Nicene Church Discovered?

No hard feelings here either. I immensely enjoy your posts and your coins, and likewise consider you a forum friend. Just because we disagree on Constantine it's not the end of the world.

Hey, most people here would probably also disagree with my assessments that Nero and Commodus were not that bad as emperors...but what's a little historical spat amongst coin friends? I enjoy arguing my points, listening to what others say, and then coming together over our passion for ancient coins (despite our different views on history and other subjects.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yup, seen it. Also disagree with it. IMO seems kind of out-of-place due to the educational nature of the site, but at the end of the day WW is Dane's to do with as she pleases.

 

Fair enough. You have your views and I have mine. Just to show there's no hard feelings, here is another Constantine era coin from my collection.

 

And here's a Constantine of mine that might be familiar to you

 

Edit: double post

 

Oh yeah, that is a nice one, and one of the earliest ancient coins I bought when I got into the hobby. My poor photographic skills didn't do it justice. Glad to see you are still enjoying it.

 

Yep...enough CoinTalk tonight guys and gals!

 

What a fantastic discovery!! I have a little subcollection of early Christian symbolism, here are some of the earliest/most interesting. None actually feature Constantine so even @Sallent is probably OK with them.


Possibly you are bored of seeing this one, but it's definitely my coolest. Issued c. 322-323 (before the council of Nicaea), in Crispus's name, issued in Trier right when & where he was studying with his Christian tutor Lactantius. The chi-rho on the shield recalls the battle of the Milvian bridge and helps confirm that the Christian symbol that Constantine asked his soldiers to paint on their shields was indeed the chi-rho. This is certainly one of the earliest instances of a chi-rho on a coin. There is only a medallion that is earlier (315), as well as a VICTORIAE LAETAE from c. 319 (Victor Clark has one). All of the above are extremely rare.


Constans as Caesar, Arles, c. 334, chi-rho present as a field mark between the soldiers. Rare.

Then there is this rather curious item:

It appears to be a Christian cross overstruck on a VLPP Constans dating from 330-337. It could be as early as 330, then, but there's no real way to date it. It was found in Norfolk in 1990, and presumably was made by an early English Christian.

 

Here is an Arcadius with labarum, and Vetranio with labarum. Both featuring the chi-rho. Both are AE 2 with a weight of about 5.5 grams

 

I do appreciate linking History with Numismatics. That makes it a living,real and educational hobby. Sallent is objective, frank, clear and kind. IMHO, historical analyses are as complex and difficult as human nature itself.
Who can explain how the bloody sword and spirit of Constantine had helped diffuse the Religion of Peace and Charity throughout the world ?!

 

"after years of searching".... ?? pretty sure the locals knew about the sunken church a short paddle away from their backdoor? Seems hard to miss....
Sounds more likely they have figured out a way to monetize it
Step#1: Market it!
Step#2 build museum
Step #3 sell tickets



and coin:

 

To add my cynical 2 cents, while the author of the article linked to in the OP (and some other Christain publications I came across) seem to be trying to suggest that the basilica hosted the First Council of Nicaea, the idea that the basilica was the specific building where the Council was held appears to be wishful thinking and not to be a belief held by the archeologist concerned himself.

While in some early articles after the announcement of the find the lead archaeologist gives a view that the basilica was perhaps built as early as 313 AD (but probably after the Council of Nicaea in 325), that date seems to have been pushed forward, and in several more recent articles the same archeologist is quoted saying it was likely built after 390 AD eg as in this September 2018 article on Live Science.

Interestingly, it's thought to be built on top of an older temple dedicated to Apollo.

In my internet sleuthing I couldn't see anything in English language sources that might cast light on the state of local knowledge before the ruins were "discovered" by the archeological community but apparently it has been excavated somewhat and the waters are not always as clear as they are in the photos in the OP article so it might not have been as obvious as it looks now before they started working on it - although if it was visible from the air before excavation I'd have to agree it seems more likely than not that the locals would have been aware of it [here's a link to a story about another fascinating underwater site in Turkey, recently "discovered" by archaeologists but known to locals].

To continue the cynical trend (#grinch), it seems the current media attention around the ruins is because they are closer to starting work on a museum that has been planned for a while (the find itself certainly is not new - it was publically announced in January 2014). On a positive note - it sounds like the planned museum might be pretty cool.

As an added bonus, (to keep things coin-related and to make up for my cynicism), I offer you a humble eastern coin of poor old Valentinian II, who was (at least technically, if not practically) the boss around the time it's currently thought the basilica was built



Valentinian II AE3. DN VALENTINIANVS PF AVG, rosette diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right / CONCORDIA AVGGG, Roma enthroned facing, helmeted and cuirassed, head left, holding globe and long spear, Θ in left field, Φ above K right. Mintmark ANTB. RIC IX Antioch 45b