hypothèses sur un aureus de Gordien

On trouve 4 types datés émis en 238 à Antioche

3 portent la titulature P M TRI P CON P P

L'empereur sacrifiant 4 monnaies 2 coins d'avers et 1 coin de revers

Photo issue de la thèse de Bland


Le soleil debout 2 monnaies 2 coins de revers 2 coins d'avers
Photo issue de la thèse de Bland qui ne répertorie qu'une monnaie, le propriétaire de la seconde ne désire pas rendre sa monnaie publique pour le moment, je n'afficherai donc pas la photo...


Sarapis 2 monnaies 1 seule paire de coins (les 2 monnaies ont été vendues par LANZ)


1 porte la titulature PON M TRI P CON P P

Sarapis 1 monnaie Photo issue de la thèse de Bland

Briac a écrit:

Il existe les sesterces de Gordien au type AETERNITAS AVGVSTI ou le cheval avance à droite et à la patte gauche levée ainsi que le sesterce FIDES MILITVM RIC 315 (toujours de gordien) ou encore une fois le cheval avance vers la droite. Mais je ne connais pas d'autre monnaie ou le cheval avance à gauche et a la patte gauche levée...

In the FIDES MILITVM type, as Briac says, the horse advances right, raising its LEFT foreleg, while the emperor salutes with his right hand as usual. This proves that it is immaterial, just an artistic matter, which foreleg the horse is shown raising.

In the AETERNITAS AVGVSTI type, however, RIC pl. 4.6, the horse raises its RIGHT foreleg, not its left foreleg as Briac says.

I would not agree with Briac that the rev. legend P M TRI P CON P P proves beyond doubt that Antioch's production for Gordian began in 238 not 239. Antioch was strongly dependent on Rome for types, and at Rome the type P M TR P II COS P P, Emperor sacrificing left at tripod altar, was introduced only in the course of 239. It seems likely that Antioch was copying this type from Rome, but changed the abbreviations in the legend slightly, and omitted the tribunician number II. In that case this Antioch type could not have been struck before about the spring of 239, and the same date may well apply to the Serapis and Sol types, not copied from Gordian's Roman coinage, which use the same rev. legend.

cher curtis, tout d'abord, je vous remercie pour la correction sur le type AETERNITAS, ma monnaie est de piètre qualité et c'ets la raison de mon erreur.

Pour les types P M TRI P CON P P, je pensais comme vous il y a 2 mois mais depuis qu'un ami a acheté un exemplaire avec le Soleil d'un coin de revers clairement différent de celui conservé à Vienne, j'ai revu ma position.

Des erreurs ponctuelles sont possibles mais l'existence 2 coins de revers pour le même type avec des césures différentes et la même erreur me semble impossible, j'y vois donc une volonté d'émission.

I do not doubt that the legend P M TRI P CON P P was intentional, but that does not prove that it was struck in 238 not 239.

The mint may have decided that the tribunician number was unimportant, so could be omitted, in the same way that innumerable coins call Hadrian P M TR P COS III long after the end of his first tribunician year on 10 Dec. 117.

This is of course possible but in this situation why made they so many dies with P M TR P II COS P P, if they think than the tribunician number wasn't important there is no reason to change...

the only obverse die link finded by roger Bland in thoses coins is the obverse die of emperor on reverse which was also used for 1 AEQVITAS AVG and 1 CONCORDIA AVG. I will try to find others die link with the new coins but without any die link P M TRI P CON P P - P M TR P II COS P P I think my theory can be good...

Briac a écrit:

the only obverse die link found by Roger Bland for those coins is the obverse die of emperor on reverse which was also used for 1 AEQVITAS AVG and 1 CONCORDIA AVG.

Thanks for reminding me of those die links, which go very far towards proving my suggestion!

Both the AEQVITAS AVG type and the CONCORDIA AVG type were copied by Antioch from Roman types THAT WERE NOT INTRODUCED UNTIL C. SPRING 239, as part of the same issue as the P M TR P II COS P P Emperor sacrificing type.

Clearly the Emperor sacrificing type was also copied from Rome at the same time, but its legend was altered and the tribunician date omitted.

Surely you will not want to suggest that Antioch independently came up with the Aequitas, Concordia, and Emperor sacrificing types in 238, and it was just by chance, or because Rome in these cases copied Antioch, that Rome repeated the same three types from spring 239 on?

We cannot require consistency from the Antioch mint. USUALLY it copied the dated Roman types exactly, so of course with TR P II, but in the case of these three types, Emperor Sacrificing, Serapis, and Sol, it invented its own variant legend, omitting the tribunician number.

Je peux bien entendu accepter votre idée, et je dois reconnaitre que Rome ne peut copier Antioche, les erreurs apparaissent toujours sur les copies et avec plus de 100 variétés, Antioche ne peut-être l'original...

Cependant, les liaisons de coins sont sensée expliquer la chronologie des émissions, on peut donc considérer que les liaisons de coins révélée par Bland nous donnent la chronologie suivante, (il n y a pas de liaison directe entre P M TRI P et P M TR P II mais uniquement des liaisons indirectes)

P M TRI P CON P P 29/1-3 Gordien sacrifiant à gauche au dessus d'un autel
CONCORDIA AVG 7/11
CONCORDIA AVG 7/3
P M TR P II COS P P 34/1-2 Gordien à cheval à gauche le bras droit levé et tenant un sceptre transversal dans la main gauche

Ou encore

P M TRI P CON P P 29/1-3 Gordien sacrifiant à gauche au dessus d'un autel
AEQVITAS AVG 3/27 Aequitas debout à gauche
AEQVITAS AVG 3/42
P M TR P II COS P P 44/22 Providentia debout à gauche


Vous ne pensez pas?

I have no opinion on the order of the types in Antioch's production, and doubt that we will ever be able to establish a clear and solid sequence for the production.

However, I think that the die link to Aequitas and Concordia strongly implies that the Emperor Sacrificing type too was not copied by Antioch until spring 239 or later. Therefore the omission of the tribunician number from the Eastern legend does not mean a date of 238.

I think we still need many study to understand realy this part of Gordian's coinage and it's with some subjects like this one than we will do it.

Thanks for this discussion, I think we said all what is possible for now...

Dear Curtis, do you ever saw a picture of the second aureus refered by Roger Bland?

Here is description

IMP CAES MANT GORDIANVS AVG Bust laurate, draped and cuirassed of Gordian right (seen from behind?)
CONCORDIA AVG Corcordia standing left holdins patera over an altar in right hand and a cornucopiae in left hand
RIC 176

Maybe this coin can provide us many important informations...

Of course we need more material and further study, but I think we have made an important step forward: Gordian's first Eastern issue of antoniniani would appear to have started in 239 AD, not in 238 as Roger Bland and doubtless others before him thought. The Eastern legend P M TRI P CON P P would appear to date from 239, omitting the tribunician number, not from 238 as our predecessors have assumed.

As to RIC 176: I have never seen such a coin, nor, of course, was it known to R. Bland.

It seems possible that this aureus actually showed the Rome-mint type of Concordia SEATED not standing.

In Cohen's first edition, Gordian III no. 16 is an aureus of the Concordia seated type with Gordian's first obverse legend, and Concordia allegedly holding a single cornucopia, quoted from the BM.

No. 17 is the identical aureus, except Concordia holds a double cornucopia, cited from Caylus' book of c. 1760 on the Roman gold coins in the Paris collection. Caylus pl. 41, no. 857, in fact illustrates just such an aureus, with Concordia seated and holding a double cornucopia. Naturally this aureus will have disappeared from the Paris collection when the cabinet's entire collection of ancient gold coins was stolen and melted down in 1831.

There is no aureus of Concordia STANDING in Cohen's first edition, not in the main listing of Gordian's coins in vol. IV nor in the Addenda in vol. VII.

Is no. 17 in Cohen's first edition, then, actually the same coin quoted in Cohen's second edition, no. 60, but with two errors: Concordia is there said to be standing not seated, and the source is said to be one of the old manuscript inventories of the Paris collection of Roman gold coins, rather than Caylus' published work describing the same collection?

Dr. Hollard should be able to answer this question for us, by checking those manuscript listings in the Cabinet des Médailles, and finding out whether or not they describe a CONCORDIA AVG aureus of Gordian III with Concordia STANDING, as claimed by Cohen 60 in his second edition.

If this Concordia STANDING type in Cohen's second edition is merely an error for Concordia SEATED, then RIC 176 of course vanishes, for its only source is Cohen 60 in his second edition.

I will go in Paris to see Dr. Hollard this week, I will ask him.

This aureus is refered C 60 in my own Cohen which was printed in 1880 but it's only the second edition...

The 2 aurei with concordia seated are refered C47 (simple cornucopia) and C49 (dubble cornucopiae)

so we can think it's a new type...

I hope this aureus will be finded again,...

I think I have discovered the source of Cohen 60 in his second editon: it is Cohen 24 in his first edition, quite a different coin!

Compare the two texts; first edition:

22. IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG Son buste radié à droite.
Rx. CONCORDIA AVG. La Concorde debout à gauche auprès d'un autel allumé, tenant une patère et une corne d'abondance..................F. AR. 3 fr.

23. IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL. AVG. Son buste radié à droite.
Rx. CONCORDIA MILIT. La Concorde assise à gauche, tenant une patère et une corne d'abondance................................................................F. AR. 2 fr.

24. IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG Son buste lauré à droite.
Rx. Même revers. Autrefois, Cabinet des médailles.......OR. 80 fr.

Second edition:

59. IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL. AVG. Son buste radié à droite.
Rx. CONCORDIA AVG. La Concorde debout à gauche auprès d'un autel allumé, tenant une patère et une corne d'abondance..................T. AR. 3 fr.

60. IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG Son buste lauré à droite.
Rx. Même revers. Ancien catalogue.............................OR. 80 Fr.

61. IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL. AVG. Son buste radié à droite.
Rx. CONCORDIA MILIT. La Concorde assise à gauche, tenant une patère et une corne d'abondance................................................................F. AR. 2 fr.

It is obvious that first ed. 24 = second ed. 60, but in the first ed., because of the order of the entries, the type is

CONCORDIA MILIT seated,

whereas in the second ed. it is

CONCORDIA AVG standing by altar!

So it would appear that the CONCORDIA AVG Standing by altar aureus was merely created by editorial error in Cohen's second edition.

The question remains, what aureus formerly in Paris did Cohen mean with no. 24 in his first edition? The first obverse legend coupled with CONCORDIA MILIT, as reported, seems unlikely; maybe this aureus too is just an editorial error!

Maybe Dr. Hollard could solve this question by consulting Cohen's manuscript in the library of the Cabinet der Médailles, listing the aurei lost from the Paris collection in the theft of 1831, which had not yet been replaced by the time Cohen compiled the list in the 1850s.

thanks for this new information, I will ask it to Mr Hollard thursday