Roma and Roma & Nike: a one year’s wonder?

Roma and Roma & Nike New Style reverses

It is generally assumed that the Athenian New Style silver coinage was issued yearly: the evidence from the Thompson middle period to the early-late period ending with the king Mithradates issue being particularly strong.

In assembling the evidence for ordering a new chronological list of New Style issues an idea from Prof. F. de Callatay‘s book, “ L’Histoire Des GuerresMithradatiques Vue Par Les Monnaise”, Louvain la Neuve 1997 must be examined.

The issues “Roma” and “Roma and Nike” are seen as consecutive issues because they share two obverse dielinks, Thompson obverses 1122 and 1123.

de Callatay’s argument is that the issues are small just 7 and 4 Athenian months respectively and that the period of no use of the stored obverse dies wouldleave a gap of 8 months, which would be unprecedentedin the New Style series. The longest known gap, he asserts is six months. Thus adding 7 and 4 months we get 11 months which will fit in as one year’s issue.

Also the Roma figure appears on the “Roma & Nike” issue but all that has been added is a Nike crowning her- an unprecedented minor change.

Thus he conflates the two issues, “Roma” and “Roma & Nike” into one year.

In looking at the longevity of previous obverse dies links Prof. de Callatay appears to be in the correct order of things as noted by Margaret Thompson, “ The New Style silver coinage of Athens” ANS 10 1961, in discussing obverse die 418 that links the “Dionysos, Thyrsos & cup” issue now dated to 129/8 BC to “Cornucopia and Grain Stalk” 128/7 BC. This is about 8 months, but she notes that such longevity is not unique and notes a 7 month gap of an earlier issue.

Frankly, what is one month in the scheme of things? And, and it may cut both ways, Thompson’s evidence isfrom 1961 and I feel sure that some new amphora months may have been discovered , but not published, for these examples and for others.

de Callatay’s argument is about tetradrachm dies also. There is a remarkable drachm die noted by Miss

Thompson that in her scheme starts on the “ Winged Thunderbolt” 130/9 BC issue, skips the next “ Dionysos, Thyrsos & cup”, and appears in the next “ Cornucopia and Grain Stalk”.

She says that due to our lack of drachms, (they are much rarer survivals and were probably issued in muchsmaller quantities than tetradrachms), that she wouldn’t doubt that the obverse die existed in all three issues. Now this has got to be well over 12 months taking all things into consideration since it is a drachm die and the low volume of strikings expected from it.

I think that Prof. de Callatay’s argument is a littlestretched. I personally do not see anything significant about “Roma” and “Roma & Nike” tetradrachm die longevity that points to them being of the same year.

Yes, “Roma “was known only from 7 months in 1961, butso was “Dionysos, Thyrsos & cup”

Why so short? We do not know for either but the precedent is there.

“Roma & Nike”, following “Roma” was shorter, only 4 months. We don’t know the reason why, nor have a reliable precedent in relevant earlier coinage of themiddle or early-late periods. I can speculate that maybe there were difficulties in the Roman allegianced magistrates getting silver for their coinages during this troubled time

In examining the amphora dates of the two issues in question, we find alpha through to eta for “Roma”, and for “Roma & Nike”, alpha through to delta.

A definite precedent exists for the existence of two issues in one year, 110/9 BC, “ Artemis & Fawn” ( alpha and beta), gives way to “Bee” ( gamma to mu).Like with “Roma” and “Roma & Nike” there was a total change of 1st and 2nd magistrates there is also a change of symbols- though unrelated in this case.

With “Artemis & fawn” to “Bee” the amphora dates carry on as nothing had changed whilst this is not the case as between “Roma” and “Roma & Nike” in de Callatay’s argument.

That the symbol “Roma” was only changed by the minor addition of it being crowned by Nike in the next issue was seen as a prop to his argument, this is again not without similar precedent in the New Style series.

Demeter and 2 Torches, Dionysos with Demeter and 2 Torches New Style reverses

The issue “Demeter holding 2 Torches” of 112/11 BC the symbol appears again supplementing “Dionysos” in the “Dionysos & Demeter” issue of 104/3 BC.In this example the magistrate Charinautes is the 1stmagistrate on the first example and a 2nd on the otherlinking the two issues.In the “Roma” to “Roma & Nike” symbol change there are no linking magistrates only the symbol and its modification showing the link of pro-Roman allegiance.

The “Roma” issue had Xenocles and Harmoxenos only as magistrates. They previously were responsible for the“Serpent” and “Dolphin & Trident” issues were they minted alone also. Other than their pro-Roman sympathies we know nothing about them but they must have been extremely wealthy and influential. It is hard to see them being simply elbowed out of the way-even by other pro- Roman magistrates

The magistrate Kointos on the “Roma & Nike” type is believed to be a Roman actually called Quintus again nothing else is known, but whilst Xenocles and Harmoxenos always minted together alone with no 3rd magistrate this was not the case with Kointos and Kleas who always had a 3rd magistrate.

If the two issues were for one year as F. de Callatayargues then in the chronologies produced by, Boehringer, Morkholm, and Habicht et al of the Rome-Pontic times this would leave a one year gap: a no coinage year is possible.

Mattingly in 1971 proposed a year’s gap earlier around 100 BC but proposed that this is to make up for disruption in silver supplies due to a slave revolt.

He proposed, also in 1971, that due to Anarchia that there should be a one year gap. Which one reason he finally plumped for I cannot resolve. However Morkholm’s list is from 1984 and Habicht’s is from 1991 and is echoed in de Callatay’s publication of 1997.

The Anarchia is a good solution but is not the reasonfor a one years “no coinage” year in my opinion that satisfies de Callatay’s theory, because Boehringer filled any such gap by introducing the “kernos” 2 magistrate issue from the post-Sullan issues into thebody of the “Rome-Pontic “ coinage.

On hoard evidence prompted by a remark by Andrew Meadows in a review of coin hoards from Delos, the “Kernos “ issue does not belong here and needs to be removed back to a post Sullan position as Margaret Thompson originally recognised.

Although de Callatay’s argument now can be fitted into the Anarchia gap again I believe that his case is not strong enough in my examination of the evidences and in my forthcoming review of the Rome-Pontic chronology I keep the “Roma” and “Roma & Nike”issues as consecutive issues.

John Nisbet30th November 2013