Derniers achats (septimus)

C'est un bouclier aux pieds de Minerve ?
2 jolis Géta !

Des Geta de compet !
Le style du premier est vraiment original

Oui, c'est bien un bouclier. Le style est effectivement particulier. Un denier du même type est actuellement en vente, il est très certainement issu d'un coin gravé par le même scalptor.
https://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?auction=2802&category=58225&lot=2360003

Cette année, serait-elle celle de Geta ?
Deux très belles monnaies

Je pensais que le rythme d'acquisition des Géta se ralentirait avec le temps, mais parfois certaines opportunités permettent de combler certains secteurs de la collection plus rapidement. Il en ainsi de "Laodicée ancien style" qui n'était représenté que par quelques exemplaires. Ce week-end a été prolixe pour cette section (mais pas seulement) avec des acquisitions de choix.

Tout d'abord un denier de Julia Domna avec un revers emprunté à son époux dont je possède désormais la liaison de coin. Il est difficile d'attribuer à "Emèse" ou "Laodicée ancien style" les deniers de Domna, cette liaison permet donc d'attribuer avec certitude la frappe à ce dernier atelier. Ce n'est pas une découverte en soi pour ce type, mais pour la liaison de coin que je n'ai découverte qu'après l'achat en regardant mon médaillier!

Je continue avec Sévère pour Laodicée avec ce type plutôt rare. Elle semble non référencée avec la légende en PERTE au lieu de PERT (cette dernière est déjà rare le RSC (700a) mentionnant la collection G.R. Arnold à moins que ça soit un oubli).

Et je finis avec un antoninien de la série des Divi, un des plus difficiles à trouver: Sévère avec l'autel. Il vient rejoindre son petit frère à l'aigle qui, coïncidence, présente lui aussi un portrait "mou"... mais est en fait sorti du même coin! Cet antoninien provient du trésor de Saint-Jean d’Ardières publié dans le volume XXV de "Trésors Monétaires".

Belle moisson séverienne.

septimus a écrit:

J'aime beaucoup le style. Intéressante liaison de coin de revers en effet.

De bien belles acquisitions et une source qui ne semble pas se tarir, même avec le temps

Bien vue !
2 liaisons de coins c'est courant !

Ah oui, c'est chouette. Superbe decouverte que cette liaison de coins pour les époux :)

Rev. die shared by Domna and Septimius: first noticed by Roger Bickford-Smith, Imperial Mints in the East, Riv. ital. di num. XCVI, 1994/5, p. 65, pl. II, 35-36.

The two coins he illustrates are from the same dies as your two: the Domna is BMC 417, the IMP VIII Septimius a specimen from his own collection, probably now in BM.

It was known that some old-style Eastern denarii of Domna belonged to the COS II series of Septimius and others to his IMP II series. This die link shows for the first time that denarii of Domna were also still being struck alongside the revived old-style denarii of Septimius as IMP VIII.

IMP II / Victory inscribing shield denarius: I have plaster casts of three others:
Vienna, same dies as yours.
Triton VI, 2002, Marc Melcher Coll., lot 956. Same rev. die, different P - ERTE obv. die.
G.R. Arnold Coll. Same rev. die, different PE - RTE obv. die. You were right to think that PERT in RSC 700a might be a misreading of this coin: much of its obv. legend is off flan, but other coins from the same obv. die and with different rev. types show that the correct reading is PE - RTE.

Super les deux de la "Divi series", on doit pas etre nombreux a avoir les deux....

La Septime Sévère provient de ma collection ! J'aurais dû penser à toi et te la proposer directement désolé ! Enfin content qu'elle reste sur le forum  

très beaux les deux Géta.

Thank you Curtis!
I don't remember the illustrations from R. Bickford-Smith's article. I should read it again: an invaluable souce for Eastern denarii. 20 years after, with some new discoveries, there's probably the place for an addendum.

IMP VIII is quite the end of the old style, is there a precise date for the change (there is more probably a slight transition)?
Do you think that it is possible that a unique mint (Emesa?) striked the two groups COS II and IMP II and that the new style was located elsewhere (Laodicea?)
Last question: where is the G. R. Arnold collection? Is still in private hand? EDIT: I have the answer: Glendining & Co., The G.R. Arnold Collection of silver coins of the Severan Dynasty. London, 21 November 1984. Softcover, 322 lots, 16 b/w plates.

Introduction of the new-style Eastern coinage, as I argued in my Oxford thesis: after Caracalla became PONTIF in c. April 197, since all of his new-style coins bore that title; before Septimius became IMP VIIII in c. June 197, because his earliest new-style coins, which are fairly common, still called him IMP VIII.

The sequence of coin types at Rome, especially PROFECTIO AVG of Septimius as IMP VIII and VIIII, shows that this was precisely the time when Septimius was preparing to leave Rome on his second Parthian expedition. So the reform of the Eastern coinage was apparently carried out in connection with his new Eastern campaign.

This reconstruction and chronology of the Rome-mint coinage of course depends on acceptance of my discovery that Septimius' defeat of Albinus near Lugdunum took place not on 19 Feb. 197 (IMP VIIII) as hitherto universally believed, but rather one year earlier, on 19 Feb. 196 (IMP VIII).

Mints and chronology of Septimius' old-style Syrian coinage: a difficult problem, see my long discussion of this topic about ten years ago on Forvm. One thing that is certain: it is Septimius' COS II group which is the direct successor of Niger's coinage at Antioch. Therefore the COS II group, not the IMP II group as Mattingly proposed, must be attributed to Antioch, or to Laodicea if Septimius' punishment of Antioch resulted in the transferral of the main Syrian denarius mint to that other city.

Concernant la datation de la bataille de Lyon, l'hypothèse est osée. Y a-t-il une publication de cette thèse? Si la VIIIème acclamation impériale correspond à la bataille de Lyon, à quoi correspondent les VIIIIè et Xème acclamations? Merci en tout cas pour cette intéressante discussion.
Pour ceux que ça intéresse, je mets un lien ici sur votre discussion autour des ateliers syriens..

Septimus,

My idea is not a "daring conjecture", but an obviously valid correction of an old error. I have only published it briefly, at the end of my article on the date and purpose of the issue of Roman bronze medallions. But it was accepted as clearly correct by the eminent Roman historians Timothy Barnes and Ernst Badian, and by the audience at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, where I presented it orally in 1975. Anthony Birley rejected it, but without being able to refute a single one of my arguments; he was simply too "invested" in the traditional chronology, which he had already followed in his biography of Septimius.

The basis of the old chronology: Dio's statements (1) that Septimius' siege of Byzantium lasted for "a full three-year period", i.e. from summer 193 when Septimius came to the throne, until (people assumed) summer 196, three years later; and (2) that Septimius was still campaigning in Mesopotamia when news of Byzantium's fall reached him.

But the vita Severi gives us the date 19 Feb. for the battle of Lugdunum. Obviously not 19 Feb. 196, if Septimius was still in Mesopotamia in summer 196! So 19 Feb. 197, and to be attached to IMP VIIII, Septimius' first acclamation of 197 according to the coins and inscriptions.

The correct interpretation: Dio was counting inclusively, as the ancients often did. By "a full three-year period" he meant not "three full years", but rather "two full years and into the third". So Byzantium fell not in summer 196, but in summer 195, occasioning not Septimius' IMP VIII of 196, but one of his approximately simultaneous IMP VI and IMP VII of mid-195.

From Mesopotamia in summer 195, Septimius marched directly to Gaul and defeated Albinus there near Lugdunum on 19 Feb. 196, occasioning his IMP VIII. On Septimius' denarii IMP VIII appeared about one seventh of the way through the production of 196 as shown by Reka Devnia specimen counts, thus fitting perfectly with my assignment of that acclamation to 19 Feb. 196.

A few of the advantages of the new chronology:

a. According to the coins, Septimius won his fifth acclamation and the titles PART ARAB PART ADIAB very early in 195; the victory itself probably occurred c. Dec. 194. About the middle of 195, Septimius won two further acclamations, IMP VI and VII, approximately simultaneously. On the old chronology these were for further victories in Mesopotamia, where Septimius however remained, without winning any further acclamations, for a full year longer, until he heard there of the fall of Byzantium (IMP VIII) in summer 196. But what was Septimius doing in Mesopotamia for a full year after winning his last two acclamations for victories there? On the new chronology this problem of the wasted year in Mesopotamia disappears. Septimius won his second victory there, IMP VI or VII, about the same time in summer 195 that he heard of Byzantium's fall (the other of those two acclamations). He left Mesopotamia immediately, marched to Gaul, and defeated Albinus near Lugdunum on 19 Feb. 196 (IMP VIII).

b. The gravestone of a Pannonian soldier records that he died in Ankara in Turkey on 3 Sept. 195, "on his way back from Parthia". Old chronology: meaningless, maybe the soldier had been discharged for age or illness, so was returning home while the rest of the army was still in Mesopotamia. New chronology: the soldier was participating in the march of Septimius' entire army from the East to Gaul; the date fits perfectly!

c. According to his vita, Septimius in the course of his march from the East to Gaul first broke with Albinus, and then, at Viminacium in Moesia Superior, made Caracalla Caesar in Albinus' place. But an aureus of Septimius as IMP VII shows rev. portrait of Caracalla, with legend SEVERI AVG PII FIL, the same legend that accompanied the type Sacrificial implements on Caracalla's own earliest coins as Caesar. Old chronology: this aureus of Septimius cannot show Caracalla as Caesar, since it was issued while Septimius was still in Mesopotamia, before news of Byzantium's fall (IMP VIII) had reached him there. New chronology: The fall of Byzantium in fact caused either IMP VI or VII in summer 195, after which Septimius set out immediately for Gaul. By early Sept. 195 parts of his army were apparently already in Ankara (b above). By Nov./Dec. 195 Septimius had reached Viminacium, where, having recently broken with Albinus, he proclaimed Caracalla Caesar, and issued the aureus in question, of course still as IMP VII.

As we will see below, Septimius' final issue of New Year's medallions and asses on 1 Jan. 196 already included coins for Caracalla as Caesar, with his earliest SEVERI AVG PII FIL Sacrificial implements rev. type, alongside coins of Septimius as IMP VII, confirming the evidence of the IMP VII aureus that Caracalla became Caesar while Septimius was still IMP VII. This fact refutes the old chronology, according to which Septimius was already IMP VIII when he left Mesopotamia, so of course also IMP VIII when he made Caracalla Caesar at Viminacium a couple of months later.

d. Inscriptions and coin types (ADVENTVI AVG FELICISSIMO, FORTVNAE REDVCI) prove that Septimius apparently visited Rome as IMP VIII in the course of 196. On the old chronology that was before his defeat of Albinus (IMP VIIII, 19 Feb. 197), so Septimius would appear to have made an excursion to Rome during his march from the East to Gaul, though such an excursion would have exposed him to great dangers (attack or assassination during the excursion, defection of his leaderless army to Albinus), and though Herodian, admittedly an often unreliable historian, states explicitly that Septimius marched directly from the East to Gaul. On the new chronology Septimius indeed marched directly to Gaul, as Herodian states, and defeated Albinus near Lugdunum on 19 Feb. 196, thereby becoming IMP VIII. So the IMP VIII inscriptions and coins of later in 196 refer not to a strategically unlikely excursion to Rome during Septimius' march to Gaul, which is contradicted by Herodian and passed over in silence by Dio and the vita Severi, but rather to Septimius' undoubted return to Rome after his defeat of Albinus, which all authors recount!

e. According to his vita and Dio, Septimius returned to Rome after defeating Albinus, where he first reprimanded the Senate for its support of Albinus and executed 29 senators or other eminent men, then later held games and distributed a largesse to the people of Rome, before departing to the East again on his second Parthian expedition. On the coins, however, Septimius' LIBERALITAS AVG II type occurs only with IMP VIII, while his MVNIFICENTIA AVG type, showing an elephant and commemorating his giving of games, starts with IMP VIII and continues with IMP VIIII, accompanied by a PROFECTIO AVG type, showing the emperor on horseback and commemorating his departure on a new expedition. Old chronology: the vita's dating of Septimius' second largesse must be wrong, for the coins show that he distributed that largesse as IMP VIII, i.e. before his defeat of Albinus (IMP VIIII) on 19 Feb. 197. The MVNIFICENTIA and PROFECTIO types have to be applied to games on the occasion of two different departures, those with IMP VIII relating to his departure from Rome against Albinus, those with IMP VIIII to his departure on his second Parthian expedition as recorded by his vita. New chronology: The vita is correct, Septimius distributed his second largesse as IMP VIII, since that acclamation commemorated his defeat of Albinus, not the fall of Byzantium. The MVNIFICENTIA and PROFECTIO types relate to only one holding of games and one departure, namely those of spring 197 as recorded by the vita.