East meets West in the Siscia Mule
and keeping all in check

By Chip Scoppa

Have you ever heard of a "Mule”?  In the language of coins a Mule is a miss match of obverse and reverse dies, producing a coin of not quite this type nor quite that type, but a mix, a hybrid. I would assume this coin term came about because of the animal mule, a match of a horse and an ass.  The product is not a true horse, nor a true ass, but a mule. The most important biological distinction of mules is that they do not reproduce.  It is something like that with the coins.  True numismatic mules were not intended for normal circulation.  Now you ask what is this "East meets West” and why is it called the Siscia Mule? Let’s take the last first, simple; it is called Siscia because that is the city where it was minted.  East and West comes from the two parts of the Roman Empire and how each part of the Empire is represented on this hybrid coin. How do you keep the series from which this coin comes, in check? Use the checklists at the end of the manuscript.

I heard a good joke the other day about coin collectors and it illustrates how important this type of mix-up is to the numismatic pursuit. It goes something like this: "How do the three words Donkey, Jack-Ass and Mule relate to a coin collector? A coin collector will pass up a donkey, but would be a jack-ass to pass up a mule.”

In the year 289 AD the Roman Empire was co-ruled by two Augusti. Diocletian was reigning in the East and Maximian was reigning in the West and that combination made up the entire empire.  Each of these rulers had a patron. Diocletian was the senior Augustus and chose the senior patron Jupiter while Maximian was the more militant and chose Hercules a well-known strongman as his patron. Each part of the empire was also known by the names of these patrons.  The East was called the "House of Jupiter” and the West was called the "House of Hercules”.  It was decided that a series of coins was to be made that honored each ruler with each patron. Siscia was chosen as the Imperial Mint to make these coins.  For some unknown reason the names of the Latin patrons were spelled in Greek characters and divided between three officinae of this mint to be included on the coins. Each ruler had a coin from each officina with his likeness on the obverse and the image of his likeness together with that of his patron on the reverse.  The reverse legend is the same for all of these coins, CONSERVATOR AVGG. The double G in the abbreviation for Augusti signifies that two rulers were in power together. More on the subject of coded coins can be found on a web page authored by Doug Smith. In the years of 289 and 290 AD the practice of making these coded coins continued.  Sometime within this time frame at the third officina or better known as the "gamma” officina coins for both Diocletian and Maximian were being made. A mistake happened and dies from both emperors got mixed up and used together.  This mistake at Siscia blended East and West and produced a remarkable coin. 

As we try to attribute this coin we see four facts: 1- it is a radiated bust 2- of Maximian, 3- it is CONSERVATOR AVGG and 4- there is an XXI in exergue. All four of these facts help us to start determining the attribution. First the XXI and the radiate tell us that we are working with an Antoninianus that is in the Pre-Diocletian Reform period and is not a Post Reform Radiate, so we know that it was struck prior to 294-6 AD, the Diocletian Reform. This dating is key to know which volume of Roman Imperial Coinage (RIC) to look in for referencing this coin.  We are correct to look in volume # V and not in volume #VI.

Next we see the reverse legend and it is CONSERVATOR AVGG, which is a common legend for both Diocletian and Maximian during this time period. A closer look reveals that the obverse reads IMP C M A VAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG and is listed as a standard obverse legend by the #2 designation for Maximian in the RIC listing. The bust is also one of the standard busts and is denoted by an F.  This obverse legend, bust type and reverse legend all are listed in RIC Volume V, Part II under RIC-580 of Maximian.

We must now examine the reverse scene and see if we can get a match with the description listed under the entry. The descriptions for the CONSERVATOR AVGG coins of Maximian all seem to have the pairing of Maximian and Hercules with a club.  This is where the plot thickens.  The reverse for this coin is expected to be one of Maximian and if it were from the gamma officina we would expect to see a gamma somewhere on the reverse, either in one of the fields or in the exergue. We do find a gamma and now are satisfied that we have a coin from that workshop.  Our coin depicts two figures, but neither of them has a club. One figure we see is a nude male with a scepter.  This is when some detective works needs to begin.  We know that Maximian’s co-ruler also has coins with this legend and shows two figures on the reverse. Of course, the other figure is Jupiter and not Hercules.

Now we have solved part of the problem, but we need to go further to truly identify this coin.  Looking for other markings we see the BI with some pellets in the exergue along with the standard XXI that we noted before.  We find listed in RIC under Diocletian a few coins that would be correct if the obverses were that of Diocletian.  Without the Diocletian legend or bust on the obverse we are narrowed down to a variant of Diocletian, RIC 263, with the same reverse style, but it is not with a listing of the exergue that we have. The extra pellet at the end of the lettering is not listed on any of the exergue groupings. We have attributed this coin as a mule with obverse of Maximian RIC 580 and reverse a variant of Diocletian RIC 263.

When a question was posed in the IDENTIFICATION section of the FORVM's bulletin board about a coin that could not be identified, I did a similar process only with a few shortcuts. Being familiar with the "Coded  Series” (see Doug Smith’s page on the subject) I knew that the gamma coin in the Maximian part of the series should have had a "LI”, but as  soon as I saw the "BI” I knew right where to look, under Diocletian, and I was certain that we were working with mixed dies. I then responded to the question with the thought that it was a "coded mule” along with an offer to give it a "good home” in my Coded Coin Collection. Later others (including Doug Smith I was told) came up with the same thoughts and confirmed my suspicions.

Shortly after the owner figured out that the coin was truly a mule he put it up for bid on e-Bay with an excellent prose passage introducing it. I will quote his introduction - "What is special about this coin? ... Everything!!!  In the years between 286 and 296 the Siscia mint issued a special series of Antoniniani associating Diocletian and Maximian with the Gods. Maximian with Hercules and Diocletian with Jupiter. The mint was divided into three workshops and each produced coins and included in the exergue 1 third of the name of the appropriate God. As if this is not interesting enough. It gets better. This coin has the Obverse of Maximian but the reverse clearly belongs to Diocletian, and should be the third portion of his series. The coin reverse depicts Jupiter and Diocletian instead of Maximian and Hercules, and the letters in the exergue BI would be the third portion of IOBI, Greek for Jupiter. What does all this mean? Well in a nutshell: A mintworker errantly grabbed an unmatched set of dies and struck a few coins that made it into circulation before realizing his error. And what we now have is a very rare coin with a mismatched obverse and reverse. Great coin, VF+, well centered, Beautiful portrait, Super reverse, Full sharp crystal clear legends, and an attractive smooth, dark brown patina. All this and extremely rare to boot! Don't miss out!! Guarantee: Satisfaction 100% Guaranteed, or return the item for a full refund. Authenticity unconditionally guaranteed.”

Part way through the auction I ran across a passage in RIC that says- "Though each emperor specially honored his own patron, yet his colleague’s special protector was occasionally included in his workshop.” At first this bothered me and then I thought about how the use of the others patron in other types such as Jupiter with Maximian in a reverse legend style of CLEMENT or CLEMENTIA TEMP was listed at Siscia,  and other cases at different mints where Hercules was use by Diocletian and Jupiter was used by Maximian. Finding these other uses of the colleague’s patron made me feel more at ease that it was still a mule we were dealing with and not something that was planned.  On the other hand I have recently communicated with another collector who has a coin similar to the "SISCIA MULE”. Are these two coins from the same blunder? It will be interesting to compare the coins to see if it can be determined if they came from the same dies.  There are also cases of the non-coded coins with the CONSERVATOR AVGG legend in which the patron of the colleague was depicted. This collector pointed out to me that the occurrences always seem to happen in the gamma” officina. Every time we start finding common occurrences happening in one location, we study them. We learn more about the past and what went on during that time period. It will be of great value to gather as much information about this time period within the third officina of the Siscia mint.  Perhaps we can unwrap at least some of the "Veil of Mystery” associated with this series of ancient coins using that information

As luck would have it I "corralled” the mule. Even before I had the "critter” in my hands I had the thought of having David Sear provide his authenticating services on this special coin. I was so excited that I had an official check cut by our bank waiting for this coin to arrive in the mail, so I could send both out as quickly as possible to David’s ACCS (see the David Sear web site) firm for accrediting and to pay for the fee.  Here is a short quote from the Certificate of Authenticity provided to me by David Sear: "This variety of an Antoninianus of Maximian is attributed to the mint of Siscia (modern Sisak in Croatia) and belongs to the joint reign of Diocletian and Maximian, prior to the elevation in AD 293 of the junior members of the Tetrarchy.  The reverse celebrates Jupiter as the Conservator ("preserver and protector”) of the two Augusti, a type which normally appears on the coinage issued in the name of Diocletian (Maximian’s equivalent type shows his special guardian deity, Hercules). The mint artisans appear to have made an error in striking a coin with this die combination, but the mistake was not detected before this example went into circulation.”

So much for the story, here are the descriptions of the checklists for this series which are similar to the lists provide at the end of my article on the Probus Coded Coins. First of all notice that the numbers of RIC listings are much smaller for this series of coins than for the Probus AEQVITI series. There are many more coins per RIC number for this code than for the Probus code. Each RIC number is followed by an alpha character suffix thus providing a unique listing per coin for the checklist. Again I will use the RIC notation for the various bust styles and only write out the description when it is not one of these standard styles. There are fewer standard obverse legends, than were found in the Probus series, and there are no non-standard legends, with that in mind I will refer to them by the number that RIC assigns to them and save space just as it does.  All coins in this series utilize the reverse legend of CONSERVATOR AVGG so the listing of that would be very repetitive and will be left out. The reverse style is always a pair of figures sacrificing by pouring from patera onto an altar. These figures are frequently miss attributed as Jupiter and Hercules together, but in each case the figures are of one the emperors and one of the patrons. The only aberration in the description of the six RIC numbers that make up the entire series is one case on a Maximian coin, RIC 582, where Hercules is holding his club rather than leaning on it and this case will be clearly denoted.  Field markings as well as the complete exergue marking are the keys to this series and they will be clearly denoted in different columns.

It should be noted that the main key to this series is the placing of about one third of the name of the patron spelled out in Greek letters in the exergue with the familiar XXI.  The officina markings are put somewhere within the fields or possibly with the other letters in the exergue.  In the case of Diocletian the division of the word IOBI is as follows: A officina uses the (first) I, B uses the O and G uses the BI. While on the coins of Maximian the division of the word HPKOYLI is as follows: A uses the HP, B uses the KOY and G uses the LI.  In all cases there are many different placements of a various number of pellets and these pellets will be denoted by the use of the period symbol (.) in the exergue column of characters.

Series collecting can be frustrating and complicated by the thought that you need EVERY COIN. The author contends a simple series can be made by just three coins for each ruler or even for matter only three coins of one the rulers. Then someone can get reckless and have to have it all, one of every known coin in the series. Added to that each officina will most likely have variants and that will increase the size of the total collection. In addition to the facts above there are possibilities of mules as shown in this manuscript which compounds the whole picture……WHERE DOES IT END?

The next question is, if there is such an elaborate series for the PROBVS AEQVITI coins and now we see this "NICKNAME” series for Diocletian and Maximian, how many other series are there embedded in the coins of the Roman Empire?  What are their codes?

Sources:

Printed material-

Roman Imperial Coinage Volume V, Part II, published by Spink

Roman Coins and Their Values, authored by David R. Sear

The Hand Book of Roman Imperial Coinage, Van Meter

Sayles’ series on Ancient Coin Collecting (Volumes I, III and IV)

Coins of PROBVS with coded markings of AEQVITI embedded in mintmark by Chip Scoppa

Software-

Moneta, by Numus sold on the Forvm at the following address  https://www.forumancientcoins.com/

Internet sites-

http://dougsmith.ancients.info/  Doug Smith’s Main page

http://dougsmith.ancients.info/feac73xxi.html  Doug Smith’s XXI an other Letters page

http://dougsmith.ancients.info/code.html  Doug Smith’s 'Coded' Antoniniani page

http://www.davidrsear.com/  David R. Sear’s Main page

http://www.davidrsear.com/certification.html  David R. Sear’s ACCS page

Finally, thank you to all of the people who helped me with this article.  Again, "Magistra” your skills were well tested as you guided an engineer through the composition phase, but still allowed for his own "voice.” "JDHolds,” without your willingness to sell this magnificent coin I would never have been inspired to write this article. Special thanks go to Stephen Knapp for his pointers and encouragement.  David R. Sear, thank you for time and conversations about the Certificate of Authenticity I learned a lot and you were more than generous with your offer to remake the Certificate due to the poor handling by the USPS. I can’t forget Joe Sermarini, who is hosting the site, https://www.forumancientcoins.com/ , where this will be available.

Please note that the following lists are based on the series in RIC. There are other attested combinations and those are not covered in these listings; they will be the subject of future work. Remember that all of these combinations may not exist just because they are listed in RIC.
 

*  missing letters of  263-e, f, g, h, ac, ad, ae & af are not coded coins, but are considered within this RIC #