Zenobia and Valballathus

Does anyone have this coin? It seems that this issue is what sealed the deal with Aurelian and he made his move to put them down. I have the coin (ordered) with Aurelian and Vaballathus but cant find the other one where they both claim the title Augustus.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm not sure I follow your question. There is only one coin that I know of that has Vabalathus and Zenobia on it - an Alexandrian tet, Emmett 3910. This is an exceedingly rare coin, probably worth thousands in any condition.

 

Btw, Roger Bland has uploaded his excellent article on the subject to academia.edu. A must-read for anyone interested in the coinage of Vabalathus and Zenobia, expecially since it identifies a few egregious forgeries...

‘The coinage of Vabalathus and Zenobia from Antioch and Alexandria’, Numismatic Chronicle 171, 2011

 

Well, that explains why I can't find it. I'm reading "Aurelian" and the third century by Alaric Watson and it seems Claudius II and Aurelian were willing to but up with their push into other parts of the eastern empire after the death of Odenathus and their co-opting of Roman titles for the son that the father had earned. They didn't make a move even when she made coins with Aurelian with Vabalathus on the reverse (since they were two heads on the coin how did they know which was the reverse?) but they went over the line, apparently when THE coin with her and the son listed as Augustii was released.

I'm sure you know all this but it's new to me and a great bit of coin history. I'm lovin' this stuff!

 

John Anthony, how is it that you have stuff like this article just laying around!?

 

Join academia.edu, then peruse all the numismatic articles, follow the authors you like, etc. You'll get emails when authors you follow upload their work. In particular, I'll take anything from Numismatic Chronicle, one of the best periodicals for collectors ever - I read every issue I can get my hands on.

 

John, I'm looking at Emmett and don't see any coin with both Vabalathus and Zenobia. He lists coins with Aurelian/Vabalathus, Vabalathus alone, and Zenobia alone. Emmett 3910 is Vabalathus/Homonia standing.

 

Aurelian leads expedition to Syria through Asia Minor. In
c.March the mints of Antioch and Alexandria strike coins for
Vabalathus as Augustus and Zenobia.
May 272

This is an excerpt from the Bland paper and he lists it as Spring 277. Probus leads the fleet to retake Egypt in May 272. Aurelian defeats the Palmyrenes in June 272 and captures Zenobia. They didn't have much time to strike too many of the offending coins.

 

Eh...probably some dealer's attribution. Here is the coin...

Vabalathus and Zenobia, Billon tetradrachm of Alexandria, Egypt. 271–272 AD.
Obv.: VABALATHVS VCRIMD, laureate, draped bust of Vabalathus right
Rev.: CEPTIM ZHNOBIA CEB, diademed, draped bust of Zenobia right.
Emmett 3910(??); Cohen 2 var. Not in Milne.



UBS Gold & Numismatics Auction 78, 2008, lot 1906.
Sold for 3,800 Swiss Francs.

 

Yes, but I think Bland is referring to coins of Vabalathus and Zenobia separately, not together on the same coin. I don't think there are any such issues from Antioch.

 

I can't make out legends...does it have AVG on both?

 

The Watson book refers to the Antiochene mint? your right though, it doesnt say on the same coin but both mother and son claim "augustus"! Bad move.

 

John, that lot consisted of two different coins, an ant of Vabalathus and a tet of Zenobia

 

Pardon me while I wipe the egg off my face.

 

I was confused too, trying to reconcile the style and coin edges/shape of the two pictures-- then I read the last line of the auction listing.

Here's the relevant page in acsearch.info.

 

Any idiot can see those are two different coins, but in my defense, I have a nasty cold and I'm high on Nyquil.

 

Ah the underwater feeling of NyQuil!

 

As common with most antoniniani of the period, the two headed Antioch coins had a workshop letter in exergue of the reverse. This is always under the portrait of Aurelian so he is on the reverse. Here is S (6) and H (8).

The two headed tetradrachms of Alexandria had a particularly strange situation. Aurelian was in his first year of rule so there is an LA (year one) on his side of the coin. Vabalathus was in his fourth year so he has L delta. I guess that would make the young king the senior ruler so it is appropriate to call his side the obverse. Also consider that these coins were only issued from mints under the control of the Palmyrans so they would put their man on the obverse. Aurelian did not recognize these people as his peers and did not issue any coins in their honor from any mint he controlled.


I know the old timers here are tired of seeing my Zenobia coin but some of you are new here. I bought it in full knowledge that it was a fake but considered it interesting because of how it was made. The obverse here was tooled from an as of a much earlier coin. I believe it was a Flavian (Vespasian, Titus, Domitian) because of the Spes reverse but can prove nothing. There was a time a century or two ago when rich collectors wanted coins to fill all the slots in their collection and craftsmen quite willing to produce pieces to fill the demand. I would love to know how much this piece sold for the first time it sold and when that was. Obviously it is worth less than the coin from which it was made (some would just say worthless) but I found it an interesting side note on the hobby. It would fool no one today but it was made for a world with no Internet and few books but plenty of well funded students of history who might be talked into such a rare piece. The Greek legend is correct to be a real coin of Zenobia but the coin is too large and thin to be in any way mistaken for an Alexandrian tetradrachm (it is an as!). The SC on the reverse was madified to read LE (year 5). I am realistic enough to know I will never own a real coin of Zenobia so when this one showed up I bought it.


Before I mention it, how many of you knew that the name of the young king was spelled differently on his solo antoniniani than on his coins with Aurelian. Anyone know why???
http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=313739

 

Extra H but I don't know why? I assume alcohol was involved at the mint.

 

Because Vabalathus is a latinization, his proper name in Arabic was Wahb-Allaht?