Crispus VOT V and VOT X

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Tejas, Jul 13, 2021.

  1. Tejas

    Tejas Well-Known Member

    Crispus was appointed Caesar in 317, when he was around 12 years old and he was killed in AD 326 at the age of around 21 years. So there is not much scope for ageing reflected in his coin portraits.

    This coin below dates to AD 321 "VOT V" and it shows Crispus as a young "man" of perhaps 15 or 16 years



    Screenshot 2021-07-13 at 16.27.19.png



    On this coin he has visibly aged. Cripus is presented as an adult, resembling his father Constantine. This coin should date to 325 or 326 (VOT X). Is this dating correct?


    Screenshot 2021-07-13 at 14.49.25.png
     
    kountryken, maridvnvm, Bing and 5 others like this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Finn235

    Finn235 Well-Known Member

    Beautiful coins!

    IMO, the "date" of most Vota coins should be taken with a grain of salt, because generally the vows were taken in anticipation of a certain anniversary, creating sometimes ironic issues, like Jovian's issues promising 10 years' reign
    Jovian AE3 Sirmium.jpg
     
  4. seth77

    seth77 Well-Known Member

    I think a safe bet for all Italian mints would be that both vota V and X are vota suscepta so in theory VOT V would have a terminus ante quem of 322 and VOT X a terminus post quem of 322 and ante quem of 327. But by 325 the campgate type was introduced at Rome so the VOT X for Crispus would date between 322 and 325. But by the second part of 322 Rome seems to have ceased or heavily reduce its monetary output -- the second part of 322 saw only restrikes for Constantine I VOT XX and a complete halt from around late 322 to late 324 or early 325. So your VOT X Crispus should probably date to 322.

    VOT V from Aquileia I see it is firmly dated in RIC to 321.
     
    Claudius_Gothicus, PeteB and Tejas like this.
  5. Orielensis

    Orielensis Well-Known Member

    On this VOT X from Siscia, Crispus looks rather adolescent. Note the interesting mintmark:
    Rom – Crispus, AE3, Vot V, Siscia.png
    Crispus, Roman Empire, AE 3, 321–324 AD, Siscia mint. Obv: IVL CRISPVS NOB C; head of Crispus, laureate, r. Rev: CAESARVM NOSTRORVM; VOT X in wreath; in exergue ΔSISC (sunrise). 20mm, 3.24g. Ref: RIC VII Siscia 181.
     
    Bing, Johndakerftw, Andres2 and 3 others like this.
  6. Heliodromus

    Heliodromus Well-Known Member

    There doesn't seem to have been any gap between the VOT V and VOT X issues, so you can't expect a 5 year date difference.

    That Rome VOT X type, with plain wreath,

    1) Comes *after* the Rome VOT type with Eros mintmark, which includes a consular bust for Constantine I (RIC 227) dating to 319 (COS V) or 320 (COS VI),

    and

    2) Comes *before* the Rome decorated wreath type, which includes a consular bust for Constantine II (RIC 244) dating to 320 (COS I)

    So, your VOT X would have to date to 319-320 (I'd guess 320).

    I'd assume Aquileia was in sync with Rome, so the VOT V would also date to 319-320.
     
    Claudius_Gothicus, PeteB and Tejas like this.
  7. seth77

    seth77 Well-Known Member

    The votives of 320 are still the suscepta XX and soluta XV for Constantine I. The VOT V inside wreath and CAESARVM NOSTRORVM around was introduced at the earliest at the end of 320 or more likely the beginning of 321 (with the EROS - ROMA mintmark) and the series with RP mintmark is steadily placed in 321. The VOT X is likely introduced early 322, as the quinquennalia of the Caesars marks the VOT V as vota soluta.
     
  8. Al Kowsky

    Al Kowsky Well-Known Member

    Tejas, Those are both handsome coins with attractive patinas, & appear to be mint state or close to it :happy:!.
     
    Tejas likes this.
  9. Tejas

    Tejas Well-Known Member

    Thanks all for the comments and explanations. So the Aquilea VOT V and the Rome VOT X were minted in 321 and 322, respectively. That means, the apparent change in Crispus' appearance does not really reflect reality, but is down to artistic freedom.
     
  10. Tejas

    Tejas Well-Known Member

    Thanks a lot. I got this completely wrong and took Crispus' aged appearance on the VOT X as confirmation.
     
  11. Tejas

    Tejas Well-Known Member

    Yes, both coins are in excellent condition. The VOT X even kept much of its original silvering.
     
  12. Heliodromus

    Heliodromus Well-Known Member

    It seems the VOT X has to date to 320 AD (it can't be any later than the following "dated" consular bust RIC 244), but anyways a year or two likely wouldn't have changed Crispus's appearance much since he was already about 20 yrs old at the time.

    I'm not sure if it would have been the same for the caesars, but for the augusti there seems to have been an official portrait bust provided to the mints to copy, which was updated occasionally, but not very frequently - not an exact representation of age. Rather like the British monarchs who's coin portraits are updated very infrequently.
     
  13. seth77

    seth77 Well-Known Member

    Without the legend marking certain consulships there is no way to say for certain which consulship the bust should be tied to (if any -- for instance in the East the campgate and the IOVI reduced module types were issued with the same "consular" bust type from ca. 317 for both Augusti and the Caesars), so RIC 244 might aswell date to the end of 321, as its rarity seems to indicate.

    What helps us more in this case is the series of types at Rome: the ROMAE AETERNAE introduced in 319 in anticipation of Constantine's quindecennalia with RP mintmark, the ROMAE AETERNAE continued to 320 with the celebratory EROS mintmark and the VOT X ET XV F (and variations) minted specifically for Constantine's quindecennalia, likely around June-August 320, the continuation of the X ET XV with the return to regular RP mintmark in late summer 320, the new VOT XV FEL XX (and variations) marking the end of the quindecennalia celebrations and a new set of vows by Constantine I -- vota suscepta for the vicennalia in the autumn and later part of 320. Now as late as late 320, the coinage in the name of the heirs was not with their nominal vows. It starts showing nominal vows for Constantine II and Crispus (the VOT V inside wreath CAESARVM NOSTRORVM) after the end of 320, very likely early 321, when the two heirs are shown in a dynastic fashion with their own vota suscepta that they take on, and which is renewed in very very late 321 or more likely 322 when VOT V becomes vota soluta and a new suscepta issue is added for X. After that, the coinage in copper/billon starts to dwindle in Italy and everything comes to a halt probably in mid to late 322. Notice for instance that the new types that become copious both in the west and in the mid-Danube area (Sirimium), conspicuously the SARMATIA/ALLAMANIA DEVICTA are totally missing from Rome (and Ticinum and Aquileia).
     
    Tejas likes this.
  14. Heliodromus

    Heliodromus Well-Known Member

    Well, true in general, but often there are enough other constraints to make the "COS X or COS Y" alternative obvious.

    In this case there's also an unlisted consular Constantine I VOT XX coin in the decorated wreath issue, so in the vicinity of 320 AD we have a choice between:

    319 AD = COS V [Edit - date fixed ]
    320 AD = COS VI
    326 AD = COS VII

    https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notInRic/7rom-237_k3.html

    So it seems it has to be 320 AD (or 319 AD), and any issues before the decorated wreath therefore have to be same year or earlier.

    It's conceivable that the Constantine II coin could be COS II or even as late as COS III (324 AD), if the decorated wreath issue (to be followed by palms-in-field one) lasted that long, but the issue itself must have started by the Constantine I COS VI date of 320 AD, therefore the VOT X issue predates that.

    Note that vota soluta types generally were not issued in the anniversary year they are marking, nor were vota suscepta types issued on anniversaries. They are typically much more random than that - often issued years ahead of time.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2021
    Tejas likes this.
  15. seth77

    seth77 Well-Known Member

    The types around the quindecennalia of Constantine show a very neat sequence of types tied to the actual event, dating to before during and after with the announcement of the future event (in 319, or even 318-319), the year of the event and the types employed for the event (in this case the X ET XV F and after the event with the new vows XV FEL XX summer to autumn 320) and the new dynastic types with the vota for the Caesars that actually end the sequence in 321.

    Later on there are no clear sequences that show us the difference between the suscepta and the soluta -- mostly after 340 and definitely by 360, but for this period the many types used at a rather high frequency help us better determine the chronology.

    PS - Constantine was COS IIII in 315 and the decennalia was celebrated in issues with a very diverse range of bust types in his domains in the west. Some issues also stated the consulship, while later on other issues marked consulships in the legends. Without the legend and without the sequence of types, we are left with just guess work that doesn't always give the best of results.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2021
    Tejas likes this.
  16. Heliodromus

    Heliodromus Well-Known Member

    Sure, but what about the *specific* case in point:

    Constantine I VOT XX Rome consular.jpg

    Do you want to argue for a later date (to support a VOT X date later than 320 AD) ?

    PS I fixed the COS V date in my post.
     
    seth77, Bing and Tejas like this.
  17. bcuda

    bcuda El Ibérico loco

    Some of my Crispus VOT coins.

    s-l1600__1_-removebg-preview (3).png tb206.jpg vot6.JPG vot9.JPG vot12.JPG
     
  18. Tejas

    Tejas Well-Known Member

    I can see that the dating of this series is a major academic debate. I'm impressed by your detailed knowledge Seth77 and Heliodromus. I have learned a lot.
     
  19. Cucumbor

    Cucumbor Well-Known Member

    Excellent coins Tejas. I happen to have the exact same (not same dies though) as your Vot V

    0643-310.jpg

    Q
     
  20. seth77

    seth77 Well-Known Member

    Very interesting coin, but without the legend saying COS VI I would have no problem dating it to 321. This issue starts with VOT XX for Constantine I and VOT V for Crispus and Constantine II and ends perhaps around early 322 with VOT XX for Constantine I and VOT X for Constantine II and Crispus. The consular bust is very interesting and an irregularity for Rome at this time, but there are precedents at Trier for instance, where consular bust types where used outside consular years for the BEATA TRANQVILLITAS type.

    The alternative you favor on the other hand would disregard the whole sequence of types minted by Rome from ca. 319 to 322, which fits so well with the historical context and the numismatic data.
     
    Tejas likes this.
  21. Heliodromus

    Heliodromus Well-Known Member

    But Constantine wasn't consul in 321 AD. The BEATA consular busts are an oddity, perhaps due to the issuing mints all being under control of Crispus, but there is no precedent (that I'm aware of) of Constantine's mints using consular busts outside of consular years.

    The alignment between the dates of the coins and datable historic events is what it is! Maybe it would be more satisfying if these emperors would issue new vota suscepta types exactly when prior vows expired, but that just doesn't seem to be how they always did it.

    It seems Constantine's mints didn't bother waiting until until the caesars' (belatedly issued) 5-years vows were fulfilled before going ahead with 10-year ones (and of course Crispus skipped the 5-year vows altogether at his mints).

    Constantine's quindecennalial year would have been 320-321 AD (306 + 14), so it seems Rome's final XV types (VOT X ET XV, VOT XV) may have extended into that year (certainly having started before with VOT XV FEL XX), then been pretty rapidly replaced with the standardized (mintmark outside of wreath) VOT V/VOT XX types at all of Constantine's mints.

    Constantine himself doesn't appear to have been in Italy/Rome during his quindecennalial year, so these special VOT XV types may have been more anticipatory rather than culminating in any major local celebration.
     
    Tejas likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page