What's the Meaning of a Star?

[John Conduitt]

I have a lot of Roman coins with stars on them. I presume they're issue marks, used in combination with letters, palm branches and crescents. We've had a discussion before about the placement of stars on the coins of Julia Maesa and Elagabalus.

But I've been looking at these solidi of Magnus Maximus from Trier (none are my coins) and I'm a bit puzzled. On the face of it, the star is just an issue mark or a design feature. But it was not originally there - it was added soon afterwards. Not only that, it seems to have been added to the dies mid-issue, after they'd already started striking the coins but not at a separate time for which you might want an issue mark.

The coins are RIC IX, 76 with a RESTITVTOR-REIPVBLICAE reverse and SMTR mintmark. Only three of ~50 dies I've seen have no star. RIC calls the version without a star Subtype 1 and the one with a star Subtype 2, but they appear to be the same issue.

This coin is missing the star.

 
CGB 55 Lot 443, 17 October 2012 

But it appears to be a double die match for this coin. Except this has a star.


Heritage 3061 Lot 32113, 07 January 2018

This coin also has no star.


Jean Elsen 128 Lot 489, 12 March 2016 and 98 Lot 494, 13 December 2008  

Yet this coin appears to be a reverse die match. And has a star.


Künker 326 Lot 1667, 07 October 2019 and Coins & Medals Basel 92 Lot 371, 22 November 2002.

If the star had only been added to one die, it might be argued that the stars marked the start of a new issue and an old reverse die was used. But a star was added to two dies. One is even a double die match, which surely means the dies were in the middle of being used when the star was added. I haven't found a match for the third starless reverse but given the other two both have matches, I'd guess all starless reverses were given stars after they'd briefly started using them.

The star, then, probably isn't an issue mark. This seems particularly the case since the number of dies with a star outnumbers the starless type 17:1, which surely can't be a typical ratio of one issue to the next. Maybe the starless coins were not all issued together, but were mistakes later corrected. So is it just a design feature?

The question is - while Elagabalus moved stars and Severus Alexander removed stars, why would Maximus be so keen to add them? I understand a star meant eternal (a good adjective for an emperor) or may had related to celestial events (none of which seem to have occured between 383-388) but why were they so desparate to carve stars that they added them to dies already in use?

[ominus1]

...well, i believe they sometimes represented a comet...but it might be some other thing...

[kirispupis]

A bit of a longshot, but though there aren't any decent comets from 383-388 CE, there may have been a supernova in 386 CE. That would certainly have gotten their attention.

Another wild guess is there may have been a comet that featured in Maximus' life that he wanted to emphasize. Copied from here.

[Orange Julius]

I have absolutely no basis for this and it likely doesn’t line up with the facts…

But I’ve thought how I’d distinguish one shift from another at a single officina and it would be by little marks/dots/stars like this. Perhaps the starless coins are the first shift guys and the starred coins are the evening shift! The difference in frequency could just be due to 1st shift striking one coin type, while the second shift focuses on your coin type.

[expat]

There is a section about stars on Imperial coinage on forumancientcoins https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=star  

unfortunately, there is no definite conclusion

[Heliodromus]

Interesting.

Probably unrelated, but also interesting to note the star above all Magnus Maximus' AE campgates, which recalls same on Constantine I's campgates. In Constantine's case this star seems to be personal (I'd assume related to his prior association with Sol), but then why did Maximus have it too? Mindless copying?

I suppose on this solidus type it could be some minor auspicious celestial event like a shooting star which are seen every year.

[AETHER]

Is normal to update a die  and remove or add things? Assuming it is a die match

Edited January 12 by AETHER

[John Conduitt]

2 hours ago, kirispupis said:

A bit of a longshot, but though there aren't any decent comets from 383-388 CE, there may have been a supernova in 386 CE. That would certainly have gotten their attention.

Another wild guess is there may have been a comet that featured in Maximus' life that he wanted to emphasize. Copied from here.

As unlikely as it may be, if that was the case, it would be quite amazing since it would date the coins to 386. That would answer all sorts of questions. The hasty inclusion of the star (which isn't present on other issues) suggests it wasn't something he'd been thinking about for a long time. His moments of glory were in 367 (the Great Conspiracy) and 383, which don't seem to relate to anything celestial.
 

2 hours ago, Orange Julius said:

I have absolutely no basis for this and it likely doesn’t line up with the facts…

But I’ve thought how I’d distinguish one shift from another at a single officina and it would be by little marks/dots/stars like this. Perhaps the starless coins are the first shift guys and the starred coins are the evening shift! The difference in frequency could just be due to 1st shift striking one coin type, while the second shift focuses on your coin type.

It would indeed seem like a sensible thing to do, but these stars are added to the same dies, so it wouldn't work when the shifts switched around again.
 

1 hour ago, expat said:

There is a section about stars on Imperial coinage on forumancientcoins https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=star  

unfortunately, there is no definite conclusion

Very interesting. The pagan symbolism doesn't quite add up as Maximus was a fanatical Christian. But it had to mean something to him.

 

1 hour ago, Heliodromus said:

Interesting.

Probably unrelated, but also interesting to note the star above all Magnus Maximus' AE campgates, which recalls same on Constantine I's campgates. In Constantine's case this star seems to be personal (I'd assume related to his prior association with Sol), but then why did Maximus have it too? Mindless copying?

I suppose on this solidus type it could be some minor auspicious celestial event like a shooting star which are seen every year.

Yes it looks like mindless copying on the campgates, but on these solidi, Maximus is the only emperor to have a star. In fact, the only emperor to put anything in the fields at all was Valentinian I, who occasionally had a Christian cross there on issues from Antioch (but not Trier or any western mint). So why a star and why add it so hurriedly? If it was a celestial event seen every year, it would be a bit odd to get so excited about it.

[kirispupis]

5 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

As unlikely as it may be, if that was the case, it would be quite amazing since it would date the coins to 386. That would answer all sorts of questions. The hasty inclusion of the star (which isn't present on other issues) suggests it wasn't something he'd been thinking about for a long time. His moments of glory were in 367 (the Great Conspiracy) and 383, which don't seem to relate to anything celestial.

I admit I'm a conspiracy theorist when it comes to numismatics, but this certainly seems fishy. A Supernova (at least recorded by Chinese sources) occurred in 386 CE. Obviously neither Maximus nor the mint masters would have been aware of it, so there could have been a quick switch to add it to the coins. I'm not sure what the official "play" on it would have been, but he wouldn't have been the first (or last) to be influenced this way.

I haven't found any papers discussing this possibility. 

I must admit I want one now... 🙂

[John Conduitt]

1 hour ago, AETHER said:

Is normal to update a die  and remove or add things? Assuming it is a die match

I don't know. Was it normal? Obviously, for changes to issue and officina, marks are added to the design, but are they added to the same dies? and why they change the design for something as seemingly innocuous as a star?

I do have an example of another Maximus solidus where things were removed from the die for no obvious reason. These three are die matches and have the X of Maximus erased from the left and squeezed back in on the right. Presumably, after the die was completed, someone noticed that it had a different spacing for the emperor's name to usual and made the engraver change it back. Why? Did it matter? It wasn't as if they needed to move the X to make room for the rest of the name, since it was clearly there already while the X is now very high. And if it mattered so much, why do the engravers work with so little care?



So it wasn't beyond the mint to change things for no apparent reason. Maybe the engraver just hadn't made it exactly like the design he was given. But I don't think any coins were struck with the X in the wrong place so it's a one off error. And it's not like a star, which is very specific and must have meaning. Still, it's baffling. Unless "imus" without the X is a rude word.

[John Conduitt]

13 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

I admit I'm a conspiracy theorist when it comes to numismatics, but this certainly seems fishy. A Supernova (at least recorded by Chinese sources) occurred in 386 CE. Obviously neither Maximus nor the mint masters would have been aware of it, so there could have been a quick switch to add it to the coins. I'm not sure what the official "play" on it would have been, but he wouldn't have been the first (or last) to be influenced this way.

I haven't found any papers discussing this possibility. 

I must admit I want one now... 🙂

Yes I veer from pragmatist to conspiracy theorist each time I research a coin. There's such a logic between the appearance of a new 'star' in the sky and the addition of a new star on a coin that both sides of me like the idea. It's a pity neither can be proven.

[Coinmaster]

13 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

It's a pity neither can be proven.

Well..., Surely you know this coin: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-6068 ('In 44 BC, following the death of Julius Caesar, a comet appeared in the heavens over Rome and was accepted to be a manifestation of the divine soul of Julius Caesar. It was thought to herald a new age of peace and prosperity. Augustus used this event to emphasize his familial association with the deified Julius.')

Of course not all stars on coins relates to comets, meteorites and solar eclipses. But..., many do. Read this book and you'll look and think different at/about coins with stars: 

https://www.amazon.com/Astronomical-Symbols-Ancient-Medieval-Coins/dp/0786469153

[John Conduitt]

12 minutes ago, Coinmaster said:

Well..., Surely you know this coin: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-6068 ('In 44 BC, following the death of Julius Caesar, a comet appeared in the heavens over Rome and was accepted to be a manifestation of the divine soul of Julius Caesar. It was thought to herald a new age of peace and prosperity. Augustus used this event to emphasize his familial association with the deified Julius.')

Of course not all stars on coins relates to comets, meteorites and solar eclipses. But..., many do. Read this book and you'll look and think different at/about coins with stars: 

https://www.amazon.com/Astronomical-Symbols-Ancient-Medieval-Coins/dp/0786469153

Indeed. I have a coin of William II which features two stars, one supposedly Halley's Comet, which appeared in 1066 to herald his father's conquest of England. Even that is not proven since no-one wrote down a description of the coin at the time. So the link has many precedents and there have been many examples since. But the existence of a supernova in 386 is harder to prove than a comet, since a comet has a regular orbit and so certain dating, while a supernova does not. Still, it's as good an explanation as any.

[Heliodromus]

3 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

If it was a celestial event seen every year, it would be a bit odd to get so excited about it.

Perhaps, but while meteor showers happen every year, how often have you actually seen one ?

Maybe the ancients with dark night skies (no pesky lights) and more time outdoors would tend not to miss these ?

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

With regard to Halley's comet, here is its depiction in 1066...

ISTI MIRANT STELLA means "They wonder at the star"

 

Which has got me wondering about other depictions of stars. On the double majorinas of Julian the Apostate a star appears in the field near the Bull, maybe to indicate that Taurus the constellation and astrological sign is meant.

There is the passage from Ammianus stating that Julian chided his attendants on his deathbed for "mourning the loss of a prince who was to be united with heaven and the stars."

Similarly another star appears on the FEL TEMP REPARATIO issues of Constantius II with the Phoenix bird, perhaps representing regeneration and the birth of a new golden age...

 

[Heliodromus]

1 hour ago, Ancient Coin Hunter said:

With regard to Halley's comet, here is its depiction in 1066...

That Bayeux Tapestry dude looks like he invented the dab! Who knew?! 😀

[Marsyas Mike]

Late in the reign of Commodus, stars started appearing on his coins in a somewhat haphazard way.  I recently got one.  Below is my efforts to attribute it, with notes on the stars (any corrections or clarifications welcome on this mess!) - Herodian's comments on a comet at that time from an Agora auction:

Commodus Denarius (192 A.D.) Rome Mint L AEL AVREL COMM AVG P FEL, laureate head right / P M TR P XVII IMP VIII COS VII P P, Fides Militum standing left holding standard and cornucopiae, star in right field RIC III 234; BMCRE 318-321; Cohen RSC 583/583a. (2.56 grams / 17 x 16 mm) eBay Dec. 2023 

Note:  Three types in OCRE:

RIC III 232:  No star, std. right

RIC III 233:  No star, std. left

RIC III 234:  Star, standing left

For some reason, many auctions with stars cite RIC 233.  Also, Wildwinds cites RIC 233 only, "star in left or right field, or no star.  RIC 233, RSC 583-583a,  BMC 316-317"

British Museum citations are confusing:  RIC 234 is not cited at all, though four of them match (with star)

BMCRE numbers/stars: 

316:  No star (RIC 232); this seems to be an error; Fides is standing left like all the others; OCRE says she should be  standing right on RIC 232. 

317:  Star left (RIC 233)

318-321:  Star right (RIC 233)

"The presence of the star on some coins issued late in Commodus' reign is referred to in BMC merely as a good omen, however Herodian records that a comet appeared at that time." Agora Auctions

 https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3706449

 

 

[expat]

This Elagabalus of mine is with star in right field

Elagabalus AR Denarius, Rome 220-222 AD
IMP ANTONINVS PIVS AVG, laureate draped bust right / VICTORIA AVG, Victory flying left, open diadem in both hands, shields to both sides, star in right field. RSC 300. RIC 161. BMC 234. 2,8 g - 18,5 mm

Wildwinds also has RIC 161 with star in left field, shown blow, NOT MY COIN

[John Conduitt]

56 minutes ago, Marsyas Mike said:

Late in the reign of Commodus, stars started appearing on his coins in a somewhat haphazard way.  I recently got one.  Below is my efforts to attribute it, with notes on the stars (any corrections or clarifications welcome on this mess!) - Herodian's comments on a comet at that time from an Agora auction:

Commodus Denarius (192 A.D.) Rome Mint L AEL AVREL COMM AVG P FEL, laureate head right / P M TR P XVII IMP VIII COS VII P P, Fides Militum standing left holding standard and cornucopiae, star in right field RIC III 234; BMCRE 318-321; Cohen RSC 583/583a. (2.56 grams / 17 x 16 mm) eBay Dec. 2023 

Note:  Three types in OCRE:

RIC III 232:  No star, std. right

RIC III 233:  No star, std. left

RIC III 234:  Star, standing left

For some reason, many auctions with stars cite RIC 233.  Also, Wildwinds cites RIC 233 only, "star in left or right field, or no star.  RIC 233, RSC 583-583a,  BMC 316-317"

British Museum citations are confusing:  RIC 234 is not cited at all, though four of them match (with star)

BMCRE numbers/stars: 

316:  No star (RIC 232); this seems to be an error; Fides is standing left like all the others; OCRE says she should be  standing right on RIC 232. 

317:  Star left (RIC 233)

318-321:  Star right (RIC 233)

"The presence of the star on some coins issued late in Commodus' reign is referred to in BMC merely as a good omen, however Herodian records that a comet appeared at that time." Agora Auctions

 https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3706449

 

For Commodus it seems conclusive. The star appears on his coins dated to 192 because of the legend (P M TR P XVII IMP VIII COS VII) and Herodian talks of comets late in his reign, sometime around 191.

[Svessien]

I don't have an answer to your question, but stars are interesting and I commend you for the die matching and good observation work you have done.

I myself have been wondering why Bohemund III, a crusader king, has an inverted pentagram on some of his coins, and an upright one on others, in addition to a horizontal crescent moon. We may never know, but reading the theories on this thread is at least interesting and entertaining.

 

 

[Coinmaster]

7 hours ago, Svessien said:

I myself have been wondering why Bohemund III, a crusader king, has an inverted pentagram on some of his coins, and an upright one on others, in addition to a horizontal crescent moon. We may never know, but reading the theories on this thread is at least interesting and entertaining.

These are typical symbols for a solar eclipse. You can check this on the NASA website. Earlier I wrote an article about this, see here. Although in Dutch, you'll get the idea. 

Edited January 15 by Coinmaster

[Tejas]

According to Hahn, the star was an administrative symbol that helped to mark different issues. Gold coins were largely used for tax payments. The tax cycle for the payment of the main tax (capitatio et iugatio) was 15 years. This tax cycle was called indiction and consisted of three 5-year periods (lustrum) when the tax basis was reevaluated. The first indiction cycle started in 297 or 312. Once the tax debt was paid in solidi, the coins were melted down and new coins were struck. Every new indiction cycle was marked by changes in the coin design. The introduction and shifting around of various symbols, such as the star was used to mark different indiction cycles. 

In the 5th century the star was also used to indicate the mint. For example, solidi of Thessalonica show two stars, while those of Constantinople show only one star. The introduction of the second star was necessary after the THESOB mintmark was abandoned and Thessalonica, which was only a minor mint with very small output, adopted the CONOB mintmark of Constantinople. 

Edited January 15 by Tejas

[John Conduitt]

10 hours ago, Svessien said:

I don't have an answer to your question, but stars are interesting and I commend you for the die matching and good observation work you have done.

I myself have been wondering why Bohemund III, a crusader king, has an inverted pentagram on some of his coins, and an upright one on others, in addition to a horizontal crescent moon. We may never know, but reading the theories on this thread is at least interesting and entertaining.

I wondered about those symbols. My coin's pentagram is a bit ambiguous in its orientation:



 

 

3 hours ago, Coinmaster said:

These are typical symbols for a solar eclipse. You can check this on the NASA website. Earlier I wrote an article about this, see here. Although in Dutch, you'll get the idea. 

And there was a total eclipse in Europe in 1185, which fits with Bohemond III and this coin. There seems to be a total eclipse once every couple of years somewhere in the world and Bohemond was around for 20 years, but actually those eclipses are rarely visible from Europe.

[John Conduitt]

4 hours ago, Tejas said:

According to Hahn, the star was an administrative symbol that helped to mark different issues. Gold coins were largely used for tax payments. The tax cycle for the payment of the main tax (capitatio et iugatio) was 15 years. This tax cycle was called indiction and consisted of three 5-year periods (lustrum) when the tax basis was reevaluated. The first indiction cycle started in 297 or 312. Once the tax debt was paid in solidi, the coins were melted down and new coins were struck. Every new indiction cycle was marked by changes in the coin design. The introduction and shifting around of various symbols, such as the star was used to mark different indiction cycles. 

In the 5th century the star was also used to indicate the mint. For example, solidi of Thessalonica show two stars, while those of Constantinople show only one star. The introduction of the second star was necessary after the THESOB mintmark was abandoned and Thessalonica, which was only a minor mint with very small output, adopted the CONOB mintmark of Constantinople. 

Yes this is what I'd have expected. But it doesn't seem to fit in this case. If the star was used to indicate a new cycle and coins without the star were to be melted down, the fact that they carved the star onto the unstarred dies (apparently mid-issue) would mean they'd just struck a load of coins and immediately made them obsolete. I'm also not sure how much attention a usurper who needs to fund an existential war would pay to a 15-year tax cycle. Would he have kept to whatever tax rate Gratian had set 5 years earlier? It sounds like a device for a stable state whose rulers have been around a long time when they didn't have another excuse to tax.

The use of a star to indicate the mint is an interesting idea. They already have the mintmark so why not just use that? Although if it was like Thessalonica, the star would have to indicate a new, peripheral mint to Trier, but this 'star' mint then produced vast numbers of coins, at least as many as Trier.

Edited January 15 by John Conduitt

[Tejas]

1 hour ago, John Conduitt said:

Yes this is what I'd have expected. But it doesn't seem to fit in this case. If the star was used to indicate a new cycle and coins without the star were to be melted down, the fact that they carved the star onto the unstarred dies (apparently mid-issue) would mean they'd just struck a load of coins and immediately made them obsolete. I'm also not sure how much attention a usurper who needs to fund an existential war would pay to a 15-year tax cycle. Would he have kept to whatever tax rate Gratian had set 5 years earlier? It sounds like a device for a stable state whose rulers have been around a long time when they didn't have another excuse to tax.

The use of a star to indicate the mint is an interesting idea. They already have the mintmark so why not just use that? Although if it was like Thessalonica, the star would have to indicate a new, peripheral mint to Trier, but this 'star' mint then produced vast numbers of coins, at least as many as Trier.

 

I don't have an answer for the Magnus Maximus solidi. It may at times have been just an ornament, i.e. something to fill an empty field with, or there were other criteria for distingushing different issues than the tax cycle. Interestingly, Hahn MIB Anastasius, Part 2, p. 13 writes in relation to the second star on solidi from Thessalonica "The second star has often been obliterated, suggesting perhaps that it was suspicious to contempory people who were used to the Constantinople coins". (my translation)

 

 

 

Edited January 15 by Tejas