Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! 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. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! 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: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia  (Read 2095 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Lech Stępniewski

  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« on: December 08, 2021, 09:41:08 am »
Coraz mniej nowych odmian udaje się znaleźć, ale przy ostatniej aktualizacji "Not in RIC" trafił się miły drobiazg.



Jest to znany typ follisa/nummusa, wybijany we wszystkich mennicach zaraz po abdykacji Dioklecjana i Maksymiana Herkuliusza, a w Antiochii i Aleksandrii (to domena Maksymina Dai) szczególnie długo - aż do śmierci Galeriusza. Ale, co charakterystyczne, tak długo wyłącznie dla Dioklecjana. Maksymin mógł bowiem denerwować swoją niekonsekwencją, próbami powrotu do władzy etc., a Dioklecjan był potulny i nie sprawiał kłopotów.

Ten konkretny wariant ze znakiem menniczym, którego integralną częścią jest widoczny pośrodku ołtarz, jednak nie został odnotowany w RIC. Autor VI tomu, Sutherland, zamieścił jedynie na stronie 633 następującą uwagę:

Quote
[Note. Kent, N.C. 1957, p. 69, no. 1087 and VG. 28, off Δ, both include this type under the present mark. Though this may exist I have not yet seen any example of it.]

Czyli i Kent, i Voetter prawdopodobnie tę odmianę widzieli, a Sutherland nie widział - nawet na zdjęciu.

Znalezisko jest więc tym milsze, że Sutherland o tej odmianie wiedział, szukał jej, ale nie umiał znaleźć potwierdzenia. A mnie się udało. Nie mam pewności, czy bylem pierwszy, więc jeśli gdzieś już ktoś zamieścił zdjęcie tej odmiany, proszę o wiadomość.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2021, 01:54:10 pm »
I can't believe I missed that one !  :(

It's interesting how the altar is included here (as expected, since it's the issue mark), but then omitted on the next two issues where we only have * and u instead of */altar and u/altar.

Online Lech Stępniewski

  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2021, 02:37:33 pm »
It's interesting how the altar is included here (as expected, since it's the issue mark), but then omitted on the next two issues where we only have * and u instead of */altar and u/altar.

BTW I have attested officina A for ANTIOCHIA 149-150  (:crescent:)  but have not seen yet A for ANTIOCHIA 136 (:<a href='../numiswiki/view.asp?key=star' target='_blank'>star</a>:) and ANTIOCHIA 137 (with legend FELICISSIMO). Do you know anything about these types?

Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2021, 04:15:54 pm »
No, I haven't seen officina A for RIC 136-137. RIC claims Vienna has 136. It's possible only D exists since Daia only seems to have used one officina at a time for these later PROV QVIES issues.

Coins with :crescent: (i.e "RIC 149-150") seem to exist in two versions:

1) Coins from officina A with :crescent: positioned closer to center of coin
2) Coins from officina D with :crescent: positioned close to top of coin

These may be separate issues.

I suspect the officina A coins with lower/center :crescent: are from the earlier RIC 103-109 issue (which actually only has "ANT dot" for CAESARIS, "ANT" for everything else).

The PROV QVIES coins from the */altar and u/altar issues seem to be from officina D, without altar, and with the  :<a href='../numiswiki/view.asp?key=star' target='_blank'>star</a>: or  :crescent: at the top of the coin.

Online Lech Stępniewski

  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #4 on: December 08, 2021, 07:00:33 pm »
Coins with :crescent: (i.e "RIC 149-150") seem to exist in two versions:

1) Coins from officina A with :crescent: positioned closer to center of coin
2) Coins from officina D with :crescent: positioned close to top of coin

These may be separate issues.

I suspect the officina A coins with lower/center :crescent: are from the earlier RIC 103-109 issue (which actually only has "ANT dot" for CAESARIS, "ANT" for everything else).

Yes, it is possible that ANTIOCHIA 96-97 were continued without dot in exergue (it is hard to find example of this type with clear dot), a dot could be omitted or obliterated etc.

However, the position of crescent could be different simply because engravers from officina A and  :Greek_Delta: had different aesthetic concepts. Maybe engraver from officina  :Greek_Delta: thought that crescent between heads of Providentia and Quies is an artistic nonsense (if so, he was right). I wonder why this crescent wasn't placed just above officina letter.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2021, 08:18:00 am »
Quote
Yes, it is possible that ANTIOCHIA 96-97 were continued without dot in exergue (it is hard to find example of this type with clear dot), a dot could be omitted or obliterated etc.

It's definite that RIC 103-109 (the whole issue - I misspoke about the CAESARIS) only has ANT in exergue. The "ANT dot" is a mistake in RIC.

Quote
However, the position of crescent could be different simply because engravers from officina A and  :Greek_Delta: had different aesthetic concepts.

Is that what you believe ? If so, which issue do you think they both belong to ?

Online Lech Stępniewski

  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2021, 11:45:06 am »
If so, which issue do you think they both belong to ?

Honestly, I don't know. If only officina A worked in earlier phase, and only officina  :Greek_Delta: later, there was no need to make an additional move with the crescent.

BTW I am not absolutely convinced that there are no variants with dot for ANTIOCHIA 103-109 (crescent in left field). Yes, they are very rare, sometimes disputable (I noticed ANTIOCHIA 105 with small dot), but I believe that Sutherland saw at least few specimens of ANTIOCHIA 103 with dots, because he explicitly mention (in footnote 2) one example without dot. Of course, it could be an error in his notes etc. But it is not impossible that for ANTIOCHIA 103-109 exists also a very rare sub-issue with dot.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2021, 12:09:04 pm »
I've not seen a single coin from this issue with "ANT dot" in exergue, only "ANT", so the vast majority, if not all, coins that Sutherland saw must have been the same. Evidentially there was some confusion in recording the mark as "ANT dot".

Given that Sutherland thought that this issue had "ANT dot" in exergue, he may have confused them with RIC 84-100 which were marked that way but differed in placement of the  :crescent: (left vs right field).

On a related note, have you ever seen RIC VI Antioch 89-90, or 96-97 (PROV QVIES with "ANT dot" in exergue, with/without :crescent: in field). I've no reason to doubt them, but have never seen one.

Online Lech Stępniewski

  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2021, 01:56:24 pm »
On a related note, have you ever seen RIC VI Antioch 89-90, or 96-97 (PROV QVIES with "ANT dot" in exergue, with/without :crescent: in field).

No. I cannot say for sure that I have seen even single specimen with evidently clear dot.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2021, 03:16:21 pm »
Quote
If only officina A worked in earlier phase, and only officina  :Greek_Delta: later, there was no need to make an additional move with the crescent.

Right, but they did it anyway, even without a need. It's interesting to consider why, but we can only guess the motivation, and it doesn't really matter.

To analyze the issues its just useful to note the similarity of the officina:<a href='../numiswiki/view.asp?key=star' target='_blank'>star</a>: and  :crescent: coins. If we accept that the :<a href='../numiswiki/view.asp?key=star' target='_blank'>star</a>: one was part of the */altar issue, then it would be hard to justify not also accepting that the  :crescent: one was part of the u/altar one.

So then, what to make of the officina:crescent: coins ? If we also had officina A :<a href='../numiswiki/view.asp?key=star' target='_blank'>star</a>: coins, with similar issue-mark placement, then it would be easy to also assign these to the */altar and u/altar issues, but I haven't seen any. RIC claims Vienna has RIC 136 officina A, but it's not on their website.

The other place a :crescent: coin can fit in is of course on the other :crescent: issue, RIC 103-109, which would otherwise be missing this type. Given that we have officina "A" being used for PROV QVIES in the adjacent RIC 113-114 (o/A) issue, and now also the altar (RIC 118-25) issue, it certainly seems a good fit there, and certainly the different :crescent: placement doesn't hurt.



Online Lech Stępniewski

  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2021, 04:15:11 pm »
RIC claims Vienna has RIC 136 officina A, but it's not on their website.

OK. I will try to check it in Vienna. Maybe it will help a bit.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Online Lech Stępniewski

  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2021, 08:06:48 am »
Well, I was kindly informed that there is no such coin in Vienna. They have only three specimens from officina  :Greek_Delta:
So officina A is not attested and there is no proof that it exists for this type.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2021, 09:12:41 am »
Thanks very much for checking - it seems you have established a good contact there at Vienna. I really wish they'd show their entire collection.

So, based on the currently known coins, and patterns of officina usage, I do think these A/D :crescent: coins are from different issues, as above.

Online Lech Stępniewski

  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2021, 04:22:22 pm »
OK. Let's make a short review of all Antiochian Providentia issues.

ANTIOCHIA 72a-73b A-I/ANT :dot: - Very doubtful; I have not seen a single specimen which unquestionable confirms existence of this issue.

ANTIOCHIA 76a-77b A-I/ANT :dots2: - Very well confirmed, many specimens, many new officinae surfaced etc.; however, some specimens with obliterated dots could be regarded as ANTIOCHIA 72a-73b or ANTIOCHIA 83a-b

How do you attribute this coin? 9.23 g 30 mm


ANTIOCHIA 83a-b  :Greek_Delta:/ANT - ANTIOCHIA 83a is rare but seems to be well confirmed; contrary to ANTIOCHIA 83b (FELICISSIMO in obv. legend; does this type exist?)

ANTIOCHIA 89-90 A or  :Greek_Delta:/ANT :dot: - not attested

ANTIOCHIA 96-97  :crescent: over A or  :Greek_Delta:/ANT :dot: - Not attested with dot in m.m.; possibly attested for officina A. But it is unclear how to differentiate this type with later ANTIOCHIA 149-150. Possibly specimens from off. A belongs to ANTIOCHIA 96-97 and specimens from off.  :Greek_Delta: belongs to ANTIOCHIA 149-150. In this case both ANTIOCHIA 96 and 97 (off. A) are attested.

ANTIOCHIA 113-114 :dot: ANT :o:. - RIC claims explicitly (footnote 3) that there is no officina letter. One of such coins is shown in RIC on plate 15 but its condition is poor and officina letter could be obliterated. On the other hand, this issue is well attested for off. A (both ANTIOCHIA 113 and 114).

ANTIOCHIA [after 120] off. letter over altar/ANT - Now attested for legend BAEATISSIMO and off. A.

ANTIOCHIA 136-137. :<a href='../numiswiki/view.asp?key=star' target='_blank'>star</a>: over off. letter/ANT - ANTIOCHIA 136 is very well attested for off.  :Greek_Delta:. ANTIOCHIA 137 is not attested and probably does not exist.

ANTIOCHIA 149-150.  :crescent: over off. letter/ANT - Both are attested for off.  :Greek_Delta: (if assumed that off. A belongs to earlier ANTIOCHIA 96-97

There are also some specimens similar to ANTIOCHIA 136 ( :<a href='../numiswiki/view.asp?key=star' target='_blank'>star</a>: over off. letter/ANT) which are quite light (4.75-4 g; when 7-6 g expected). It could be an effect of "al marco" or part of the last Providentia issue which belongs to Group VI.

Any comments?
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2021, 09:43:10 pm »
Here's how I see the issues. The PROV QVIES ones that are crossed out may exist, but I have never seen them.

Where the officinas matter (for PROV QVIES) I've indicated them as  :Greek_Alpha: or  :Greek_Delta:. Where multiple officinas are possible I've just put  :Greek_Zeta:.

There's a size/weight reduction that can be used to differentiate the early 305-306 AD coins from the 308 AD and later ones.

Quote
How do you attribute this coin? 9.23 g 30 mm

Based on the size/weight, it's from the first unlisted issue in 305 AD. Per a RIC footnote this issue probably includes GENIO POPVLI ROMANI too.

Quote
There are also some specimens similar to ANTIOCHIA 136 ( :<a href='../numiswiki/view.asp?key=star' target='_blank'>star</a>: over off. letter/ANT) which are quite light (4.75-4 g; when 7-6 g expected).

I'm not totally sure. I think they are fractions, but they are too heavy to be 1/2 nummi from the 310-311 star issue, so perhaps from c. 305 AD instead.

Online Lech Stępniewski

  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2021, 12:53:26 pm »
Here's how I see the issues.

OK. Some more comments.

Quote
How do you attribute this coin? 9.23 g 30 mm

Based on the size/weight, it's from the first unlisted issue in 305 AD. Per a RIC footnote this issue probably includes GENIO POPVLI ROMANI too.

It seems to me impossible that the first emission of Providentia would be so extremely rare. Maybe it is only optical illusion but I see on this coin dot-like-shape after ANT. If I would to speculate, I would say that there is rather one emission with dot (and logically the next emission has two dots) but on many specimens dot is omitted, worn out, hardly visible etc.

Another possibility is that the coin in question is unexpectedly heavy example of ANTIOCHIA 83b (however off. letter seems to be rather A than  :Greek_Delta: )


Quote
There are also some specimens similar to ANTIOCHIA 136 ( :<a href='../numiswiki/view.asp?key=star' target='_blank'>star</a>: over off. letter/ANT) which are quite light (4.75-4 g; when 7-6 g expected).

I'm not totally sure. I think they are fractions, but they are too heavy to be 1/2 nummi from the 310-311 star issue, so perhaps from c. 305 AD instead.

Well, it is not impossible, but the mintmark with star obviously better fits to Group VI (after 311)

Your chronology suggests that there is no Providentia in sub-group (iii) and (iv) in Group III and then a relatively huge emission in first sub-group of Group IV ( :dot: ANT  :o:) which divide two sub-groups with crescent in m.m. Seems strange to me.

For the rest I agree.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2021, 01:59:42 pm »
Quote
It seems to me impossible that the first emission of Providentia would be so extremely rare.

Well, recognizing the issues, and trying to explain any differences in rarity between issues, are two different things.

It doesn't actually seem that rare to me - I've recorded 10 specimens without even trying. Anyways, without this issue you're left with an identical situation in terms of rarity since you'd then be assigning all the same coins as missing/unclear dot variants of RIC 72-73 which would then be the first issue !

Quote
Your chronology suggests that there is no Providentia in sub-group (iii) and (iv) in Group III and then a relatively huge emission in first sub-group of Group IV

With RIC's issue ordering the abundance of PROV in the three Group IV issues would be: "-, R, -". With the altar coin we can update that to "-, R, R5" (or "-, huge, R5" if you prefer  ;)).

I'm not sure why you find that less strange than the 1st post-Carnuntum issue being the most-plentiful rather than the 2nd (which is the way it turns out with my issue ordering).

Online Lech Stępniewski

  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2021, 02:45:51 pm »
It doesn't actually seem that rare to me - I've recorded 10 specimens without even trying.

Really? Could you share the pictures because maybe I didn't understand something in your concept.

I'm not sure why you find that less strange than the 1st post-Carnuntum issue being the most-plentiful rather than the 2nd (which is the way it turns out with my issue ordering).

In my opinion it is rather one issue with crescent which is "cut" by Carnuntum event and then quickly modified and continued. So  :dot: ANT  :o: is really the first after Carnuntum issue. But I agree that your idea is also justified.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2021, 03:40:34 pm »
Quote
In my opinion it is rather one issue with crescent which is "cut" by Carnuntum event and then quickly modified and continued.

RIC 94-100 and 103-109 are clearly separate issues, not just a continuation of one issue into the post-Carnuntum period. The pre-Carnuntum issue had an exergue of "ANT dot" and crescent in same field as officina. The post-Carnuntum issue has "ANT" in exergue, and crescent in opposite field. There's no way the earlier dies could have been modified to make the later issue.

There were of course also multiple new obverses for the new post-Carnuntum line-up (Licinius, Constantine FIL AVG, and notably Maximianus), as well as a new reverse type (Genio Fil Avgg) introduced. This was very much NOT business as usual, or something the mint would have done by themself without explicit instruction from the highest level. Daia's' personal imprint is all over the issue.

I do of course have reasons for preferring my issue order, but I'll leave that for another day.

Online Lech Stępniewski

  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #19 on: December 11, 2021, 06:00:56 pm »
I am still not completely convinced but I am now slightly on your side.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Online Lech Stępniewski

  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2021, 08:23:12 am »
Are they really from different issues?

1. Off. A, 6.10 g, 23 mm
2. Off.  :Greek_Delta: , 6.82 g, 21 mm

Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2021, 08:52:34 am »
Quote
Are they really from different issues?

1. Off. A, 6.10 g, 23 mm
2. Off.  :Greek_Delta: , 6.82 g, 21 mm

You'll find a variety of crescent placement on the officina "A" coins. That one is an outlier from what I've seen (or do you have more?), with most closer to the center. Where are the officina "A" star coins? The pattern of officina usage seems highly regular (see my graphic above), and It seems to create more problems than it solves to assign these to the u/altar group, although it would be nice to find enough coins to do a die study to prove it one way or the other.

The issue weights would be expected to be the same - Daia didn't reduce again until after the death of Galerius.

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2021, 08:57:31 am »
Quote
1. Off. A, 6.10 g, 23 mm

Which collection/sale is that one from ?

Online Lech Stępniewski

  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2021, 10:44:09 am »
You'll find a variety of crescent placement on the officina "A" coins.

Well, importance of crescent placement was your idea. Maybe I took it to strictly. For me it is still a free decision of a particular engraver. So two or three engravers could made a bunch of varieties. One engraver was doing his work rather repeatable.

This specimen is from Savoca auction (acsearch 8668736). I am now collecting more pictures of these Antiochian Providentia coins but the whole picture is still dark for me.

Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Dioklecjan Providentia Antiochia
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2021, 11:11:45 am »
Quote
Well, importance of crescent placement was your idea. Maybe I took it to strictly. For me it is still a free decision of a particular engraver. So two or three engravers could made a bunch of varieties. One engraver was doing his work rather repeatable.

Well, the real distinction between issues appears to be by officina, but then we seem to have this very consistent top-of-coin issue-mark placement for the officina D coins (corr. to */altar and u/altar issues). There's a bit more variety of issue mark placement in the officina A coins, but generally towards the center of the coin. I guess you could say it seems the officina A coins have a "natural" issue mark placement, and the officina D ones have this seemingly deliberate  top-of-coin placement.

Quote
This specimen is from Savoca auction (acsearch 8668736).

I'm still not finding it. What search terms are you using to find it? Do you have a link?

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity