Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. All Items Purchased From Forum Ancient Coins Are Guaranteed Authentic For Eternity!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Internet challenged? We Are Happy To Take Your Order Over The Phone 252-646-1958 Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: Divo Tito  (Read 20275 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Divo Tito
« on: October 03, 2005, 05:33:09 pm »
Could someone give a comment on the reissue of coins of deified emperors  like this one?

Offline Marius

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
    • 249-253AD  Four Bad Years
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2005, 11:48:10 pm »
At one time many people thought these 'DIVI' coins the belonged to Trebonianus Gallus but now, because of silver content, weight, and maybe other reasons, they are credited to Trajan Decius.  Mules do exist with both emperors so it appears that Gallus continued to mint the coins after Decius death (the BM has a mule with DIVI Augustus on one side and a Volusian reverse - the temple of Juno, on the reverse).

Decius was a real reformer.  In his two short years as emperor he changed laws, instituted religious reforms, and actively campaigned against the Goths.  Amazingly, in such a short period he came up with many ideas for coinage including the double-sestertius, the semis (maybe as part of a re-alignment of the bronze coinage), and the DIVI series.  He also introduced many new reverse types honoring the armies of Dacia, Pannonia, and Illyricum.

It appears that the DIVI series was one of more part of Decius' energetic cultural propaganda.  He reminds the citizens of Rome's great emperors (interestingly Commodus was included - I have been told by a scholar of Commodus that he was actually quite popular with the masses, unlike the way we now view him), and perhaps associates the virtue of his reforms with the memory of other great Romans.

When I was in college I wrote an article (for a writing class - not history) that discussed all this:

http://sonic.net/~rbeale/mysite/roman_imperial_coins_of_249253.htm

Best regards,
Richard
Richard Marius Beale
Four Bad Years:  http://sonic.net/~marius1/mysite/

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2005, 03:10:03 am »
        Richard follows most modern opinion in seeing a political motivation behind the production of the Divi coins.  The true explanation, I believe, is much more mundane: these were simply restored coins, issued because Decius had decided to restrike all of the old denarii in circulation into antoniniani.
        Substantial numbers of the later antoniniani of Decius and the earlier antoniniani of Gallus show signs of having been overstruck on earlier denarii.  The occasional DIVO antoninianus too, for example one in the Dorchester Hoard and one in my collection, exhibits the same phenomenon, proving that the Divi antoniniani were produced as part of the general recoinage undertaken late in Decius' reign and carried on for a time by Gallus.
        When Trajan undertook a great recoinage in the course of his reign, we know that he issued restored coins, copying Republican denarii and imperial aurei.  We can assume that other restored issues of Roman coins, namely restored imperial bronzes under Titus and Domitian, restored bronzes and denarii of Augustus under Nerva, and restored legionary denarii of Mark Antony under Marcus and Verus, were also produced in connection with recoinages of the originals of these coins, or in Nerva's case, possibly in connection with the recoinage of the money of his condemned predecessor Domitian.
        Assume, then, that Decius too wanted to issue a restored coinage in connection with his great recoinage of c. 251.  Earlier restored coins had exactly copied their prototypes, adding a legend stating that the emperor in question had restored them.  Decius, however, could not copy the laureate portraits of the earlier denarii he was restriking, because his new coins had to have radiate crowns to indicate that they were antoniniani!  A radiate crown in the early empire had also been a sign of consecration, so Decius decided his restored coins would show the radiate portraits of his consecrated predecessors up to Severus Alexander.  The reverse types followed from the obverses showing the Divi:  Eagle or altar with legend CONSECRATIO.
        The resulting coins were indeed commemorative of the earlier emperors whose denarii were being recoined and they restored their portraits on the circulating coinage, but they were nowhere near actual copies of those earlier coins, so Decius decided to omit any additional legend claiming that he had "restored" these coins!
         Most of the denarii that Decius recoined were of third-century emperors, from Septimius Severus on.  He decided, however, to extend his restored coinage to include other famous earlier emperors too, Augustus, Vespasian, Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Pius, Marcus, and Commodus.  In the same way Trajan expanded his Republican restorations to include the quadrigatus and several very early denarii which were certainly not still circulating at the time of his recoinage; and he expanded his restorations of imperial aurei to include Vespasian, Titus, and even his immediate predecessor Nerva, though their original aurei were certainly not so worn out by his reign as to require recoining!  The same can be said of Titus' inclusion of Galba in his series of restored bronzes.  In each case the occasion for producing restored coins was evidently a major recoinage of earlier coins; but in deciding what types to restore other motives came into play, the desire to give a comprehensive picture of the Republican coinage, and the reluctance to omit important imperial predecessors from the series even though their coins were not among those that were being recoined.
         Source:  my own unpublished research.
Curtis Clay

Offline Marius

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
    • 249-253AD  Four Bad Years
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2005, 03:12:57 am »
In the Eauze Hoard 55 Divi antoninianii of Decius had an average weight of 3.42 grams.  I compare this with the average weight of Decius main issue (with legend IMP CMQ T...) that had an average around 3.85 g (I averaged the weights of the three most common types from this series, of which there were 361 coins in the Eauze hoard).  It does appear that the Divi coins were struck on lower weight flans.
According to Kenneth Harl's "Coinage in the Roman Economy 300BC to 700AD", the average weight of Decius' antoninianii was 3.97 grams, and it was 3.46g for Trebonianus Gallus.  So the 55 Eauze Divi coins weighed not only less than Decius' antoninianii, but also than the average Gallus, though not as low as the typical Severan Denarius (about 3.1 grams).  Perhaps the lighter Severan denarii were melted down and not re-struck, while those of better weight were re-struck into the Divi series.
It would be interesting to know occurrence rate of overstruck coins between the Divi series and Decius regular issues.  I have seen a fair amount of the regular issue but I have handled so few Divi coins that I can't compare.
Curtis theory of recoinage doesn't directly conflict with the idea that the coins were a propaganda tool, but if it is true that both theories are correct, then the primary reason would probably be the need to mint money and pay the army (re-coinage of denarii into double denarii) more than a secondary concern - propaganda.  As industrious as Decius was, it may well be both.
I have a database given to me by Joaquim Blay who studies the Divi series exclusively and has about 1000 coins in it.  I will get help from a co-worker (excel database expert) and find out what the average weight of the Divi coins is.


Best regards,
Richard
Richard Marius Beale
Four Bad Years:  http://sonic.net/~marius1/mysite/

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2005, 03:33:14 am »
One more question from a non-competent person.  Could it be possible that the series DIVI  was  struck to have an economy.
Though the coins were, say, slightly lighter than regular issues they were readily accepted just because of a better
quality (I do not believe that my specimen was re-struck but quite possible it is made from the silver of melted coins of earlier epoch) and bearing images of popular emperors.  Modern mints sometimes do such a trick making issues which are not intended for circulation...

Offline Marius

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
    • 249-253AD  Four Bad Years
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2005, 05:03:30 pm »
I averaged the weight of coins in Joaquim's database.  Of the 491 coins with weights listed, the average is 3.78 grams - still a little less than Decius' overall average compared to Harl's data, but well more than Gallus' average weight.  Perhaps these weights aren't particular helpful as an indicator of whether the coins were restruck on a much greater than Decius regular coinage.  I haven't heard from Joaquim for a long time, but I will ask him if he kept any statistics on coins that could be seen to be overstruck.  He keeps very good records, including die axis.
Richard
Richard Marius Beale
Four Bad Years:  http://sonic.net/~marius1/mysite/

Offline qblay

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 22
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2005, 12:45:02 pm »
Hello all,

Right now I’m working to publish next year an article about Divi Series in Gaceta Numismatica (the magazine of Asociación Numismatica Española). I’d like to publish an English version in the web. The web allows the permanent update I need for this subject.The average weight reported by Richard (3,78 gr) has not changed with the addition of 200 more coins. At the moment I have registered 600 weights from de 1000 coins in the data basis.

Sorry, but the only reference about re-struck coins is the reported one in Dorchester hoard. I’ll appreciate all information and pictures you can send me. I’m especially interested in a picture of the re-struck coin in your collection, Curtis.

Of course, all pictures and information will be appreciated.

About the information of the die-link tree it becomes obsolete day to day.
Nowadays, the 60% of coins registered (1000) are die-linked in the same tree !!!!!
I’ve had to create an specific software to rebuild the die link tree every time I add one or more coins to the register. I invested, or wasted, 4 hours to draw the first version of the tree, luckily now the problem is solved in 30 seconds by my computer.

When I publish my research you’ll see I’m not fond on hypothesis, I’ll only publish some facts and a lot of questions, sorry. I’m really worried by the huge number of hypothesis, not yet contrasted, that become the foundation stone of more and more hypothesis. This disagreement with the standard methodology gives me the fame of “enfant terrible” when I was studying my degree, I do not want to be boring telling my life, sorry again.

An interesting data I’ll publish is the estimation of the original number of dies which the Divi Series were produced. More details about calculation are referenced in the bibliography. We have to expect a final amount between 500-550 for the obverse (11 emperors) and 450-500 for the reverse (eagle and altar). These values are not changing (like average weight) with the 100 coins added. 
My question is: how much time (days) will the mint spend in consuming 500 dies? Remember that with only 1000 coins registered, 60% are die-linked. I think that if the register had 5000 coins this percent would be higher.
 
Talking about mules, many scholars reported their connection with the reign of  Gallus and Volusian. But all criteria based on typologies are not satisfactory to me. Some monts ago, it happened, what I found was not only the same kind of reverse but the same die.
The same die, I had registered on the reverse of the mules (BM, BNF) appear on an antoninian (sold by 75€!!!!) of Volusian. The die link tree, of these mules and the coins of Volusian, involves 14 more coins registered. 
As you can see I never name Traianus Decius. I think it’s attribution to Divi Series is just a hypothesis I respect

Here you are an advance of the final conclusion of my research

 One more time I’ll thank all pictures and opinions about this subject, and as you can see I’ll need a lot of help with the translation of my web to the English.
 
Regards,

Joaquim Blay
qblay
qblay@jbd.e.telefonica.net

Offline Marius

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
    • 249-253AD  Four Bad Years
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #7 on: October 17, 2005, 11:47:22 pm »
Hi Joaquim,
I am very glad to see you here!  I would e-mail you with these questions, but I think that everyone here would be interested too:

Can you tell us how many hybrids of DIVI coins you have seen with coins of Decius and his family, as compared to hybrid coins with coins of Gallus & Volusian?  It is amazing that a Volusian/DIVI coin sold for 75 euro.

I am very eager to read your article when you publish it.  I can translate bad English into good English but am not very good with Spanish.  The owner of this numismatic discussion board, Joe Sermarini, even gives store credit value for articles that are placed on his website here.  It would be wonderful to have your article here.

Perhaps I will have to wait for your article, but I am interested in any other observations you have found while studying so many of these coins.  I know that by studying a small series in detail, one picks up many fine details'

Richard

Richard Marius Beale
Four Bad Years:  http://sonic.net/~marius1/mysite/

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2005, 02:46:09 am »
We may expect extremely interesting study which will provide us a better understanding of functioning of a Roman mint  as well as
political thinking during the troubled years.
I would like to learn more how one can estimate the number of dies (it is an interesting statistical problem!), a die, how many strikes it can survive etc. I read that the estimate for the latter is about 10,000. So,  with 500 dies one may expect about 5M coins. Probably, much less because it was a historical series and the quality control could be more stringent. Now, one may speculate whether these coins were minted during the whole regne or it was a short period and they appear in mass (a single salary payment for the army).
I believe that it should be an act of propaganda to increase the moral of the army and Roman people.

About the quetsion how fast  500 dies were consumed: it seems not to be  a well-posed one. The real bottleneck is the cutting of a sufficient number of dies: there were not so many high-skill engravers (could one distinguish them in DIVI?). When there were enough dies in stock they could be in work simultaniously by low-skill workers and consumed rapidly.   

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2005, 08:26:59 pm »
Joaquim,
      It is good to hear that your project is progressing and that you will be publishing it quite soon.
      I will try to send you an image of my overstruck DIVO coin.
      Do you have an image of the overstruck Dorchester one, which must be in BM, or do you only know it from the description in the hoard report?
      Am I correct to think that the Volusian antoninianus you mention is struck from the same IVNONI MARTIALI Temple rev. die as the DIVO AVGVSTO mules in BM and Paris?
      Are these still the only mules known for the series?
      You write that you are sceptical of any attempt to date or explain the Divi coins.  But shouldn't exactly this be the overriding goal of any study of the coins?  What can they teach us about the history of their time?
      Moreover this is a problem that I think can be solved, as explained above: the Divi coins are almost certainly restored coins issued in connection with the great recoinage of 251.
      Naturally I am hoping that your study will confirm my dating of the series, based on the weight standard and fineness of the coins and the mule with the IVNONI MARTIALI rev. die!
      On the other hand, you ask the totally speculative question, How fast might the mint have used up 500 dies?  This question is not worth asking, because it can never be answered: if you make certain assumptions and say "100 days", I can make other assumptions and say "300 days" or "30 days", and we will have no way of determining which of these guesses is more nearly right.
      Mattingly plausibly suggested in the Dorchester hoard report that the recoinage of 251 might have been carried out not just at Rome, but at a number of different centers in the provinces using dies shipped there by the central mint.  Apparently the Divi coins, however, were all produced at Rome, if you are right that all or almost all of them will fall into a continuous die sequence, and there are no separate sequences that could plausibly be assigned to different mints.
      I will be interested to see what your study shows about the relative rarity of Divi coins for the various emperors, and if there is any evidence of some kind of officina system for producing them.
      Your English seems excellent and I cannot imagine you will have much difficultly producing a very good English version of your paper for your website.  All of us who are not so fluent in Spanish will be very grateful to you for that!
      I would be very grateful, nonetheless, if you could also send me an offprint of your paper in Spanish when it appears.
Yours,
Curtis Clay

           
Curtis Clay

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2005, 03:14:48 am »
If dies were shipped around the empire before use, would the metal have been shipped with them? If not, and I suspect it wouldn't, metal analysis might yield some clues.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2005, 03:37:57 am »
Million of silver coins - it is less than 4 tons of metal.  It could be a local stock - collected taxes,  e.g.  and the transportation
was not the major issue.
With such a huge data base, can one distinguish  dies engravers. One may try to identify their works with those working in the earlier periods. Examples of such an identification are known. In cgb catalogs of Claudius II it was observed that in Mediolanum was an engraver  who was working in Gallienus - Aureolus period and continue later.  In the consecutive issue a new one joined him. 
This consideration can be helpful for dating.

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2005, 09:42:39 am »
      In the recoinage of 251 the denarii in circulation were recoined as antoninianiAntoninianus dies, then, might have been sent from Rome to various provincial centers so that the restriking could take place on the spot.  That would have been easier than shipping tons of denarii from Britain, say, to Rome and then tons of antoniniani from Rome back to Britain.
       I am sceptical of die engraver identifications as speculative and unprovable so I hope Joachim will not waste too much time and ink on this angle.
Curtis Clay

Offline qblay

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 22
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #13 on: October 24, 2005, 12:58:09 pm »
Hello everybody,
 
I've just read Curtis’ questions in the Forum.

---MULES---
 
The only reference I have about an over struck is the one published from the Dorchester hoard. I don't know any picture of it.
I have all Divi from BM and there is not any over struck there. I have the suspicion that this coin is now in some private collection, perhaps yours Curtis. I say that because some times only a part of the hoard goes to the museum and the other part is sold by the discoverer of the hoard after published. I have lot of pictures and usually when some coin appears in a catalogue I already have its picture registered from another sale. Some years ago an antoninian restoring VESPASIANO appear in an auction here in Spain. This coin was already registered in my data basis but not coming from an auction but the publication of a French hoard. After a short research I find out that the main part of the hoard was sold by the "owner" after it was published. I bought this coin at a reasonable price. Is your coin, Curtis, restoring AUGUSTO? Perhaps you have in your collection a coin with a brilliant "pedigree" too.
 
The two mules with reverse IVNONI MARTIALI have the same reverse die and the same one that the coins of VOLUSIAN I mentioned.
 
There is one more mule, in BM, restoring VESPASIANO. The reverse is VICTORIA AUG, too common type to try to discover a coincident reverse, too huge task. The worst is its bad preservation state. I think is a not workable coin.
 
So, total mules known = 3

---FOURRE---
 
By the way, I recently discovered the only known (I think) “fourré”, restoring VESPASIANO and really bad preserved.

---- DATING ----
 
Talking about dating, I'm only sceptical of the attempts to date this series on hypothesis not contrasted (1).The only fact useful to date these coins is the die link of the mules and some other coins in the series. I hope in a short time to have the link between the mule's tree (16 coins today) and the main tree (750 coins today).
 
I think (I have not the evidence) that 500 dies that were consumed in sequence (proved) don't have I life longer than a few months, they must not be a task that passed along more than a ruler. This ruler or better rulers, I think, were Gallus with Volusian. Duncan-Jones have some estimations, depending on the ruler, 2000 or 3000 dies may be consumed per year. Then Divi Series may have been produced in 3 months of full time work. Let’s remember they all (75% at the research moment) were produced in sequence (die linked)

---AVERAGE WEIGHT---
 
I think it's important that every time we  mention an average weight we refer the set(number of coins) used to calculate it.
In case of Divi the average is 3,78gr and the set, 600 coins. This average has not changed since the set had only 400 coins.
So, I think that working with sets of 500 coins may give us an average acceptable.
I've read some articles that show discrepant averages of weight, the number of coins studied was too low or unpublished.
Let's calculate the weight averages of antoninians using sets of 500 coins, it's not difficult and it'll be very useful.
Over struck coins may give a discrepant average weight on its coins, but if the frequency of over struck is the same for Divi that other antoninians (pre and post) the problem doesn't exist.
 
 ---DIE LINK TREE---

The struck sequence shows that all coins involved were struck in the same mint. With only 1000 the 75% of coins are joined in the same tree (sequence) other are not yet linked, but my experience with the last 200 additions to the register makes me believe that more and more coins will be linked if the register increase. I understand that Divi mules, the antoninian of Volusian linked with them and the standard  Divi coins also linked were all produced in the same mint.
 
---CELATORS 1,2,3,4,…---

I hate to talk about typologies but the temptation is hard. Some months ago a partner in the Forum asked me about how many different "hands" appear on the reverses. I send him a selection and we didn't agree, whether 4 or 7. This different styles are evident in all reverses and some emperors like NERVA, with PIUS is completely impossible. I'm thinking to send a selection of styles to the forum.

---RELATIVE RARITY----
 
I'll send you a graphic about the relative rarity for every emperor, I hope you will receive it correctly, some times the graphic crashes when is sent by mail. I considered that the rarity of some emperors could be caused by a Damnatio memoriae, but it isn't. The number of coins known for every ruler match with the number of original dies estimated for him.

(1) I try to follow Karl’s Popper methodology. “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”. We can talk about it in a specific topic

Regards

Joaquim Blay



Offline qblay

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 22
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2005, 01:01:04 pm »
Hello

I have not enough information about the recoinage of 251, I'll appreciate bibliography about it.
 I’ve heard there’s an interesting article (2 pages) in Vagi’s “Coinage and …” about Divi, I’ll thank a scan.

Yours

Joaquim Blay

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2005, 03:19:05 pm »
Joachim,
      Thanks for your response and the appended table (not reproduced here) of specimens and obv. dies known per emperor.
      The BM retained almost 3000 coins from the Dorchester Hoard, and I would be surprised indeed if the single overstruck DIVO AVGVSTO coin was not among them.  Perhaps you have an image of it but the traces of overstriking are hard to make out?  All that can be seen are the letters G[E]RM from a denarius of Caracalla on one side of the antoninianus, according to the hoard report.  Weight of the overstruck piece, 49.6 grains = 3.22 grams.  Are you absolutely sure that there is no such piece among your BM photos?
      My overstrike is of Nerva, Eagle rev., undertype young Caracalla den. with obv. legend ending P TR P, only M visible from its rev., probably M[INER VICTRIX].
      There can be no doubt, in my opinion, that the Divi series was begun by Trajan Decius.
      (1)  As stated already, I think the Divi coins accompanied the recoinage of 251.  But that recoinage most definitely began under Decius and continued under Gallus.  Of the overstrikes with discernible undertypes in the Dorchester Hoard, 20 were of Decius, Herennia Etruscilla, Herennius Etruscus Caesar, or Hostilian Caesar, and only four were of Gallus and Volusian as Augustus.
     (2)  The Plevna Hoard ended during the reign of Decius: none of the latest coins of Decius and his family members were present in the hoard.  Entirely missing from the hoard, for example, were coins with the latest two obv. legends of Decius, IMP CAE TRA DECIVS or DEC AVG, and coins of Etruscilla with the rev. types FECVNDITAS AVG/AVGG and IVNO REGINA.  BUT THE PLEVNA HOARD CONTAINED TWO DIVI ANTONINIANI, proving that the production of those coins had started just before the burial of that hoard, well before the end of the reign of Decius!  This fact is decisive in my view. 
     Maria Radnoti-Alföldi, according to the Eauze Hoard report, proposed in her 1955 article on the Divi coins that the Plevna Hoard was buried early in Gallus' reign.  I presume this conclusion was forced upon her by dating of the Divi series to Gallus' reign only!  But I cannot conceive what probable explanation she can have advanced for the absence from the hoard of all late coins of Decius' reign and any other coins of the beginning of Gallus' reign!
     (3)  You mention a DIVO VESPASIANO / VICTORIA AVG mule in BM.  Is this not DECIUS' type of Victory advancing left?  Gallus struck no such type, only VICTORIA AVGG with double G, and Victory standing left not advancing left.  Here then is definite confirmation that the Divi series began under Decius
     We can even go further:  VICTORIA AVG is one of Decius' early types THAT DOES NOT CONTINUE UNTIL THE END OF HIS REIGN.  It is never found with the two late obv. legends mentioned above.  This mule, in other words, suggests that the Divi series began well before the end of Decius' reign, exactly what the Plevna Hoard tells us.
     How is it possible, in the face of this evidence, to contend that the Divi coins belong entirely to Gallus' reign?
     If there were 500 obverse dies, I don't think anyone will deny that the Divi coins could have been produced within a period of six months or so.  The question is, when did that period begin and end?  The answer seems clear:  it definitely began under Decius, and probably continued for a month or two under Gallus.
Yours,
Curtis Clay
Curtis Clay

Offline Marius

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
    • 249-253AD  Four Bad Years
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2005, 03:48:15 pm »
The two mules with reverse IVNONI MARTIALI have the same reverse die and the same one that the coins of VOLUSIAN I mentioned.
 
There is one more mule, in BM, restoring VESPASIANO. The reverse is VICTORIA AUG, too common type to try to discover a coincident reverse, too huge task. The worst is its bad preservation state. I think is a not workable coin.
 
So, total mules known = 3


I am sure Joaquim has the most extensive data available on this series with his database of over 1000 coins.  It is very interesting that there are only three mules that match a DIVI coin with an non-DIVI coin, and two of them are Volusian.  I assume the VICTORY AVG must be Decius because the reverse of Victory coins of Gallus always end in AVGG - but if the reverse state is so bad, maybe the coin does have AVGG but it cannot be determined - it would be very interesting if Joaquim can rule this out (unlikely though, because Victory comes from Gallus' last issue, two years later).

I am sure the discussion of who minted these DIVI coins has been written about in detail and that modern belief is that they were issued by Decius and continued for a short time under Gallus.  I had assumed that hybrids were a heavy factor in this determination but the alone would actually point to Gallus.  The average weight of the DIVI coins is definitely heavier than even the first issue of Gallus however (I'll look it up, but I think it's about 3.5 grams).  Are there are other key evidences other than weight and hybrids?

It is odd too, that most (2 out of 3) of the DIVI mules are matched with the Juno Temple reverse of Volusian, and not just becasue this reverse is much rarer than other contemporary reverses.  There are many mules (or just very rare varieties) of this reverse.  It is normal to Volusian as Augustus, but has also been seen on very rare coins of Trebonianus (not a big surprise), and even rare coins of Volusian as Caesar, and Hostilian as Augustus.  Besly and Bland, in "The Cunetio Hoard" attribute the Juno Temple reverse to Gallus' second issue, and everyone ( Eauze Hoard, Rome XI, etc.) seems to agree.  This is because the Juno Temple reverse type is found with a star in the right field and so it seems certainly associated with that group of coins).
That we have so many far earlier hybrid coins (DIVI, Hostilian AVG, Volusian CAES) matched with a second issue Gallus type is a bit too much for coincidence.  In spite of the Star evidence, , the Juno Temple reverse must start earlier even if it continues into the second issue.  Perhaps it was a special (very low mintage) issue intended for Hostilian AVG and Volusian CAES, and was Hybrid with DIVI series under Gallus but was then continued into issue 2, where even here it is minted at only about one fifth the rate as normal types.  As a special reverse type, it might have been struck in the same workshop as the DIVI coins and not amongst the normal issue, hence the surprising proportion of DIVI mules with the Temple reverse.

Richard Marius Beale
Four Bad Years:  http://sonic.net/~marius1/mysite/

Offline Marius

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
    • 249-253AD  Four Bad Years
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #17 on: October 24, 2005, 03:57:56 pm »
Curtis,
Thank you very much to you and Joaquim.  My last post didn't take into account your post (posted while I was busy working on mine).  It seems you have nailed shut the question about 'did the DIVI series start under Decius' unless someone can find some new explanation for the Plevna hoard.  I think the evidence of the victory/DIVI mule alone could be overlooked since it is in isolation, but I don't know how someone could argue against the Plevna hoard evidence.
Do you think my explanation of the Juno Temple reverse is likely?
Thanks,
Richard
Richard Marius Beale
Four Bad Years:  http://sonic.net/~marius1/mysite/

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #18 on: October 25, 2005, 02:40:46 am »
Richard,
      I agree with you that the temple type was obviously introduced at the very start of Gallus' reign, perhaps as a rare special type, because of its occurrence for Hostilian Augustus and Volusian Caesar.  These coins cannot be mules; it is highly unlikely that obv. dies of Host. Aug. and Vol. Caes. could survive after Hostilian's death and possible condemnation, and after Volusian's promotion to Augustus, and still be erroneously in use during Issue 2!
     I wouldn't care to speculate about officinae and how the DIVO AVGVSTO / IVNONI MARTIALI mules might have come about.  It's not as though we can talk about the surprising prevalence of such mules: only two specimens known, from the same die pair if I understand correctly! 
     Similarly, we can by no means dismiss the evidence of the VICTORIA AVG mule, just because it it known in only one poor specimen!  If the style of that specimen seems official, it is just as probative as the two IVNONI MARTIALI mules, even if we cannot easily find the same VICTORIA AVG rev. die used on a standard antoninianus of Decius.
     Joachim, would you be able to post an image of this VICTORIA AVG mule?  Do you know the same DIVO VESPASIANO obv. die coupled with normal CONSECRATIO reverses?
Regards,
Curtis Clay
Curtis Clay

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2005, 02:37:31 am »
Sorry to intervene in the discussion of high experts but I understand  why Joachim's temptation to  learn about typology is hard.
Contrary, I do not understand why Curtis denied the idea so vehemently. For me, it  would be very interesting to learn how many engravers
were working at Rome mint and how they were organized.  How many were engaged in carving dies for DIVI and how they shared the order.
This could be related with a larger study of engravers  of Decius and Gallus.  Thirty years ago the job  was considered as
too hard. I do not think so now. We, probably, could find  a lot of material now a statistical study. The problem is that not all pics
of coins are of a good quality. Nevertheless, one might use a simple methods  of classification using  a few formal indicators (so the problem is only which features can be chosen). 
 I  just  completed the thread on Roman portraits https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=18303.25
by 5 images of Decius. Even without any methodology one can find 3 coins which may be considered as  made by the  engraver.
Classification algorithms which one can find in any statistical software  will do the job.
 

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #20 on: October 26, 2005, 04:16:07 pm »
    On the contrary, I see no certain way of deciding how many engravers were responsible for the five portraits you illustrate:  maybe five different engravers, maybe only one!
    Separating engravers is inherently subjective, and the difficulties increase at official Roman mints that for the most part maintained a consistent, excellent style
     Moreover the results that might be obtained can never be checked, because no independent account of how many engravers were working at the mint, when each one entered and left employment, etc. has survived or might conceivably be revealed by future epigraphical discoveries.
    Since "knowledge" of this sort  can never advance beyond the category of speculation, I consider it not worth pursuing.  Like Eckhel, let us try to achieve results which are certain or highly probable, and frankly admit that everything else is unknown!
Curtis Clay

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #21 on: October 26, 2005, 05:53:34 pm »
Curtis, I object your point of view and hope  for your help.  It is believed that engravers made there work fast:  an ``ordinary" die could be
executed in several hours.  This means that  the engravers used stereotype movements and so there there are  "signatures" hidden
in a particular  individual outcome. So, the problem is just to find elements which, hypothetically, are individual for an engraver. 
It could be a  typical facial feature of a portrait (elongated head, croocked nose, type of a hairdress) or an element of the radiate crown.  The task of experts is just to determine such invariants which are persistent (experts may not agree on this). Having several (allegelly) discriminating  characteristics one can run a classification algorithm which authomatically arrives to a classification and  an optimal  number of possible classes giving the most probable number of the engraver.  Such an algorithms are flesible enough.
This is now rather standard approach. It permits to incorporate ideas of several experts and that is why it is not subjective at all. 
The classification being established, it can be used to attribution of a new coins.  To my mind, this study is feasible and not difficult if the data
base is available. 

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #22 on: October 26, 2005, 06:06:09 pm »
     Sorry, I cannot budge from my view that the classification you propose will produce nothing but conjecture!
Curtis Clay

Offline qblay

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 22
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2005, 02:02:24 pm »
Hello everybody,

COPYRIGHT BRITISH MUSEUM
 
Mules' pictures are copyrighted by BM, I'll ask for permission to publish on the web. A copy may be sent on demand P2P for study only.
 
 
VESPASIAN MULE
 
About the Vespasian's mule, at the moment, I don't have any link for its obverse.
 
The style of the reverse (not yet linked) coin looks far from this one we found in Decius coinage.
 
Looking for a link of its reverse (VICTORIA AVG left) I recognized a closest style in the coinage of Aemilianus.
 
As you may deduce I'm introducing the hypothesis that this mule is not earlier than the others but later.
 
PLEVNA HOARD
 
Personally, I don't have problems to accept that Divi were started by Decius, the only problem is I don't have any prove. I'm trying to play the role of Devil's advocate.
 
The attribution of Divi Series coinage to Decius from this hoard (which contains 2 Divi), is based on the absence of coins later than his reign. So this hoard is supposed to be buried before the end of Decius reign
 
Talking about archaeology a teacher of mine said: Any statement based on a lack is unsure.
 
I think this phrase may be applied to hoard's analysis.
 
VAGI'S DISCUSSION ON DIVI
 
A scan of pages 428-429 from Vagi's book will be appreciated. An interesting discussion on this subject seems to be there and I look forward to read it.



Regards

Joaquim Blay

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2005, 10:06:57 pm »
Joaquim,
        Thanks for the pictures of the BM overstike and mule; too bad copyright considerations prevent your showing them to the whole group!
        If you give me your postal address I can send you a photocopy of the Vagi text.  Like most recent commentators, Vagi explains the Divi series as reflecting "Decius' effort to restore cult worship of the deified emperors, and to recall the glory days of Rome", and he fails to recognize that they are essentially just restitution coins connected with the recoinage of 251.
        The Plevna Hoard comprised 3296 coins, including 1657 of the reign of Trajan Decius, with numerous examples of every common antoninianus issue up until, let us guess, January 251.  What are the chances that the accumulator of this hoard put his pot aside at that point, and just before burying it say in July 251, six months later, dropped in just two new coins, the Divi coins that had now been introduced by Treb. Gallus?
        Not impossible, of course, but highly unlikely.  The presence of two Divi coins in this hoard has to be regarded as a very strong indication that the production of that series had begun shortly before our hypothetical cutoff date of Jan. 251. 
       This conclusion fits perfectly with the considerations
(1) that the Divi coins were sometimes overstruck on earlier denarii, and we know that the recoinage in which denarii were restruck into antoniniani took place mainly at the end of Decius' reign, and apparently continued for a short time under Gallus; and
(2) that such a recoinage would have been the perfect occasion for the production of restored coins such as the Divi antoniniani apparently are!
      Yet you continue to insist that we have no "proof" of when the Divi coins were introduced, and what their purpose was. 
      I think that if we want to make progress in ancient numismatics and ancient history, we have to realize that "certainty" is usually unattainable, and we should warmly welcome ideas which at least seem HIGHLY PROBABLE to be correct!
Yours,
Curtis
       
Curtis Clay

Offline qblay

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 22
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2005, 02:01:35 pm »

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #26 on: December 05, 2005, 03:12:07 pm »
Curtis Clay

Offline Marius

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
    • 249-253AD  Four Bad Years
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2006, 03:41:32 am »
Richard Marius Beale
Four Bad Years:  http://sonic.net/~marius1/mysite/

Offline qblay

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 22
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2006, 02:51:49 pm »

Offline Potator II

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1636
  • Error communis facit jus
    • Monnaies de la Dombes
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #29 on: February 12, 2006, 01:40:17 pm »

Offline Rupert

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1993
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #30 on: March 09, 2006, 12:04:11 pm »
Ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt.

Offline qblay

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 22
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2006, 03:49:04 am »

Offline qblay

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 22
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2006, 04:07:46 am »

Offline Marius

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
    • 249-253AD  Four Bad Years
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #33 on: April 30, 2006, 02:29:43 am »
Richard Marius Beale
Four Bad Years:  http://sonic.net/~marius1/mysite/

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #34 on: April 30, 2006, 02:34:31 pm »
Curtis Clay

Offline qblay

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 22
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #35 on: March 15, 2008, 01:03:19 pm »

Offline Potator II

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1636
  • Error communis facit jus
    • Monnaies de la Dombes
Re: Divo Tito
« Reply #36 on: April 03, 2008, 08:12:03 am »

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity