vows suscepta or soluta

I have a website about vows on Roman coins:
http://augustuscoins.com/ed/VOTA/

This VOTA coin arrived recently and it of interest to me because it is explicitly dated and bears on the difference between celebrating vows taken (suscepta) or fulfilled (soluta):

Postumus, Gallo-Roman emperor, summer 260- spring 269.
19-17 mm. 3.42 grams.
IMP C POSTVMVS PF AVG
PM TRP X COV V PP, Victory standing right with VO/XX on shield.
RIC 295. Cunetio 2469 from Cologne. (Only 8 examples among 12,991 coins of Postumus in the Cunetio Hoard are of this type.)
"TRP X" dates this to year 10, 269, his last year, so it is from early 269. The vows are for 20 years, so they must be vows on the coin are suscepta-- taken, not fulfilled, on the occasion when the original vows for ten years were fulfilled.

There are many vota types of Diocletian and later emperors which are not explicitly dated. For example, there are fractional coins of Diocletian with VOT/XX/AVGG on them.


Diocletian, AD 284-305
14 mm. 2.00 grams. The small "1/8 follis" denomination.
DIOCLETI-ANVS AVG
VOT/XX/AVGG in wreath
RIC VI Trier 610a.
Zschucke 4.2
Struck c. September 303 [RIC and Zschucke agree]
for the festival occasion celebrating vows for twenty years.

I wonder what the evidence is for that date. I'd think they would be issued looking forward to 20 years at the 10-year mark. I think most issues record vows suscepta as opposed to vows soluta (or issued throughout the period). I'd date that coin earlier.

Show us your VOTA coins!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

RIC dates this coin to 303 because Diocletian and Maximianus both celebrated their vicennalia that year and Constantius and Galerius celebrated their decennalia.

 

True. My thought is that the coin I posted and others show that often vows are not from the year on the coin--rather they anticipated the year on the coin by ten years. For example,


Galerius
15-14 mm. 1.50 grams. "1/8"
Struck as Caesar c. Sept. 303 at Trier.
I agree with the date.
My interpretation: At this time Galerius had ruled as Caesar for ten years and was renewing vows for twenty years, thus XX on the coin.
Another interpretation: The XX refers to vows of the senior emperor, Diocletian, which were being paid.
MAXIMI-ANVS NC
VOT/XX/CAESS
RIC Trier 611 "R3, c. Sept. 303"
Zschucke 4.7, "for the vicennalia of Diocletian in September 303."

The XX on this coin of Galerius might refer to the reign of Diocletian (but then, why does it says "CAES"?) If the XX on the coin belongs to Galerius, it is issued at ten years with reference to XX which is ten years in the future. Why isn't the Diocletian XX coin also issued with reference to ten years in the future? (That is, issued ten years before late 303.) How do we explain the Maximian XXX fractions if they are not referencing the future? Examples are here:
http://augustuscoins.com/ed/VOTA/fractions.html

I agree that XX coins could refer to celebrating the vicennalia that year. That is evidence that the Diocletian XX piece could be from late 303. Other, explicitly dated XX vota coins, are from ten years before the XX-year event. That is evidence the Diocletian coin could be from ten years earlier. I wonder what evidence we have to decide between the two.

 

Carthage also struck vota coinage for the tetrarchy; but the mint did not open until 297. The vota coinage from Carthage needs to be dated to 303. So the authors of RIC also dated the Trier types to 303.

 

Most are seen X or XX but there are a few with XV like this Crispus from Rome but it just hasthe numeral and no VOT.


However the XV also appears at the same time on coins of Constantine so the number must have been for the dynasty rather than the individual.


Of course it is nice when both numbers appear on a coin in the form of VOT V MVLT X as on this Magnentius.

Constantius II lasted long enough to take on his XXXX vows as shown on this siliqua from Arles.

 

This Commodus denarius abbreviated the word for ten on this VO/DE rather than using the X.

 

Some of VOTA coins from my collection.
Caracalla Denarius, Rome, Rev. VOTA SVSCEPTA X

Maximianus Herculius, Rome, VOT XX H within wreath

Constantine I, Heraclea, Rosette-diademed, VOT / XXX

Constantine II, Arelate, Rev: CAESARVM NOSTRORVM. VO / TIS / V

 

@Valentinian....Excellent write up!....Great website, I've tagged it for future reference so thanks for spending time putting it together, very informative user friendly....Here's a couple of mine...
Geta, as Caesar, AR Denarius. Rome, AD 203-208.( Minted AD 205 )
Ob- GETA CAES PONT COS, bare-headed and draped bust right.
Rev- VOTA PVBLICA, Geta standing left, sacrificing out of patera over tripod & holding roll.
RIC 38b. 3.57g, 14mm, 7h.

Licinius I 308-324AD AE3 Follis
Obverse-IMPLICI NIVS AVG,(Laureate head right)
Reverse-DOMININLICINIAVG,(Laurel wreath around VOT.XX
Exergue..AQS
RIC VII#86 Aquileia

 

Jovianus and his vows, VOT V MVLT X:

As you know, Jovian was the commander of the guard and successor to Julian who concluded a shameful treaty with the Persians. He died on the way back to Constantinople from fumes of a charcoal brazier in his room in Tarsus that interacted with the chemicals from freshly plastered walls, according to the sources. Probably carbon monoxide.

 

..here's 3 of Crispus vota's in this group..

 

The difficulty here is discerning soluta from suscepta. For instance the ROMAE AETERNAE type of 320 marks Constantine's quindecennalia so a vota soluta of 15years, while the BEATA TRANQVILLITAS, issued at about the same time vows for 20 years, so a vota suscepta for the next ca. 5 years up until his vicennalia in 325-6. After which the VOT XXX type of @gogili1977 starts, anticipating (vota suscepta) Constantine's tricennalia.

On the coinage of his sons there are two different situations:

1. as in @dougsmit 's ROMAE AETERNAE XV (and in the case of the BEATA types XX) the marking of the vows by Constantine is used also on coinage minted in the names of his sons and in the names of the Licinii
2. after 320, the sons get their own vota suscepta of V and X as they have a more prominent public role in Constantine's dynastic propaganda.

Later on during the second half of the 4th century the vota recepta and suscepta of the senior emperors were inscribed on the coinage for the junior emperor(s) until they either became seniors and/or approached their own quinquennalia -- Gratian's silique in 367 mark the recepta of 5 years and suscepta of 10 by Valentinian and Valens. There were also occasions when emperors were so ahead of themselves that they minted coinage that implied an already accomplished quinquennalia and vows for the decennalia while still in their first year of rule, like the second coinage of Jovian (VOT V MVLT X) continued at Sirmium after his death briefly by his successor Valentinian I in the first part of 364.





In January-February 364 Jovian didn't have a full year of reign yet, while in the spring of 364, Valentinian had just been elected emperor. Perhaps the ridiculousness of the message on this Sirmium coinage is what prompted Valentinian to discontinue it before introducing his own types that spring or early summer.

 

That is a good point, although I think RIC dated the VOT X and VOT XX post-reform radiate coins of Carthage to c. 303 for poor reasons. The mint was apparently open in "296 or 297" because Maximian went to North Africa then (the year of his trip is uncertain). This was after the coin reform of c. 293-4 that introduced the new follis (nummus) denomination and the post-reform radiate. You'd think that when they started issuing folles "c. 296" [according to RIC] that they would also issue the new post-reform radiate [a.k.a. radiate fraction] but, no, RIC puts if off until this "c. 303" issue. So, a mint that issues a denomination does not do it for 7 years when they could have?

Another possibility is that they issued the radiate fraction as soon as they could have, c. 296 when the mint opened, with the VOT types a little late for their year, but, as soon as they could have. I put the VOT X for the Caesars at Carthage as soon as the mint opened and the VOT XX for the Augusti at the same time, with vota suscepta, not soluta. Note that neither type was continued into a new mintmark series (RIC VI page 427, so I also think it was an unpopular and short-lived denomination there. There is a longtime interval from the coin reform to the end of the tetrarchy May 1, 305, into which that one issue belongs. Maybe they issued the new denomination seven years late with a type that is soluta. Or maybe they issued it as soon as they could with a type that is suscepta. Looking over the VOTA types from issues before and after, I think suscepta issues are more common (like the OP coin). I vote for the issue, and others like it, being suscepta.

RIC gives dates to many very issues. It was an extremely useful first draft. I consult it all the time. But it was published in 1973 when our knowledge was much less complete and in many cases the author was just filling time gaps with educated guesses. When there are two explanations for one phenomenon (e.g. VOT X), we need reasons to prefer one over the other. The opinion of RIC about dates carries weight, but it is not conclusive when there is evidence to the contrary. I am open to hoard evidence, or other evidence on the dates of VOTA coins under Diocletian and later. CT members above have noted above numerous later cases (discussed on the website) when the dates must be suscepta at the beginning of the time interval, so X is not issued at year ten, but in year 1, vows suscepta for the future. If we didn't have RIC, we would expect vows for XX to be issued at year ten. I think the argument that it was issued at year ten (as opposed to twenty) is good.

 

Thank you for the great write up, links, and further comments, @Valentinian . You keep educating to areas that I do not focus. Here is a VOTA.


RI Constantine I Folles 306-337 CE Captives VOTA Banner

 

Alexandria was issuing radiate fractions for Severus II as Caesar in 305- 306 and Augustus 306- 307, so about a 10 year gap from when the fractionals first issued.

 

According to RIC [volume VI, page 667] Alexandria issued radiate fractions "c. 296-7" and, as you note, with a long gap, again under the second tetrarchy, 305-306. That is quite a gap--which I think I can explain. However, the key point (to me) is RIC thinks they did issue coins of that denomination right away upon the reform. Unlike RIC, I think Carthage did too. Also, [according to RIC] Alexandria didn't issue radiate fractions at all in 303, much less as VOTA coins. One takeaway from the RIC dates is that we don't know when the denomination was issued with more precision than the obverse legends tell us (we can see the First Tetrarchy titles on some and Second Tetrarchy titles on others). We can suppose the first issue was shortly after the coin reform (as part of the coin reform), hence "c. 296-7", but when it began and how long it lasted during the First Tetrarchy is actually uncertain and those dates are not inscribed in stone.

My take is here:
http://augustuscoins.com/ed/tetrarchy/radiatefraction.html

Unlike modern coins, there is a great deal that is uncertain about dates, denominations, and many other features of ancient coins. Enjoy them and study them long enough and you can find you know enough to question the received wisdom. I might not be right. But, I am having lots of fun trying to understand and explain the coinage system under the tetrarchies!

 

AD 158 was the 20th anniversary of Antoninus' reign, and was an opportunity for indicating that new vows had been made and old vows had been fulfilled. Pius issued complementary coins depicting each situation. They had similar reverse types, but those for the vota soluta depicted a sacrificial bull behind the tripod, for the sacrifice was the result of vows being fulfilled.

Vota Suscepta (from my collection):


Antoninus Pius, AD 138-161.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 24.27 g, 31.4 mm, 6 h.
Rome, AD 158/9.
Obv: ANTONINVS AVG PIVS P P TR P XXII, laureate head, right.
Rev: VOTA SVSCEPTA DEC III S C, Antoninus, veiled, standing l., sacrificing from patera over tripod-altar and holding roll by side; COS IIII in ex.
Refs: RIC 1010; BMCRE 2068-2069; Cohen 1124; Strack 1171; RCV 4262.

Vota soluta (BMCRE 2067, reading VOTA SOL on the reverse. Photo from the British Museum):

 

Septimius Severus, Denarius, VOTIS DECENNALIBVS
AR Denarius
Septimius Severus
Augustus: 193 - 211AD
Issued: 202AD
20.54mm 3.59gr
O: L SEPT SEV AVG IMP XI PART MAX; Laureate head, right.
R: VOTIS DECENNALIBVS; Septimius Severus, veiled and togate, standing left, sacrificing over tripod altar, holding patera in right hand.
Laodicea ad Mare Mint
RIC 519; RSC 796; Sear 6395; BMC 680.
Aorta: 525: B3, O45, R384, T183, M3.
Ancient Imports/Marc Breitsprecher Inv. #39751
Freeman and Sear Mail Bid Sale #2, Lot 542, January, 1996.
Ex. Jeff Clark VOTA Collection


Septimius Severus, Denarius, VOTIS DECENNALIBVS
AR Denarius
Septimius Severus
Augustus: 193 - 211AD
Issued: 202AD
19.0mm 2.38gr 5h
O: L SEPT SEV AVG IMP XI PART MAX; Laureate head, right.
R: NO LEGEND; Wreath with badge atop; VOTIS/DECEN/NALI/BVS within.
Laodicea ad Mare Mint
RIC 520a (S); RSC 897; BMCRE 681.
Aorta: 526: B3, O45, R386, T250, M3.
Ex: Tom Cederlind

 

@nicholasz219 , I love your spelled-out vota-year coins. Excellent!

 

Julian II was quite optimistic with his reverses, it seems:




Then Jovian turned it down to 5 years at a time: