(Pl. VIII, ii) Dieudonné, op. cit. p. 149, Pl. VI, 18. On the complete obverse inscription, Lenormant, p. 261, n. i.

    (4) Bust r. laur. Rev. Eagle, head r. In ex S.C. (Pl. 1, 12) Wroth, p. 231, no. 666, Pl. XXVI, 7

    (5) Head r. laur. Rev. Eagle, head 1. 0. Ex. obliterated. (Pl. VIII, 13) Yale.

Nos. 1 and 2 are without doubt of the same date as the bronze and, as the inscription shows, from the same, mint.

No. 3 is attributed by Dieudonne to Elagabalus. On the Paris specimen the name Sulpicius does not appear, and though Lenormant says that the complete inscription can be read on pieces in other collections, no other specimen is published and Froehner denies that there are any such. Eckhel had already protested9 that the style is that of Elagabalus or Caracalla. Lenormant's reply is not altogether convincing, but the testimony of the reverse type is conclusive. This style of eagle was introduced by Philip,10 and revived by Gallus. It does not occur elsewhere and it has no resemblance to the reverses of Elagabalus.

No. 4 is attributed to Emisa by Froehner and Dieudonné, but to Antioch by Wroth since it closely resembles the Antiochene tetradrachms and, like most of them, bears no mint mark. This attribution can be met only by argument from probability. Scanty as are our literary sources for the period, we are better informed as to Antioch than as to any other place in the eastern provinces, and it is very hard to believe that an event of such importance as the occupation of the Syrian capital by a prince of Emisa could have left no trace on the record. Moreover, one may wonder whether Antoninus would not have proclaimed his possession of the greatest mint of the East by using its name on his coins, as Philip had. Altogether the weight of evidence certainly favors the attribution to Emisa.

No. 5, in extremely poor condition, was among the coins collected at Antioch by Adib Ishak and sold by him to Yale. Its provenance must certainly be counted as an item in favor of Wroth's theory, though it is needless to emphasize how slight an item it is. Its condition is of interest, for it is not due merely to wear and corrosion; like the piece in the British Museum, it shows clearly that it was defaced in antiquity. Wherever struck, these coins of the pretender were apparently not popular at Antioch. The obverse is unique in showing a head instead of a bust, but the most remarkable feature is the reverse, bearing the inscription This is perhaps the inscription on No. 4, where the reverse is broken. Antoninus was certainly not consul once, let alone twice,

9. Op. cit. pp. 289 f.
10. Dura Hoard I, Pl. VII, nos. 233, 238, 239. If there were indeed two pretenders from Emisa, one might conjecture that this tetradrachm, which is of


better style than the others, was struck by the earlier in the time of Philip. But the evidence does not really justify the hypothesis.


Created by the Digital Documentation Center at AUB in collaboration with Høgskolen i Østfold, Norway.

990202 MB - Email: hseeden@aub.edu.lb