Severus II as Augustus: IOVI CONSERVAT

[Per D]

I just picked up what seems to be a very rare Siscia follis, struck for Severus II as augustus. The coin has been repatinated with shoe polish or some similar gunk which comes off with acetone, but I hope it’s not a fake.

IMP SEVERVS P F AVG
Laureate head right.
IOVI CON-SERVAT
Jupiter standing, head left, with chlamys over left shoulder, holding Victory on globe in right hand, long sceptre in left. VI in right field, SISA (?) in exergue.
8,78 gm. ⌀ 28 – 30 mm. Die axis 0°
RIC VI: 179c; Voetter (Gerin): p. 289, no. 13; Cohen -; Sear 14677

RIC rates this type R2, doesn’t mention any collections but quotes Voetter’s Gerin catalogue. The only similar specimen I’ve been able to find online is one from officina Γ on Lech Stępniewski's Not-in-RIC site.

The scarcity of these Iovi Conservat-coins (RIC 178 – 180) is puzzling as the series must have been issued for some time (it includes Constantius and Galerius as augusti, Severus, Maximinus, and Constantine as caesares, as well as Severus as augustus).

I’d be curious to know if anyone knows the whereabouts of other RIC 179c specimens.

[Lech Stępniewski]

The scarcity of these Iovi Conservat-coins (RIC 178 – 180) is puzzling as the series must have been issued for some time (it includes Constantius and Galerius as augusti, Severus, Maximinus, and Constantine as caesares, as well as Severus as augustus).

Siscia was in Severus domain and this issue with Severus as Augustus was obviously started shortly before his death. When he died probably coins with his portrait were immediately removed while other were still minted for some time, because living rulers are always more important and it is safe not to remove them without a strict order.

[Heliodromus]

Nice find!

Coins from this series for Severus II as augustus are all extremely rare. The only other one I've noticed is the attached one, ex. Victor Failmezger (author of "Roman Bronze Coins 294-364 AD, from Paganism to Christianity"), 27.51mm 8.3g, which also seems to be officina gamma.

The only other Severus-as-augustus type I've seen is the Hercvli in Vienna (online).

Ben

[Per D]

Hi Lech,

I guess I wasn’t very clear in defining “issue” here. I meant the entire series with the IOVI CONSERVAT legend and mintmark -/VI//SIS-A-Γ, which started while Severus was still Caesar (and includes Constantius) and continued into the third tetrarchy (with Severus as Augustus and including Constantine as Caesar). All these coins (with the exception of those in the name of Constantius and Galerius) seem to be very rare.

It’s possible that this issue could have started right before news of Constantius’ death reached Siscia (late summer 306?), but it could have been more than a year earlier as well (Sutherland is a bit vague and dates it “305 – 307”).   

The Siscia mint closed some time in the spring of 307 (at around the same time Aquileia begun striking for Maxentius). It seems unlikely that Maxentius troops captured Siscia, but Sutherland (RIC VI: 448) makes the interesting observation that Galerius (and Severus) were dropped from its final issue, and connects this with the political situation.

My apologies if the above sounds like Besserwisserei (I’m trying to sort out the chronology for myself).

[Per D]

Hi Ben,

Thank you! I forgot to check Marc B's list of sold coins (that's a great resource).

[Lech Stępniewski]

which also seems to be officina gamma.

It is possible that all known specimens (including Per's) of SISCIA 179c are from officina gamma. Distorted gamma could easily resemble "A".

[Lech Stępniewski]

Hi Per,

there could be in fact two issues:

- first part shortly before death of Constantius with no coins in the name of Severus as Caesar;
- then rather long break;
- and finally the second introduction of this type with Severus as Augustus but unfortunately also shortly before his death.

[Per D]

Lech,

You could very well be right. I was definitely wrong, as there is no coin struck for Severus as Caesar in this series (at least not one recorded in RIC). I don’t know where I got that idea from. Duh!

Separating the different Siscia emissions from this period is tricky with several types (Concordia Imperii, Concord Imperii, Hercvli Victori, Iovi Conservat, and Perpetvitas Avgg) all using the same -/VI//SISA-Γ mark, from before Constantius’ death until the mint closed.

You could very well be right re: the officina letter as well. My specimen is so corroded that it’s impossible to tell if it’s A or Γ.

Thanks for taking the time!

[Heliodromus]

The coins of Severus as caesar from Siscia (RIC 173a, 182-184) don't seem especially rare compared to the other emperors.

It's an interesting series overall. There are three issues from Alexandria (1st/2nd/3rd tetrarchic line-ups), and two from Siscia (2nd/3rd tetrarchic line-ups).

The series starts with just the (house of) Iovi and Hercvli types under Diocletian, accordingly assigned to eastern/western members of the tetrarchy, then is extended by Galerius for the 2nd tetrarchy to include further differentiated types for the caesars. Eastern caesars get Concord Imperii, while western ones get Perpetvitas Avgg.

Siscia (Galerius) tweaks the reverse legends a bit from those used at Alexandria (Iovi Conservat vs Iovi Cons Caes, Concordia Imperii vs Concord Imperii), and doesn't follow the same strict east/west type discipline. At Siscia all augusti get both Iovi & Hercvli, all caesars get both Concordia & Perpetvitas.

At Alexandria we have:

1st tetrarchy 304-305

West                           East
Chlorus CAES    : Hercvli      Galerius CAES : Iovi
Maximianus AVG  : Hercvli      Diocletian AVG: Iovi

2nd tetrarchy 305-306 (after abdication)

West                           East
Chlorus AVG     : Hercvli      Galerius AVG  : Iovi
Severus II CAES : Perpetvitas  Max Daia CAES : Concordia

3rd tetrarchy 306-307 (after Chlorus death)

West                           East
Constantine CAES: Perpetvitas  Galerius AVG  : Iovi
Severus II AVG  : Hercvli      Max Daia CAES : Concordia

At Siscia we have:

2nd tetrarchy 305-306 (after abdication)

West                           East
Chlorus AVG     : Iovi+Herc    Galerius AVG  : Iovi+Herc
Severus II CAES : Conc+Perp    Max Daia CAES : Conc+Perp

3rd tetrarchy 306-307 (after Chlorus death)

West                           East
Constantine CAES: Conc+Perp    Galerius AVG  : Iovi+Herc
Severus II AVG  : Iovi+Herc    Max Daia CAES : Conc+Perp

So altogether it's a nice regular pattern, but there are a couple of oddities in terms of the how common the types seem to be:

1) While Siscia loses the east/west type discipline, Hercvli seems much more common for (Herculean) Chlorus than Iovi, which seems natural, but Hercvli also seems more common than Iovi for (Jovian) Galerius which is odd !

2) As noted, the coins of Severus II as augustus (3rd tetrarchy) are extremely rare, while those of Constantine (still rare) appear much less so. Severus was an "official" member of the tetrarchy, but Constantine only a begrudgingly accepted one, so we might have expected Galerius to favor Severus. Severus didn't die until sept 307, after Constantine was already augustus, so there's no reason he should be rarer on that basis either. Perhaps the numerical comparison is meaningless since the sample size is so small for both emperors (Severus II and Constantine) ?

Ben

[Per D]

That is a really useful chart (I guess one could add that strange series of “quarter folles” from Siscia which includes the second tetrarchy plus Maximian). Thank you for taking the time!

Do we have a date for the last coins struck in the name of Severus? We know that the Siscia mint closed in the spring of 307, probably at around the same time Severus was taken hostage, and I guess he had been dropped from Constantine’s coinage before that. But papyri and other documents indicate that Galerius (and Max Daza) considered Severus a legitimate emperor up until his death.

Per

[Lech Stępniewski]

the sample size is so small

This is also the main problem with SISCIA 178a-180b. I just made a quick research. On OCRE: 179a (2 ex.) and 179b (7 ex.); 178a, 178b, 179c, 180a, 180b - 0 ex. On acsearch: 179b (4 ex.) and 179c (1 ex.). The rest - 0 ex. So one hoard could invalidate all deliberations.

And there is another problem. RIC claims that SISCIA 178a and SISCIA 179b were minted for Galerius Maximian. Not Maximian Herculius (he is absolutely absent, like Severus as Caesar).

Well... This could be Galerius



This also could be Galerius



But what about this... Galerius stylized as Herculius?



BTW, all four SISCIA 179b on acsearch from four different auctions (Jesus Vico, Agora, Rauch, CNG) are attributed to... Maximian Herculius.

It is not impossible that after his flight to Ravenna Severus was removed from this issue (which was just minted in Siscia) and Maximian Herculius, now the commander of Severus' army, introduced in his place.

[Heliodromus]

I have to assume those three coins are all Galerius, although admittedly only the second one is obviously NOT Maximianus.

It would be very odd if Galerius CAES, who controlled Siscia, would have issued coins just for Maximianus and not the other three members (including himself) of the 1st tetrarchy, and especially so if he chose to assign him an Iovi type rather than Hervcli.

It would also be odd if Galerius AVG, having sent Severus to oust Maxentius & Maximianus, would then choose to suddenly recognize usurper Maximianus because he had defeated his deputy ! And, again, if he had done that, why would he choose to recognize him as a Jovian rather than a Herculean ?

This "not quite Galerian, not quite Herculean" portrait is the same issue we were discussing in the other thread about the Siscia fractions issued at the same time :

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=123884.0

I wonder exactly what was the source of confusion to the Siscian mint workers, and in what manner it was communicated to them which emperors to include? Presumably they did realize that western Maximianus had abdicated, not just Diocletian, but maybe not? Perhaps for any new types the mint was given drawings of what to produce from whoever decided such things? It would be understandable that given just a sketch with a legend of IMP MAXIMIANVS PF AVG, they might be unsure who it was meant to be, since the change from it being Maximianus to Galerius had only just happened.

Ben

[Lech Stępniewski]

It would also be odd if Galerius AVG, having sent Severus to oust Maxentius & Maximianus, would then choose to suddenly recognize usurper Maximianus because he had defeated his deputy ! And, again, if he had done that, why would he choose to recognize him as a Jovian rather than a Herculean ?

Yes, it would be odd if it would be Galerius' decision in peaceful times. But what if it was a local decision caused by rumors that Maximianus' troops could soon invade Siscia? Maybe these coins were treated like a certificate of loyalty. And because rumors were ambiguous also portrait on some coins was intentionally ambiguous.

[Heliodromus]

I think the evidence from the Genio fraction makes it clearer .. amusingly the legend there is definitely Maximianus, but the evidence seems even stronger that it is Galerius since otherwise we'd have to accept that Galerius, was omitting himself in favor of Maximianus, and anyways the "Maximian 2nd reign" suggestion can't apply in that case since the fractions were for 1st tetrarchy only.

If we accept that the fractions, with "IMP C M A" legend, and sometimes ambiguous busts, are really Galerius, then it seems logical to assume that these coins minted at the same time, would have been subject to the same confusion. The alternative seems strained - that in 305 the mint got the fractions wrong, but the Iovi/Hercvli issue right, and then in 306-307 decides to recognize the usurper Maximianus with a "house of Jupiter" reverse! Galerius anyways didn't appear to have been in any mood to appease Maximianus since his next move was to take his own army to Italy to battle him.  

Ben

[Lech Stępniewski]

Well, the fraction issue shows some confusion in mint orders. The IOVI issue shows confusion because (as I assume) there were no clear orders. I agree that it was not meant that way by the supreme authorities, Galerius etc. It was an effect of rather ill-considered moves in unclear political situation. And maybe that's the reason why this issue was ephemeral and now is so rare.

PS

And, again, if he [Galerius] had done that, why would he choose to recognize him as a Jovian rather than a Herculean ?

If Constantius (Herculean) was earlier recognized in this issue why not Maximianus, his August?