Here is a Geta Drachm I purchased because I had never seen one for this year before. Couldn't find any other examples online and although sold as "unlisted", @curtislclay confirmed it is published. Other years are a bit easier to find, unlike this. Geta (209 - 211 A.D.) AR Drachm Cappadocia, Caesarea-Eusebia O: AY K Π CEΠTI ΓETAC AVΓLaureate bust of Geta right. O: MHTPO KAICAP NEO, Mt. Argaeus surmounted by star.“ETIO” = year 19 = 210/11 A.D. 3.04g 16mm Sydenham/Malloy, p. 153, 498a
Very cool, Mat. The echo of the Mt. Argaeus motif from pre-Roman issues is particularly resonant. ...Granted, from here, any provincial silver as late as this, even visibly within compositional range of contemporary 'domestic' issues, still has plenty of novelty value.
When did the Caesarea year begin? In Alexandria the end of August start means Geta died only a few months into year 20. I do not have a Caesarea 19 but this is a Domna 20:
That’s a very interesting coin, @Mat. I also have not seen a year 19 for Geta. I honestly would have never thought there would be an issue because there were large gaps in the production years for some unknown reason (at least unknown to me). It is attractive to me that the legends are unusually complete. These Caesarean coins seem to have worn pretty hard on the edges. But I’m a sucker for them anyway. I’ve also discovered the bronze issues from Caesarea and they are pretty great, especially the 30-1mm issues. Provincial, Caesarea, Cappadocia, AE30, ΜΗΤΡΟΠ KAICAPC AE30 Roman Provincial: Caesarea, Cappadocia Julia Domna Born circa: 170AD - Died: 217AD Augusta: 193 - 217AD Issued: 205AD 30.0mm 17.19gr 0h O: IOYΛΙΑ ΔΟΜΝΑ ΑΥ; Draped bust, right. R: ΜΗΤΡΟΠ KAICAPC; (MH ligate) Agama of Mt. Argaeus, surmounted by star, placed on altar. Exergue: εΤΙΓ (Regnal Year = 13; 205AD) Hunter 75; BMC Galatia 26 var. (legend and date); Huntarian 2259 aVF Featured on Wildwinds, April, 2019.
As to chronology, 19 was Septimius' last year at Caesarea. After Septimius' death in Feb. 211, Caracalla reduced his year count to 14 and Geta to 3, reckoning from the dates when they had been proclaimed Augusti, Jan. 198 for Caracalla and late 209 for Geta. Coins dated by this new reckoning are not well published, but I have two drachms of Geta Augustus dated Year Γ=3, and four of Julia Domna dated Years IΔ and Γ, that is 14 for Caracalla and 3 for Geta. BM 254 = Sydenham 446 also list such a drachm of Domna dated IΔ Γ, but wrongly assign it to Year 14 of Septimius=206 AD, making no attempt to explain the extra Γ. Doug's Year 20 of Domna also follows the new numbering, so is of 217 AD, not 212 as one might have thought. Sydenham 454 mysteriously dates a similar Year 20 coin of Domna to 213 AD.
That’s very interesting, @curtislclay. I was unaware of the recalculation of regnal years by Caracalla after Septimius’ death and the dually-dated coins from after Septimius’ death. Are there other resources to read more on these coins? I know you mentioned the published material is thin.
As to the beginning of the Caesarean year, it seems that all we can say for sure is that the Caesareans did not wait a full year after an emperor's accession before beginning his Year 2, but rather started that Year 2 at an unknown earlier date which was the New Year according to their own calendar. Had the Caesareans, for example, adopted Elagabalus' dies imperii in June 218 as their New Year, then Elagabalus would still only have been in his fourth Caesarean year when he was assassinated in March 222, since his fifth year would not have begun until June 222. Yet there are Caesarean coins of Elagabalus dated ET E=Year 5, Syd./Malloy 527d-g, one clearly illustrated by SNG Aulock 6506. So Elagabalus was definitely already in his fifth Caesarean year when he died in March 222, his fifth year apparently having begun sometime between June 221 and early March 222. But it would seem that there is no clear evidence for when the Caesareans celebrated their New Year and advanced the number of the emperor's regnal year on their coins. Eckhel says it was on 12 December, following the "conclusions of the chronographers" as adopted by the very learned and competent Belley in his article on the coinage of Caesarea. Recently however Burnett, Amandry, and Carradice have suggested 2 September, the New Year of the Actian Antiochene calendar, or 1 October, "as at Antioch" (RPC II, 1999, p. 239).
That I did not know but it answers my question about the portrait style. Alexandria has Domna coins with the late portrait starting part way through LK but Caracalla did not revise numbers there. What is the first year for Domna with the late hairstyle from Caesarea?
Nicholas, My first explanation of the adjustment of the year dates in 211, along with pictures of a lot of relevant coins: Berk 166, Oct. 2009, especially lot 555; Berk 167, Dec. 2009, especially lot 429. Note also lots 563-4 in Berk 166: a tridrachm and a drachm of Caracalla dated ET IΔ, attributable to 211 not 206 because of the bearded portrait of the emperor. Above I only mentioned coins of Geta and Domna with the reduced year dates in 211; these coins of Caracalla complete the set. This was a discovery I made on my own, no great shakes in view of the large Caesarean hoard with many new types and dates that I had to work with, but I later learned that I was not the first: the same observation had earlier been made by William Metcalf, presumably in his article "Notes on the Severan Coinage of Caesarea", in Nomismata 1, a volume of conference papers on Roman provincials, Milan 1997, the conference having taken place in Munich in April 1994. Doug, The earliest late portraits of Domna at Caesarea (small, low nest of hair behind) illustrated in those two Berk catalogues: Berk 166, lots 555-6 (Years IΔ and Γ = 211) and Berk 167, lot 429 (same date). Those three coins are tridrachms. My four drachms of Domna with the same double date all also have the late portrait. The early portrait with large bun, however, still occurs on my slightly earlier drachm of Domna dated Year 19, and also as expected on my three earlier drachms and one tridrachm of Domna dated Years 6, 13, 16 , and 18.
@curtislclay Thank you for the quick response. I will have to look up those old lots/catalogs and the Metcalf article. This just adds another reason why I find the coinage of Caesarea fascinating. I would have never known about it had you not mentioned it.
