Antioch in Syria: A History from Coins (300 BCE–450 CE)

Kristina M. Neumann, Antioch in Syria: A History from Coins (300 BCE–450 CE) (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 2021). 9781108837149.

Reviewed by Melissa Ludke, Florida State University, mludke@fsu.edu.

Reminiscent of Christopher Howgego’s Ancient History from Coins (London: Routledge, 1995), Neumann’s ambitious numismatic survey of Antioch in Syria, originally based on her dissertation, provides just that: a chronological historical narrative of the ancient city that demonstrates the applicability of numismatic data for unraveling the complexity that characterizes Antioch’s overlapping identities and occupational phases during its long lifespan.

Neumann’s introduction tackles several goals of the project, which is essentially a diachronic study of the history of Antioch through an examination of its coinage. In doing so, Neumann strives to tackle three main identities: local, provincial, and royal, or imperial. Through her thorough analysis of Antioch’s coin distribution, both chronologically and geographically, she offers the first study for coins produced at Antioch from the time of its foundation under the Seleucids through Late Antiquity. As a means of analyzing coin distribution, Neumann employs Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) as the theoretical and statistical basis for her project, which is a statistical methodology that examines a large dataset through various visual and graphical techniques. In the merging of textual, archaeological, and numismatic source material within her holistic approach to the study of Antioch’s history, Neumann is most successful, and the reader is left with an insightful historical narrative that is impressive in its scope.

Chapter 1 sets the methodological framework for Neumann’s numismatic dataset using EDA and succinctly explains the life cycle of coin finds, as well as several caveats to the use of numismatic evidence to answer questions concerning the social, political, and economic landscape of an ancient city. For readers unfamiliar with numismatics, Neumann helpfully describes the cycle of Antiochene coinage through various stages prior to their inclusion in a dataset: production, circulation, loss, and recovery. Production, or the first stage of the life cycle, involves the administration of Antioch’s mint according to levels of authority (royal/imperial, civic, or provincial), types of coins produced (gold, silver, and bronze), and factors influencing coin production. However, as Neumann accurately states, it is difficult and debatable to what extent we can extrapolate production output of a given mint based on coin finds, hoards, and die-studies, since this information is only a fraction of what actually existed.¹ These coins then entered circulation through the varied methods of exchange and movement, such as state-driven (military) and commercial enterprises. As such, a secondary goal of Neumann’s project is to determine circulation patterns for coins produced by Antioch and what factors may have facilitated their movement. The third stage, loss, is the most uncertain of the four stages she describes, as it is typically unclear exactly how a coin becomes part of the archaeological record through an intentional or unintentional deposit. Finally, the coins are “recovered” by systematic excavation or general discovery whereby they appear in a variety of states, from perfectly legible examples to extremely worn ones that are completely illegible.

The final section of this chapter is devoted to an in-depth description of Neumann’s data collection process and organization, source material, publication lacunae, and the application of EDA to this assemblage, complete with a visual representation of the location of excavation sites containing relevant published material that is linked with Appendix 2. According to Neumann, EDA allows an unbiased and naked presentation of the numismatic data, and the method’s flexibility in dealing with an imperfect dataset makes EDA suitable for mapping coin distribution or circulation. However, she stresses that the goal in using such a statistical analysis on numismatic material is to identify and visualize patterns, not determine absolute circulation numbers. As a result, the construction of each successive chapter (2–6) devotes the first half to a historical, archaeological, and textual overview of the chronological period in question in conjunction with related numismatic evidence, while the second half analyzes and interprets the distribution and circulation of the coins from that period using EDA.

As Chapters 2–6 are divided according to historically chronological time periods, Chapter 2 begins Antioch’s “ancient history from coins” with the founding of Antioch around 300 BCE by Seleucus I and ends with the death of Antiochus VII in 129 BCE, covering a majority of Hellenistic Antioch. Within this chapter, Neumann resoundingly argues for the increasing importance of Antioch’s mint under the Seleucids based on the diffusion of royal silver and bronze issues beyond the boundaries of the city both east and west in the Mediterranean. Since Antioch’s royal bronze coins bearing the name of its monarch appear at about 90% within assemblages from Seleucid-controlled cities in Syria, Neumann’s conclusion that royal Antioch bronze was the major currency in northern Syria is solid. Curiously, Antioch’s civic bronze coins are significantly lacking in the archaeological record for this period, although there are some issues that appear under Antiochus IV. Neumann’s hypothesis, which aligns with many numismatic arguments for the generally small assemblages of ancient civic bronze coinage, suggests that this discrepancy is due to the relatively small issue size of Antioch’s civic bronzes during the Hellenistic period.²

In the case of this period in Antioch, the coin distribution and circulation patterns of Antioch’s mint appear to match military movements of the Seleucid Empire and internal crises that affected the ebb and flow of coin production. With the overall absence of Antiochene civic bronze coinage from these patterns, Neumann concludes that, during this stage in the city’s history, the Antiochians “remained in the shadow of the Seleucid state” (94).

Chapter 3 covers the transitional period in Antioch’s history after 129 BCE, during which time the Seleucid Empire crumbled and Rome moved in. As a result, the chapter ends with the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE and the deaths of Cleopatra and Mark Antony. With the decline of the Seleucid Empire, Neumann notes two important developments that arose during this time of transition: the agency of the local Antiochenes and the increased presence of Romans involved in Antioch’s affairs. In a stark contrast with Chapter 2, the numismatic evidence she presents in Chapter 3 signals a notable uptick in civic coinage that mirrors these sociopolitical changes in the wake of a power vacuum.

Despite the turmoil and destabilization of affairs within Antioch during this time period, the city also experienced continuity in population growth and influence that spilled beyond the city center. Such continuity allowed the city to maintain coin production in the waning of the Seleucid Empire and may have been the only royal mint to carry on to the bitter end, resulting in “one of the best resources for untangling the chronological mess left by dynastic struggle” (101). According to the distribution patterns of coin finds from this period, Neumann finds a shrinking in the circulation of Antiochene silver coins and a complete absence of royal bronze coins, paralleling the state of the Seleucid Empire, which contracted within the territory of Syria and parts of Cilicia. Numismatically, Neumann cites changes in “currency zones” via Duyrat that may also explain the lack of Antiochene silver coinage.³ These zones, denoted by the introduction of new weight standards, became distinct boundaries that limited the geographical range of silver as illustrated by Syrian hoard evidence.

As the chapter comes to a close, Antioch was annexed to Rome in 64 BCE (after the line of puppet kings ended) and the Antiochenes resumed minting civic bronze issues, which had apparently been paused for a brief time between 69 and 63 BCE based on the general lack of bronzes issued by the mint at Antioch. There appears to have been very little direct control placed on Antioch by the Romans after it first became the capital of a a provincia, as demonstrated by a complete lack of Roman imperial types or denominations produced by the Antiochene mint and a renewal of earlier civic designs, such as Tyche and Zeus Nicephorus bearing the ethnonym “of the Antiochenes” and denoting that Antioch was a “metropolis.” As noted by Neumann, the exception to the laissez-faire attitude of the Romans is in the production of new silver tetradrachms, which present a posthumous portrait of Philip Philadelphus; there are multiple hypotheses as to the  intention on the part of potential Roman influence on the decision. In 41 BCE with the arrival of Antony, Antioch became the preferred location from which the administrator exerted influence over the province, and a series of silver tetradrachms depicting his portrait have been tentatively attributed to the Antiochene mint. Regardless of these small interferences, Neumann provides an overarching picture of second and first century BCE Antioch as one of growing civic independence and control.

Chapter 4 explores Antioch’s historical and numismatic narrative as a Roman province, spanning the early period of Roman rule, ca. 31 BCE–192 CE. Although she acknowledges that Antioch increased in importance within the province as a seat for Roman legates and center for administrative control of Syria, Neumann uses this chapter to argue for the necessity of examining Antioch’s continued civic underpinnings, which, in a way, complicated the sociopolitical position of the city as a Roman possession. However, she importantly cautions the reader against portraying the Antiochenes as a single civic entity, as several subgroups also emerge in the historical record, which she further ties to the restructuring of Antioch’s mint as new civic, provincial, and imperial issues appear. As the longest chronological range in the book, Neumann explains that her structure mimics the numismatic evidence, which begins with Augustus and ends with a pause in silver and bronze coin production near 192 CE.

Similar to the Antioch of the first century BCE, Roman Antioch continued to mint civic bronze issues, a trend which persisted, albeit inconsistently, until the reign of Commodus. These coins included the same civic ethnonym and Tyche, but now with the Roman governor’s name included on the reverse. Neumann argues that just the presence of these civic coins are proof that the Antiochenes still required them for local commercial transactions and suggests that there was some civic fiscal responsibility in the absence of a complete overhaul of Antioch’s economic system. She also notes that an increasing imperial presence during this period should not be overlooked on the part of the continued civic body, as early Roman emperors began to issue their own numismatic projects from the Antiochene mint, even if production of certain series, such as imperial aurei and denarii, was only temporary. With the Roman Empire gradually looking further east, imperial visits to Syria and, consequently, Antioch, resulted in the creation of more permanent imperial residences. The coin types appearing from Antioch’s mint reflect this new relationship between emperor and city, with new issues of bronze civic coinage including the imperial portrait by the time of Hadrian.

Other new numismatic developments appeared in Roman Antioch with the minting of provincial issues in silver and bronze. This section of the chapter is the shortest, which can be explained by a “lack of a thorough distribution study” (171), even though many of these types have been attributed to Antioch’s mint. Neumann stresses the need to tease out the complex nature of characterizing these provincial issues, and she attempts to elucidate Roman intervention in the production and distribution of Antiochene silver coins, which experienced reform under Nero. Neumann connects these reforms to the growing extension of Antioch’s silver in distribution and geographical range, which demonstrates the Roman Empire’s preference of Antioch for minting provincial silver coinage. Combined with the distribution patterns of provincial bronze coinage, the most important of which are the “SC” coins (so named from their characteristic SC, or “senatus consulto” on the reverse within a laurel wreath), Neumann argues for the development of a closer relationship between Antioch and Rome that develops further in the next period, which is covered in the next chapter.

Caught in the imperial crisis that followed the death of Commodus in 192 CE, Chapter 5 discusses the role of Antioch and its mint during the power vacuum and various imperial turnovers that characterized the third century CE. Historically, Antioch briefly became the base for Niger’s imperial pursuits, as he minted silver denarii and gold aurei there to solidify his claim. The Antiochenes chose poorly in supporting Niger and suffered under Septimius Severus, who removed the status of the civic government by rescinding its ability to maintain autonomy under the imperial state. However, the punishment was short-lived and the civic body endured, as Neumann demonstrates from the numismatic evidence, which continues to include expressions of civic identity on the bronze coins of the third century CE.

Neumann argues for a caveat to a more positive reading of this segment in Antioch’s history, as it is clear that the Antiochenes did not enjoy the same level of freedom as under previous Roman emperors. Initially, the silver coins minted at Antioch under Severus experienced significant debasement even though the types persisted and were produced on a large scale. As elsewhere in the empire, silver content continued to decrease during the third century. On the other hand, Antioch was the first provincial mint to strike imperial radiate issues under Gordian III, and near the end of the century, the mint at Antioch rose in importance to become a major supplier for imperial coins, overshadowing its previous provincial coin output. According to Neumann, the distribution patterns of Antiochene imperial radiates support this understanding of Antioch’s new status, as the coin distribution broadens geographically and spreads further westward. 

Antiochene civic bronze coinage is seemingly resurrected during the third century CE, potentially due to a general need for coins during this tumultuous period. Due to the multitude of changes in the coinage at this time, Neumann proposes that the production of civic coins and provincial coins became combined under the direction of the Antiochenes, but because of imperial pressure, not necessarily as a result of the city’s autonomy and influence. The strongest piece of evidence to support her claim is the new combination of iconographical projects with the inclusion of colonia to the civic coins alongside the traditional ethnonym and the word metropolis. Traditional iconographic elements aligning with the SC inscriptions bolster her convincing argument. The distribution of these coins further strengthens Neumann’s suggestion, which reveals little to no division between the civic and provincial issues. However, between 250 and 260 CE, Antioch ceased minting both provincial and civic silver and bronze coinage, which follows a general trend throughout the province at this time, due to the absorption of the region into a new imperial monetary system.

The final chapter, Chapter 6, rounds out Antioch’s “ancient history from coins,” taking us into Late Antiquity, up to 450 CE. Here Neumann explains her reasoning for “ending” the discussion of Antioch’s numismatic historical narrative here. Although the Antiochene mint continued to produce coinage beyond 450 CE, Nuemann sees the synthesis of Antioch’s coinage into one “streamlined Roman currency” (262) under the imperial state as a sort of ring composition that mirrors the process of minting royal issues under the Seleucids. Arguably, this “bookending” works for the scope of the book and Neumann’s overall aims of her project. As a means of situating the numismatic evidence of the third through fifth centuries CE, she focuses on three main developments that occur in Late Roman Antioch: a weakened civic administration, a highly involved imperial state, and concerned church officials, thus highlighting the varying entities at work in the city. 

As during the conflicts of the third century, Late Antique Antioch also suffered from conflict and a series of natural disasters, such as successive periods of famine and earthquake followed by destruction and subsequent rebuilding. However, once again, Antioch’s mint and its various officinae were included in the imperial network, albeit one that, following Diocletian’s monetary reform, now produced a uniform set of imperial coins reflecting strictly imperial virtues and aims. Diverging from previous trends, the distribution of these successive imperial coin issues moved increasingly west and they appear in places as far-flung as Britain and Spain. Based on data expressed by excavation and hoard finds, Antiochene coins also began to gather in the east, demonstrating a regionalization with Antioch at the center. It is also in this period that coins minted at Antioch experience a significant decrease in the circulation patterns within the city itself compared to previous periods. 

The book concludes with a summary of Antioch’s historical and numismatic narratives, returning the reader to the persistence of the civic community, which serves as a metaphorical thread tying together the numismatic evidence that, until this project, has lain dormant in previous scholarly treatments of the city. The notable challenges of investigating Antioch—the continuous occupation of the city, environmental changes, the limitations of archaeological exploration, and a sporadic textual record, which are well known to those who have studied the city of Antioch—are put into focus. Under this lens, Neumann summarizes the applicability of numismatic evidence to filling in the gaps left by the challenges she lists: coin distribution and circulation patterns provide a means of viewing the main entities at work within the city (civic, provincial, and imperial/royal), as well as these authorities’ “use and manipulations of both Antioch and the regional currency system” (301). A second, even more important, thread is tied into this conclusion. Neumann still does not call Antioch a “capital,” whereas her predecessors have. Instead, she ends the conclusion on the identification of Antioch as a polis, a clear rejection of the word “capital” and a reference to the Antiochene use of metropolis on their civic coinage.

Until recently, the numismatic material of this long-lived and important city was often overlooked and understudied, which makes Neumann’s book very timely and necessary as a survey of Antioch’s numismatic history. As hinted at on several occasions throughout the introduction and within subsequent chapters, Neumann does not strive to provide a complete corpus of Antioch’s numismatic or historical evidence. Instead, her book appears to illuminate broad trends and shifts in the city’s lengthy narrative. This approach to the numismatic material and its pairing with historical sources does not detract from the important contribution this work has to the fields of both ancient history and numismatics as well as archaeology. I feel that it has quite the opposite effect, especially with the inclusion of three Appendices, which further discuss her methodology and use of EDA, the source material, and her extensive database.

The framing of the book is fitting for the goals Neumann lays out in her introduction, especially in relating the conclusion to the introduction. She clearly assumes only minimal familiarity with the history of Antioch, numismatics, archaeological material, and EDA on the part of the reader, as she includes apt definitions for unfamiliar terminology as well as a very thorough explanation of EDA and her methodological framework. Each chapter opens with a different, relevant textual quotation, which she then utilizes as a structural element for each historical period she discusses. Prior to reading this book, when authors would open a chapter with a quotation, I would find myself skimming it or skipping it entirely, as these tend to either be completely irrelevant or minimally useful for the chapter’s overall argument. However, Neumann’s presentation of these quotations appeared very fresh to this reader and I found myself re-reading each quotation in nearly every case, as she explains the exact relevance to each quotation within the first few paragraphs of the chapter, oftentimes utilizing them in ways I have not seen before.

As thorough as Neumann is in the constant restating of her methodology, the use of EDA, and her aims and approaches to the numismatic material as history in its own right, at times these restatements appeared repetitive. In light of Appendix 1, which describes her methodology in more detail, it does not appear entirely necessary to also include such description in the Introduction (14), Chapter 1 (19–22), and yet again in Appendix 1 (313–320). 

The treatment of the material has a very heavy numismatic and historical focus, which is clearly the overall goal of the book and Neumann states this in the introduction. While archaeological material is peppered amongst the general historical narrative of each chapter, I found myself wondering more about certain archaeological contexts that were hinted at in the introduction. As more of an archaeological numismatist, I would have appreciated a bit more indication of archaeological information, but I understand the motives that drove the synthesis of the material that was chosen.

Although the maps, data visualization, and graphical information were very valuable, clear, and well illustrated, there is a lack of images of coins, with only a few for representative purposes when discussing iconography. While the intention of the text is decidedly less numismatic, as there are no traditional “plates” (and this is not necessarily a “critique,” more an observation), an increase in images for particular types mentioned in the text would have proven beneficial, although this may have been beyond Neumann’s scope. A digital link to SYRIOS, a project by the University of Houston, is also provided at the front of the book, which may serve as the solution to this problem.

Neumann’s goal of providing the reader with a “History from Coins” for Antioch was overwhelmingly innovative. She impressively turned what appears to be an extremely data-heavy dissertation into a seamless chronological narrative of Antioch’s history, with the city and its civic community at the heart of her analysis. She effectively combines Antioch’s numismatic evidence with all of the other available source material despite the challenges rife with studying the ancient city to weave a common thread of Antiochene perseverance. I would have to wholeheartedly agree with Neumann that her book has indeed laid the groundwork for future studies, in particular the applications of EDA to numismatic material and the vital analysis of coin finds and distribution in the field.

Table of Contents

Introduction (1–18)
1. Counting Change (19–42)
2. Imperial Beginnings (300–129 BCE) (43–94)
3. Imperial Transitions (129–31 BCE) (95–145)
4. Provincial Negotiations (31 BCE–192 CE) (146–205)
5. Imperial Creations (192–284 CE) (206–57)
6. Imperial City (284–450 CE) (258–94)
Conclusion (295–306)
Appendices 1–3 (307–53)

Notes

1. T. V. Buttrey, “Calculating Ancient Coin Production: Facts and Fantasies,” Numismatic Chronicle 153 (1!993): 335–51; T. V. Buttrey, “Calculating Ancient Coin Production II: Why It Cannot Be Done,” Numismatic Chronicle 154 (1994): 341–52; A. Bowman and A. Wilson, eds, Quantifying the Roman Economy: Methods and Problems (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).

2. P. J. Casey, Understanding Ancient Coins (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1986); H.-M. Von Kaenel and F. Kemmers, eds., Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds (Mainz: P. von Zabern, 2009); F. De Callataÿ, ed., Quantifying Monetary Supplies in Greco-Roman Times (Bari: Edipuglia, 2011).

3. Duyrat, F. 2016. Wealth and Warfare: The Archaeology of Money in Ancient Syria. (New York: The American Numismatic Society).

Discussion

1. Your book discusses the minting of new coins for the Seleucids. Could you expand on the process through which Antioch minted new coins? Was it during changes in power or primarily through the citizens?

First, it is important to point out that detailed information for how exactly mints worked in the ancient world is woefully lacking. We aren’t entirely sure about the technical operations, who always staffed the mint, or even how the raw materials were supplied. That said, we do have the coins themselves, as well as some inscriptions and textual references. The evidence overall is better for the Roman period than the Hellenistic period, so some additional cautions here.   

For the Seleucids in particular, we can cautiously conclude that the majority of coin minting was centrally directed rather than initiated by the citizens. One indication is the repetition of specific royal imagery throughout the mints of the empire. While there is a good economic motive for this that doesn’t preclude civic minting (i.e., minting coins that look alike increases their wider acceptance as currency—we see this at the breakdown of the Seleucid Empire in the first century CE, where civic mints are clearly capitalizing on conventional royal imagery), the overall picture suggests royal oversight for the majority of the minting. Another indication of royal coordination is through the reduction of the weight/fineness of the silver tetradrachms. This may start at Antioch, but it spreads to other mints across the empire as well. This is not to say that citizens weren’t involved in the minting operations, but most of the minting suggests a larger coordination beyond a specific civic administration.  

As for how and when new coins were minted, it all depends. Changes in power do appear to be one impetus. In fact, one of the best ways we know who was in charge of Antioch during the tumultuous final years of the Seleucid Empire is by tracing whose royal image was used that year (many of the coins are not explicitly dated, but there are other indications). Coins could also be minted to support large-scale military campaigns (as seems to be the case with some of Antiochus III’s coins, based upon widespread finds). However, in general, both silver and bronze coins appear to be minted most years at Antioch (with some notable breaks), so there seems to be a regular minting operation outside of major political or military movements. Most historians agree that coins during the Seleucid period were first and foremost minted for the needs of the royal administration, and only secondarily for the economic requirements of the larger population. 

A final indication of royal control of the mint at Antioch is the fact that Antioch continued to mint royal coins longer than most other mints of the empire (with the exception of Damascus). Even as the rest of the empire was falling away (and we see civic minting begin), Antioch continues to mint royal bronze and, even later, silver while other evidence tells us the city was housing the king. If the mint was directed solely by the citizens, we might expect civic minting far earlier.

2. What are the greater applications for the use of EDA in the study of numismatics? Is this a future avenue of research for you?

I came to EDA after being frustrated with how numismatic data was handled in scholarship and my own subsequent uncertainty and insecurity about how I was handling the material. Complex formulae/equations/statistics have been applied to this data over the past few decades in an effort to estimate the original supply of coins, the overall body of coins in use at a given location, the economic health/wealth of a site, etc. These are incredibly important questions, and we should of course experiment with methods for answering them. However, we need to make sure that (1) our methods/equations stand up to critique outside of the field of numismatics (there is a lot of insular reasoning, which in my experience, did not hold up well to the examination of mathematicians and data scientists), and (2) that we fully understand and can communicate our methods/equations. (I found a lot of outsourcing of the processing of our data and/or overly opaque/convoluted or even inconsistent explanations. For example, the annual average coin loss equation is frequently cited, but there is little agreement what this equation actually is and what it means. One scholar actually prints it two different ways—both of which were then copied by later scholars, causing further confusion! There is also a great deal of uncertainty over how to compare site coin assemblages of vastly different sizes or what actually constitutes a statistically relevant sample, which can lead to obfuscation or insistence on one standard over another). 

In a lot of ways, this is not surprising! Numismatic data are notoriously incomplete and subject to an incredibly variable and uncertain life cycle of production, circulation, loss, and recovery. And yet, coins also represent a rich evidence source that can yield tremendous insight into the political, social, and financial systems of the ancient world. We want to make use of it and seek to convince a greater body of historians to realize coins’ potential. Additionally, we are now in an era of big data and computers, which means we have an opportunity to explore new approaches to our material.

This is why I found EDA so attractive. It emphasizes knowing your data intimately (e.g., limitations, gaps, underlying structures) from the get-go. It emphasizes experimentation with that data with simple methods first (looking at the raw data, then percentages; visualizing through graphs) before more complex statistics or modeling (which may or may not be appropriate or even necessary to answer our questions). In other words, it slows us down in the examination of our evidence and forces us to ask why at each stage. It does not prescribe one particular equation/analysis/standard over another, but rather which method is best for the particular data set being considered. It forces us to be clear about what we are doing and why we are doing it. The mathematicians and data scientists I worked with emphasized my own understanding of each method or equation I used (even when doing something more complicated like scaling my data with binary logarithms). Computer programs like Excel and Tableau were able to do a lot of the processing, but I still needed to understand both what was happening and be able to explain it to someone else (which is what led me to write my own technical description in Appendix 1; other non-specialists need to be able to follow along, even if they have questions or uncertainties before trying it out themselves).

So, to answer the question, my larger goal is to encourage transparency in the statistical and digital analyses of our historical data (coins or otherwise) through the commonsense approach of EDA. It takes time to go through the process (certainly a lot longer than plugging the material into a prescribed equation or preprogrammed computer application), but is better in the long term because not only does it yield really interesting results (as my book shows), but we can also have confidence in what we are doing, the results we yield, and how we explain it to other people. I know that I will never again study a large data set without the use of EDA.