Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Heliodromus, post: 8263547, member: 120820&quot;]1. IL 1:50 1/50 lb</p><p>2. omicron (greek 70) 1/70 lb - had to look it up <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p>3. xi (greek 60) 1/60 lb</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve no idea what the Antioch IS/INT mark means, but probably unrelated to value. This was used only on this CONSVL-PROCONSVL type (issued for both Licinius and Constantine) in 318-319AD.</p><p><br /></p><p>David Sear suggests IOVI SEMPER (or SANCTO) INVICTO, which by itself doesn&#039;t seem particularly convincing! I don&#039;t know what conventions regarding ligature usage might apply, but the N+T ligature would at least naively suggest those two letters group together, perhaps suggesting some partially repetitious I-S, I-NT grouping? Unlike simpler control marks, it&#039;s hard to believe something this specific wasn&#039;t meant to be easily(?) understood by the public.</p><p><br /></p><p>For comparison, earlier in 312 AD Antioch had used field marks of Q/II on the gold, likely a reference to Licinius&#039; quinquenalia (Q) that year, and Licinius/Constantine both COS II in that year. Perhaps the IS/INT is also some reference to &quot;current events&quot;? In 318 Licinius I had been joint consul with Crispus, and in 319 Constantine I had been joint consul with Licinus II, but there&#039;s no obvious reference to this there.[/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