Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Severus Alexander's dupondius reform of AD 228
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Roman Collector, post: 3960408, member: 75937"]<i>Post your middle bronzes of Severus Alexander or Julia Mamaea or anything you feel is relevant.</i></p><p><br /></p><p>The <i>Scriptores Historia Augustae</i> (<i>SHA</i>) 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]</p><p><br /></p><p>The <i>SHA</i> describes a sweeping monetary and tax reform instituted by Severus Alexander:[2]</p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>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.</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>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 <i>solidus</i> 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]</p><p><br /></p><p>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:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1043207[/ATTACH]</p><p>Severus Alexander, AD 222-235.</p><p>Roman orichalchum dupondius, 10.47 g, 24.7 mm, 12 h.</p><p>Rome, special issue, AD 228.</p><p>Obv: IMP SEV ALEXANDER AVG, radiate bust, right, with slight drapery on left shoulder.</p><p>Rev: RESTITVTOR MON S C, Emperor in military dress, standing front, head left, extending right hand and holding vertical reversed spear in left hand.</p><p>Refs: RIC 601; BMCRE 546-550; Cohen 517; RCV 8052.</p><p><br /></p><p>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 <i>Restitutor Monetae</i> and <i>Moneta Restituta</i> 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."</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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 <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-first-dupondii-with-a-crescent-as-a-mark-of-value.348484/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-first-dupondii-with-a-crescent-as-a-mark-of-value.348484/">earlier thread</a>, 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:</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/mamaea-felicitas-pvblica-standing-dupondius-jpg.1008558/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p>Julia Mamaea, AD 222-235.</p><p>Roman orichalcum dupondius, 10.10 g, 24.3 mm, 12 h.</p><p>Rome, issue 9A, AD 228.</p><p>Obv: IVLIA MAMAEA AVGVSTA, diademed and draped bust, right, on crescent.</p><p>Rev: FELICITAS PVBLICA S C, Felicitas standing front, head left, legs crossed, holding caduceus transversely to left, and resting left arm on low column.</p><p>Refs: RIC 678; BMCRE 493-94; Cohen 23; RCV 8238.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1043334[/ATTACH]</p><p>Julia Mamaea, AD 222-235.</p><p>Roman orichalcum dupondius, 7.55 g, 23.1 mm, 12 h.</p><p>Rome, issue 9B, AD 228.</p><p>Obv: IVLIA MAMAEA AVGVSTA, diademed and draped bust, right, on crescent.</p><p>Rev: FELICITAS TEMP S C, Felicitas standing left, holding long caduceus and cornucopiae.</p><p>Refs: RIC 682; BMCRE 532-33; Cohen 29; RCV 8240.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>~~~</p><p><br /></p><p>Notes:</p><p><br /></p><p>1. Jona Lendering's discussion of <i>SHA</i> at Livius.org can be found <a href="https://www.livius.org/sources/content/historia-augusta/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.livius.org/sources/content/historia-augusta/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p>2. See <i>SHA</i> 39.6-10, which may be found at <a href="http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/home.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/home.html" rel="nofollow">Bill Thayer's online text</a> 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:</p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p><font size="3">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.</font></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>3. Sellers, Ian. <i>The Monetary System of the Romans: A Description of the Roman Coinage from Early Times to the Reform of Anastasius</i>. Ian Sellers, 2013, p. 244.</p><p><br /></p><p>4. Carson, Robert A. G. <i>Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum</i>. <i>Vol. VI: Severus Alexander to Balbinus and Pupienus</i>, British Museum, 1962, pp. 69-70.</p><p><br /></p><p>5. Sear, David R. <i>Roman Coins and Their Values II: The accession of Nerva to the overthrow of the Severan dynasty AD 96 - AD 235</i>, London, Spink, 2002, p. 660.</p><p><br /></p><p>6. Pink, Karl. Der Aufbau der römischen Münzprägung in der Kaiserzeit. <i>NZ</i> 68 (1935): 12-34. Cited by Carson, p. 70.</p><p><br /></p><p>7. Carson,<i> op. cit.</i>, p. 70.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Roman Collector, post: 3960408, member: 75937"][I]Post your middle bronzes of Severus Alexander or Julia Mamaea or anything you feel is relevant.[/I] The [I]Scriptores Historia Augustae[/I] ([I]SHA[/I]) 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 [I]SHA[/I] describes a sweeping monetary and tax reform instituted by Severus Alexander:[2] [INDENT]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.[/INDENT] 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 [I]solidus[/I] 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: [ATTACH=full]1043207[/ATTACH] 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 [I]Restitutor Monetae[/I] and [I]Moneta Restituta[/I] 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 [URL='https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-first-dupondii-with-a-crescent-as-a-mark-of-value.348484/']earlier thread[/URL], 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: [IMG]https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/mamaea-felicitas-pvblica-standing-dupondius-jpg.1008558/[/IMG] 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. [ATTACH=full]1043334[/ATTACH] 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 [I]SHA[/I] at Livius.org can be found [URL='https://www.livius.org/sources/content/historia-augusta/']here[/URL]. 2. See [I]SHA[/I] 39.6-10, which may be found at [URL='http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/home.html']Bill Thayer's online text[/URL] 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: [INDENT][SIZE=3]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.[/SIZE][/INDENT] 3. Sellers, Ian. [I]The Monetary System of the Romans: A Description of the Roman Coinage from Early Times to the Reform of Anastasius[/I]. Ian Sellers, 2013, p. 244. 4. Carson, Robert A. G. [I]Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum[/I]. [I]Vol. VI: Severus Alexander to Balbinus and Pupienus[/I], British Museum, 1962, pp. 69-70. 5. Sear, David R. [I]Roman Coins and Their Values II: The accession of Nerva to the overthrow of the Severan dynasty AD 96 - AD 235[/I], London, Spink, 2002, p. 660. 6. Pink, Karl. Der Aufbau der römischen Münzprägung in der Kaiserzeit. [I]NZ[/I] 68 (1935): 12-34. Cited by Carson, p. 70. 7. Carson,[I] op. cit.[/I], p. 70.[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Severus Alexander's dupondius reform of AD 228
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...
