    Well, there we have it. As I mentioned, sometimes I just cant see what should be obvious. Nevertheless it would seem to be a hybrid, using a reverse of Philip. RIC only lists a handful of hybrids but notes

    "Most of the reverses of the mint of Antioch are 'hybrid' in character....they seem, however, to be in normal use at that mint"
     
    ominus1, Alegandron and gogili1977 like this.
  11. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member Supporter

    Authors of our standard references seem to have a problem accepting the fact that branch mints did not follow the 'rules' they have recognized as 'Roman'. This comes up in Severan coins from Alexandria and Syria where they considered a coin as unofficial because it copied Pertinax or Pescennius or even used a male reverse with a female portrait. Emesa and Alexandria did not know they were breaking RIC dictates.

    To me, this OP coin is most interesting for what it left off. Philip had a co-Augustus (his son) so his legend ended AVGG. Decius did not but the maker of the coin dropped both G's. The style and fabric do not strike me as Eastern mint Philip so I tend to believe the coin is unofficial. The diecutter knew enough about the issue to drop the G's and the officina B. It is an interesting coin.

    There are several Decius coins that seem a bit odd but I have not seen much suggesting he used branch mints since they found die links that ended the separation of the Milan coins. I don't know the status of current thought (after RIC) on Decius mints. Does anyone know of an update on this subject? Who has non-Rome Decius antoniniani to show? RIC attributed some coins with dots marking officinae as we see for Trebonianus Gallus but I don't have them. What is this odd style fellow?
    ro1230b00112lg.jpg
     
  12. Bert Gedin

    Bert Gedin Active Member

    Hi. I don't know the difference between my Left & Right hand. A similar coin was minted in Rome, 249. Decius is dressed in long robe reaching feet. A vertical staff in one hand with the head of an ass in the other (maybe intended for me, with such a miserable report on poor Decius !).
     
    Alegandron and Bing like this.
  13. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member Supporter

    I have never heard of the figure called Decius. It is considered the personification of the province of Dacia.
    ro1260fd1802.jpg
     
    Johndakerftw and Bing like this.
  14. Bert Gedin

    Bert Gedin Active Member

    Hi, Dougsmit. I hadn't realised, seems the Trajan coins, as I understand, have T.D. on both sides of the coin. Trajan Decius was Roman Emperor from 249-251. In 251 he co-ruled with his son, Herennius Etruscus, until both were killed in the Battle of Abritus. In 251, Decius had ordered an Empire-wide suppression of the (Christian) cult. Anyway, Trajan and Decius were the same person.
     
  15. Bert Gedin

    Bert Gedin Active Member

    To dougsmith & All. You suggested Decius was the personification of the province of Dacia. You were, I think, on the right track. Trajan was a successful military ruler, and, by standards of the Roman times, one of the "greats". He was awarded the title, "Dacias" by the senate, for having annexed large tracts of territory from the Dacians. Thus his second name, Dacias or Decius. But if you think I'm barking up the wrong tree, do let me know. Or if anyone has relevant comments to add on.
     
  16. Marsyas Mike

    Marsyas Mike Well-Known Member

    Very interesting post.

    I've only a few Trajan Decius ants., and some of them are a bit weird. My favorite place to go for information is the website "249-253 A.D. Four Bad Years" http://sonic.net/~marius1/mysite/index.htm The site is wonderfully laid out with lots of examples (although I could not find this one). The site owner responds to emails and is a really nice guy.
     
    Alegandron likes this.
  17. Bert Gedin

    Bert Gedin Active Member

    Well, Marsyas Mike, not a bad website you suggested. But I got a bit shook up when I read about Trajan D. : "Decius honoured Roman traditional virtue, the good emperors, and the army." As for being so agreeable, I wouldn't give the guy 10 points out of 10 !!!
     
    Marsyas Mike likes this.
  18. Marsyas Mike

    Marsyas Mike Well-Known Member

    Yeah, by "Roman traditional virtue" I think this includes persecuting Christians!
     
  19. Bert Gedin

    Bert Gedin Active Member

    Yes, indeed. Being sacrificed to wild animals, and maybe even Crucifixion. - Following his conquest of Dacia (modern-day Romania) Emperor Trajan ordered construction of a new forum complex in Rome. At the centre was - Trajan's Column.
    Unless I am mistaken - were there several Emperor Trajans ? Clarification, please !
     
  20. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member Supporter

    Trajan was emperor 98-117 AD. Trajan Decius was, as you say, 249-251. When the name Trajan is used by itself, it always means the great, earlier one. Usually the later man is called by both names together as one name "Trajan Decius" but sometimes we see just Decius. There are no coins of Decius which do not have name Decius except for a few TRADEC abbreviations. Never just TRAIANVS.
    ro1300b01670lg.jpg
    No, Dacia is a place. Decius was a person. That both are similar does not mean the man was a personification. Dacia, the personification was a woman with a very distinctive dragon headed staff shown on these coins.
     
    Bing likes this.
  21. Bert Gedin

    Bert Gedin Active Member

    I'm not totally convinced about some of your statements. Whilst I do accept that there were several Trajans - which I had suspected, as the years, for both, didn't "bridge the gap". How can you be so certain that there is a distinct difference between a name being used either for a person, or for a place, dougsmit ? It could be both. And you speak of "a very distinctive dragon headed staff shown on these coins", which I think that is mistaken conclusion. You don't say how many coins you know of with Trajan Decius, it might well be possible that some show a dragon headed staff whilst others show an asses head. Or do you think the latter was a figment of my imagination ?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page