From the years 250AD to ca 280AD the Roman empire nearly collapsed. The rise of Persia, civil unrest, barbarian invasions, even climate change has been suggested for the movement of peoples as colder temperatures forced barbarian tribes south and west, infringing on the Roman frontier. The empire was saved, however, mainly through the efforts of three "military" emperors: Claudius II, Aurelian and Probus. Unfortunately, we do not have detailed information about these three emperors, due to the loss of histories of the period, especially one author whose name escapes me, and a page of whose history was recently found - which shows how woefully inadequate our sources are. Zosimus, the Augustan Histories, the one page, that's pretty much it for ancient sources. The unrest, invasions etc. had a devastating effect on the coinage as the empire struggled financially, the chief imperial coin being the antoninianii, which was transformed from a handsome radiate under Caracalla weighing over 4 grams, to an ugly silver plated two to three gram scrap, struck in huge numbers. Aurelian, under whose reign control was finally regained over the Gaul and Palmyra secessionists, hugely reformed the coinage. In doing so, he ended the independent coinage of cities of the empire, restricting the mints to about 10 cities, all of whom now struck themes in common ending approximately 200 years of (somewhat) independent coinage with wonderfully artistic examples - all now under a tightly controlled central authority. Although we do not fully understand how the cities which were allowed to strike coins received their instructions - not that I am aware of, it is clear that individuality of design among the cities was ended, with types much more circumscribed, with the newly designed antoninianii as the chief product of the mints. This was a much improved coin, with what appears to have e a regulated amount of silver - possibly one 20th of the weight as indicated by "XXI." The exception to this was the mint of Alexandria - this mint was allowed to continue striking coins to its unique standard for another 20 or so years. It isn't clear why Alexandria was excepted from the centralization of the coinage, perhaps it was a reward for loyalty to the emperor. Although the coinage definitely needed reform, the cause of the change might have been spurred on the revolt of workers at the Rome mint. As described in the Augustan history, not exactly the most reliable source: "There was also during the rule of Aurelian a revolt among the mint-workers, under the leadership of Felicissimus, the supervisor of the privy-purse. This revolt he crushed with the utmost vigour and harshness, but still seven thousand of his soldiers were slain, as is shown by a letter addressed to Ulpius Crinitus, thrice consul, by whom he had formerly been adopted: "From Aurelian Augustus to Ulpius his father: Just as though it were ordained for me by fate that all the wars that I wage and all commotions only become more difficult, so also a revolt within the city has stirred up for me a most grievous struggle. For under the leadership of Felicissimus, the lowest of all my slaves, to whom I had committed the care of the privy-purse, the mint-workers have shown the spirit of rebellion. They have indeed been crushed, but with the loss of seven thousand men, boatmen, bank-troops, camp-troops and Dacians. Hence it is clear that the immortal gods have granted me no victory without some hardship." The letter is almost certainly a fake, the revolt to my knowledge is mentioned nowhere else, but I believe it is generally accepted that there was a revolt. Rome, certainly, lost its dominance as the chief mint of the empire. As was common at the time, prior to Aurelian's coinage reform some of the cities of the empire continued striking coins. Among the few - possibly only three (Cremna, Perga and Side) - cities that struck coins prior to the coinage reform is Cremna in Pisidia. The city struck several types, including sestertius sized examples with interesting themes. The example below measures 33mm and weighs 15.10 grams. The reverse is similar to a type struck under Trajan, with Fortuna/Tyche stepping over the head of a barbarian. A fascinating aspect of the coin is the obverse inscription with "DOM", a reference to "dominus et deus" (lord and god). The emperor Domitian liked to be addressed as dominus et deus, the reference here is an indication of the increasing tendency of the emperor to be considered a God. The anecdote in Ammianus Marcellinus of Arcadius (Theodosius II?), who ducked his head on entering the gates of Rome, which was many feet above him, as if he was so magnificent that his Godhood extended beyond the gates, is a fabulous example of how the emperor was identified with God, even in the Christian era. But that was far in the future. This coin is a recent acquisition at a surprisingly affordable price, given from Leu Numismatik. I had been seeking an example from this city for quite some time and am extremely happy with it. The portrait has a unique aspect, I especially like the treatment around the eyes. Also notice the "A" in Aurelian - the celator was obviously not used to Latin letters. Is Tyche holding Victory?
Fantastic coin. I have seen these a few times over the years but never pulled the trigger. Maybe one day I will. Congrats on getting one.
That's a very nice coin. Great patina. However, I might be wrong, but I think Domitius Domitianus' series were the last of the provincials.
Yes Alexandria for reasons unknown was mentioned in my article as being excepted from the centralization of the coinage. That highlights, perhaps, Alexandria's distinction as the second city of the empire, and also a city that was not within the power of the Senate - although by this time the Senate was pretty much powerless - despite its appointment of Tacitus. It could be as suggested that Alexandria remained loyal and did not join with Palmyra and was allowed to continue to strike its own coins - or for some other reason or reasons altogether. I simply do not know enough about this period. However, the coin above remains among the last in a centuries old brilliant artistic tradition among the cities of the empire.
Everybody omits coins of the Kingdom of the Bosporus from the "latest provincial coins" consideration, but they do have the Roman emperor on them. They are dated, like this one of Rheskuporis IV (239-276). It has ΘNΦ below the two busts on the reverse. That is five hundred fifty nine which is 262/3 AD, allowing us to identify the emperors as Valerian and Gallienus. 19 mm. 7.44grams. MacDonald 618, page 11. Examples under Constantine are common with King Rheskuporis V (304-342). 19-18 mm. 7.46 grams. You might not recognize the emperor from the portrait (You don't?), but the date is BKX = 622 = 325/6 AD, so that is Constantine being crowned by an eagle. MacDonald 681/4. The next one has date ΓKX = 623 = 326/7, also Constantine. 19 mm. 7.30 grams. MacDonald 682/8 For more about coins of the Kingdom of the Bosporus, see here: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Bosporus/ Because the minting authority was the king, albeit he was a client of Rome, I guess it is fair to say these are not "Roman provincial" coins. But, they are pretty close!
