The enigmatic base silver argenteus/siliqua of Licinius, Maximus and Constantine
Licinius I308 - 324 AD Base silver Argenteus Mint: Trier Obverse: IMP LICINIVS AVG Reverse: IOVI CONSERVATORI In exergue: PTR |
Maximinus II305 - 313 AD Base silver Argenteus Mint: Trier Obverse: IMP MAXIMINVS AVG Reverse: SOLI INVICTO COMITI In exergue: PTR |
Constantine I306 - 337 AD Base silver Argenteus Mint: Trier Obverse: IMP CONSTANTINVS AVG Reverse: VOT PR on shield VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP In exergue: PTR |
|
These three enigmatic coins were issued at the Trier (Treveri) mint (and only the Trier mint), one for each emperor, Licinius I, Maximinus I and Constantine I (who were co-rulers when they weren't fighting one another). Unlike the billon follis of the time which contained 5% silver or less, these coins had around 20% silver content and thus have a dull silver appearance. They have been called "billon argenteus", or "billon siliqua" though they clearly have no connection to those full silver coins. Apart from what they actually are, another problem is their dating. The two possible periods are 312-13 or 318-19 AD. Unfortunately these dates occur at the change-over from RIC Volume VI (editor C.H.V. Sutherland) to Volume VII (editor Dr Patrick Bruun). Sutherland gives the Licinius coin reference number 825 (remember this number is for Trier only and for RIC VI only). He dates it to 312-313. All fine and dandy so far. The Maximinus coin Sutherland gives the next number, 826, and also dates it at 312-313. That's logical as Maximinus died in 313 and rather confirms the date of the Licinius coin as we would expect this one type to be minted at the same time. Bruun lists the same coin in RIC VII but calls it a follis, dated 318-319 and doesn't mention it's silver composition. In a footnote, Sutherland notes, "Dr. Bruun has attributed no. 825 to the period after Maximinus' death, as RIC vii, Trier, no. 211. Our no. 826 appears to make his attribution unlikely." So far, so good. Unfortunately Sutherland didn't pick up on the Constantine coin. This is generally attributed to RIC VII, Trier 208A. Bruun also calls this a follis and dates it to 318-319. It seems though that this issue should really be in RIC VI under 825 and 826 (826A? as 827 is spoken for) and thus be dated 312-313. Constantine's and Licinius' "billon argenteus" were also struck in the normal 5% silver metal in the 318-319 period, and not just at Trier. They should not be confused with the real thing, not just by their lack of silver appearance but by differences in their markings (mint, officina etc.). There is a denomination called a 'centenionalis' that is attested to in ancient writings. It is assumed that it was this denomination that followed the follis and represented one hundredth of something, maybe a gold coin. The current theory is that the "billon argenteus/siliqua" was the prototype centenionalis, that perhaps the authorities decided they were giving away too much silver and continued with the 5% silver version, starting in 318. This provides the cut-off point between the follis and the centenionalis, though since the two denominations were of a similar size, how did the populace know the difference in values, if there was one? See examples below. |
Licinius I308 - 324 AD Billon Cententionalis Mint: Arles (Arelate) Obverse: IMP LICINIVS AVG Reverse: IOVI CONSERVATORI AVG In exergue: PARL |
Constantine I306 - 337 AD Billon Centenionalis Mint: London Obverse: CONSTANTINVS P AVG Reverse: VOT P R on altar VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP In exergue: PLN |