Recent pick up from a bottom-of-the-barrel auction lot. Roman Empire Aurelian, 270 - 275 AE pre-reform Antoninianus, Rome mint, 12th officina 17mm, 1.54g Obv: (IMP CL DOM AURELIANVS AVG), Radiate draped bust right Rev: (LAETITIA A)VG, Laetitia standing, holding wreath and anchor, XII right field Humans, as with all omnivorous animals, have a streak of scavenger in our blood. Tonight is trash night, and my wife will give me her weekly eye-roll as I go for a midnight stroll to look for discarded treasures. I freely admit that in spite of my morals, my code of honor, and decades of social conditioning, holding a fat wad of $100 bills that isn't mine would send some dark thoughts murmuring up from my id. I have spent about half of my professional career gathering evidence that our project funding isn't going into a black box for Enron-esque budget skimming by execs and middle management. One such classic example comes from the mint in ancient Rome under the reigns of Claudius II, Quintillus, and Aurelian. The mint was under the supervision of one Felicissimus, who received periodic orders to debase the antoninianus yet again. Officially, by the death of Claudius II, it was about 2-3% silver and weighed about 2-3 grams. Who would miss a little silver at that point? Felicissimus, either by his own instruction or else gross incompetence, allowed the product of the Rome mint to slip well below officially tolerable levels. Silver was removed from the coin alloy, and went straight into pockets. This went largely ignored while Claudius struggled with the barbarian hordes, and Quintillus never even made it to Rome. Aurelian, however, caught word of what was transpiring and sought to make an example. What exactly transpired next is poorly documented, but Felicissimus was put to death for his crimes and the mint workers rose up in rebellion, probably aided by soldiers whose allegiance they had bought with their illicit profits. The result is that the mint at Rome was shut down for at least a couple years, and ancient sources estimate casualties just on Aurelian's side at about 7,000. Some believe that survivors of the rebellion fled from the city and set up shop elsewhere, making illegal DIVO CLAVDIO antoninianii of clearly barbarous fabric but otherwise good artistry and literacy. Post any coins you deem relevant!
The style seems strange to me. Is this normal Rome of the first period? This is not my area of study.
Here's a first issue (Oct. – Dec. 270) Rome mint for Aurelian: One from the reopening of the mint in summer 273 (celebrating Aurelian's arrival at the city... are those mint workers he's wailing on?): And a first issue of Probus from the mint. Apparently the quality was maintained.
The OP coin I am pretty sure is just a Quintillus coin with the legend changed and hair curls removed: http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/quintillus/RIC_0022_XII_right.jpg Which of course is just a Claudius II with hair curls added: http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/claudius_II/Cunetio_2234_RIC_056v.jpg Other coins that are likely attributed to Felicissimus or his runaway mint workers: Rome-mint mule errors are extraordinarily common; this one is a DIVO CLAVDIO obverse with a Quintillus or Aurelian reverse Here is, IMO a top contender for a post-revolt barbarous coin - exceptionally nice portraiture for an irregular issue, but on such a reduced flan that no legend is visible at all. The eagle is tough to discern, too
I hadn't heard of the imitatives-made-by-ex-mint-workers theory before. Very interesting! Is it purely speculative or has there been some confirmation?
I do have a question about this. Is there any proof that the mint was "shut down", or was it just officially inactive while Aurelian fought in the Balkans and against the Palmyrenes? There seems to be a massive number of DIVO CLAVDIO forgeries and hybrids that are reported, and it seems hard for me to believe that all of these were produced during the first few months of Aurelian's reign. Perhaps they were struck during the mint of Rome's "official inactivity"? If anyone has an answer, please share.
interesting coins and story from this part of the 3rd century..to be followed by the only time its believed an empress was kept on the throne in Rome..
I thought I'd heard that this assumption - that Severina ruled as sole empress after Aurelian's death - had recently been debunked. Anyone know the details?
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find where I read that info... my brain is a fact sponge, but context... not so much. I doubt we have or ever will have any concrete evidence, but IIRC the argument goes: - DIVO CLAVDIO coins are easily the most common of all posthumous Roman coins after Faustina I and Constantine, but if you pay close attention, there are coins struck on broad flans and in excellent style, and coins that are struck on small flans and usually in crude style - the latter is far more common; it is certainly possible that a significant number were not actually minted in an official Roman mint. - DIVO CLAVDIO / Altar type barbarous coins are the most common barbs modeled after third century central empire coins. - Of those barbarous coins, they are usually of much better workmanship; how many Tetricus barbs have detailed hair and beards? Also regarding Severina, I would love to know the answer, but I think that would be better saved for another thread. Side-thought about the Rome mint: I know that in about the two decades after the 271/2 revolt and supposed re-opening, Rome mint coins switch to using Greek mint marks and control letters - perhaps he moved more loyal workers from an Eastern mint to Rome after he slaughtered the entire workforce for staging the rebellion?
While not easy to prove, it is an idea that seems reasonable. I am not fully comfortable identifying the coins of this period to mint and shuffled talent would make this harder. I only have two Aurelian coins I consider earlier and neither are Rome (Siscia and Milan?). The two suggest that all mints needed a bit of reason to shape up. Whatever Aurelian did seems to have worked.
It seems unlikely that Aurelian would have punished those that actually did the die cutting, as the two engravers employed by the Milan mint who struck coins for Aureolus were later employed by Claudius II, and the die cutters who made dies for Zenobia and Vabalathus at the Antioch mint were later again employed by Aurelian. It seems that experienced die engravers were in demand, and I believe that Aurelian would have followed suit at the Rome mint. Further evidence is the fact that irregular/hybrid issues of other types, as well as even DIVO CLAVDIO antoniniani, made in post-reform style, were struck by the Rome mint following the death of Aurelian.
