Note Hadrian is perhaps best remembered as a philhellene with a profound interest in the many facets of Greek culture. Though his loyalty was to Rome, his spirit belonged to Greece. He became involved in a variety of affairs in the Greek provinces, including the issuance of coinage. Nothing illustrates that better than his re-coinage of cistophori in the Province of Asia and his introduction of cistophori to the Koinon of Bithynia. These two programmes were accomplished on a large scale: Metcalf estimates that in the range of two and three thousand dies were required to produce these cistophori. No effort of that kind had been made since the reign of Augustus, and none would follow. His first programme, confined to a group of mints in the Province of Asia in the period c.128-130, involved the withdrawal from circulation of old cistophori, usually of Marc Antony or Augustus, which were re-coined. The second, seemingly limited to c.135/6, involved only the mint of Nicomedia, and instead of a programme of overstriking, it involved creating an entirely new coinage for the Commune Bithyniae. Opinions vary on the purpose of the re-coining effort. Some have seen it as a part of Hadrian’s panhellenic programme and as a demonstration of his interest in promoting the Greek cities of Asia Minor. Others prefer explanations tied more directly to coinage and economics. Harl suggests the “renewal” (renovatio) of old cistophori indicates that these coins were revaluated from three denarii to four denarii in the aftermath of Trajan’s debasement of the denarius in 107. Metcalf proposed, instead, that the re-coining was meant only to create new coins to combat a prejudice among bankers in Asia Minor against worn coins (aspratoura), which were heavily discounted in transactions. While Metcalf believes cistophori were in no danger of being consigned to the melting pots until the third Century, Harl proposed that a re-valuation of the cistophori from three- to four-denarius coins was necessary to prevent their mass-melting. The issues for the Commune Bithyniae – the series to which this piece belongs – demand a different explanation. Metcalf notes that cistophori are not known to have circulated in Bithynia before the issues of Hadrian, and there does not appear to have been any pressing economic motive for the introduction of these coins. The silver was accompanied by a series of token bronzes, some of large module, bearing Greek inscriptions. 307 | All of this suggests that a complete provincial currency system was envisioned. The fact that issues on this scale were never again issued in the name of the Commune suggests Hadrian’s programme may have exceeded local needs. Though it is possible that an injection of new coinage was needed in Bithynia, there may be another reason for these issues. Sometime in the 130s a special legatio under C. Iulius Severus was sent to Bithynia to investigate and reign in excessive construction costs that had offended the public trust and had intensified civic rivalries. Metcalf suggests this may have been the occasion for the Bithynian issues. Civic pride is apparent in all series of Hadrian’s cistophori, with the reverse designs often being of sufficiently ‘local’ character to permit easy mint identification. With the issues of Bithynia, identification is beyond doubt, as most bear on their reverse the inscription COM BIT. Furthermore, the Bithynian pieces were not, as a rule, overstruck, and Metcalf notes that all have the obverse inscription IMP CAES TRA (or TRAI) HADRIANO AVG P P, which does not occur on cistophori of any other mint. Except for some unusual pieces that cite Hadrian’s third and final consulship, most Bithynian cistophori depict on their reverse a temple that usually has eight Corinthian columns. Some variants show a temple of two or four columns with one or two figures within, and supplemental inscriptions sometimes occur including (as in this case) SPQR. The inscription ROM AVG or ROM S P AVG (perhaps meaning Romae Senatui Populo Augusto) usually appears on the entablature, which identifies the temple as that of Rome and Augustus at Nicomedia. Though it often is presumed that this temple was constructed at the same time as a similar one in Pergamum, there is no evidence for this. Indeed, these coins are the earliest confirmation that the temple existed. Considering the temple at Pergamum was often depicted on earlier coins of that city, it would seem inexplicable that the one at Nicomedia would be overlooked as a coin type unless it had, in fact, been built, or restored, under Hadrian.