Constantinian anepigraphic series

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Tejas, Feb 16, 2022.

  1. Tejas

    Tejas Well-Known Member

    I have three anepigraphic coins of Constantine I and his sons Constantine II and Constantius II (Cripus is missing).

    As far as I can see, these coins were minted around AD 324/325, mostly in eastern mints, especially in Antiochia.

    Does anybody know more about this series? Was there a special reason for issuing these coins, with no obverse legend?


    Screenshot 2022-02-16 at 22.09.55.png Screenshot 2022-02-16 at 22.10.42.png Screenshot 2022-02-16 at 22.11.20.png
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    I read they were only issued when that family member was physically in the city. It was a commemorative of the visit.
     
  4. Hrefn

    Hrefn Well-Known Member

    I have previously posted an anepigraphic Solidus of Constantius II as Caesar. It was minted in Nicomedia around 325-6 AD according to my notes. Constantius II was elevated to the rank of Caesar in 324 AD, when only about 7 years in age. Constantine I had just defeated Licinius at the time and spent much of the next few years resident in Nicomedia. It is a reasonable guess that Constantine’s young son was in Nicomedia at the time the coin was struck.
     
    Spaniard, DonnaML and Tejas like this.
  5. Tejas

    Tejas Well-Known Member

    I found examples of these anepigraphic nummi from various mints, including Antiochia, Rome (common, cf. OP coins), Trier, Thessalonica and Nicomedia (rare).

    Nicomedia:
    https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=507983

    Trier:
    https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2580561

    Thessalonica:
    _thessalonica_RIC_VII_141.jpg (600×335) (wildwinds.com)

    If these series were minted to mark the presence of Constantine and his sons in the respective city, one would have to show that they really visited these places. Perhaps these issues were more like dynastic issues to present the imperial family to the public.

    Not sure about the weight standard, but they appear to be lighter than the usual nummi/folles of that period. Maybe these coins were distributed during certain festivities in honour of the imperial family, i.e. some kind of public donativum.

    My impression is that these coins are often in very worn condition. It looks like they circulated for quite some time.

    PS: The type was also minted for Helena at Antioch, but the coins are very rare.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2022
  6. seth77

    seth77 Well-Known Member

    I highly recommend reading this paper on the anepigraphic series. It deals with the likelihood of two distinct series -- one in honor of Constantine's vicennalia started in late 324 or early 325 and following Constantine's trip from Antioch to Rome and another in early 329, just at Rome, possibly minted as Constantine was there for the funeral of Helena. The main distinction between the two series is what helped Mr. L. Ramskold come up with this theory: the later style ornate headwear that does not appear until at least 328.

    Regarding the standard, it has been hypothesised that there was a brief reform in 325-6 (D. R. Walker - 'A Transient Coinage Reform AD 326, NC 1967 p. 71) that saw these coins struck at a lower weight than the contemporary regular AE, but like the series itself, it was discontinued after the dramatic end to Constantine's decennalia in the summer of 326. Not sure where that leaves Ramskold's theory regarding the further anepigraphic series at Rome in 329 standard-wise.

    Here's Crispus:

    CRIS.JPG

    Helena:

    hel.jpg

    And a Constantine II from the 'later series' at Rome:

    PIC.JPG
     
  7. gsimonel

    gsimonel Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the link to this article, @seth77. I was not aware of the possibility of two separate series from Rome. It looks like my example, the obverse of which is also my avatar, is from the second series:
    85.jpg
    Constantine I
    Rome mint, A.D. 326
    RIC 281
    Obv: [No legend]
    Rev: CONSTAN/TINVS/AVG - Wreath above inscription
    SMRS in exergue
    19 mm, 1.7 g.
     
    IMP Shogun, Edessa, galba68 and 5 others like this.
  8. seth77

    seth77 Well-Known Member

    Looks like lots of silvering?
     
  9. Tejas

    Tejas Well-Known Member

    Thanks a lot seth77 for the paper. It includes a lot of information and answers my questions above. So these coins were dynastic issues to present the members of the imperial family to the public and they were struck along the route, travelled by the emperor.
    I also found the part on the "travelling mint" or better travelling treasury very interesting. So precious metal was typically only minted when the emperor (or one of his caesars) were present in the respective city.

    I found this section very interesting (p. 416):
    "It is important to note that in many provinces of the empire, there was never any gold or silver coins or donatives at all produced during Constantine’s reign, and in other provinces, decades could pass between occasional production of gold and silver issues. From this fact alone, it is clear that gold and silver issues had quite another function than monetary use in trade, purchase, or other payments39. Numerous authors have discussed the donative character of many gold and silver issues from the reign of Constantine. We here take this idea further, and conclude that virtually all gold and probably also most silver struck under Constantine’s sole reign (324-337) was donative in character, and especially so during the period 324-330. That is, the struck gold and silver was given by the emperor (or someone acting on his behalf) to individuals, as a reward or in exchange for services or loyalty paid to the emperor"
     
    Spaniard likes this.
  10. seth77

    seth77 Well-Known Member

    It is certainly consistent with the rarity of the material. I think silver (siliquae) does not become more common until the military campaigns north of the Danube and in Pannonia in the 330s, likely as payment for the military, the auxiliaries and the Sarmatian and Goth foederati.
     
    Tejas likes this.
  11. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    Hmm, never knew the Helena were rare. I knew they were scarcer than the men. I wish I had pics of mine. I bought a group lot, (probably someone's collection), from GM a few years back to add to about 5 of them I already owned. I think about 30 in the group, of which 2 were Helena. If I lived closer to @dougsmit I would have pics of them. :( I have always been intrigued by this series, but have enough subcollections that I don't have a lot of time to pursue them.
     
  12. Tejas

    Tejas Well-Known Member

    Yes, apparently very rare (rated R4). This is also mentioned in the Ramskold article. The dynastic coins for Helena (and Fausta) were issued by only 1 officina and only at Antioch.
     
  13. seth77

    seth77 Well-Known Member

    I think the scarcity has to do also with the time spent by the emperor in a certain city and thus the time this coinage was struck locally. For Antioch, Constantine was present at least since December 324, when the introduction of the coinage is presumed, if not in December proper then at least very early in 325. His stay in Antioch spanned two issues of dynastic AE, of which the second saw the introduction of Helena and Fausta, probably late in its 325 issue.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2022
    Tejas likes this.
  14. ancient coin hunter

    ancient coin hunter 3rd Century Usurper

    I have been looking for some of these coin types in excellent condition for some time. Haven't really found one yet.
     
  15. Heliodromus

    Heliodromus Well-Known Member

    I'm a bit late to the party here. Lar's paper, linked by @seth77 is definitely key to understanding this type.

    These are a special issue type/denomination promoting the upgraded Constantinian family/dynasty after he attained sole rule in 324 AD, after the defeat of Licinius. In 324 AD Constantine had just elevated Fausta and Helena from Nob. Fem. to Augustae, and appointed Constantius II as caesar - now joining the earlier appointed caesars Constantine II and Crispus.

    There seem to be four grouping of coins:

    1) The first city to issue the type was Antioch in 324-325, likely during Constantine's presence in the city (see appendix 2 of Lar's paper for evidence of this visit). The Antioch coins stand out in a number of ways:
    - They include Fausta and Helena
    - There were two issues (SMANT, SMANT dot)
    - The coins are quite plentiful (at least relative to the other mints)

    2) Aside from Antioch, most of the coins appear to have been issued en-route as Constantine took his entire family on a leisurely tour from the east, starting in Nicomedia in 325 AD, to Rome for his vicennial celebrations there in 326 AD. The itinerary and dates can be derived from entries in the Theodosian code attesting Constantine's presence in these cities (see Lar's paper for details). The final stop on the tour was Rome itself, with the Rome coins issued at this time being rare and unlisted (again, see Lar's paper). These Rome coins have the mintmark SMRA (note greek officina "A"), include Crispus (still alive at this point), and have a star on the reverse for the caesars, the same as at the other mints. Coins for Constantine himself from this Rome issue have yet to surface, but presumably exist and will have a laureate bust.

    3) There are coins from Trier (including many unofficial copies), and perhaps Lyons and Arles as well (if these extremely rare coins are official) that don't appear to have been on the vicennial tour itinerary, and are therefore harder to precisely date other than also being from 324-326 (with laureate bust for Constantine).

    4) There is a second issue from Rome, that appears to have been issued on a later separate occasion, not associated with the vicennial celebrations. This is the listed issue with SMRP-T mintmark (now latin officina, unlike earlier SMRA greek one), and further differs from the earlier Rome issue in following ways:

    - Constantine now appears with a draped bust and diademed (unlike the earlier laureate vicennial tour coins)
    - Crispus, now dead, is not included
    - The remaining caesars, Constantine II and Constantius II, now have a wreath on the reverse rather than the star of the vicennial series
    - It is much more common (2nd most common issue to original Antioch one)

    The "SM" mintmark, and special nature of the coins, strongly suggests these SMRP coins were likely issued when Constantine was present in Rome, with the diadem indicating a date of 327 or later. Lars plausibly suggests a visit to Rome for Helena's funeral in 328-329 AD.

    As Walker notes, these "coins" are all well below the prevailing (and following) nummus weight standard, but given that all issues from Antioch c.324-325 to Rome 328-329 appear to be the same standard, it seems the weight reflects their special nature rather than being part of a "transient coinage reform" that saw weights first drop then increase again. The weight of these is roughly 2/3 nummus, but it's hard to guess if that is how they were actually valued. Despite being underweight they conceivably may even have passed as nummi.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2022
  16. Tejas

    Tejas Well-Known Member

    Thanks a lot Heliodromus for the detailed response. The series is a lot more interesting than I originally thought. Indeed, this discussion has, to some extent, changed my perception of the use of money in late antiquity. The "propaganda" value of coins seems to have been a lot more prominent than I thought, extending even to the lowest denominations. Money and minting was apparently much more of an imperial institution. Maybe coins circulated above all in the vicinity of the imperial court and the army, while large parts of the economy functioned on the basis of barter trade - at least in the 4th century.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2022
  17. Tejas

    Tejas Well-Known Member

    Very interesting that you mentioned Sarmatians and Goths. The barbaric aurei (made by Goths and perhaps Sarmatians) are in their function probably much closer to the official Roman gold coins. If the emperor ordered the minting of gold for donativa, Gothic chieftains may have imitated this practice north of the Danube.
    Which gives me the opportunity to show one of such Gothic aurei from my collection. This one may imitate a coin of Septimius Severus. Nevertheless, it probably dates to the late 3rd/ early 4th century.

    Found: Khmelnitskaya oblast, Starokonstantinovski raion
    Weight: 6.5 g
    Oleg Anokhin catalog No. 333 (this coin)

    Screenshot 2022-02-18 at 11.42.31.png
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2022
    Hrefn and seth77 like this.
  18. gsimonel

    gsimonel Well-Known Member

    Considering the wear on this coin, I think it's unlikely to be original silvering. (I wish, though.) I think it's an unusual chemical reaction between the coin's surface and whatever environment it was surrounded by during its long hibernation in the ground.
     
  19. Tejas

    Tejas Well-Known Member

    Were these coins silvered originally? I have never seen one with so much of a hint of silvering remaining.
     
  20. Tejas

    Tejas Well-Known Member

    This surprised me. I cannot say that I have seen barbarous imitations of this type from Trier or indeed any other mint. But I know, Ramskold makes the point as well, of these imitations being plentiful.
     
  21. seth77

    seth77 Well-Known Member

    I think that the vast quantity of AE minted in the 4th century and its presence virtually everywhere in the empire and beyond is a strong indication that the Roman economy was monetized. The scarcity of precious metal issues, although by 350 that gets also plentiful, might indicate a primary function of precious metal issues as primarily military-administrative related, minted usually when the emperor was stationed in the city. So very broadly speaking a 'civilian' economy where AE and billon coinage was the vast majority of cashflow, with silver and gold reserved for administrative and military expenses, undertaken by the emperor and his circle of power and bureaucracy.

    Nice gold barbaric issue -- but have you noticed how many official siliquae present on the market at a given time are also similarly holed? It wouldn't be impossible that they are connected to foederati, Sarmatians or Goths, that were stationed on the Danube and in the Balkans after the 330s and/or those in Pannonia and on the Rhine in the 350s.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page