Featured Severus Alexander's dupondius reform of AD 228

Post your middle bronzes of Severus Alexander or Julia Mamaea or anything you feel is relevant.

The Scriptores Historia Augustae (SHA) is a late Roman collection of biographies, written in Latin, of the Roman Emperors, their junior colleagues, designated heirs and usurpers of the period 117 to 284. It is ostensibly a compilation of works by six different authors, but a recent computer analysis of its style has demonstrated that it is the work of a single author. It is a challenging source for historians because it contains kernels of truth, but these are interspersed with remarkable omens and fantastic anecdotes. At least one ruler has been entirely invented. The most clear-headed exposition of it all can be found on Jona Lendering's introduction to the work at Livius.org, which describes it as "something like an ancient mockumentary" and summarizes it as "a collection of (bogus) biographies of Roman emperors of the second and third centuries."[1]

The SHA describes a sweeping monetary and tax reform instituted by Severus Alexander:[2]

6 The taxes paid to the state were so reduced that those whose tax under Elagabalus had amounted to ten aurei now paid a third of an aureus, a thirtieth, that is, of their former tax. 7 Then for the first time half-aurei were minted, and also third-aurei, after the tax had been reduced to this amount; and Alexander declared that quarter-aurei too would be issued — for he could not issue a smaller coin. 8 And he did indeed coin these, but kept them in the mint, waiting to issue them until he could reduce the tax; however, when this proved impossible because of the needs of the state, he had them melted down and issued only third-aurei and solidi. 9 He also melted down the pieces of two, three, four, and ten aurei, and the coins of larger denominations even up to the value of a pound and of a hundred aurei — which had been introduced by Elagabalus — and so withdrew them from circulation. 10 The coins made therefrom were designated only by the name of the metal itself, for, as he himself said, it would result in the emperor's giving too generous largesses, if, when it were possible for him to bestow many pieces of smaller value, he should be compelled to bestow thirty or fifty or a hundred by giving the value of ten or more in a single piece.​

There are a number of problems with this account. The aureus and half-aureus (AV quinarius) of Alexander are well known, but no third-aureus is known prior to the time of Valerian (AD 253). The term solidus is used anachronistically, because that was a denomination from the period of Constantine onward, not during the Severan period. Moreover, metrology of the coins of the era reveals little to support a claim of sweeping monetary reform.[3]

Nonetheless, Severus Alexander's attempts to improve the currency are attested by dupondii with the legends RESTITVTOR MON (Restitutor Monetae) and MON RESTITVTA (Moneta Restituta) issued in AD 228.[4] Here is an example of such a dupondius from my own collection:


Severus Alexander, AD 222-235.
Roman orichalchum dupondius, 10.47 g, 24.7 mm, 12 h.
Rome, special issue, AD 228.
Obv: IMP SEV ALEXANDER AVG, radiate bust, right, with slight drapery on left shoulder.
Rev: RESTITVTOR MON S C, Emperor in military dress, standing front, head left, extending right hand and holding vertical reversed spear in left hand.
Refs: RIC 601; BMCRE 546-550; Cohen 517; RCV 8052.

Despite the lack of evidence to suggest sweeping monetary reform, there are hints that the dupondius denomination specifically was subjected to reform. It is only on the dupondius denomination that the inscriptions Restitutor Monetae and Moneta Restituta appear. Sear[5] explains, "The fact that the commemoration of Alexander's 'restoration' of the coinage is confined to the dupondius would seem to suggest a connection with this denomination, though the precise nature of such a reform is certainly not immediately apparent."

Its precise nature, however, might be a return to using orichalcum when minting the denomination. Pink[6] notes that in the years prior to AD 228, the dupondius production decreased drastically and then only on As-sized flans and in copper, not orichalcum, but in 228, the dupondius in orichalcum was restored and this restoration was recorded on the dupondii discussed above. Moreover, Carson[7] notes that spectrographic analysis of British Museum specimens of these dupondii confirms that they are consistently in orichalcum and that some of the dupondii of preceding issues are not. Further metallurgic studies would potentially be very helpful to clarify whether or not the monetary reform truly reflected a change in the metallic composition of the dupondius in AD 228.

However, there is another hint that some type of reform of the dupondius took place in AD 228 and this is the change in the portrait on the dupondii of Julia Mamaea of AD 228. As I noted in an earlier thread, the crescent was used on the dupondii of that year to indicate a double denomination and to distinguish them from the as. Here are the two dupondii of Julia Mamaea issued in AD 228, the same year as the RESTITVTOR MON dupondius of Severus Alexander. Note the crescents under the portrait of the empress:


Julia Mamaea, AD 222-235.
Roman orichalcum dupondius, 10.10 g, 24.3 mm, 12 h.
Rome, issue 9A, AD 228.
Obv: IVLIA MAMAEA AVGVSTA, diademed and draped bust, right, on crescent.
Rev: FELICITAS PVBLICA S C, Felicitas standing front, head left, legs crossed, holding caduceus transversely to left, and resting left arm on low column.
Refs: RIC 678; BMCRE 493-94; Cohen 23; RCV 8238.


Julia Mamaea, AD 222-235.
Roman orichalcum dupondius, 7.55 g, 23.1 mm, 12 h.
Rome, issue 9B, AD 228.
Obv: IVLIA MAMAEA AVGVSTA, diademed and draped bust, right, on crescent.
Rev: FELICITAS TEMP S C, Felicitas standing left, holding long caduceus and cornucopiae.
Refs: RIC 682; BMCRE 532-33; Cohen 29; RCV 8240.

It is my hypothesis -- for this is not discussed by Carson, Sear, or Sellers -- that the crescent was placed on the dupondii of Julia Mamaea in AD 228 to indicate that they too were the result of a reform of the dupondius as announced on the two restoration dupondii of Severus Alexander discussed above. Further study of the metrology and metallurgy of the dupondii of the period is sorely needed.

~~~

Notes:

1. Jona Lendering's discussion of SHA at Livius.org can be found here.

2. See SHA 39.6-10, which may be found at Bill Thayer's online text at the University of Chicago website. The Latin text is that of Hermann Peter. The English translation is by David Magie. Both text and translation are in the public domain. The Latin text reads:

6 Vectigalia publica in id contraxit, ut qui decem aureos sub Heliogabalo praestiterant tertiam partem aurei praestarent, hoc est tricensimam partem. 7 tuncque primum semisses aureorum formati sunt, tunc etiam, cum ad tertiam aurei partem vectigal desidisset, tremisses, dicente Alexandro etiam quartarios futuros, quod minus non posset. 8 quos quidem iam formatos in moneta detinuit, exspectans ut, si vectigal contrahere potuisset, et eosdem ederet; sed cum non potuisset per publicas necessitates, conflari eos iussit et tremisses tantum solidosque formari. 9 formas binarias, ternarias et quaternarias et denarias etiam atque amplius usque ad libriles quoque et centenarias, quas Heliogabalus invenerat, resolvi praecipit neque in usu cuiusquam versari; 10 atque ex eo his materiae nomen inditum est, cum diceret plus largiendi hanc esse imperatori causam, si, cum multos solidos minores dare possit, dans decem vel amplius una forma triginta et quadraginta et centum dare cogeretur.​

3. Sellers, Ian. The Monetary System of the Romans: A Description of the Roman Coinage from Early Times to the Reform of Anastasius. Ian Sellers, 2013, p. 244.

4. Carson, Robert A. G. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. Vol. VI: Severus Alexander to Balbinus and Pupienus, British Museum, 1962, pp. 69-70.

5. Sear, David R. Roman Coins and Their Values II: The accession of Nerva to the overthrow of the Severan dynasty AD 96 - AD 235, London, Spink, 2002, p. 660.

6. Pink, Karl. Der Aufbau der römischen Münzprägung in der Kaiserzeit. NZ 68 (1935): 12-34. Cited by Carson, p. 70.

7. Carson, op. cit., p. 70.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Interesting. I downloaded the Historia Augusta and Cassius Dio onto my Kindle, and plan on tackling them both this year, and have only listened to various people responding to the Historia Augusta through the history podcasts that I listen to so far. I find the thought of an ancient historical source as a 'mockumentary' fascinating, and wonder if it was actually a lost genre, and how it was received at the time.

 

Fascinating discussion of something I've been wondering about - the size and weight of bronzes of that era. It inspired me to take a group photo of my Severan middle bronzes. A rather scruffy bunch:



As far as I can tell, there are two dupondii here - the top row Septimius Severus (radiate crown) and Julia Domna (because of size). Everything else is an as.

But one of my late (c. 231-235 A.D.) Severus Alexander asses and the Septimius Severus dupondius are a Mutt & Jeff pair in reverse order - the Sept. S. dupondius weighs 8.97 grams, the S. Alexander dupondius weighs 13.98 grams. That's a big difference (and my suggest a boost in weights under SA?). Here they are up close:



The green Severus Alexander as in the lower left photo of the group shot is 8.9 grams and is early - it was minted around 224 A.D. Which is more in line with the earlier Severans. Here is a photo I took when the sun was shining of that one:



Doug suggests in a recent post that the Asses of Severus Alexander-era may have been presentation pieces of some sort, given they tend to be heavy (if I'm not mischaracterizing Doug's theory).

Nice write-up RC - good to have all this information in one place. Nice coins too!

 

This early SA Sestertius 226 AD was light and small , the second one was struck between 231 - 235 AD, larger and heavier, sounds logic if there was a reform.

 

Will this is certainly a subject near and dear to my heart! Great post. Here's my similar RESTITVTOR MON dupondius:


11.06g, 25mm, RIC 601


For pre-reform dupondii, it makes sense to show one from the previous reign:


issued 221, 9.14g, 25mm, RIC 322


The earliest dupondius I have of SA is the earliest one there is (as Augustus, that is), namely his inaugural issue in 222:

10.02g, 23mm, RIC 565var. (bust type)


A bit later the same year we have this Salus type:

12.24g, 25mm, RIC 609


I don't think I have any other pre-reform dupondii, but here are a couple of post-reform:


12.46g, 24mm, RIC 629



c. 231, 26mm, 12.80g, RIC 646

I agree with the theory that the monetary reform targeted the dupondius, returning it to a proper orichalcum - very hard for us to detect now! (Perhaps the accuracy of the weight was improved also.) Thanks for linking your interesting post on the concurrent Mamaea issue with crescent, I had missed that one. I definitely need one of those.

 

I have gotten the impression that modern historians use the SHA only because it is that or noting in the way of contemporary sources. Thanks for your posting. I love to read about ancient history in the context of numismatics.

 

I have found that the greatest variation in toning of ancient aes is withing the denomination of the dupondius. I assume that the ancients did not have this problem but I wonder if there ever was a uniform appearance of dupondii from one emperor to another at that time or they two might have run into problems distinguishing the coin from the as. The radiate crown may have been introduced to help with the distinguishing but I'll be darned if I could have distinguished between an as and a dupondius of Claudius unless the metallic coloration was dramatically different and I wonder how long that difference would have remained after a few years of circulation.

 

Interesting write-up! Have you ever heard of the idea that the Historia Augusta consists of four different types of biographies?

Severus Alexander's biography is a so-called transitional biography that is usually unreliable but sometimes contains some truth. I personally think that the above-mentioned story about monetary reform is partly a fabrication. I think that the author read something about the monetary reform under Severus Alexander in one of his sources and subsequently supplemented those facts with inventions about 1/3 Aurei, Soldidi etc. The author seems to have had fewer and fewer sources available and visibly enjoyed of inserting false information because it increases as the book progresses.

I myself have the Dutch translation of the Historia Augusta here at home with the introduction of Jona Lendering. This introduction is even more extensive than on Livius.org and covers around 25 pages. Unfortunately for you it is Dutch and I assume that you cannot read it.
Maybe you can translate it. The introduction can be read for free through Google books.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=PT...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

This is an interesting thread, RC! It appears I have a pre-reform dupondius in my collection... It's not the prettiest, but looks like it was pretty enough to be used often enough in the economy lol:


Severus Alexander, AE Dupondius
Struck 224 AD, Rome mint
Obverse: IMP CAES M AVR SEV ALEXANDER AVG, Bust of Severus Alexander, radiate, draped, right.
Reverse: PONTIF MAX TR P III COS P P, Severus Alexander, in military attire, standing left, holding globe in right hand and inverted spear in left hand, S-C in field.
References: RIC IV 420h
Size: 25mm, 8.3g

 

I just picked up this black patina'd Mamaea middle bronze, an As so it seems (RIC 703)...


26mm, 11.0g

 

I just got another Severus Alexander AE that is confusing me, and I thought this thread was a good home for it.

It is in poor shape - the reverse is, Libertas, Liberalitas or Aequitas, but it is hard to tell - I am leaning towards Libertas or Liberalitas given what faint lettering I think I see. It is 27 mm and weighs 14.68 grams.

Here it is:



What puzzles me is the denomination. The fabric, small size of the obverse lettering and bust, would have me think an as. But at 14.68 grams, it weighs on the low end for SA sestertii.

Compounding my dilemma is this comparison. On the left is a sestertius from the same era (obv. inscriptions) - note the broad flan, big head, etc. (full attribution below). It weighs a bit more, but it is on a thinner flan. Next to it is my new as or whatever it is. They really look fundamentally (denominationally) different to me.



Severus Alexander Æ Sest.
(226 A.D.)
Rome Mint
IMP CAES M AVR SEV ALE[XANDER AVG], laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right / AEQVITAS AVGVSTI S C, Aequitas standing with scales and cornucopiae.
RIC 547; Cohen 20.
(17.94 grams / 30 mm)

Opinions please - is my new coin an as or a sestertius? Does any of this have to do with monetary reform during Severus Alexander's reign?

 

Your thinking is correct: definitely an As, though a heavy one, because of the small portrait and diameter.

The rev. type may have to remain uncertain, unless a clear example struck from the same obv. or rev. die or both can be located. Unrelated to the Moneta types of the dupondii in any case, because of the earlier long obv. legend which only lasted until 228.

As to Alexander's monetary reform announced on his dupondii, I don't know what it was, but my commentary in a Forum thread of 2012 may be relevant:

Unfortunately I think Robert Carson badly jumbled the types of Mamaea in BMC VI, despite providing some very useful hoard evidence on pp. 46-7.

Of course he is right, as earlier numismatists had already seen, that IVNO CONSERVATRIX is her first type, and VENVS GENETRIX must be her second type because of Hoard XII. But from then on the order and dates of Mamaea's types are generally wrong in BMC, according to the type-sequence diagrams that I drew up over 25 years ago. Having divided Alexander's own coinage by tribunician numbers rather than by reverse types, it was virtually impossible for Carson to get Mamaea's coinage right, which of course has no tribunician numbers, just reverse types with descriptive legends!

I think it extremely likely that Mamaea's final two types were FELICITAS PVBLICA, Felicitas seated, followed by FELICITAS PVBLICA, Felicitas standing. These two types corresponded to Alexander's Issue 8 on my scheme, lasting from early in 231 until the end of the reign in 235, and comprising the five types Sol standing/advancing dated TR P X-TR P XIIII, IOVIS PROPVGNATOR/IOVI PROPVGNATORI, MARS VLTOR, PROVIDENTIA AVG Annona, and SPES PVBLICA. In the course of 232 the types were slightly changed, Sol from standing to advancing, Jupiter from left arm downwards to left arm extended holding eagle, Mars from right leg forward to left leg forward, Annona from holding anchor to holding cornucopia, finally Spes from right leg forward to left leg forward. At the same time Mamaea's Felicitas seated was changed to Felicitas standing, or possibly vice versa, I still need hoard or technical evidence to confirm the order of her two types.

Now both of these Felicitas types of Mamaea occur as dupondii with crescent, just as expected if they were the final two types of the reign. What about Mamaea's only other dupondius with crescent, the reverse FELICITAS TEMP? It had occurred to me earlier that this type mght match Alexander's two RESTITVTOR MON/MON RESTITVTA types, with which Mamaea's FELICITAS TEMP type shares the peculiarity of being the only types of the reign that occur on dupondii only, not as usual on sestertii, asses, aurei, and denarii as well.

Now the RESTITVTOR MON dupondii have Alexander's second obv. legend, IMP SEV ALEXANDER AVG, which lasted from 228 until early in 231. Carson, following Voetter and Pink, assigned this dupondius type of Alexander's to 228. But if that date were correct, and if Mamaea's FELICITAS TEMP dupondius belongs to the same issue, then surely Mamaea's dupondii of 228-231, on my scheme with types FECVND AVGVSTAE, VENERI FELICI/VENVS FELIX, and IVNO AVGVSTAE, would also have shown the crescent below her bust, like the FELICITAS TEMP type? The fact that the middle bronzes of these types, some of which were presumably dupondii, never show the crescent, suggests that they preceded rather than followed the FELICITAS TEMP type, and thus that type and Alexander's RESTITVTOR MON, accepting my hypothesis that these two dupondius-only types were contemporaneous, must belong to the very end of Alexander's IMP SEV ALEXANDER AVG issue, late 230 or early 231, rather than its first year, the second half of 228. In this case the use of the crescent to mark Mamaea's dupondii was continuous: it was introduced on the FELICITAS TEMP type in late 230 or early 231, then continued in Alexander's Issue 8, which began very soon after PIVS was introduced into his obverse legend early in 231. This idea about the possible redating of Alexander's RESTITVTOR MON types just occurred to me today, as a result of reading and thinking about Bob C's message!

There is an easy way to confirm or refute this hypothesis of mine: can obv. die links be found between Alexander's RESTITVTOR MON types and any other rev. type of his, confirming or refuting my suggested reassignment of this type to late 230 or early 231? I hope Bob C. and others who read this and are interested in Alexander's coinage will keep an eye out for such die links between Alexander's RESTITVTOR MON/MON RESTITVTA types and other dupondius rev. types of his in the IMP SEV ALEXANDER AVG issue!

 

Henrik Möller then immediately observed a shared obv. die between a RESTITVTOR MON dupondius and TR P VIII Consular Quadriga of 229, refuting my suggested dating of the RESTITVTOR MON type to 230-1!

 

Thank you so much for that detailed and helpful response, Curtis. An As it is, then!

 

Thank you so much for your valuable insight about the chronology of this issue, @curtislclay . It represents a paradigm shift, indeed.