Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T02:27:49.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coin Hoards and the Chronology of the Gallic Emperors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

J. F. Drinkwater
J. F. Drinkwater
Affiliation:
Department of Ancient History, The University, Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the story of imperial Rome no period can be more obscure than that which elapsed between the death of Severus Alexander and the accession of Diocletian (235-84). Here the historian faces a dearth of reliable literary information. Inscriptions and papyri are also in short supply; and consequently recourse must be had to more controversial sources of knowledge—numismatics and archaeology. Thus problems abound. The very chronology of the age is still disputed; and in this dispute the question which continues to attract most attention is that relating to the dates of the so-called ‘Gallic emperors’ who governed an independent west, quite separate from Rome, during the middle years of the third century.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 5 , November 1974 , pp. 293 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © J. F. Drinkwater 1974. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See the original work of Stein, A., ‘Zur Chronologie der römischen Kaiser von Decius bis Diocletian’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung vii, 1924, 30–51Google Scholar, and then its development by Bolin, S., ‘Die Chronologie der gallischen Kaiser’, Bulletin de la société royale des lettres de Lund v, 1931-1932, esp. 108–12.Google Scholar Bolin erroneously restricted Claudius II's reign to 268-9 by denying him a third period of tribunician power. This is now well-attested—see C. M. Kraay, NC 1960, 275 fif, and Millar, F. G., ‘Paul of Saihosata, Zenobia and Aurelian’, JRS lxi, 1971, 15Google Scholar and n.

2 Elmer, G., ‘Die Münzprägung der gallischen Kaiser in Köln, Trier und Mailand’, BJ cxlvi, 1941, 1–106.Google Scholar

3 Epit. xxxiv, 3 (confirmed to a large extent, I consider, by the remarks of Ausonius, , Parent, iv, 1–16).Google Scholar

4 Zosimus i, 38; Zonaras xii, 24.

5 Elmer, op. cit. (note 2), p. 17 and Nos. 108, 109, 113, 114 (IMP SALON VALERIANVS AVG).

6 Vogt, J., Die Alexandrischm Münzen, Stuttgart, 1924, i, 203 f.Google Scholar

7 E.g. Carson, R. A. G., Congrès international de numismatique, Paris, 1953, Actes (1957), 270 ff.Google Scholar

8 J. Lafaurie, ‘La chronologie des empereurs gaulois’, Bulletin de la Saciété française de Numismatique, July 1963, 279-83; idem, ‘La chronologie des empereurs gaulois’, RN 1964, 91-127. In the following discussion I shall concern myself mairly with Lafaurie's later exposition of his case.

9 Although it must be said that even here his arguments are frequently very unhappy, e.g. in order to deprive Tetricus of an obvious, but for him very awkward, third consulship, he had to insist (1964, 113) that the coin legend TR P COS III should be read TR P III COS, a quite arbitrary transposition.

10 Zonaras xii, 26.

11 CIL xii, 2228.

12 This part of Lafaurie's argument is better expressed in his earlier (1963) article, p. 280.

13 E.g. J.-P. Callu, in his ·monumental La politique monétaire des empereurs romains, Paris, 1969Google Scholar, adopted Lafaurie's dating of the Gallic emperors.

14 Victor xxxiii, 32, confestim recepta Mediolani urbe.

15 Tables II and III; cf. Lafaurie (1964), 119-27. Apart from variations in the actual hoards considered it will be seen that I have made other alterations to Lafaurie's format, e.g. by changing some of the column headings, by amalgamating the catalogue of groups and the list of hoards, and by adding a new set of figures showing the (approximate) percentage-composition of each find. All this should, I hope, make for the easier comprehension of the information presented.

16 Stiffkey (NC 1931, 316 ff.); Lacroix-St.-Ouen (Lafaurie (1964), 124); Mercière (Callu o.c. (note 13), 274); Oyes (Callu o.c. 274); Trier (Blanchet, A., Les trésors de mommies romaines et les invasions germaniques Gaule, Paris, 1900, No. 774)Google Scholar; Drieterpen (Es, W. A. Van, De Romeinse muntuondsten uit de drie noordelijke provincies, Groningen, 1960, 89 f.)Google Scholar.

17 RN 1954, 194-7 (Châteauneuf-de-Mazenc); Blanchet o.c. (note 16), No. 845 (Kempraten).

18 Lafaurie (1964), 120.

19 On this difficult subject see, most recently, Crawford, M. H., JRS lx, 1970, 40–8.Google Scholar

20 As assumed by Lafaurie (1964), 103 f. In the same place, it should be noted, Lafaurie exhibits an alarming disregard for simple arithmetic. His guess that it would take about six months for the coins of Quintillus and Aurelian to reach Gaul and to be buried in hoards containing the late issues of Victorinus would put the end of the last's reign around the middle of 270, yet he advances this date inexorably and without explanation to the end of 270 and even the beginning of 271!

21 So Sutherland, C. H. V., Coinage and Currency in Roman Britain, Oxford, 1937, 41.Google Scholar

22 Compare the figures (mainly of antoniniani) from Silchester (Tetricus 632, Claudius/Quintillus 617, Gallienus 372, Victorinus 252, Postumus 70, Aurelian 16) and Alzey (Tetricus 52, Claudius/Quintillus 27, Gallienus 11, Victorinus 10, Postumus 2, Aurelian 1). (Silchester: unpublished catalogue of Reading Museum, kindly loaned to me by Mr. C. E. Stevens; Alzey: FMRD iv, 1002).

23 Mattingly, H., Studies … in Honor of A. C. Johnson, Princeton, 1951, 275–89.Google Scholar

24 Thus in Britain the great Blackmoor hoard (NC 1877, 90-156) which included pieces of Allectus also comprised: Tetricus 14,028, Claudius/Quintillus 4,401, Gallienus 3,842, Victorinus 5,450, Postumus 399, Aurelian 189. (I have noticed that Claudius II is regularly less well represented in the hoards than in the site-finds—this would perhaps repay closer investigation.)

25 P. le Gentilhomme, ‘Variations du titre de l'antoninianus au IIIe s.’, RN 1962, 141-66.

26 This must surely put paid to Callu's (o.c. (note 13), 276) over-simple explanation of the currency of the period: ‘Au début du règne de Victorin, les antoniniani de Pcstume forment encore le gros de la masse courant. Ils tendent ensuite à disparáître du marche …’ (my emphasis).

27 The continued unpredictability of coin-circulation is revealed by the existence of hoards with ‘Lafaurie-characteristics’, i.e. a few pieces of Aurelian, several of Postumus, less of Victorinus, but which also contain some coins produced by Tetricus. By Lafaurie's hypothesis, i.c. by assuming smooth circulation, these ought to have been buried just at the beginning of Tetricus's reign. All, however, possess pieces of Tetricus II, who was created Caesar just before his father's fall (Elmer, op. cit. (note 2), 79 ff.), and one, Bourg Blanc (RN 1966, 181-98) contained a coin of Florian!

28 Victor xxxiii, 14.

29 Bolin, op. cit. (note 1), 112-15.

30 Vogt, op. cit. (note 6) i, 203 f.

31 Alfoldi, A., CAH xii, 169 f.Google Scholar

32 Fitz, J., ‘Ingenuus et Regalien’, Collections Latomus lxxxi, Brussels, 1966, 22.Google Scholar

33 See e.g. Mattingly, H., ‘Notes on the chronology of the Roman emperors from Valerian to Diocletian’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology xiii, 1927, 14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who directly opposes the Stein school of chronology.

34 Stimulated initially, I might add, by A. Ravetz's brilliant article, ‘The fourth-century inflation and Romano-British coin finds’, NC 1964, 201-31.