284-305AD. Diocletian (Jovius)/ Moneta RIC VI Siscia 140a - Follis, Nummus, or . . .

[Topcat7]

I have a (worn) Diocletian/Moneta,  Weight 10.25 gm., AE 30 x 26.5 mm.

According to RIC, I believe that it is RIC VI Siscia 140a. (304 AD). (Scarce).

My question is, is the coin  a 'Follis', or a 'Nummus', or some other denomination?

Any assistance is appreciated, please.

Edited May 6, 2023 by Topcat7

[Kiaora]

While there terms are often used interchangeably, here’s a good overview from a 2012 Forum Ancient Coins post by Heliodromus:

Follis is certainly wrong - this was the Roman name for a *bag* of coins of value 12,5000 "denarii communes" (i.e. denarii at a time when it was just an accounting unit, no longer an actual coin denomination). I'm not sure who introduced the incorrect modern usage of this name.

The name nummus is probably the best. There are contemporary references to this name being used for the bronze/billion coinage at the time of Diocletian's monetary reform, and the same name appears to have still been in use at least as late as c.321AD per reference to this coin's (nummus) value being halved, apparently in reference to a revaluation that occurred at the time Licinius introduced new coins marked "12 1/2" [denarii communes].

The issue of denominations/naming is complicated by Constantine's coinage reform of c.318AD when (per modern testing) he significantly increased the silver content of the bronze/billion coinage (from 1-2% to 4-5%), and reintroduced older reverse types associated with a higher yet (20%) silver content. Presumably per the increased silver content (and intended value association), this coinage reform increased the value (tariffing) of the bronze/billion coinage, and the question then becomes whether the denomination name stayed the same (nummus), or changed.

Given the apparently (c.321AD) post-reform use of the name nummus, it seems the safest guess is that the name nummus persisted after Constantine's c.318AD reform, but others have suggested that the denomination name changed and have equated this to the known "centenionalis" of this approximate time. The competing theory is that the "centenionalis" instead refers to a slightly later denomination introduced after Constantine's death.

 

[Topcat7]

8 hours ago, Kiaora said:

While there terms are often used interchangeably, here’s a good overview from a 2012 Forum Ancient Coins post by Heliodromus:
Given the apparently (c.321AD) post-reform use of the name nummus, it seems the safest guess is that the name nummus persisted after Constantine's c.318AD reform, but others have suggested that the denomination name changed and have equated this to the known "centenionalis" of this approximate time. The competing theory is that the "centenionalis" instead refers to a slightly later denomination introduced after Constantine's death.

 

@Kiaora   Whakawhetai Koe