The VSV denarii of Aurelian and Severina

Reading (again) Cathy King’s paper on denarii and quinarii in the late third century in the 1978 Sutherland festschrift she observes that from the reign of Valerian to the end of the century their issue was probably restricted to special occasions with the exception of the denarii of Aurelian and Severina. It is quite noticeable that in King’s 2007 corpus of Roman quinarii there is an apparent hiatus in their issue after Claudius II and their issue resumed under Tacitus.

Although not the sole mint for denarii during the reign of Aurelian the Rome mint is the most prolific, particularly after the commencement of the 10^th issue, using the arrangement of Estiot in MER XII.1

DENARII OF AURELIAN AND SEVERINA

Issue, Date (MER online)	Reverse and Issuer	Notes
1, Oct – Dec 270	VICTORIA AVG (Victory right) Aurelian
9, summer – autumn 274	ORIENS AVG, Aurelian	Includes a type with left facing martial bust
10, end 274 (MER XII.1 suggests November to December)	VICTORIA AVG (Victory left, with or without captive) Aurelian	VSV mark on reverse
	VENVS FELIX, Severina	VSV mark on reverse
	VENVS VICTRIX, Severina	VSV mark on reverse
	LAETITIA AVG, Severina	VSV mark on reverse
11, early 275 to Sep 275	ORIENS AVG, Aurelian
	PROVIDE AVG, Aurelian
	PM TRP VII COS III PP, Aurelian
	VICTORIA AVG (Victory left, with or without captive) Aurelian	Right facing consular bust amongst the obverse types
	PROVIDEN AVG, Aurelian
	VENVS FELIX, Severina
12, Sep to Nov 275	VENVS FELIX, Severina	“Interregnum” issue, officina letter in right field

The VSV mark that is present only on the denarius in the series of coins issued by Aurelian and Severina and only on the denarii of the tenth issue has provoked some comment in the past. It does not apparently coincide with the monetary reform of Aurelian that introduced the XXI formula to the radiate base silver coinage (often termed “aureliani” in academic literature to differentiate the reformed coins from the pre-reform antoniniani). The aureliani are believed to have started in issue 8, dating to between spring and summer 274. The usual expansion of VSV is to “vsvalis”, identifying the coin as the usual accounting unit, ie, the denarius. If that is the case why is it not present on the issue 9 denarius, nor perpetuated on later denarii, yet the XXI continued on the radiate coins.

An attractive alternative solution is that the VSV mark can be expanded to Vota Solvta Qvinqvenalia, the discharge of the five year vows. This appears attractive given both the year of issue of the type and also the ephemeral use of the formula on this brief issue.

Recently a new theory was put forwards in Num Chron 2013. The VSV formula is postulated to be a phrase somewhat akin to the RSR (Redeunt Saturnia Regna, the return of the Saturnian age) on the coins of Carausius. VSV becomes, perhaps, Veniens Sol Vicit (Sol came and conquered). It echoes the veni, vidi, vici of Julius Caesar, apt after the defeat of Vabalathus in the east and Tetricus in the west. You have to ask, though, if that’s the case I would again question why it wasn’t perpetuated on subsequent issues.

I would suggest that King’s assertion that the denarii of Aurelian are not ceremonial issues is not wholly true. The paucity of the earlier issues discounts this. Also I would argue that the VSV marked pieces are also a ceremonial issue. Even the last issue of denarii issued during Aurelian’s reign, issue 11, contains a consular obverse bust type and also a dated reverse type amongst the repertoire so a ceremonial series may be plausible.

References

Estiot, S, (MER) Monnaies de l’Empire romain XII.1 d’Aurelien a Florien (2004)

King, C E, “Denarii and Quinarii, AD 253-295”, in Carson, R A G, and Kraay, C, Scripta Nummaria Romana: Essays presented to H Sutherland, 1978, pp 75-104

King, C E, Roman Quinarii from the Republic to Diocletian and the Tetrarchy (2007)

Woods, D, “Aurelian and the mark VSV: some neglected possibilities “, Numismatic Chronicle 173, 2016, pp 137-49

Gordian III's Adventus coins, Antioch and Rome

Roger Bland’s recent book, The Coinage of Gordian III from Antioch and Caesarea (2023), a revision of his 1991 PhD, presents a catalogue and die study of the coins produced for him in those two cities.

This coin, RIC 174 (corrected), Bland 48 (struck from obverse die 77, reverse die 442) from the first series of Antioch radiates is part of a distinctive group of reverse types that suggest an imperial visit by the young Gordian to Antioch in AD 239.

Coin reverses with the emperor on horseback, accompanied by an Adventus legend, have been used from the first century to proclaim an imperial arrival. No such legend on this Antioch coin, just a series of imperial titles, including TRP II and COS, however, the iconography is very suggestive of a visit by Gordian, the titles pointing to an issue date of AD 239.

Other associated radiates from Antioch pair the same dated reverse legend with an image of the emperor stood in an attitude of greeting in a slow quadriga and also seated in a curule chair. There is an overt imperial presence sugested in the devices used.

Although there are no extant ancient written histories that support the idea of Gordian’s visit to Antioch there is some additional evidence. After all, there is always the danger of isolated over-interpretation of coin reverse types (John Drinkwater, in The Gallic Empire, expresses this concern over numismatic interpretations).

The first of these is a Rescript or public government document:

Imp. GORDIANVS A. Rationalibus

Manifestum est nuptiis contra mandata contractis, dotem, quae data illo tempore, cum traducta est, fuerat, iuxta sententiam Divi Severi fieri caducam, nec si consensu postea coepisse videatur matrimonium, in praeteritum commisso vitio potuit mederi.

Dat. Kal. April, Antiochiae, Gordiano A. Et Aviola coss.

The rescript about dowries, is signed from Antioch on 1 April 239 (‘handed down on 1 April at Antioch, in the consulships of Gordian and Aviola’).

The second piece of supporting evidence is an inscription from Rome. The dating of it notes he was in Rome on 7 January 239 thus fixing a date after which he must have set off.

Furthermore it has been noted that Gordian was not present at the meeting of the Fratres Arvales on 11 May 240, which he normally attended, sending them a letter instead. The Fratres Arvales, or Brothers of the Fields, were a group of priests who offered sacrifices to the gods to guarantee good harvests. A long series of the acta or minutes of their proceedings, drawn up by themselves, and inscribed on stone have been discovered. Excavations in the grove of the Dea Dia have found 96 of these records dating from AD 14 to 241 AD.

Gordian’s return to Rome is also recorded in the coin types, for example on this dated equestrian denarius from Rome. Assuming that Gordian’s first tribunician was on his accession in mid 238, and renewed on December 10th each year his third tribunician would be 10 December 239 – 9 December 240. In combination with the absence of Gordian at the meeting of the Fratres Arvales Gordian’s return to Rome came sometime after the second half of May and before early December 240.

In our world we are used to international travel taking a fraction of a day. We forget that travel across the Roman world was much slower and that the emperor could be away from the capital for several months.

Eastern Severan denarii: mint reattribution

A few years ago, after reading Gitler and Ponting's monograph on chemical analyses of Severan denarii, I began to suspect that the eastern attributed coin attributions weren't wholly correct. They identified that some of the coins assigned to Laodicea had a composition closer to the Rome mint issues.

Reading Bland's work on the Antioch coins of Gordian III, where he summarises the previous output of the Antioch mint, he accepts that Butcher is probably correct in his proposed reattribution of location.

RIC 422 "Emisa" = Antioch

Both RIC and BMC assign a large series of coins of Severus to Emesa, the Antioch mint being closed as part of the degradation in city status for supporting Pescennius Niger. 

RIC - "Laodicea old style" = Antioch

Eventually the Emesa mint is closed and succeeded by a new establishment at Laodicea. This change is thought to occur at the change in the termination of the obverse legend from COS II to IMP followed by a number.

Butcher, however, observed that stylistically there is little or no change through from Niger through Severan Emisa issues and early Laodicea coins. This also includes a consideration of the repertoire of reverse types. It only changes when there is a distinctive alteration in "Laodicea" style at IMP VIII, the so called "new style". It is at this time the metal alloy composition also changes. 

Butcher suggests that, other than some rare Alexandrian coins, the bulk of the eastern coins of Severus are from a continuation of the Antioch mint that Niger used. The new style Laodicea coins he places at an un-named location closer to Rome, perhaps in the Balkans. 

RIC 493 "Laodicea new style" = Balkans? 

Bibliography 

Bland, R, The Coinage of Gordian III from the Mints of Antioch and Caesarea (RNS SP 60, 2023)

Butcher, K, Coinage in Roman Syria: 64 BC - AD 253 (RNS SP 34, 2004), abbreviated as CRS above

Gitler, H, and Ponting, M, The Silver Coinage of Septimius Severus and His Family, 193-211 AD (Glaux 16, 2003)

The Romano-British coins in the Thesaurus of Oiselius

I've just put a note on my Carausius and Allectus website (link to the full site left). It's about the Romano-British coins in the Thesaurus Selectorum Numismatum Antiquorum published by Jacobs Oiselius in 1677. 

The Romano-British coins in the Thesaurus of Oiselius

The type specimen for Carausius RIC 914

Whilst reconciling old coin tickets I have for coins from the Blackmoor hoard sales with the two sale catalogues (both referenced in the catalogues section of the bibliography page on my Carausius and Allectus website, see the links left) I realised that I have the type specimen for Webb’s 1933 RIC listing of RIC 914.

My coin, described as IMP CARAVSIVS PF A, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, PAX AVG, Pax (or Fides?) standing left with two standards has a ticket that notes it was part of lot 285 in the Christie’s 1975 sale. The lot is described as 20 Pax coins with various other attributes (RIC 907ff).

Looking at the RIC volume Webb notes in the “Authority” column that it is W. 1015, ie cited from his 1908 publication, The Coins of Carausius (reprinted as a monograph from the 1907 Numismatic Chronicle.

So, turning to the Webb book I flip to the entry and Webb’s “Authorities” column reads Selborne. The 1873 Blackmoor hoard was owned by Lord Selborne, having being discovered mid way between Blackmoor House and Woolmer Pond on his land. Thus, the specimen cited by Webb in both Coins of Carausius and RIC is the Blackmoor coin, and, consulting Roger Bland's Coin Hoards of Roman Britain III, there was only a single specimen in the catalogue, number 20448.

Curiously Bland describes the coin as RIC 913var. Although he does not explain what difference he thinks he has seen from the RIC description. Looking at the die axis of approximately 45 degrees from the vertical demonstrates it is the same specimen

The 1879 Beachy Head hoard

I recently picked up a small pamphlet or off-print, the source of which is unclear that relates to a third century coin find from Roman Britain. It details the gift of some 148 coins from a hoard from July 1879 to the Brighton Free Library and Museum by the Duke of Devonshire.

The find spot is noted as near Eastbourne in Sussex and, given the year and detailed listing I thought it should be easy to track down some further details. A quick search of Robertson’s Inventory of Romano-British Coin Hoards (IRBCH).

Sure enough it didn’t take that much looking up.  Entry number 728 identifies it as one of the six coin hoards recorded as being from the vicinity of Beachy Head, the two most well known being the 1961 and 1973 finds.

The find of around 680 coins was published in Sussex Archaeological Collections 31 (1881) by T Calvert. He notes that they were discovered between Beachy Head and Birling Gap by a group of men digging flint. About two feet down the container was struck by a pick causing the coins to spill out. The Reigns represented are from Valerian to Aurelian and Postumus through to Tetricus II. In the same journal Charles Roach-Smith summarised the Duke’s gift to the museum.

There does seem to be a little bit of uncertainty around the actual year of discovery as a brief report in the Archaeological Journal for 1879 ascribes 1878 as the year of discovery, although this does seem to go against the other documented sources.

Calvert, in his 1881 note, makes the unsupported suggestion that the continental army of Tetricus I that was finally defeated at Chalons by the forces of Aurelian in AD 274 was largely comprised of natives recruited in Britain. He goes on “What was more natural, therefore, than a Sussex man should return, when a fugitive, to his native downs, and there place in security his hardly earned treasure”.

Roger Bland, when documenting the 1973 Beachy Head hoard (Numismatic Chronicle, 1979), makes reference to all six finds of radiates from the vicinity including this one (ie 1879,  1899, 1914, 1961, 1964 and 1973). He concludes that the latest three hoards are probably related as they were found within 20 yards of each other and showed similarities or complimentary features in their composition. The same cannot be said for the three older finds, the exact find spots not being recorded. Also the 1899 and 1914 hoards terminate with coins of Probus, unlike the 1960s onwards hoards that end with Aurelian. He curiously speculates that the 1879 also might have ended with Probus, although there is nothing in the contemporary accounts to agree with this hypothesis.

A new Eastern mint for Probus and the Saturninus revolt

Probus, antoninianus, unidentified new Eastern mint

At the start of the reign of the emperor Probus (276-82) there were three Asian mints striking Roman coins, Cyzicus, Antioch and Tripolis. French numismatist Sylviane Estiot refers to a mysterious Roman mint that operated briefly in the late 3rd century AD, during the reign of Probus. Estiot proposed that this mint was established in Asia Minor, somewhere in Phrygia, to compensate for the loss of Antioch, which was seized by the usurper Saturninus in 280. The mint produced coins of the types CLEMENTIA TEMP and RESTITVT ORBIS, which were similar to those of Antioch, but with some stylistic and legend differences. Estiot based her hypothesis on a detailed analysis of the coins and their die links, published in a 2015 article titled “L’empereur et l’usurpateur: un 4e atelier oriental sous Probus”. However, the exact location and chronology of this mint remains uncertain and debated by other scholars

Probus, antoninianus, Antioch mint

According to Estiot, the coins of Antioch and the fourth eastern mint can be distinguished by some stylistic and legend differences, such as:

• The letter M at Antioch is usually rendered similar to IVI while at the new mint it’s fully formed.

Comparison of the two M styles, Antioch left, new mint right

• The lettering in general is higher and wider, with a more standardized shape and module throughout the legend, both on obverse and reverse on the coinage of the new mint.

• While Antioch during this period 277-80 employs both AVG and PF AVG for the Imperial title, the new mint only uses the full PF AVG.

• The bust style on the coinage of the new mint is sharper with stronger features, most obvious in the shape and dimension of the eye.

• On the reverse of some coins from Antioch there is a simple globe while the new mint has a globe surmounted by a Victory.

Probus, antoninianus, Antioch mint

Further reading

Estiot, S, “L’empereur et l’usurpateur: un 4e atelier oriental sous Probus”, in Bland, R, and Calamino, D, Studies in Ancient Coinage in Honour of Andrew Burnett, 2015, pp 259-76