I don't really like the name "folis" for this kind of coins : normally they only appeared under Anastasius I in the Byzantine Empire.
The folis was considered as a account unit during the Diocletian reform but not as a particular coin.
In numismatic, we completely messed up with that term, so the archaeologists don't really like the way we call them.
The thing is we don't know the exact denomination given at that time for this kind of coins, but the most appropriate term seems to be nummus (sometimes we only use Ae).
After 348 we have a name for those small bronze : the "maiorina" (same here, some people use centonialis after that, but it doesn't seem correct too ).
About this coin I agree, it was minted for the caesar Crispus at Trier (second officina) in 323.
Laureate and cuirassed bust to the left with spear across right shoulder and shield on left arm.
Reference : RIC VII #394.
I don't find it on numista : feel free to create a page for this reference.
I think it would be better than someone more capable than me should create the new listing.
I can do the modern stuff very easily, but this is more difficult.
I do not understand the lettering, so would probably make far too many mistakes.
Please feel free to ask any questions you may have prior to creating page.
The coin has the legend VOTIS XX. This is a celebration of the 20th day of accession (dies imperii) of an emperor or heir, most certainly Constantine himself since Crispus never reached 20 years of joint rule with his father (as Caesar = heir). The coin, therefore, should be dated to the year 325/326. Vows were undertaken at the start of the year, so here after 19 complete years, at the start of the 20th.
Camerinvs,
That is some great information. Do you think you could add it to the catalogue.
Should you need any further information, then please let me know.
Citeer: "Camerinvs"The coin has the legend VOTIS XX. This is a celebration of the 20th day of accession (dies imperii) of an emperor or heir, most certainly Constantine himself since Crispus never reached 20 years of joint rule with his father (as Caesar = heir). The coin, therefore, should be dated to the year 325/326. Vows were undertaken at the start of the year, so here after 19 complete years, at the start of the 20th.
I never really paid attention at the difference between those dates before so I just asked on a forum specialized in this coinage.
In fact, they didn't mint these coins for the anniversary of the accession but anticipated the vows of the 20 years of the reigns of the emperor (same about the other coins).
Citeer: "Camerinvs"The coin has the legend VOTIS XX. This is a celebration of the 20th day of accession (dies imperii) of an emperor or heir, most certainly Constantine himself since Crispus never reached 20 years of joint rule with his father (as Caesar = heir). The coin, therefore, should be dated to the year 325/326. Vows were undertaken at the start of the year, so here after 19 complete years, at the start of the 20th.
I never really paid attention at the difference between those dates before so I just asked on a forum specialized in this coinage.
In fact, they didn't mint these coins for the anniversary of the accession but anticipated the vows of the 20 years of the reigns of the emperor (same about the other coins).
So this coin is dated from 323.
Quick reply since I'm preparing a trip...
Normally, the anticipation of the anniversary is expressed by a multiplication of the vows. So, for example, many coins have the legend VOT X MVLT XX in a wreath. This means vows completed for the celebration of the Decennalia (10th anniversary celebrated normally at the beginning of the tenth year, i.e. right after 9 years were completed) and a multiplication of the vows for the wish that the emperor will celebrate his Vicennalia, or 20th anniversary at the beginning of the 20th year of reign (i.e. after 19 complete years).
Constantine celebrated his Vicennalia on July 25th 325 in Nikomedia, and he seems to have celebrated again, one year later on the same date in Rome, but the "real" date is July 25th 325 since he became emperor on July 25th 306.
Now, perhaps there is a reason to date that series of coins to 323, and I'd like to now what it is. But note that older catalogues often need to be corrected as our knowledge improves with research. RIC vol. VII was published in 1966, so over 50 years ago. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying I need better evidence to date to the year 323 a series of coins which should normally belong to the year 325.
Bruun (author of RIC VII) does explain, pp. 56 and following, the difference between the two types of vota. I'm not sure why he chose the vota suscepta over the vota soluta in the case of the coin type discussed here. If I have time later, I'll check, but if you have the PDF of that book (which I have in print!), you could try to see for yourself on pp. 56 and following, and then look at the introduction for the Trier Mint, where possibly more is said.
There is not reasons to wish "a happy 20th anniversary... and a 30th anniversary anticipated " : it sounds really weird.
For me it's just about the current decade : the "VOT X MVLT XX " means that the first decade is finishing and we are going to enter in a new one : we are given our vows for the current decade and the ones for the next one.
That means the type of legend "VOT ? MVLT ?" were minted just before the date of the anniversaries which is not the case for the legend "VOT ?".
If you check the other votive coins, you will notice they are all dated before the Decennalia, Vicennalia and so on.
I know the RIC is an "old book" and is not that perfect (some "official" types can be subject to debate for exemple), but they didn't choose those dates randomly : the most obvious dates would have been to take the dates of those anniversaries instead of pointing a special range of dates for each of those types if it was just about that.
Even the recent studies of the hoards don't seem to question those dates for now
Citeer: "Cycnos"There is not reasons to wish "a happy 20th anniversary... and a 30th anniversary anticipated " : it sounds really weird.
Sorry, dear Cycnos, but this means that you don't understand those anniversaries. I do. I have presented four papers at conferences on them and I am finishing a peer-reviewed article with two colleagues on a new inscription mentioning similar celebrations. Please read the articles published in the 1980s by André Chastagnol. These are foundational.
CiteerFor me it's just about the current decade : the "VOT X MVLT XX " means that the first decade is finishing and we are going to enter in a new one : we are given our vows for the current decade and the ones for the next one.
That means the type of legend "VOT ? MVLT ?" were minted just before the date of the anniversaries which is not the case for the legend "VOT ?".
You say: "For me"... This is not about how you feel but about the evidence. Though there are a couple of mistakes in it, please find a copy of Dietmar Kienast, Römische Kaisertabelle to understand Roman imperial chronology and anniversaries and celebrations. (You don't need much German at all to get to the facts.)
CiteerIf you check the other votive coins, you will notice they are all dated before the Decennalia, Vicennalia and so on.
Again, this is what Bruun came up with. He might be right, but I need evidence to believe it. How did he determine the date 323? Why not 324? or 322? Do you know? Is the date written on the coin? I'm not saying he is wrong, I'm saying I need proof that this is so. Normally, VOT coins should have been struck within a few months before and/or after the celebration to be meaningful.
So, how did Bruun come to 323? Did he rely on relative chronology + die linkage? If so, his dates could all be off by a year or two.
CiteerI know the RIC is an "old book" and is not that perfect (some "official" types can be subject to debate for exemple), but they didn't choose those dates randomly : the most obvious dates would have been to take the dates of those anniversaries instead of pointing a special range of dates for each of those types if it was just about that.
Even the recent studies of the hoards don't seem to question those dates for now
When you write "they didn't choose those dates randomly", it means you trust the author (Bruun) without feeling the need to ask why he came up with his chronology. Again, I am not saying he is wrong. I am saying he needs to justify his dates. May be he does somewhere in the introduction, may be he doesn't. The natural date for the VOTIS XX coins should be 325. If you have reasons to reject that, the burden is on you to prove it.
As a matter of fact, in my research on this, I found a stunning mistake in RIC IX about the celebrations of Valens (ruled 364-378). The error is so stunning that it will be part of the publication I mentioned above.
I do know how the process of dating coins from this period works and was realised on the RIC : the chronology is based of the type of bust, the type of legend using by the emperors/caesars at this period, on historical elements, on the specificities of the mintmarks, the additions present in the fields and the weights of the coins of each type (they have been devalued quite often during this period). The datation of the hoards and the usure of the coins present inside helped as well to determine this chronology.
I believe this work is reliable because of the scientifical methodology using here so I'm not gonna reinvent the wheel : I have no reasons to waste my time verifying every elements that allowed the author to attribute a date for every coins on this catalog unless I find something suspicious.
Your theory is, however, only based on your interpretation of the legend written on this coin and, as I said, it can be interpreted differently.
Sorry, if I'm not as good as you in rhetoric but I am struggling to express myself in English and it takes me a lot of time to write a message.
However, I see nothing wrong with the datation of the previous coin in the RIC, at least until proven otherwise.
If the bust variations and other features allow to date the coins as Bruun does, I'm perfectly fine with that. In fact, you should have provided those details before.
Indeed, Jovian ruled only one year (not even one year, actually), and in his case, yes, it has to be vota suscepta ("vows undertaken") in anticipation of the fifth dies imperii ("day of empire" = day of accession) which, of course, never actually happened. That's an excellent example, and I do not deny at all that that happened, as I said above, but I just needed some reason to believe it, because most of the time the mention of the vota is close to the actual anniversary.
And I must somewhat gently disagree with one of your statements. Do remain skeptical until you have good reasons to believe something is true. In my research on these anniversaries, I found many statements by numismatists and historians that simply do not hold true, including some by Theodor Mommsen in an 1882 article that is perhaps the worst piece of scholarship he ever wrote, though everybody has followed him blindly since then. And yet, Mommsen deserves the title of greatest Roman historian of all times.
In RIC IX, J.W.E. Pearce made a calculation error which caused him to be completely puzzled by the VOT XV MVLT XX coins of Valens. Those coins are actually perfectly fine. What is actually amazing is that two ancient sources made the same mistake. Nobody has ever noticed that problem, so far as I know, but there is absolutely no doubt that they were all wrong. When the paper comes out I'll upload a coin sheet for the siliqua of Valens with the VOT XV MVLT XX reverse type.
Can someone please offer to add this coin to Numista.
I am prepared to help with any information you may need. I feel that I would miss out information that is required, thus causing the referee to either add it themselves, which I do not want to happen, or it will be deleted.
You experts out there are my best hope.
I will them add it to my collection and it will become my oldest coin, by about 1,450 years.
It will, I suppose give me a new issuer too!
As I have not had any offers to help me put the coin on to the Numista listing, I will now file it away in my coin folder.
Thanks to everyone who contributed to a great discussion.
Citeer: "COINMAN1"As I have not had any offers to help me put the coin on to the Numista listing, I will now file it away in my coin folder.
Thanks to everyone who contributed to a great discussion.
I'll add it for you if you crop the images for me (I don't like doing that part myself because I don't have good software for it so I don't want to do it more than I have to). The info you and others provided is fine.
Choucas,
Glad you like the new photographs. Thank you for you help in adding this coin to the Numista database.
Can you let me know when it has been validated.
Does anyone know the value of the coin? It is not for sale or exchange, but just curious, as I have no idea at all. It could be worth £1 or even £50, and I would not have a clue.
I think I will have to add a new issuer to my personal database, as I suppose, it should not be added under Italy
It seems that Treves 2nd officina is already on that page.
Unless I missed something I think it is useless to add it to numista then...
But anyway, here are the cropped pics:
Citeer: "Choucas"Hello CoinMan,
Today I cropped the pics but while searching on numista I found this :
https://fr.numista.com/catalogue/pieces132605.html
It seems that Treves 2nd officina is already on that page.
Unless I missed something I think it is useless to add it to numista then...
But anyway, here are the cropped pics:
About value, not sure, but I'd say 20-25$.
Not exactly the same type here :
"officina + mint + dot" on the link
"dot + officina + mint + crescent" here
Can anyone confirm that the link in a previous message, is actually of the coin I have.
There seemed to be a minor dispute as to actual date and who was on the coin.
Once I have this verification, I will add it to my Numista listing.
Could someone kindly add the correct coin to Numista. It is my last request on this forum for this coin.
There has been a great debate, but now it needs an expert in this field to add the coin.
Many thanks to all for one of my favourite debates, especially as I knew nothing about the coin, but feel like I know a great deal more now.
I think it is very sad when help is requested, but none is forthcoming.
The coin is now put away, most likely in the wrong place, but that does not matter.
Thanking everyone for a great debate, in which I have learned a great deal about a coin that is around 1700 years old, and, still not sure exactly which it really is, although, I am nearer than when I started on this quest.
Case closed.
I was thinking of adding your coin to the catalogue, but I have been travelling for a full week now and I'm currently in Berlin without my usual equipment.
Have we determined what the mintmark is? Oh yes -- Trier, so we have what we need to catalogue it.
When I return and can access a bigger screen, I could try to add it to the catalogue (I've added only one coin so far, but I have made a number of corrections and additions to many others).
Did this coin get added to the Numista database. Sorry to keep moaning about it, but if it is a new type, I would like everyone to see it and then get a chance to add it to their own database.
If it has been added, can someone please send me the link
I think it should be added as a variant to the two sub-types already listed and linked by Choucas. RIC doesn't list separately the variants ● and ᴗ (I hope this shows as a crescent), but they are discussed in RIC pp. 158-159. So, an extra line should be added with your ●STRᴗ variant but the editor of the Numista page has basically locked the lines for mintmarks. It says that you have to post in the Forum > Numista Catalogue to make the request.
So, with your pic as evidence, what we need is just a new line with the new mintmark.
They actually have their own references :
- STR● coins are listed on the pages 193 to 195
- The later issues with ●STRᴗ start at the end of the page 198.
However I agree with you on this point, I'd rather prefer to group them together as they came from the same mint, used the same type of bust, reverse type and lettering.
It's a bit more complicated than that : special rules seem to occure for the hammered coins.
For modern coins we only have one page per type, however some medieval and ancient coins are sometimes split by mints even if they belong to the same type (Spain, Ottoman Empire, Mongol states, Islamic states, Roman coins....) or even by variants : for example, England and Scotland are following the classification of the Spink and the nummus section follows the common classification used in the RIC and other catalogs too.
Yes. My point was to show that we group varieties based on common sense according to each situation, not that we should do exactly the same thing with Roman as with Indian coins. For sure, the different Roman mints should be listed separately, as in RIC. But inside each mint, I would say that the same combination of obverse + reverse legends and types should be on one single page, whatever the difference in the small diacritics like the dot and crescent. RIC doesn't do that because their prime objective is academic/scholarly; they are not doing their classification from the point of view of the coin collector.
So, IMHO, Trier mint coins with obverse 5a /G5 l. + the BEATA ... reverse should all be together, with a list of the "diacritics" and their various combinations. This will be much easier to search than if we have a page for each position of the diacritics.
I have just sent a request to add lines with the different diacritics. Yours is the latest of the four variants and dates to 323, according to P. Bruun, the editor of RIC VII, based on the chronological sequence.
Let's hope the request is approved! I have another, pending request going back to... August 1st!
I will add here for the catalogue referee that the dots and crescents (● ᴗ) were basically the way for the Roman mints to provide a chronological difference in the production of coins. So, these marks do the same thing as the year does on modern coins and should therefore all be listed together. RIC splits all the coins into periods because they're doing the numismatic work of making sense of those small differences. RIC is not written primarily for coin collectors but for Roman historians and archaeologists.
So, we should group together all coins of the same type (this one being 5a legend + G5 bust with the BEATA... reverse), just like we list all the different dates of a modern coin in one single page.
The update has already been undertaken (section "Comments" on the page), but I pointed out to the catalogue editor that we also need to add the missing mintmarks where we checkmark our coins.
My oldest coin is now 1,300 older than it was earlier today.
Thanks to everyone who helped me with this challenging enigma.
Glad it finally found its place on the catalogue.
Solved.
).
