and the only possible explanation of the abnormal inscription is that it was carelessly or ignorantly copied from someone who had a right to use it.

Two unpublished varieties in the Newell collection confirm these conclusions. A singular tetradrachm is published in the British Museum Quarterly, 1939-40, p. 96, Pl. XXXIII, 18. The reverse has Tyche with cornucopia and rudder as on one of the gold pieces. Though this has obvious bearing on the authenticity of the gold, it does not affect the present problem.

The illustrations will show clearly enough that the tetradrachms of Antoninus are imitations of those of Gallus - imitations so close that the likeliest explanation is that they are the work of the same diesinkers. The obvious conclusion, then, is that, in the last year of Gallus, the mint was moved from Antioch to Emisa. Here the tetradrachms continued to be struck, the new reverse suffering less from the change than the new portrait, and here, perhaps because of shortage of metal, Antoniniani were issued in greatly increased quantity until, with the fall of Antioch, the imperial power in Syria collapsed. Then a pretender, for a brief period, carried on the imperial functions and left, as a record of his reign, the few tetradrachms which are an evident continuation of the ancient series.

It is superfluous to point out how well this evidence fits the hypothesis that our Sulpicius Antoninus is the Sampsiceramus famous for his defense of Emisa against Shapuhr.11 It would be a mistake to consider the matter a certainty. There are doubtful details: why, for example, did Antoninus chiefly imitate the reverse of Gallus struck at Antioch instead of that struck at Emisa? Why should the die-sinkers copy the reverse of Gallus so closely for Antoninus when they could do no better for Gallus' own portrait after the moving of the mint? Why did Antoninus strike no Antoniniani? But, all things considered, this theory seems to fit the numismatic facts better than any other available.

II. The Possible Capture of Dura in 253

There are six hoards which might be cited as evidence of the taking of Dura in 253. Hoards XVIII and XX, containing no Antoniniani, include tetradrachms of Trebonianus Gallus. Hoard 11 is similar, ending with tetradrachms of Gallus, though it contains four Antoniniani of Gordian III and one of Philip. Since no tetradrachms were struck after Gallus, it is of course possible that all these groups were buried in the time of Valerian. The same is true of Hoard VI which has 47 tetradrachms of Gallus and no Antoniniani. This is less likely, however, in the case of Hoard VII, for that has one Antoninianus and no tetradrachms. Hoard XII, which is bronze, includes one Antiochene piece of Gallus and none of Valerian. It must be borne in mind that there are other hoards whose latest coins are still earlier: III and IV, Macrinus; VIII and IX, Decius; XI, Philip; XIII, Mithradates I of Parthia (?); XIV, Herennia; XV, Philip; XVI,

11. Rostovtzeff, above, p. 39.



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

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