Featured Mars vs. Sol in the First Tetrarchy

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Gavin Richardson, Jan 9, 2020.

  1. Valentinian

    Valentinian Well-Known Member

    I find the question of whether coins help answer very interesting. Here is the result of spending far too much time (but still, not enough) looking into it.

    I looked for those coin types and did not find confirming evidence. I looked for evidence in RIC VI and RIC V.II and on line at the ANS web site:
    Online Coins of the Roman Empire: http://numismatics.org/ocre/
    and at the on-line BMC.

    The on-line BMC has the Arras Galerius with Sol head:
    https://research.britishmuseum.org/...tId=1189471&partId=1&searchText=Arras+&page=2 [One piece of evidence]

    An Arras Maximian with Hercules head:
    https://research.britishmuseum.org/...tId=1189561&partId=1&searchText=Arras+&page=2 [That's no surprise]

    I didn't find an Arras Constantius with Mars head (or any other Constantius aureus/head) at the BM site. I didn't find any heads of gods as a reverse on an aureus of Diocletian.

    The ANS site yielded this:
    It has illustrated an aureus of Galerius with a head of Mars on the reverse (RIC VI Treveri 63) and one with a head of Sol on the reverse (RIC VI Treveri 83). [That's no distinction.]

    The ANS site has no illustrated aurei of Constantius with reverse heads.

    So, that ANS site does not distinguish the gods for rulers by using heads on reverses. If we continue with other reverse types:

    Galerius has aurei with reverses with the head of Mars (RIC VI Treveri 63) and of head of Sol (83) and of Jupiter seated (63, 618b, 626) and Jupiter standing (625a)

    "Constantius aureus" yields for Trier
    http://numismatics.org/ocre/results?q=fulltext:Constantius aureus
    Jupiter seated (19); Jupiter and Hercules standing together (41); Hercules standing (42, 45, 51, 57, 85, 92, 620a, 620b); head of Mars (61); Mars standing (64);

    Now, to the print version of RIC.
    Here is what I found in RIC VI (Diocletian's reform of c. 293-4 and later)

    The gold of 293-305 [from the reform to the retirement date of Diocletian and Maximian] is RIC Treveri 1-99 and almost all are "R3", "R4" or "R5".

    Jupiter is in the reverse of 15-18, 20-23, 54, 56a, 58, for Diocletian and 19, 57 for Constantius, R2, and 53 for Galerius and 55, 56b, 59 for Maximian. [Mostly for Diocletian, as expected]

    Hercules is on the reverse of 1, 9-14, 28-30, 43, 44, 46, 47-50, 84b for Maximian and 42, 45, 51, 85 for Constantius, 84a for Diocletian [Mostly for Maximian, as expected, but some for Constantius, his Caesar]

    Mars is on the reverse of 31, 61, 64 for Constantius and 59, 60 for Maximian, and 62, 62 for Galerius. [Mars does not seem to belong to one ruler in particular]

    Sol is not there are all.


    The gold of 305-307 is RIC 615-634.

    Sol is on the reverse of 616, 630a for Severus II and 630b, 631, 632 for Constantine as Caesar [Sol first appears after 305. These are western rulers only]

    Hercules is on the reverse of 620a, for Constantius and 620b, 622, 623 for Severus II, 621 for Maximinus II. [These are all western rulers]

    Jupiter is on the reverse of 624, 625a, 626a for Galerius and 625b, 626b for Maximinus II [These are eastern rulers]


    Here is what I found in RIC V.II, which has the four tetrarchs, too, but only for the period between the elevation of the Caesars in Sept. 293 to the reform of c. 294 when gold is rare.

    Diocletian gold at Trier: Jupiter 131-146, 151-154 (explicitly mentioning IOVI),
    Sol 147-148 (ORIENS AVG)
    Maximian gold at Trier: Hercules 489, 497-500
    Jupiter 490-496, 501 [For Maximian!]

    No gold listed at Trier for Constantius or Galerius.

    Conclusion: The gold coins of the first tetrarchy give almost no evidence for particular gods being associated with Constantius or Galerius. Yes, Galerius has an aureus with the head of Mars as the reverse, but he also does with the head of Sol.

    Question: Where are the other coins of "special emission of Aurei struck at Treveri as a donative to commemorate the decennalias of Constantius and Galerius" recorded?

    Question 2: Do coins provide evidence about particular deities associated with Constantius and Galerius?

    So far, my answer to Question 2 is that the evidence they provide is so minimal as to indicate they did not favor particular gods.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. ancient coin hunter

    ancient coin hunter 3rd Century Usurper

    Very detailed numismatic work there @Valentinian. I have really enjoyed this thread and being able to participate in it Gavin. I hope the questions will be answered, but it may be that they will always be somewhat of a mystery.
     
    Gavin Richardson likes this.
  4. Gavin Richardson

    Gavin Richardson Well-Known Member

    Wow @Valentinian.

    What a thorough consideration of the question. I think I will have Warren do my taxes this year.

    It is so thorough that I haven’t had time to take in all of the details, but I find the conclusions very helpful. It’s also interesting to me to look at Warren‘s methodology. It’s a good model for using commercial information along with RIC to shed light on a scholarly query. Thanks for all the hard work in response to my humble question.



    
     
  5. maridvnvm

    maridvnvm Well-Known Member

    I thought it worthwhile looking at an individual mint too.

    I focus on Lugdunum so thought it worth describing something from that mint.

    Up until December A.D. 307 the predominant type for Constantine as Caesar the is Genius reverse.

    In December A.D. 307 there is a small issue, marked as N|_// PLC of Constantine as Caesar which includes both Genius and Mars types.

    Late in the month through to January A.D. 308 with the raising of Constantine to Augustus the same types are produced for Constantine. This is nothing significant as we often see types that were dictated by the previous emperor being carried on by the mint during a transitional period as they continue production of coins but may not yet have been given any indication of what "new" types should be produced.

    [​IMG]

    The next issue running through to June A.D. 308 the types continue. Mars types are produced now for Maximianus, Constantine and Maximinus II Daia.

    A small issue appears June through Summer A.D. 308, which also includes Mars types for Maximianus and Constantine.

    The next issue from Autumn A.D. 308 to start of A.D. 309 (CI | H/S / PLC) continues with the Genius and Mars types. Mars being only produced for Constantine.

    [​IMG]

    There is now a reformation in the coinage (Spring A.D. 310 - 311, F-T//PLC) and a reduction in size with an introduction of Sol Types. Coins are only produced for Constantine. There is some experimentation with Sol types as seen below before the design becomes standardised. Mars types continue to be produced in parallel to the Sol types.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    The next issue (S-F//PLC in A.D. 312) contains only the standardised Sol type
    [​IMG]

    The next issue (T-F//PLC) sees both Sol and Mars in parallel
    [​IMG]
    All subsequent issues are Sol types

    I see no evidence of the sole adoption of either Mars or Sol types at this mint.
     
  6. Julius Germanicus

    Julius Germanicus Well-Known Member

    Here is Diocletian with Jupiter:

    Bildschirmfoto 2020-01-11 um 13.53.02.png

    Here is Constantius with Mars from the Arras hoard:
    Bildschirmfoto 2020-01-11 um 13.38.57.png
    According to NAC "Just as the Augusti had their patron deities, so did the Caesars, with Galerius having Sol and Constantius Mars".

    Could the (unique?) Aureus with the head of Mars be a hybrid?
     
    Valentinian, Sulla80, Bing and 2 others like this.
  7. Gavin Richardson

    Gavin Richardson Well-Known Member

    More rich posts on this question. Excellent. I wonder what prompts the mint to start striking the Mars coins for Constantine in December 307? I'd love to know if Constantine made that call as he was looking for a god to love (Eusebius suggests that Constantine did a bit of god shopping prior to finding the Christian God), or if the decision to put Mars on his coinage was a generic mint action that the procuratores monetae were following for others in the imperial college across the board.

    It does seem, though, that Constantine sticks with Mars alongside his Sol and Christ interests in the second decade of the fourth century. That fact seems to suggest a peculiar affinity for Mars. Julius Germanicus's coin from the Arras hoard might suggest that Constantine was influenced by his father, but Valentinian's and Maridunum's base metal discussions don't really turn up strong numismatic evidence to support that view. Stephenson and the NAC must be getting this view (Constantius's affinity for Mars) from somewhere (a primary text?); I just don't know where.

    Thanks to @maridvnvm for posting those Sol variants. Coincidentally, I recently spotted that variant of Sol advancing left, holding globe, that is not in RIC. It was lurking on eBay as just a generic Sol type. It's on its way to me now from Spain. Not a beauty, but pretty scarce, I think. Here's the seller's pic:

    CONSTANTINE SOL LYONS NOT IN RIC.png

    NOT IN RIC website notes: “RIC lists for this issue only type with Sol stg. (cf. LUGDUNUM 310) and type with Sol advancing l. but holding whip instead of globe (LUGDUNUM 312). General note from p. 240: 'This issue, of moderate size, shows coins of reduced weight in the name of Constantine only. [...] The emphatic appearance of Soli Invicto Comiti indicates the continuation of this issue into 310, i.e. after Constantine's 'vision' in the earlier part of that year. Date, c. 309-10.' In the present writer's opinion [Lech S.], at least part of Soli Invicto issue was produced after reopening Lugdunum mint in 313. Coin should be listed before LUGDUNUM 312. https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/6lug-312.html
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2020
    Severus Alexander and Bing like this.
  8. maridvnvm

    maridvnvm Well-Known Member

    A good find. Well spotted. It is listed in Bastien. Bastien 529 (4 examples cited).
     
    Gavin Richardson likes this.
  9. maridvnvm

    maridvnvm Well-Known Member

    Here is a Jupiter head type for Diocletian from Alexandria (courtesy of BM)

    [​IMG]

    Galerius with Sol from Trier (courtesy of BM)
    [​IMG]
     
  10. Gavin Richardson

    Gavin Richardson Well-Known Member

    Welp. Congratulations, everybody. Looks like you were able to pretty quickly crowdsource an answer to the Mars/Sol question that corresponds to the conclusions of this 20-year-old study (i.e., the numismatic evidence does not affirm a clear pattern of tutelary Tetrarchic deities beyond Jupiter and Hercules).

    If I were a better scholar I would have found this article first and saved everyone the time. But the journey to this destination was fun and informative--like an experiment you have to repeat for yourself to understand the conclusions.

    THE RELIGIOUS COINAGE OF CONSTANTIUS I
    by M. D. Smith Byzantion Vol. 70, No. 2 (2000), pp. 474-490.

    2020-01-13 (8).png
    2020-01-13 (9).png
     
  11. Gavin Richardson

    Gavin Richardson Well-Known Member

    One more follow-up. There seems to be some discussion about whether the figure on the reverse of the VIRTVS AV-GG ET CAESS NN coins struck for Severus II, Maximinus II, and Constantine is Mars or a personification of Virtus. A gold multiple struck at Trier for Constantius Chlorus (RIC VI Treveri 31) features the same figure on the reverse with the legend MARTI VICTORI; “To Mars the Victor,” lending iconographical weight to the argument that the reverse figure on the base metal VIRTVS coins is indeed Mars.

    upload_2020-1-14_8-14-8.png
     
    Valentinian, thejewk and Bing like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page