Unique Evolution in Alexandrian Tets During the Transition Into the Tetrarchy

I recently acquired a new coin, what one could assume to be an average Alexandrian tetradrachm, with an interesting feature that is unique in Roman Provincial coins of Egypt: an officina mark in the exergue. An officina mark, or even mint mark (like the later ALE, for example), typically does not appear on Alexandrian provincial coinage prior to it's being subsumed into the Roman Empire during the tetrarchy, becoming an official imperial mint (though, there are occasionally some imperial designs that were minted in Alexandria throughout the duration of the empire).

The Beginning of the Tetrarchy... After the death of Carus and Numerian, Diocletian was proclaimed emperor in 284 AD. He initially ruled individually until 286 AD when he appointed Maximianus as Augustus, as a co-ruler. This divided the empire in two, the West and the East. In 293, the co-Augusti went one step further choosing and appointing two Caesars to rule under or alongside each of them: Diocletian choosing Galerius as his successor and Maximianus choosing Constantius I Chlorus as his successor. It is in this moment that the "Tetrarchy" (or "rule of four") began.

It was then in 294 AD that you start to see an increase in imperial coins minted in Alexandria. This would begin to harken the end of the provincial coinage and denomination (tets, obols, drachms, etc) system in Egypt replacing it within a couple years with the official minting of imperial designs and adherence to the imperial denomination standards (folles, etc).

Eventually, in May 305 AD Diocletian and Maximianus "retired" from rule allowing their two Caesars to advance to Ausgusti and select two new Caesars: Severus and Maximinus Daia.

Ok, back to this coin... fascinatingly, at this important transition from 2 co-emperors to the 4 of the tetrarchy, between ~291 AD and ~295 AD the provincial mints in Alexandria placed officina marks in the exergue of their coins. These marks were not long lived: officina marks were only used during years 8-10 of Diocletian, 7-9 of Maximianus and 1-2 of Galerius and Constantius I. And Emmett identifies that, like many earlier and later imperial mints, certain officina were assigned certain emperors (or family members). On p.xvii of his book Alexandrian Coins, he proposed Die Carver 1 for officina A (Diocletian, Constantius I) and officina B (Maximianus, Galerius) and Die Carver 2 for officina G and * (Maximianus, Galerius) and officina D (Diocletian, Constantius I).


Maximianus, Ruled 286-305 AD (First Reign)
AE Tetradrachm, Egypt, Alexandria
Struck Year 7, 291/292 AD
Obverse: ΜΑΞΙΜΙΑΝΟC CЄΒ, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right.
Reverse: Hercules standing facing, head left, leaning on club with right hand, apples of the Hesperides in left hand, lion's skin over left arm, date L-Z (year 7 = 291/292 AD) across fields, B in exergue (officina).
References: Emmett 4131, Milne 5027 var, Curtis 2086 var
Size: 19mm, 8.2g

The reverse of this coin is a die match with Zach "Beast" Beasley's similar coin below (not the obverse, though):


This representation of Hercules is slightly different than others of similar year (Z) and the year before (S) with a more muscular (bulge-y?) physique and the holding of many apples rather than just one (golden apples of Hesperides, representing his 11th Labor).

Here is an example of a year 6 (L-S) for comparison that was previously part of my collection and is now a part of TIF's:


I'd love to see if any of you have other Alexandrian tets with officina marks in exergue of Max, Dio, or the two Caesars!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice write up and surprisingly none of my tets of this period have officina marks.

 

Coins of Domitius Domitianus started out as typical Alexandria tets but then he started striking folles at the same time as Diocletian, which is interesting. The fact that this usurper who had control of the Alexandria mint would follow the monetary reforms is a footnote in history. (And neither of these coins is in my collection, though I do hope to pick up a tet of his one day.)

 

There aren't terribly many with the officina exergue... in my research and study of my reverse type, mine is the 3rd that I've seen with Hercules and B below (#1: Beast Coins above, #2: MRBCoins). Here are other reverse types on ACsearch of Maximianus', Diocletian's, Galerius, and Constantius.

And here's some on Vcoins right now: 1 2 3.

I wasn't aware of this phenomenon until I saw and purchased the one I have.

 

Excellent summary! I haven't focused on this subset but now it seems much more interesting .

 

Let's remember That all three of these are the same years. Earlier, the practice was for a junior ruler to begin his dates with the then current number of the senior Augustus. Therefore, LIH of Septimius Severus and Caracalla were the same year even though Caracalla's coins did not start for several years after his father's. Diocletian broke with this system and started Maximianus with LA even though Diocletian was LB so there always is a one year setback between the two. The Caesars did not start until long after Diocletian and Maximianus but they started with one.

I only have one Diocletian A year 9 to show. We need to remember that there are many coins on small flans or off center which lost the exergue number if there was one.

This Maximianus year 9 shows nothing between the ground line and the outer border. It would seem it should have a B. Does this mean the practice was stopped in that year??? Does anyone have a Diocletian year ten with a clear exergue with or without the A? Who has a year 11 or 12 to show? Emmett lists them but I have none.

 

Correct, issuing years roughly 291/292 - 294/295 AD (or maybe 293/294?)

Emmett shares that the * is actually an officina mark, but it does not appear in the exergue like the others, rather in the fields (either side, it seems). So those without exergue seems to have a star. The star is actually much more common (in my eyes)... and even predates the other officina marks (see the Year 6 Maximianus in the OP). Interesting? Yes. Confusing? Yes.

This example similar to yours but has neither exergue or star... maybe it's like an SAT/ACT question... "Every tet with officina mark was struck between 291-294, but not every tet struck between 291-294 has an officina mark." Could there have been officinas striking coins with no marks?


EDIT: or is what is hanging below the groundline a Gamma or something? I initially thought of it as the extension of clothing.

A or Delta... Here's two (1, 2) with, I believe, Delta in ex from ACSearch (same type as each other). Though, you said "clear" and it's not very, but there is something that resembles a Delta down there (they do tend to be pretty small, these Dio deltas).



Then here is one Year 10 with no exergue or star...


So it appears to most likely end during the (early?) period of Diocletian's Year 10, which would've then been the 293/294 AD year designation, correct?

It's an interesting topic, that's for certain!

 

That is the way I see it - gamma. Actually I agree with everything you posted including the interesting and confusing parts.

 

Very interesting thread! My final year Maximian (year 11 = 295/6) has a star in the right field:


ex Keith Emmett collection (his number: 4114)

 

Nice, SA!!

This gets me thinking that maybe ("maybe") the star serves a different function than officina due to it's appearing before and after the exergue-type timeframe?

 

Very nice coin, I really like the Herakles on the reverse. Also, nice write up!

 

Justin Lee, I enjoyed your article & excellent group of coins . The transition from old coinage to Diocletian's reform coinage must have been a welcome relief until the reform coinage declined in quality . Pictured below is an Alexandrian follis I've posted before but will add to your thread for comparison. Galerius as Caesar, circa AD 304-5, with Jupiter on the reverse holding Victory on a globe & scepter, 5th Officina, 11.39 gm, 27 mm. Quoting David Sear: "The meaning of S P on the reverse is uncertain, but RIC suggests sacra pecunia as a possibility."