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

[curtislclay]

That the specimen counts in large second and third cent. silver hoards mostly accurately reflect the mint's original volumes of production of the various types is in my opinion not an act of faith, as you say, but instead a well attested fact. How else will you explain the innumerable cases where each type in a particular issue is represented by approximately the same number of coins in a large hoard, for example in the last two issues of Philip I in the Dorchester hoard as related above?

Of course the Reka Devnia figures should always be checked against those in other large hoards, for example the Eauze hoard published in 1992, in order to confirm the approximate equality of the number of coins per type in each issue, or show that for some reason the numbers of coins per type were apparently not equal in some issues, or sometimes to arouse the suspicion that the numbers of coins per type reported in a certain hoard publication were erroneous and needed to be corrected, as is often the case with the Varna coins in the Reka Devnia publication.

Historical context will come at the end; first we have to reconstruct the sequence and chronology of the coin types, upon which their historical interpretation will often depend.

I was mistaken in my first post to this thread to state that my reconstruction of Elagalalus' coinage as presented here was original to myself and unpublished. I had forgotten that I was in fact closely following Pink's reconstruction in his Aufbau II, Numismatische Zeitschrift 67, 1934. The main things I actually discovered that Pink had overlooked were just the four rare variant emperor-sacrificing types at the beginning of Issue 5 in which the star was always placed behind the sacrificing emperor, and the explanation of the "double-star" coins, on which the star behind the emperor was deliberately eradicated  and replaced by the star before him. Moreover Pink's order for the reverse types of Soaemias was 1. VENVS CAELESTIS seated, 2. VENVS CAELESTIS standing, 3-4. IVNO REGINA and MATER DEVM, exactly the reverse of the correct order in my opinion.

Thanks for reminding me of Maesa's denarius showing her Fecunditas standing reverse type but with legend FORTVNAE REDVCI of Elagabalus, proving that Maesa's FECVNDITAS AVG type must have been struck in the same issue as Elagabalus' FORTVNAE REDVCI, a chronology which is moreover supported by their specimen counts in Reka Devnia, 50 for Maesa and 52 for Elagabalus. As far as I know these mislabeled denarii of Maesa were all struck from just a single reverse die, as one would have expected.

Elagabalus' issues usually contained four rev. types for the emperor; so what should we make of my Issues 2-3, which contain only seven not eight denarius rev. types for him? My suggestion: the four commonest types may belong in Issue 2, namely LIBERALITAS AVG II (RD 53), FORTVNAE REDVCI (RD 52), PAX AVGVSTI (RD 55), and FIDES MILITVM (RD just 31, not RD 47 as I mistakenly wrote above); leaving the three scarcest types for Issue 3, TR P II Sol standing (RD 18), FORTVNAE AVG (RD 8), and SECVRITAS SAECVLI (RD 12). Pink, in contrast, separated three types from the other four because they were struck on denarii only, whereas bronze coins in addition to denarii were struck for the other four types.

Who knows? But I don't think we should throw out a useful observation, that four denarius types were normally struck for Elagabalus in each issue, just because one issue seems to contain only three types for him and we don't know why. The Eauze hoard, incidentally, contained a LIBERALITAS AVG II denarius struck from the same obv. die as a SECVRITAS SAECVLI denarius, and a TR P II Sol standing denarius struck from the same obv. die as a FIDES MILITVM denarius, proving that each of these pairs of die-linked reverse types were very probably struck at the same mint and at about the same time. A useful piece of information, since an auxiliary mint might have come into question for the three types of this issue for which denarii only, no bronze coins, were struck.

Edited August 25, 2022 by curtislclay
Word left out

[Severus Alexander]

I'm still enjoying this back and forth, @curtislclay and @Heliodromus, although keeping track without a full chart of all the types, showing where you disagree, is a bit tricky!

Of course I'm most interested in where my own coins fit in the scheme of things.  One I'm confused about is this antoninianus, with IMP ANTONINVS AVG legend.  Are these issue 2, or 3? (I'm thinking the ant was entirely dropped from issue 3, so it must be issue 2?  Not sure though...)

Another question I have, which could be relevant to the discussion, is whether it's possible that coins were struck for Julia Maesa at the beginning of Severus Alexander's reign, and whether they can be identified as such.  I have always been surprised that none are normally attributed to her from this period, despite the fact that she still took an active role in the government, at least for the first few years.  Her death may have occurred as late as 227.  If not, I suppose it would be because she was too closely associated with the reign of Elagabalus, and so she was omitted from the coins in an attempt to maintain the desired separation between the two reigns?

And just for fun, here's my example of a starless Soaemias VENVS CAELESTIS seated, but the As version.  While the denarii may be very common, I haven't seen all that many of these:

(The child looks a bit like a bunny rabbit on mine... 🐰)

[Heliodromus]

10 hours ago, Severus Alexander said:

One I'm confused about is this [TEMPROTVM FELICITAS] antoninianus, with IMP ANTONINVS AVG legend.  Are these issue 2, or 3? (I'm thinking the ant was entirely dropped from issue 3, so it must be issue 2?  Not sure though...)

I'd agree with issue 2-3, maybe "issue 3".

Unlike Rome, the eastern antoniniani do seem to have continued past issue 1**, and unlike Rome we also don't have a legend change (IMP CAES -> IMP) to help distinguish, so it seems any assignment to issue 2-3 (which I'm taking to correspond to Elagabalus' presence in Rome) has to depend on reverse types and perhaps a slight bust style difference.

For the most part there seems to be a relatively clear pairing of parallel Rome and eastern reverse types, but not so clear for TEMPORVM FELICITAS, although there is the negative evidence of no comparable type from Rome in issue 1. Perhaps the best "type pairing" would be with SECVRITAS SAECVLI (presumably from Rome, although I have some doubts, Edit: which Curtis indicates is die-linked to Rome).

The TEMPORVM FELICITAS bust style does seem compatible with late issue 2-3, similar to some I've seen on the eastern TR P II Pax or even TR P III Jupiter (without star).

** Evidence of the continuation of eastern ants past issue 1 that I'd suggest are LIBERTAS AVGVSTI without star, presumably closely preceding same type with star (cf Rome LIBERTAS AVG both without then with star), and also perhaps IOVI CONSERVATORI, maybe struck alongside (or closely preceding) TR P III Jupiter.

I've also wondered about coins of Maesa struck under Severus Alexander. Maybe PIETAS?

Incidentally, how rare are denarii of Seveus Alexander as caesar (INDVLGENTIA, PIETAS)? It seems odd that none appear to have been in the Reka Devina hoard, unless simply very few were struck.

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Heliodromus

[curtislclay]

As I stated above, IMP ANTONINVS AVG coins in near Rome-mint style should be attributed to a subsidiary mint, the dies maybe having been cut by Rome-mint engravers. They have little to do with the Rome mint coins, so cannot be assigned to the same five issues. Instead we have to work out the order and chronology of this mint's production independently, before attempting to compare it to the contemporaneous coinage of Rome.

The production seems to have lasted only from 219 (quite a few types dated TR P II COS II) until some way into 220 (a fairly common Jupiter-seated type dated TR P III COS III, RD 28, plus very rare Consular Quadriga and Stone of Emesa types with the same titles).

There are three obvious groupings:

Types struck on antoniniani as well as on denarii, including two dated types, both TR P II COS II. Sev. Alex's antoninianus falls into this grouping.

Types struck only on denarii, never on antoniniani, including two other types dated TR P II COS II.

Finally the three types already mentioned dated TR P III COS III, struck only on denarii, possibly accompanied by a couple of the undated types of the preceding group.

Plus two PIETAS AVG types and LAETITIA PVBL for Maesa, and CONCORDIA AVGG seated on curule chair and VENVS GENETRIX for Julia Paula.

But no coins for Soaemias! It hadn't occurred to me before that this fact helps refute Heliodromus' idea that Saoemias' VENVS GENETRIX seated type was struck in 219, for in that case we would expect the subsidiary mint too to have struck coins at that time for Soaemias, which was however not the case. Soaemias was missing from the subsidiary mint's production in early 220 also, so maybe her Rome-mint coinage too resumed a little later than I suggested above, a couple of months into 220 rather than at the beginning of that year.

In any case it's hard to reconstruct the original order of the subsidiary mint's production, apart from the three general groupings mentioned above. Progress might be made by die studies and by noting the types included or omitted from other large hoards of denarii buried in the course of Elagabalus' reign.

That's quite a nice As or dupondius of Soaemias! My small collection of plaster casts of her bronze coins includes middle bronzes of that type struck from five obv. dies with stephane like your coin, plus a sixth obv. die without stephane.

Elagabalus struck scarce denarii for Alexander as Caesar with two rev. types: INDVLGENTIA AVG Spes (RD 4) and PIETAS AVG implements (RD 7). It's evident that Elagabalus soon became disenchanted with his newly adopted son Alexander Caesar, with the result that the mint struck substantially fewer coins for him than would have been normal.

Edited August 28, 2022 by curtislclay

[curtislclay]

As to the continuation of coinage for Maesa under Alexander as emperor, I have no clear idea. Pink thinks her coinage didn't continue. Carson in BMC (1962), followed by Elks in his pamphlet on Elagabalus (undated, c. 1970), thought Maesa's coinage continued, probably with the PVDICITIA seated type, though Carson didn't go so far as to assign particular BM coins of Maesa to Alexander's reign. The Eauze hoard monograph of 1992, p. 221, also followed Carson. But there doesn't appear to be any solid evidence to prove the point.

[Heliodromus]

I was being sloppy in using "issue" to refer to the eastern coins - I just meant the corresponding time period.

It does seem that the eastern mint(s) may have followed Rome (or some central direction) fairly closely, especially if one pairs corresponding types based on featured deity rather than legend.

I'm using notation "Rome reverse type -> Corresponding eastern type". I'm taking eastern types to be those using either the IMP ANTONINVS AVG legend, or other non-Rome legends, primarily ANTONINVS PIVS FEL AVG. Perhaps by doing so I'm mixing up coins from multiple eastern mints (Antioch + another) ?

Issue 1

PM TR P -> ?

PM TR P II COS II Roma -> PM TR P II COS II Roma

FIDES EXERCITVS -> ?

MARS VICTOR -> PM TR P II COS II Mars

SALVS ANTONINI AVG -> SALVS AVGVSTI

VICTOR ANTONINI AVG -> VICTORIA AVG

IVNO -> ? (maybe some of the non-peacock IVNO coins are eastern ?)

PIETAS -> PIETAS

Some of the other eastern types such as VOTA PVBLICA and LAETITIA PVBL may belong here too.

Issue 2

P M TR P II COS II Sol -> P M TR P II COS II Sol (RIC 17A)

LIBERALITAS AVG II -> LIBERALITAS AVG II (with cornucooia resting on short column)

FIDES MILITVM (three standards) -> FIDES MILITVM (Fides standing)

PAX AVGVSTI -> PM TR P II COS II Pax

FORTVNAE REDVCI -> FORTVNA REDVX, PM TR P II COS II Fortuna (maybe Rome too - RIC 20 - but I can't find it)

FECVNDITAS -> none ?

Issue 3

FORTVNA AVG -> PROVID DEORVM, PM TR P II COS II Providentia ?

SECVRITAS SAECVLI -> TEMPORVM FELICITAS ?

These "issue 3" correspondences are obviously more thematic rather than exact.

Issue 4

LIBERTAS AVG -> LIBERTAS AVGVSTI

...

The "issue 4" (i.e. star phase) correspondences tail off very quickly.

Whether or not anything should be read into lack of eastern types for Soaemias would seem to depend on whether one assigns the eastern PIETAS and LAETITIA PVBL to the pre-Rome phase/issue 1, or phase/issue 2. As arranged above we have no eastern equivalent to FECVNDITAS and therefore wouldn't expect one for Soaemias ether had there been any type issued from Rome at this time.

There are two factors which might suggest that LAETITIA PVBL belongs to phase 1, not phase 2:

1) RIC lists a Rome issue 1 legend LAETITIA PVBL ant for Elagablaus - RIC 93, although I haven't been able to find one

2) Maesa's LAETITA PVBL bust style seems very close to issue 1 Rome, or maybe per 1) Rome issued it too?

 

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Heliodromus

[Heliodromus]

@curtislclay what can be said about how many mints, other than Rome,  were active under Elagabalus? Are "Antioch" and "Eastern mint" to be taken as the same, or distinct ?

What about the "ANTONINVS PIVS FEL AVG" legend - can that be reliably (or unreliably for that matter!) tied to a specific mint?

[curtislclay]

The three main imperial mints are:

Rome

The IMP ANTONINVS AVG auxiliary mint in good style. A few coins, presumably the earliest, use the Roman obv. legend IMP CAES ANTONINVS AVG.

A large Eastern issue, beginning with obv. legend ANTONINVS PIVS FELIX (or FEL) AVG, then switching to IMP ANTONINVS AVG, with rev. types largely continued from the preceding PIVS FEL AVG issue. The few aurei from this mint use a longer obv. legend. Yes, this mint is often called Eastern Mint or Antioch.

Edited August 5, 2022 by curtislclay

[Severus Alexander]

@curtislclay and @Heliodromus, thank you so much for your thorough and interesting answers to my questions!  And apologies for the slow thanks and follow-up.

Curtis, I'm wondering whether you think the subsidiary/auxiliary mint in near-Roman style was located relatively close to Rome?  Is there any evidence on this point?  I find it interesting that virtually no dealers or auction houses distinguish between Rome mint coins and coins from this auxiliary mint.  I just spent some time looking at style, and I certainly can't reliably distinguish between the two.  (Certainly the auxiliary mint's style doesn't look at all eastern.)  Could it be that the auxiliary mint is just a different officina (striking silver only) within the Rome mint?  Though it would indeed be odd to use a different obverse legend within the same mint.  Strange to use a different legend at a nearby mint too, though.

Here's an auxiliary mint denarius I have (one of my first Roman coins):

In any case, the closer the auxiliary mint was to Rome, the more similar one would expect its pattern of minting to be. In which case Heliodromus's case for Soaemias's VENVS GENETRIX being struck in 219 does seem to be weakened somewhat, I'd say. Plus I'd agree a revision to Curtis's start-time for Soaemias's coinage in 220 needs to be revised to a bit later.  I guess it would make sense for this to have occurred at the same time that LIBERALITAS AVG III was replaced by ABVNDANTIA AVG?

That said, Heliodromus's point about the vagaries of random sampling is well taken;  I'd be curious to see the counts for the Eauze hoard if either of you have them. Acsearch could be helpful here too, arguably it can give us a better random sample than a specific hoard does.

Another thing I wonder a bit about – something with potentially major implications – is the evidential weight Curtis puts on his regular pattern assumption (4 for the emperor and one each for the women).  If we were to place the auxiliary mint issues in Rome, for example, that assumption might look less secure.  Perhaps the Rome mint output was simply more complex, and the different obverse legend represents an additional issue or issues altogether.  AE output was so low under Elagabalus perhaps it wouldn't be surprising for several issues simply to lack it.  (Idle speculation by an amateur, forgive me if these musings are pretty dumb!  Maybe there's just no way to fit the IMP ANTONINVS AVG issues in a coherent timeline with the others.)

I guess the jury's still out on whether Sev Alex issued coins for Maesa. Very interesting, including that everyone always just assumes all her coins were under Elagabalus. I'm glad that I happen to have the Pudicitia seated type that might conceivably be a post Elagabalus coin:

Though on reflection I do find it quite possible that she publicly stepped into the background on the accession of Sev Alex, even if she was still heavily involved behind closed doors.

You both mentioned the rare coins for Sev Alex as Caesar.  I prefer the INDVLGENTIA type because it implies an ironic forgiveness extended to the new Caesar by the Emperor:

As you note, the general rarity of these and the low counts in RD suggest this "forgiveness" didn't last very long!  (The historical evidence suggests they never did get along.)

I wonder if we might persuade Curtis to lay out his organization of the various issues under Severus Alexander in a new post? That would be fabulous! 😄 I would imagine they're somewhat easier since there are many dated types to help us.

[Heliodromus]

18 hours ago, Severus Alexander said:

In any case, the closer the auxiliary mint was to Rome, the more similar one would expect its pattern of minting to be. In which case Heliodromus's case for Soaemias's VENVS GENETRIX being struck in 219 does seem to be weakened somewhat, I'd say. Plus I'd agree a revision to Curtis's start-time for Soaemias's coinage in 220 needs to be revised to a bit later.  I guess it would make sense for this to have occurred at the same time that LIBERALITAS AVG III was replaced by ABVNDANTIA AVG?

I'm not sure if you mean Soaemias' CAELESTIS, or Paula's GENETRIX, but in either case I agree! I don't want to keep repeating myself, but while I don't think it's quite "case closed", I do favor Curtis' arrangement with VENVS CAELESTIS seated with child being late rather than contemporaneous with Maesa's FECVNDITAS.

Supporting this, we have an Antioch FECVNDITAS, but no CAELESTIS, also Auxiliary GENETRIX and again no CAELESTIS that I've been able to find.

I find the child on the seated CAELESTIS quite interesting! Perhaps a bit poignant given above sequencing in relation to Paula's GENETRIX. For the preceding Julia Domna, the GENETRIX type (despite being a "family type") sometimes had cupid (with wings - not just a child), sometimes not. Here we have GENETRIX without any cupid/child for the childless Paula, then later we have the seated CAELESTIS, maybe riffing off the seated GENETRIX design, but now with a child replacing cupid! Severus Alexander would continue this switch of cupid for child with his GENETRIX with child type for Julia Mamaea.

As far as the date of the standing CAELESTIS, the existence of coins without star (as included in above graphic- assuming these are not errors) would indicate a start very shortly prior to the star coinage, i.e. prior to TR P III (220 AD).

On the subject of the Auxiliary mint, top two coins on graphic below have been identified by HJB as from the Auxiliary (aka Branch) mint, presumably Curtis concurs, and to me at least bottom left SECVRITAS SAECVLI is in similar style and should also be attributed to the Auxiliary mint (despite the "Rome" obverse legend). Stylistically the bottom right coin, for me,  *might* be from Rome, but comparing to one above it, maybe it's also from the Auxiliary mint, making me wonder if the SECVRITAS SAECVLI type isn't altogether from the Auxiliary mint, not Rome.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Heliodromus

[curtislclay]

Aren't you forgetting the SECVRITAS SAECVLI and LIBERALITAS AVG II denarii in Eauze that were struck from the same obv. die? LIBERALITAS AVG II was struck on bronze ccoins too, so definitely mint of Rome in my opinion.

Edited August 21, 2022 by curtislclay

[Heliodromus]

So what about the the bottom left SECVRITAS SAECVLI in same odd style as the coin above it?

I'm assuming the Eauze LIBERALITAS II is known to be the Rome type, not the Auxiliary mint one (with Conrucpoia resting on base) ?

[curtislclay]

Yes, the die-linked LIBERALITAS AVG II is the Rome-mint type without cornucopia on base. Both die links are illustrated in the book, so there is no doubt about which types were involved.

A possible explanation for the activity of Elagabalus' Eastern and auxiliary mints:

Rome operated more or less continuously throughout his reign.

Elagabalus' Eastern series, with obv. legend ANTONINVS PIVS FEL(IX) AVG, was added in 218 or 219 to provide aurei and denarii for the emperor and his court during their slow progress from Asia Minor towards Rome.

As they approached Rome, however, the decision was made to discontinue the shipments of the rather crude Eastern denarii from Asia Minor or Thrace to the court and to replace them with dies engraved and maybe also coins struck by workers sent from Rome: the auxiliary mint with obv. legend IMP ANTONINVS AVG.

It doesn't particularly bother me that on this theory the auxiliary mint's production lasted into early 220, after the emperor and the court had already returned to Rome. Yes, the mint of Rome was now available to them, but who knows what other uses the government might have found for additional denarii from the auxiliary mint during the first several months of 220?

 

Edited August 15, 2022 by curtislclay

[Heliodromus]

23 hours ago, Severus Alexander said:

You both mentioned the rare coins for Sev Alex as Caesar.  I prefer the INDVLGENTIA type because it implies an ironic forgiveness extended to the new Caesar by the Emperor:

Surely the meaning of INDVLGENTIA here is closer to the modern "indulgence" ? Severus Alexander is only serving due to the indulgence/generosity of Elagabalus !

It's similar to the way INDVLGENTIA had been used on Septimius Severus' recently preceding "INDVLGENTIA AVGG IN CARTH" - the emperor taking credit for something.

 

[curtislclay]

My attributions for the denarii in the last two  columns of your table:

Maesa, two IVNO and one Fecunditas seated: all three Eastern.

Paula, one CONCORDIA AVGG curule chair and one VENVS GENETRIX: both auxiliary mint.

Third Paula, CONCORDIA: early Rome with Paula's first coiffure, late 219 or early 220, unclear in photo whether with or without star in field.

Edited August 16, 2022 by curtislclay

[Heliodromus]

Thanks, Curtis!

I see there are also Rome GENETRIX with Paula's early/marriage hairstyle too.

Are there any coins of Maesa that you would attribute to the auxiliary mint? If so, is there an example you could post, so I can see the style?

 

 

[curtislclay]

Maesa at auxiliary mint:

PIETAS AVG sacrificing left, raising both forearms, no incense box, see picture below. As you pointed out above, the same rev. type also occurs for Elagabalus with the supplementary-mint obv. legend IMP ANTONINVS AVG, probably a mule, but confirming the attribution of this rev. type to the auxiliary mint.

LAETITIA PVBL standing left holding wreath and rudder on globe. See your picture above under Issue 4. The same rev. type also occurs for Elagabalus with the auxiliary-mint obv. legend

Edited August 21, 2022 by curtislclay
Difficulty loading pictures

[Heliodromus]

Thanks, Curtis. There seems to be so much variety in bust style on these, that it's good to see that PIETAS in an unmistakably auxilary mint style!

So, here's the summary of PIETAS tyes.

It seems from Rome we're got two issues, one early, one late, both with Pietas holding incense box. The early issue, with same hairstyle as Maesa's IVNO, struck alongside antoniniani, c.219-219, and the late issue, with same aged bust we see on PVDICITIA, struck alongside bronze c.221-222.

Then from the auxiliary mint we instead have the Pietas with both arms raised type, presumably issued c.218-219.

So, then, what about the above coins #4 and #5 ? I'm guessing #5 based on the reverse type is also auxiliary mint, although the bust style looks quite a bit different.

What about #4 ? Antioch/eastern perhaps? It's got the Rome incense box reverse type, but a non-Rome IMP ANTONINVS AVG legend.

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Heliodromus

[Severus Alexander]

The auxiliary mint challenge, for all takers!

These denarii are all Pietas standing issues, either with incense box or with outstretched hands. Can you identify (by row and column) which are from Rome mint and which are from the auxiliary mint, just from the portrait style? (No cheating by finding the coins' reverses!)

[Heliodromus]

Quote

Can you identify (by row and column) which are from Rome mint and which are from the auxiliary mint, just from the portrait style?

No, but I'll try anyway! 😀

I'd be happy to get 50% right, and not be surprised to do worse!

I'll say Aux mint (both hands raised) are: A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 E1 E2 E3

Rest are Rome.

Confidence level: extremely low.

 

[Severus Alexander]

21 minutes ago, Heliodromus said:

No, but I'll try anyway! 😀

I'd be happy to get 50% right, and not be surprised to do worse!

I'll say Aux mint (both hands raised) are: A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 E1 E2 E3

Rest are Rome.

Confidence level: extremely low.

 

Thanks for taking on the challenge, @Heliodromus! I'll pm your score to you so as not to spoil it for anyone else who wants to give it a try.

Here's an interesting hands-raised example with a rather elderly looking portrait for 218-19:

[DonnaML]

On 8/27/2022 at 4:54 PM, Severus Alexander said:

Thanks for taking on the challenge, @Heliodromus! I'll pm your score to you so as not to spoil it for anyone else who wants to give it a try.

Here's an interesting hands-raised example with a rather elderly looking portrait for 218-19:

Those are hands??

[Roman Collector]

2 hours ago, DonnaML said:

Those are hands??

Man hands ...