BARBARA ZAJĄC
138
The motives above that were used on some of the coins from Bithynia and Pontus
were general iconographic types that would have been recognized by everyone in
the provinces; however, they would not always have been used on coins from all
the local centres. During the rule of Domitian, 33.7% of the motives that appeared
on imperial coins between 80 and 82 were also used on some coins from Bithynia
and Pontus; during the time of Trajan, 39.5% of all the iconographic types appeared
on coins from this province. During Hadrian’s reign, only images of Demeter were
still a popular representation appearing on koinon coins and coins from Bithynium
Claudiopolis and Amisus,100 whereas Athena appeared on coins from Apamea, Cius,
Bithynium Claudiopolis, and Amisus.101
The most widespread motive in Domitian’s imperial mint was Minerva,
the emperor’s tutelary deity.102 The second type that appeared most often was
Victoria. The remaining images were found mostly on restored coins struck during
Flavians rule. From among these types, the representations that appeared most
frequently on provincial coinage of this period were as follows: Athena (4.8%),
Nike (4.2%), an eagle (3%), and Demeter (2.5%). The following appeared much less
frequently: Eirene (0.7%), Ares (0.7%), and Elpis (0.5%). During the age of Trajan,
the motives on imperial coins were far more diverse. Among the images duplicated
from imperial coins issued between 80 and 82, the type that most often appeared on
imperial coins from this period was Victoria (11.8%); less frequent appearances are
made by Pax (5.3%), Mars (4.2%), and Roma (2.52%). In provincial coinage of this
period, the above-mentioned iconographic types did not appear widely. Among these,
the images that appeared most frequently were Athena (4.5%), Victoria (4.2%), and
Demeter (4.1%), while Ares (1.3%), Eirene (1.07%), and Elpis (0.69%) appeared
less frequently. At the same time, it needs to be emphasized that these were not
always the exact same iconographic types.
Because of the similarities between the coins indicated above, C. Kraay
suggested that a centralized system of mints may have existed in the province,103
one that could be reflected in the similar denominational structure, the similar metal
structure, the images, legends, the die-links, and the fact that the same currency
was in circulation. Looking at the coins, however, it seems that, to a certain extent,
three cities were integrated during the reign of Domitian: Nicaea, Nicomedia, and
Prusias ad Hypium. These centres were located in the northwestern part of Anatolia.
Unfortunately, we still do not have at our disposal certain requisite information
100 Koinon RPC III 966; Bithynium Claudiopolis RPC III 1104; Amisus RPC III 1256-1257,1260,1289-1291.
101 Apamea RPC III 1034; Cius RPC III 1052; Bithynium Claudiopolis RPC III 1106; Amisus RPC III
1249-1250.
102 MROZEWICZ 2012; CARRADICE 1983; IDEM 2012: 385-386.
103 KRAAY 1953.
138
The motives above that were used on some of the coins from Bithynia and Pontus
were general iconographic types that would have been recognized by everyone in
the provinces; however, they would not always have been used on coins from all
the local centres. During the rule of Domitian, 33.7% of the motives that appeared
on imperial coins between 80 and 82 were also used on some coins from Bithynia
and Pontus; during the time of Trajan, 39.5% of all the iconographic types appeared
on coins from this province. During Hadrian’s reign, only images of Demeter were
still a popular representation appearing on koinon coins and coins from Bithynium
Claudiopolis and Amisus,100 whereas Athena appeared on coins from Apamea, Cius,
Bithynium Claudiopolis, and Amisus.101
The most widespread motive in Domitian’s imperial mint was Minerva,
the emperor’s tutelary deity.102 The second type that appeared most often was
Victoria. The remaining images were found mostly on restored coins struck during
Flavians rule. From among these types, the representations that appeared most
frequently on provincial coinage of this period were as follows: Athena (4.8%),
Nike (4.2%), an eagle (3%), and Demeter (2.5%). The following appeared much less
frequently: Eirene (0.7%), Ares (0.7%), and Elpis (0.5%). During the age of Trajan,
the motives on imperial coins were far more diverse. Among the images duplicated
from imperial coins issued between 80 and 82, the type that most often appeared on
imperial coins from this period was Victoria (11.8%); less frequent appearances are
made by Pax (5.3%), Mars (4.2%), and Roma (2.52%). In provincial coinage of this
period, the above-mentioned iconographic types did not appear widely. Among these,
the images that appeared most frequently were Athena (4.5%), Victoria (4.2%), and
Demeter (4.1%), while Ares (1.3%), Eirene (1.07%), and Elpis (0.69%) appeared
less frequently. At the same time, it needs to be emphasized that these were not
always the exact same iconographic types.
Because of the similarities between the coins indicated above, C. Kraay
suggested that a centralized system of mints may have existed in the province,103
one that could be reflected in the similar denominational structure, the similar metal
structure, the images, legends, the die-links, and the fact that the same currency
was in circulation. Looking at the coins, however, it seems that, to a certain extent,
three cities were integrated during the reign of Domitian: Nicaea, Nicomedia, and
Prusias ad Hypium. These centres were located in the northwestern part of Anatolia.
Unfortunately, we still do not have at our disposal certain requisite information
100 Koinon RPC III 966; Bithynium Claudiopolis RPC III 1104; Amisus RPC III 1256-1257,1260,1289-1291.
101 Apamea RPC III 1034; Cius RPC III 1052; Bithynium Claudiopolis RPC III 1106; Amisus RPC III
1249-1250.
102 MROZEWICZ 2012; CARRADICE 1983; IDEM 2012: 385-386.
103 KRAAY 1953.