What does the placement of the star mean on the SAECVLI FELICITAS issues of Julia Maesa?

[curtislclay]

As to the appearance of the star in this final Rome-mint issue of the reign, each of Elagabalus' four Emperor Sacrificing types on denarii began with a rare variant of the type in which the star was always placed behind the sacrificing emperor; see for example @SeverusAlexander's INVICTVS SACERDOS AVG denarius in his post above. Then small changes were made to each type, and the mint originally planned to continue to place the star behind the emperor in these variant types also, as we can tell from the many attested denarius reverse dies of these types on which a star behind the emperor was eradicated, clearly with the intention of replacing it by the unaltered star in front of the emperor that we also see on every such die. Once these altered dies were used up, the mint engraved new reverse dies with the same variant types, but now of course with the star correctly placed before the sacrificing emperor, so that further die alterations were unnecessary.

Another change regarding the star in this final issue of Elagabalus' reign: it was removed from the types of everyone except the emperor himself, whereas earlier it had been added to coins of the emperor's family too, as we have seen. So the following types were struck for family members during the mint's final issue, but always without adding the star in field: PVDICITIA seated for Maesa, VENVS CAELESTIS seated for Soaemias, a number of types for Severus Alexander as Caesar, and LAETITIA standing for Aquilia Severa during her brief second marriage to the emperor. The absence of the star shows us that the LAETITIA type of Aquilia Severa and all coins of Severus Alexander as Caesar must have been struck after circa June 221, when Elagabalus' final issue of coins began, since had they been struck earlier, the star in reverse field surely would have been added. 

Herodian was often an unreliable historian, but we have to be grateful to him for apparently explaining why Elagabalus' final issue of coins suddenly concentrated so heavily on types and attributes of the emperor as priest of his sun god. According to Herodian, Julia Maesa feared that the soldiers might overthrow and murder Elagabalus, so she persuaded him to adopt his cousin Severus Alexander and make him Caesar, arguing that Alexander would be able to take over some of the work of ruling the empire, leaving Elagabalus more time to devote to the worship of his sun god. We know that Elagabalus indeed adopted Alexander and made him Caesar in c. June 221, and the coin types seem to confirm that from then on he indeed desired to particularly stress the importance of his priesthood of his god.

From this reconstruction of the type sequence of the coinage, it seems to me quite clear that the star on Elagabalus' coins can only have represented his sun god.

[Roman Collector]

1 hour ago, curtislclay said:

As to the appearance of the star in this final Rome-mint issue of the reign, each of Elagabalus' four Emperor Sacrificing types on denarii began with a rare variant of the type in which the star was always placed behind the sacrificing emperor; see for example @SeverusAlexander's INVICTVS SACERDOS AVG denarius in his post above. Then small changes were made to each type, and the mint originally planned to continue to place the star behind the emperor in these variant types also, as we can tell from the many attested denarius reverse dies of these types on which a star behind the emperor was eradicated, clearly with the intention of replacing it by the unaltered star in front of the emperor that we also see on every such die. Once these altered dies were used up, the mint engraved new reverse dies with the same variant types, but now of course with the star correctly placed before the sacrificing emperor, so that further die alterations were unnecessary.

Another change regarding the star in this final issue of Elagabalus' reign: it was removed from the types of everyone except the emperor himself, whereas earlier it had been added to coins of the emperor's family too, as we have seen. So the following types were struck for family members during the mint's final issue, but always without adding the star in field: PVDICITIA seated for Maesa, VENVS CAELESTIS seated for Soaemias, a number of types for Severus Alexander as Caesar, and LAETITIA standing for Aquilia Severa during her brief second marriage to the emperor. The absence of the star shows us that the LAETITIA type of Aquilia Severa and all coins of Severus Alexander as Caesar must have been struck after circa June 221, when Elagabalus' final issue of coins began, since had they been struck earlier, the star in reverse field surely would have been added. 

Herodian was often an unreliable historian, but we have to be grateful to him for apparently explaining why Elagabalus' final issue of coins suddenly concentrated so heavily on types and attributes of the emperor as priest of his sun god. According to Herodian, Julia Maesa feared that the soldiers might overthrow and murder Elagabalus, so she persuaded him to adopt his cousin Severus Alexander and make him Caesar, arguing that Alexander would be able to take over some of the work of ruling the empire, leaving Elagabalus more time to devote to the worship of his sun god. We know that Elagabalus indeed adopted Alexander and made him Caesar in c. June 221, and the coin types seem to confirm that from then on he indeed desired to particularly stress the importance of his priesthood of his god.

From this reconstruction of the type sequence of the coinage, it seems to me quite clear that the star on Elagabalus' coins can only have represented his sun god.

Thank you so much for your knowledgeable and insightful comments about the role of these stars.

[NewStyleKing]

I have found it   http://moremoth.blogspot.com/2011/04/moving-star.html.  This is BILL WELCH. He no longer seems to participate in blogging  BUT   this is where I got my  STAR and Elagabalus  info when I was collecting  his denarii HORN sacrificing types  ( all sold).

Dug it out eventually. Once sold him a Seleucid Antiochos l  tetradrachm,  a couple or so years ago  !!

 

Also he did this...........https://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/ancientcoins.html

 

NSK=John

 

[Heliodromus]

Thanks, Curtis.

It's interesting to see the star placement suddenly become important on the emperor sacrificing types, first deliberately behind the emperor, then (after design tweaks) in front of the emperor.

I gathered these pictures to show anyone interested the original and tweaked designs.

Are you aware of any die studies or estimates of the number of modified dies (star behind "erased") that have been seen ?

I'm curious if coins exist with the tweaked designs but only star behind the emperor, i.e. with "incorrect" dies which had not yet been modified ? I haven't been able to find any. It seems the mint managed to modify most if not all of these dies before they were actually used, and it's interesting therefore to see a relatively large number of these modified dies. I had always assumed that new dies were cut "on demand" (i.e. during production), but it seems that here maybe a stockpile of dies were cut (then modified) before production started.

 

[NewStyleKing]

Find someone with AC Pro and get them to find all the sales of those coins  and then work hard!!!  You'll get your reward one day!

[Dwarf]

A quick search on CA pro for "elagab and den and star not starting not julia not aquilia" resulted in 859 hits.
This does not include museum collections

Who is having a try ?

It is quite fascinating to realize how much care a Roman emperor took for a detailed "propaganda" on his coinage.
But did anyone outside a well-informed and knowledgable group of "people" realize this significance?

Regards
Klaus

Edited July 23, 2022 by Dwarf

[NewStyleKing]

I think Roman Numismatists  have been aware for decades!!!  He was such an interesting character !  And his coinage widely studied!  Curtis Clay has studied the coinage. Its raw grunt work now!!

 

NSK=John

[Heliodromus]

3 hours ago, Dwarf said:

It is quite fascinating to realize how much care a Roman emperor took for a detailed "propaganda" on his coinage.

Yes, and given this attention to detail, it's hard to imagine that having one out of the four types with emperor facing right vs left wasn't without meaning. It's notable that we have 1-of-4 facing right pre-tweaks (star behind), and 1-of-4 facing right (star in front) after the design tweaks ... but it's been re-assigned to a different reverse legend !

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but maybe it's not so much facing "right", as facing east -  towards the rising sun. The reverse legend this ends up on, post tweaks, is the one who's legend "Sacerd Dei Solis Elagab" is basiscally an abbreviation of his full title "Sacerdos Amplissimus Dei Invicti Soli Elagabali", although the other types are echoing aspects of this too.

 

[Steve]

Ummm, Curtis stole my coin-answer ... 

🙄

 

Man, there are some great coins in this coin-thread, but I'm still gonna toss-in this sweet Julia Paula example ... very interesting thread (thanks for the info) 

[Heliodromus]

The sequencing/dating of coinage for Elagabalus himself is clear given his (COS, TRIB. POT.) dated reverse types, in combination with his later "horned" bust, and the star first introduced when he held TR P III COS III titles in 320 AD.

The sequencing of coinage for Elagabalus' wives is also obvious, apart from the minor subtlety of Aquilia Severa's late reappearance, sans star, after his divorce from Annia Faustina.

The dating of coinage for Julia Maesa and Julia Soaemias is slightly less clear to the extent that types without star might have been issued either before the star had been introduced in 220 AD, or in 222 AD after the star had been dropped. It seems though that we can use the ladies' changing hairstyles on the bronze coinage to help determine the correct order.

I'd like to suggest a minor change to Curtis' suggested sequence in dating the Venus Caelestis seated type for Julia Soaemias to pre-star c.219 AD rather than post-star 221-222 AD. The motivation for this suggested change is the symmetry between the Fecvnditas type for Maesa and the Venvs Caelestis seated type for Soaemias - it seems that these "matriarchal" types depicting children belong together, with a pre-star date for both being preferred given Maesa's changed post-star hairstyle. It seems the ladies' hairstyles support this sequence given the change we see between 218 and 220 AD, with the implication that differentiated hairstyles for Maesa and Soaemias had been introduced c.319 AD. Note also the exergual S-C placement on the seated types, vs the in-field placement on the standing star types, which is also consistent with this grouping.

Alternatively, supporting the post-star date for the Venus Caelestis seated type, we could suppose that the tiara was only introduced in late 220 AD, with the Saecvli Felicitas star type for Maesa issued before the post-tiara star types for Soaemias and Aquilia Severa, but this seems to me less likely, and would require explanation for why Maesa and Soamias would not both be part of the same star bronze issue.

What do you think? Are there other considerations supporting different pre/post-star dates for Fecvnditas vs Venus Caelestis seated types?

 

[curtislclay]

A useful illustrated summary, but I don't think a child in each type means they probably belong to the same issue, nor do I think VENVS CAELESTIS was a childbirth type, without examining the question in any detail.

Consider that the mint usually divided its production of denarii in each issue between six reverse types, four types for Elagabalus and one type each for Maesa and Soaemias, each type being struck in roughly the same volume, plus an additional type struck in similar volume for the emperor's wife during the months that he had one.

On my scheme Maesa's FECVNDITAS AVG type, represented by 50 denarii in the Reka Devnia hoard, belongs to Issue 2 of the reign, along with four types of Elagabalus struck in about the same volume: LIBERALITAS AVG II (53 denarii in RD), FORTVNAE REDVCI (RD 52), PAX AVGVSTI (RD 55), and FIDES MILITVM (three standards, RD 47).

It seems highly unlikely that Soaemias' much commoner VENVS CAELESTIS seated type, represented by 237 denarii in the hoard, can have been struck in the same issue. That type fits much more probably into Issue 5 of 221-2, whose four main types of Elagabalus were struck in similar high volumes: TR P IIII-V emperor sacrificing (RD 251), INVICTVS SACERDOS AVG (RD 259), SACERD DEI SOLIS ELAGAB (RD 181), and SVMMVS SACERDOS AVG (RD 221).

Not that everything about this issue is clear, however:  Maesa's contemporary type PVDICITIA was represented in the hoard by  no fewer than 547 denarii  !  Perhaps her type in this issue was struck in double volume, because her influence over the government had increased  since she persuaded Elagabalus to adopt Alexander and make him Caesar in c. June 221?

Like you, I don't know any coin of Elagabalus' final issue showing "the tweaked designs but just one star behind the emperor, i.e. with "incorrect" dies which had not yet been modified ." It had occurred to me too that this case demonstrates that substantial numbers of dies were sometimes cut well in advance of their eventual employment. I haven't been keeping track of how many altered reverse dies can be found for each of the four types, however. Another similar case: a dozen or more different Elephant denarius reverse dies of Caracalla in 212 are known with TR P XIIII altered to TR P XV in the legend; but no such denarius with unaltered date TR P XIIII appears to be known.

I think the supposed VESTA denarii of Annia Faustina, Maesa, and Soaemias that you mention in your table are just ancient forgeries that take over the reverse type from other ladies?

 

 

 

[Heliodromus]

Thanks, Curtis. It's interesting that there appears to have been such a regular pattern of striking (4 types for Elagabalus, etc) in each issue.

What is understood about the circumstances of deposit of the Reka Devina hoard? It's certainly notable that it appears to reflect these issue patterns reliably across multiple issues, so does that then imply that coins were hoarded directly out of distribution from the mint? What about issues of other emperors/time periods in the hoard - do they also seem to represent coins directly from the mint?

I wasn't able to find any genuine Vesta specimen either, but interesting that so many forgeries exist! There is a Becker forgery of the type, below, which is obviously intended to copy an official bust, but no proof that he had a genuine coin to copy.

[Roman Collector]

Here's one such ancient forgery.

Julia Soaemias, AD 218-222.
Fourrée Denarius, imitative issue, (after AD 250?).
Unknown (Sarmatian?) mint, 3.12 g, 18.6 mm, 5 h.
Obv: IVLIA SOAEMIAS AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: ΛESIA (sic), Vesta seated left, holding simpulum and scepter.
Refs: cf. RIC 247-248; BMCRE p. 539, f (ancient forgery); RSC 22a.
Notes: See CNG E-Auction 281, June 20, 2012, lot 373 (same dies). Correctly identified in the BM catalogue as a hybrid with a reverse of Julia Domna, although the authors of RIC accept it without comment as an official type of Soaemias.

[Heliodromus]

Venus Caelestis seems to be a very uncommon type. On OCRE I can only find it being used for Julia Domna (RIC 604, 605) and Aquilia Severa (RIC 230) in addition to Julia Soaemias.

For what it's worth, WikiPedia claims Venus Caelestis to be associated with the Syrian Magna Mater, which perhaps makes sense given Mater Devm types also used for both Domna and Soaemias.

Quote

Venus Caelestis (Celestial or Heavenly Venus), used from the 2nd century AD for Venus as an aspect of a syncretised supreme goddess. Venus Caelestis is the earliest known Roman recipient of a taurobolium (a form of bull sacrifice), performed at her shrine in Pozzuoli on 5 October 134. This form of the goddess, and the taurobolium, are associated with the "Syrian Goddess", understood as a late equivalent to Astarte, or the Roman Magna Mater, the latter being another supposedly Trojan "Mother of the Romans", as well as "Mother of the Gods".^[21]

What's notable is that it's only the Venus Caelestis standing type, always with star (even for Domna) that is used for Domna, Soaemias and Aquilia Severa, with the seated Venus Caelestis with child, and no star, apparently created for Soaemias. Since the "seated with child" type is only used for Soaemias, it seems hard to argue that the child it not meant to be meaningful, especially since Venus Caelestis isn't normally considered as a fertility goddess so wouldn't otherwise be expected to be depicted with a child.

It's also notable that while Venus Caelestis standing type was issued for the childless Aquilia Severa (although I haven't been able to find one), the "seated with child" type was not issued for her, one explanation for which would be that either the type was inappropriate for her, or that it was issued for Soaemias at a date when Aquila Severa was not Elagabalus' current wife/companion.

The Reka Devina issue affinity evidence is certainly noteworthy, maybe definitive, but just trying to gather any addition information that may be relevant.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Heliodromus
fixed typos

[curtislclay]

If you follow up the citations, you will see that there is no reliable evidence for the existence of a VENVS CAELESTIS type on official coins of either Julia Domna or Aquilia Severa. The cited pieces are clearly merely counterfeits, ancient or modern, that have wrongly combined official obverse and reverse types copied from two different coins. Stars were never placed on official coins of Julia Domna, so clearly her supposed denarii with the VENVS CAELESTIS type and star are merely hybrid counterfeits copying Soaemias' reverse type. The absence of official examples of a particular type in the major collections and larger hoards should always make authors wary of admitting that type to their catalogues.

What type do you think could have been struck for Soaemias in 221-2, if you are still inclined to misdate her VENVS CAELESTIS seated type without star to 219? Or do you think that the mint struck no type at all for her during the last nine months of Elagabalus' reign (Issue 5)?

It is indeed remarkable how accurately many large hoards seem to reflect the comparative original volumes of production of the different types in the successive issues by the mint. Compare for example the numbers of antoniniani in the Dorchester hoard of the two final issues of Philip I's reign:

Issue 5, six SAECVLARES AVGG animals types, each type marked with its own Roman officina numeral from I to VI, represented by 62, 56, 60, 72, 62, and 93 antoniniani respectively in the hoard;

Issue 6, six other types, each with its own Greek officina letter from A to S, represented by 37, 29, 39, 27, 32, and 26 antoniniani respectively in the hoard.

This approximate equality of the numbers of coins per type in the successive issues cannot be mere coincidence; clearly, the mint must originally have divided its production about equally between the different types, and after the coins had been shipped to Britain or arrived there by circulation, their numbers per type still largely reflected that original system of production.

Edited August 31, 2022 by curtislclay

[John Conduitt]

Not really adding anything, but I also have a 'denarius' (apparently an imitation) that seems to have an erased star.

Elagabalus Contemporary Cast Imitation Denarius, 218-220

Imitating Rome. Base metal, 18mm, 1.90g. Laureate, horned, draped bust right; IMP ANTONINVS PIVS AVG. Elagabalus, in Syrian priestly robes, standing left, sacrificing out of patera in right hand over tripod, holding club in left hand; behind tripod, bull lying down; star in field to left, erased star in field to right?; INVICTVS SACERDOS AVG (RIC IV, 88b). Found in the UK.

As well as a regular denarius...

Elagabalus Denarius, 221-222Rome. Silver, 18mm, 2.86g. Laureate, horned and draped bust right; IMP ANTONINVS PIVS AVG. Elagabalus, in Syrian priestly robes, standing left, sacrificing out of patera in right hand over lit tripod altar, holding branch downwards in left hand; star in field left; SVMMVS SACERDOS AVG (RIC IV.2, 146). Found in Yorkshire.

Edited July 26, 2022 by John Conduitt

[Heliodromus]

1 hour ago, curtislclay said:

What type do you think could have been struck for Soaemias in 221-2, if you are still inclined to misdate her VENVS CAELESTIS seated type without star to 219? Or do you think that the mint struck no type at all for her during the last nine months of Elagabalus' reign (Issue 5)?

It seems there are some gaps whichever way the sequence goes. If Venus Caelestis seated was issued post-star, then what bronze type was issued for Soaemias pre-star in 219 AD alongside Maesa's Fecvnditas ? Given that Maesa twisted Elagabalus' arm to adopt Severus Alexander, why is she then apparently favored in 321-322 on the bronze with two types (Pvdicitia, Pietas), while Soamias would still only have the one type? I suppose if she was deliberately favored with the volume of Pvdicitcia silver, then it would make sense to carry that over to the bronze too, but still ... who's in control of the mint here ?!

The Reka Devina issue numbers you presented are certainly compelling, and as I already acknowledged likely definitive, so I'm not "Inclined to misdate" anything ... just trying to understand the coinage, all things considered ! Notwithstanding the apparent favoring of Maesa in the final issue(s), which may indicate her power over the mint operations, it'd obviously be odd if Soaemias was completely ignored at this time.

 

 

[curtislclay]

You are quite correct to suspect a gap in the early coinage of Soaemias. Her earliest coinage at Rome was restricted to two scarce types datable to the year 218: IVNO REGINA on aurei and denarii, the denarius occurring in only seven specimens in the Reka Devnia hoard; and MATER DEVM, Cybele seated between two lions, on sestertii and middle bronzes. Soaemias' IVNO REGINA type must belong to 218, because its aurei carried on Macrinus' heavy weight of c. 7.2 g., which was to be reduced by Elagabalus to c. 6.8 g. by the end of 218; and because the IVNO REGINA type occurs on denarii but never on antoniniani, a denomination that was reintroduced by Elagabalus well before the end of 218, by which time the IVNO REGINA type was evidently no longer being struck. Soaemias' MATER DEVM type, on the other hand, had already begun to be produced when her IVNO REGINA type was introduced, because the obverse legend on all of her known IVNO REGINA coins was the standard IVLIA SOAEMIAS AVGVSTA, whereas on one sestertius obverse die and two middle-bronze obverse dies used for her MATER DEVM type, SOAEMIAS was written as SOAEMIS, the second A being omitted, apparently a variant but unwanted spelling that was soon corrected. These considerations of weight, denomination, and misspelled name make it clear that both of Soaemias' two earliest reverse types at the mint of Rome should be assigned to the year 218.

But, on my scheme, no coinage was struck for Soaemias at the mint or Rome during the latter part of 218 and in all of 219, for her next reverse type was VENVS CAELESTIS standing with star in field, part of my Issue 4, which lasted from c. 1 January 220 to June 221. Soaemias' type was probably introduced near the beginning of that issue, on 1 January 220 or soon thereafter, since its Reka Devnia count of 201 denarii falls only a little short of the counts for Elagabalus' two scarcest "production lines" of Issue 4, namely Sol advancing with 236 denarii in the hoard and LIBERALITAS AVG III followed by ABVNDANTIA AVG with 45 and 190 denarii respectively, for a total of 235.

A possible explanation for this apparent gap in Soaemias' coinage occurred to me several decades ago, and I wrote about it in the Forum discussion group in 2009 (search there for "Soaemis"). To quote myself: "It would appear that Soaemias' two early types, IVNO REGINA on aurei and denarii and MATER DEVM on sestertii and middle bronzes, were struck SOON AFTER ELAGABALUS' ACCESSION IN SUMMER 218, at a time when the mint was ignorant of the fact that Elagabalus' grandmother Maesa, not his mother Soaemias, was the power behind the throne, because THERE IS NO PARALLEL EARLY ISSUE FOR MAESA!  Contrast Elagabalus' Eastern denarii of 218-9, struck nearer the court and with better knowledge of the power structure, which include coins of Maesa only alongside Elagabalus, not Soaemias." So, to continue my summary, when the mint learned of its mistake, the decision was made to stop striking coins for Soaemias until the situation could be clarified. But the emperor's journey from Syria was slow, and he did not reach Rome until towards the end of 219. At that time the mint's work was finally reviewed, and a number of changes were made. Late in 219, the Sol standing type was introduced, representing the emperor's sun god; on c. 1 January 220, the star in field was added to all reverse types of the emperor and his family; and at the same time or a little later, after a gap of over a year, the mint finally resumed its coinage for Soaemias.

I hope you will agree that this seems a better solution than moving Soaemias' VENVS CAELESTIS seated type into the gap in her coinage from late 218 until early 220, thereby opening a different gap in her coinage from 221-2, when no type would appear to have been struck for Soaemias in Elagabalus' Issue 5.

[Heliodromus]

On 7/26/2022 at 8:55 PM, curtislclay said:

I hope you will agree that this seems a better solution than moving Soaemias' VENVS CAELESTIS seated type into the gap in her coinage from late 218 until early 220, thereby opening a different gap in her coinage from 221-2, when no type would appear to have been struck for Soaemias in Elagabalus' Issue 5.

To be honest, I'm really not sure. Obviously the power (and money) wielded by Maesa plays a huge part during Elagablaus reign, from getting him installed in the first place, to getting him replaced at the end, and it does seem we need to draw on this political backdrop to understand the coinage. There are numismatic clues to be sure, but whether one finds a gap for Soaemias early more plausible than one at the end seems to depend at least in part on how one imagines the politics playing out.

I'm looking at the Reka Devina numbers to better understand the coinage (have downloaded the Ashmolean version into a spreadsheet, and augmented it with reverse types and dates). I'm curious how you define the end of your issue 1... is it the end of the Antoninianus, or is there another criteria for saying what's issue (or phase) 1 vs 2?

You mentioned that the aureus weight reduction from ~7.2g to ~6.8g took place under Elagabalus, but on OCRE I have found some aureii of Macrinus apparently at the lighter standard (links below), even occurring for the same types that also include heavy standard specimens. What to make of these? Are they properly recorded/classified by OCRE?

Online Coins of the Roman Empire: RIC IV Macrinus 64

Online Coins of the Roman Empire: RIC IV Macrinus 65

Online Coins of the Roman Empire: RIC IV Macrinus 74

Online Coins of the Roman Empire: RIC IV Macrinus 82

There's also this interesting IVNO aureus for Maesa at the ~6.8g standard from Antioch. This is lot 414 from Gemini I in 2005.

Are there any aureii of Elagabalus from Antioch that appear to be from 218 AD ? I see TR P II ones (219 AD), but unlike Rome nothing for TR P I.

 

[curtislclay]

My issues begin and end with reverse type changes.

Issue 1: Dated Roma seated, passing from TR P to TR P COS P P, to TR P II COS II P P; beginning with long obv. legend, passing to IMP CAES ANTONINVS AVG in course of TR P II. Plus four undated types that undergo the same obv. legend change: FIDES EXERCITVS, MARS VICTOR, SALVS ANTONINI AVG, and VICTORIAE ANTONINI AVG.

Issues 2 and 3: new obv. legend IMP ANTONINVS PIVS AVG, and seven new rev. types, whose division between the two issues in not entirely certain. Probably LIBERALITAS AVG II, FORTVNAE REDVCI, PAX AVGVSTI, and FIDES MILITVM standards in Issue 2, as already stated above; and TR P II Sol standing, FORTVNAE AVG, and SECVRITAS SAECVLI in Issue 3.

Issues 4-5, already largely explained above; Issue 4 from 1 Jan. 220 to c. June 221, with only the Sol and Victory types lasting from beginning to end, otherwise LIBERALITAS AVG III replaced by ABVNDANTIA AVG, and LIBERTAS AVG with scepter replaced by TR P IIII Providentia standing (probably). Then Issue 5 from c. June 221 to end of reign, with the four common types of Emperor sacrificing.

The common IMP ANTONINVS AVG denarii in close to Roman style, though often misattributed to Rome, must be from a subsidiary mint, since there is nowhere they can be fitted into the sequence of Roman types described above, and since their types were always restricted to denarii and antoniniani  and were never struck on gold or bronze coins.

I'm a little disappointed that you still think Soaemias' VENVS CAELESTIS standing type might have been struck in 219, since you admit the extreme unlikelihood of trying to cram an RD 237 type into an issue whose other four types are all around RD 50.

The original culprit in reducing the weight of the aureus was Caracalla in 215. Macrinus restored the old weight in fall 217, and Elagabalus followed suit until c. fall 218, when he returned to Caracalla's reduced weight. So aurei of Soaemias weighing c. 7.2 grams were apparently struck c. July-fall 218.

Edited July 30, 2022 by curtislclay
RD count corrected

[curtislclay]

Typo: there were 237 not 267 VENVS CAELESTIS standing denarii of Soaemias in the RD hoard.

Can anyone explain why I no longer seem to see an Edit button to make changes to my own posts?

[Roman Collector]

4 hours ago, curtislclay said:

Can anyone explain why I no longer seem to see an Edit button to make changes to my own posts?

In the upper right corner of your post, you should see three dots. If you click on that, a drop-down menu will open and you can choose "edit" from there.

[curtislclay]

Thanks! 

Is that a change from a month ago? I seem to recall a button on the left labelled EDIT.

[Roman Collector]

Here's the corresponding sestertius. It has a star in the right field.

Julia Maesa, AD 218-225.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 21.53 g, 29.3 mm, 6 h.
Rome, AD 220-222.
Obv: IVLIA MAESA AVG, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: SAECVLI FELICITAS S C, Felicitas standing left, sacrificing over lighted altar from patera held in right hand and vertical caduceus in left hand; star in right field.
Refs: RIC 421; BMCRE 496, 497, 401; Cohen 47; RCV --.

[Heliodromus]

On 7/29/2022 at 12:07 PM, curtislclay said:

I'm a little disappointed that you still think Soaemias' VENVS CAELESTIS standing type might have been struck in 219, since you admit the extreme unlikelihood of trying to cram an RD 237 type into an issue whose other four types are all around RD 50.

Well, I'm only an LRB guy looking at Elagabalus' coinage for the first time, so my opinion hardly matters!

However, as I said, "I'm really not sure". On balance I think you're probably right, but I sure wish there was a more compelling historical narrative and or corroborative evidence (even if only statistical) to support the issue affinity derived from RD counts.

It seems to be somewhat of an act of faith to take these type of hoard numbers at face value as indicative of circulation or issue statistics. The problem is that we don't know how many times batches of coins were added to the RD hoard during Elagabalus' reign, and in what aggregate quantity each time. Each time a batch of coins was added, it means the overall hoard composition was "double dipping" on types that had already been added by prior batches. There's also the obvious problem of whether all batches of coins added to the hoard were reasonably random samples or not.. perhaps some were and some were not (e.g. less "diluted" mint distributions)...

These objections to the unknown "sampling methodology of the RD hoard could be largely mitigated by looking at other statistical sources to see if they corroborate the statistics or not. What do other hoards indicate? What do coins in collections and in trade indicate?

Earlier you stated that the (Rome) mint usually "divided its production of denarii in each issue between six reverse types, four types for Elagabalus and one type each for Maesa and Soaemias, each type being struck in roughly the same volume", and if this was consistently true per RD counts then it would make for a compelling argument, but it seems to only be partially true, which allows some doubt to creep in, even assuming one has faith(!) that the numbers actually do represent production ratios.

It seem we can divide Elagabalus' coinage into a few phases based on objective criteria that seem to align to the known history:

1) Your "issue 1" period of types with "IMP CAES" legends (which does also exactly match the period of Antoninianus production). I assume this corresponds to the period before Elagabalus arrived in Rome in mid/late 219 AD.

2) Your "issue 2+3" period when we see "IMP CAES" changed to "IMP", the reverse type lineup changed, and the Antoninianus denomination dropped. I assume these changes took place on Elagabalus' arrival in Rome. The most objective end of this phase is when the star (that started this whole thread!) was introduced, sometime in 320 AD (no later than TR P III - would that have been Jan 1st, or on his imperial anniversary in June?).

3) Your "issue 4" period when the ubiquitous (randomly placed) star is present, and before adoption of Elagabalus' horned bust corresponding to his "highest priest" types. I'm assuming this appearance of the star corresponds to Elagabalus adding his Syrian sun god Elagabal to the roman pantheon, perhaps also to his moving of the stone of Emesa to Rome. if that had not already occurred.

4) The horned bust / highest priest (SACERD DEI SOLI ELAGAB) phase, the start of your "issue 5", which starts late in Elagabalus' reign, sometime after TR P IIII (since there is a considerable volume of TR P IIII coinage, with Sol, Victory and Providentia, before this phase begins). I'm not sure what the cause/effect relationship is, but the start of this phase appears to closely match the date when Maesa had forced Elagabalus to adopt Severus Alexander as caesar (June 221 ?). Maesa seems in control here, with Soaemias aligned with Elagabalus (and about to pay the price for it). In less than a year Elagabalus and Soaemias would be murdered.

5) The final "TR P V COS IIII" phase of 222 AD, when Elagabalus belatedly tones it down and seems to have dropped the "highest priest" types (we only see P M TR P V with the non-horned bust). You include this as part of "issue 5", but it seems it may be distinct.

Your "four types for Elagabalus, one each for the ladies, in similar volume" pattern seems to really only apply to the above phases 2 and 5, and even there with caveats. In phase 2, we do have the RD 50 types for Elagabalus and RD 50 FECVNDITAS/child for Maesa, but it seems that in order to achieve this regularity you've pushed three additional lower count types for Elagabalus, that don't fit this neat pattern, into a separate "issue 3". In phase 4 we do have the consistent ~200+ RD counts for Elagabalus four types, and certainly it would be compelling on that basis to place Soaemias' similar RD 237 CAESESTIS/child type here, but then as you note we have RD 547 for Maesa's PVDICITIA, as well as some smaller number of her PIETAS.

There's no argument of what types fall into your issue 4 with star (phase 3 above), and the RD counts per "type" do match pretty well in ~250 range, although the only way to say it's four types at a time for Elagabalus is if we lump all the TR P variants (regardless of date and reverse type) together (not unreasonable), and additionally have ABVNDANTIA replacing LIBERALITAS III as you suggest (and then replaced in turn by the low volume LIBERALITAS IIII, perhaps?) rather than in parallel. I would tweak your arrangement in a minor way by having "TR P IIII Providentia" as part of the TR P group rather than replacing LIBERTAS AVG (RD 291 = 203+48+40); we then have a total TR P RD count of 404 (112+34 Sol TR P III, 82 Sol TR P IIII, 99+1 VIctory, 76 Providentia), which doesn't seem unreasonable given other variation (Maesa RD 316, Soaemias RD 201). We also have the low volume CONSERVATOR AVG (Sol) type in this issue, perhaps struck by the TR P workshop (I'm assuming the similar count types were struck in parallel by different workshops).

Issue/phase 1 again has similar RD counts of 120-150 for the types it contains, although this time we really have 5 types (again counting all TR P variants as 1) for Elagabalus and 1 for Maesa (plus RD 7 for Soaemias - hardly a dedicated workshop). Interestingly there are 2 exceptions to the RD counts, with total RD 70 for the TR P group and RD 74 for Maesa's IVNO, so perhaps these two were produced by the same workshop (for total output of RD 140, similar to other types).

So, as far as RD counts go, CAESESTIS/child does sit better alongside PVDICITIA (& PIETAS) than FECVNDITAS/child, but noting the caveats above that the PVDICITIA count doesn't match the pattern, and the issue 2+3 assigments appear a bit "gerrymandered" to achieve regularity!

Of course, RD counts (even if confirmed by other statistical sources) shouldn't be the only consideration - we should also pay attention to other numismatic clues and the political backdrop. To me the symmetry between seated FECVNDITAS with child and seated VENVS CAELESTIS with child is highly notable, as is the presence of the child on this CAELESTIS type. I don't think we can just ignore the child, even if it doesn't change the issue placement conclusions.

It's also noticeable that while PVDICITIA was issued in gold, neither FECVNDITAS/child nor CAELESTIS/child were, perhaps a clue to issue affinity? The mint had no problem treating Maesa and Soaemias the same in issue 5 when both their respective types included gold. Of course gold is lower volume, and we're always one hoard away from having our understanding overturned, but that would be just as true for the heavy IVNO REGINA as it could be here.

In terms of the politics, since we have to choose between Soaemias either ignored upon Elagabalus arrival in Rome in 219, or ignored in 221 in the evolving power struggle that lead to her murder, I know which one I would choose.

Your note on the "IMP ANTONINVS AVG" legend not belonging to Rome was very useful, and let me refine the Ashmolean RD dataset to exclude those extraneous types. I also happened to find this  (ex. CNG 79.1156) PIETAS with both arms spread specimen below (a mule, perhaps) which helps confirm what I was already suspecting that this PIETAS reverse type may not belong to Rome. I also noted the FECVNDITAS/FORTVNAE REDVCI hybrid that confirms these types as belonging to the same issue. Perhaps a CAELESTIS/child mule/hybrid will turn up one day to confirm issue placement!

The PIETAS holding incense box type is interesting in that it seems to have been issued twice, once in issue 1, then again in issue 5. RD has a few antoniniani (issue 1), then many more denarii (RD 110) which presumably are split between the two, and are only distinguishable based on bust style. It's really only the PIETAS bronze that seems to make it apparent that denarii must have also been struck at that date since the denarii bust style can be hard to date.

Issue 1 (alongside antoniniani)

Issue 5 (alongside bronze)

It's hard for me to tell if all of these late style PIETAS denarii are really Rome or some may be eastern too, but the general pattern seems to be that "eastern/auxiliary mint" types (IMP ANTONINVS PIVS) are design variants of Rome ones - e.g. PIETAS arms stretched vs incense box - rather than exactly the same.

Back to the original topic of CAELESTIS/child issue placement, I'm sure I've not convinced you, nor anyone else here for that matter, but do think that one needs to consider all the evidence and not just rely on RD counts alone. I'll understand your disappointment if you disagree! 😉

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Heliodromus