Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Ocatarinetabellatchitchix, post: 8321869, member: 99554&quot;]A few months ago, I read with attention an interesting article in French in the <i>Bulletin numismatique. </i>Here is a resume of the new theory about the mysterious Siscia mint’s symbols. Between 348-350 AD, these strange symbols appeared on Siscia&#039;s nummi FEL TEMP REPARATIO, first in the field of the reverse for a short issue (Constans, RIC 247), then in the exergue, in different places (beginning, end or penultimate character). The R.I.C. indicates 5 types of symbols, each corresponding to an officinae (with some exceptions), while Alföldi proposes a broader nomenclature, taking into account variants of symbols:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1474218[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Examination of hundreds of examples of these references, based on the R.I.C. symbol nomenclature, shows that the symbol-officinae relationship is clearly established for 93% of the specimens. Only 7% of coins have a symbol that does not correspond to their officinaes. It can be seen in this analysis that the various officinaes had fairly comparable production volumes overall, to within more or less 10%. On the other hand, the volumes of the different symbols present a greater dispersion, with a range of plus or minus 20%. The symbol 3 only appears in the 3rd officinae, without exception, but this may be due to a sample size that is too small.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1474219[/ATTACH]</p><p>RIC 247 var., officinae 3 but symbol of off. 1</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>So how can these symbols be interpreted ?</p><p><br /></p><p>• They evoke lowercase Greek letters, sometimes inverted (therefore engraved the right way round on the dies): zeta (symbol off. 1), eta inverted (symbol off. 2), lambda inverted (symbol off. 3), tau inverted (symbol off. 4), digamma (symbol off. 5).</p><p><br /></p><p>• They do not correspond to issues phases: the same symbols are found in the field, or exergue in the first, penultimate or last position, in the different issues.</p><p><br /></p><p>Two hypotheses can be put forward:</p><p><br /></p><p>• Either it is a coded issue, like the AEQVITI / AEQVIT / EQVITI issues from the Rome and Ticinum mint for Probus.</p><p><br /></p><p>• <b>Either they are marks of engravers, which would constitute a unique case in Roman coinage.</b></p><p><br /></p><p>The first hypothesis does not seem very credible, because the coded issues did not suffer from any exception: each officinae corresponded to a single letter.</p><p><br /></p><p>The second seems plausible: the exceptions would be the mark of the occasional help provided by the engraver from one officinae to another officinae, a practice commonly observed in Roman coinage, and the differences in volume by symbol would be explained by an activity variable of the engravers, during these two years of production.</p><p><br /></p><p>So what do you think of this new (?) theory ?[/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