Nova Roma Commemorative

Yes, this is true. I was asking about the VRBS ROMA types with the G -Ex reverses. These are all one standard, at least, as far as I know.

That's my question, too.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I've just always went off the standard literature that VRBS ROMA, CONSTANTINOPOLIS, were issued by "Constantine and his sons"

 

Either I'm just making up stuff...or they are listed in RIC VII.

see RIC VII Constantinople 154 & 155

RIC VII Cyzicus 34

RIC VII Heraclea 156 & 157

RIC VII Nicomedia 205 & 206

RIC VII Alexandria 70 & 71

a little bit from RIC VII--

"The last issue of the one-standard type demonstrates a reorganization. The Urbs Roma and Constantinopolis obverses are now connected with the Gloria exercitus reverses." preface to Heraclea pg 540.

edit-- occasionally you can't tell which period these commemoratives belong to. Sometimes I catalogue like RIC VII---/ RIC VIII ---. Even Bruun acknowledged the difficulty by suggesting this period (until 341) in Alexandria should not be divided into two groups but three, "according to decreasing weight and flan size."

 

Here's a bit different type from the Alexandria mint with S - R to either side of the two upper stars and SMALA in exergue (16.5mm, 1.6gms)

 

Yes, but they're also listed in RIC VIII. Just wondering if there's any evidence to support them belonging one place or the other, or both.

Absent any evidence, I think there's a better argument for them to have been produced after his death, perhaps in the immediately following interregnum.

 

She-Wuffs!


Rome VRBS ROMA commem 330-331 CE Æ reduced centenionalis, 16mm, 2.5g, 12h; Trier mint, CE 330-331 She-wolf RIC VII 529 Left



RI commem AE Follis Urbs ROMA She-wolf Rom Rem Stars RIC VII Lyons 242 Left



RI Commem Urbs Roma AE Follis Thessalonika 330-333 CE She-Wolf Rom-Rem stars S 16516R Left

 

..i knew i had a couple o dese..some of my 1st ancient buys all those years ago

 

Yes, this is true. I'm just wondering if this is still considered accurate. (Think of the Pagan coinage.)

 

To me the evidence is conclusive. There are coins of Constantine I with both two and one standard. He was alive when the reduction occurred unless you assume all his coins were posthumous but not marked as such. There are no coins of his sons as Augusti using the heavier, two standards weight. Their heavy coins are as Caesar. When dad died the boys all started striking as Augusti but the coins were by then small. Note that Constantine never promoted the sons to be his equal in rank but all three volunteered for the job when he was gone. The commemoratives were issued in honor of the founding of the new capitol under Constantine and equally to salve the 'wounds' the move made on the old capitol Rome. Who originated this idea that RIC is wrong in their sequencing?

 

I don't think anyone is questioning the sequencing of the normal 2 standards and 1 standard Gloria Exercitvs types/issues, including associated city commemorative types. The issue marks and changing titles make that all clear.

What's at question is only the "anonymous" Gloria Exercitvs 1 standard coins which have Roma/Constantinopolis obverses, and were only issued from a handful of mints (Thessalonica, Heraclea, Constantinople, Cyzicus, Nicomedia) centered around Constantinople.

Per the "1 standard" reverse (and reduced module size) these could have been struck anytime after 335 AD up to 340 AD (when the Gloria Exercitvs type ended).

Of course, while Constantine I was alive, the default expectation would be for any coin type to be issued from all active mints, barring some exceptional reason why a specific mint was doing something else. On the Gloria Exercitvs type we'd also expect an imperial obverse.

The interregnum (~ 3 month period) after Constantine's death might explain the anomalous nature of these "anonymous" Gloria Exercitvs types, since we now have no-one clearly in charge (hence anonymous obverse), divided control of the empire (with most of the relevant mints under control of Constantius II), and also a brief time window which would explain the scarcity.

For these coins to have been issued during Constantine's lifetime (i.e. 335-337), it seems there's some explaining to do!

 

To add to @Heliodromus's comments, after Constantine died, the three sons needed to initiate the murders of Delmatius and Hannibalianus before they could claim their new titles of co-Augusti. This took about 3 months. Since there was no Augustus, and I assume that the sons did not want to be called Caesar after their father's death, there was no one to put on the obverse, so it's possible that they decided to go with the Roma/Constantinopolis obverse until they could clear the playing field and officially ascend to their new titles.

 

I see this as trying too hard. Where do you get the idea of a three month interregnum? How did the existence of Delmatius and Hannibalianus keep the three obvious heirs from claiming Augustus before the body was cold? The whole purpose of having Caesars was to provide Augusti in waiting. The old theory was that the 'mules' served to use up left over obverses when the mints ran out of proper reverses. Was this after the death of Constantine II? Probably? Is there hoard evidence?

 

While scarce, these still seem too plentiful to be mules, and if mules one might ask:

1) Why always Gloria Ex reverse with city obverse, not vice versa ?

2) Why only from this specific, geographically grouped, set of mints ?

It's also perhaps relevant to note the fondness of Constantius II, who controlled most of these mints (apart from Thessalonica) for the Roma/Constantinopolis obverses, since he later c.348 AD also paired them with his VOT XX MVLT XXX vota reverse.

I'm not sure what sources we have for the interregnum. One discussion of it is in this video by Lars Ramskold, prepared for last year's Nis & Byzantium conference.

 

It's just part of the historical record. I can look up some references for you when I get home tonight.

 

I don't want to derail this thread, so here's a couple more of mine to celebrate the type - a favorite of mine, of which I have plenty!

Here's one with a nice chocolate patina and what appears to be an intentional unlisted eyes-to-god bust.



Maybe one of my favorites, I *think* this is RIC VIII Arles 25, but the same "X" issue mark had also been used earlier on RIC VII Arles 407, so very hard to tell! The coin only measures 15.5mm - props to the myopic(?) engraver and his globe of water magnifier(?).

 

These sure get tiny. The one I posted up higher (also below) is a whopping 14mm.

 

Lars Ramskold has just posted a detailed follow-up paper to his Niz and Byzantium 2020 video presentation here:

https://www.academia.edu/61720005/The_AVGVSTVS_CAESAR_and_CAESAR_X_X_silver_multiples_and_the_interregnum_337_CE_2021_Lars_Ramskold_Niš_and_Byzantium_XIX_pp_381_416_

This paper provides a detailed discussion of the interregnum and division of the empire at the time. Highly recommended!

 

I watched it and it is very good about silver medallions of the period.

 

There's an even scarcer and smaller Vota variety. Struck on the two-victories standard?



Constantinian Dynasty.
Rome City Commemorative.
AE15, 1.6g, 6h; Heraclea mint, AD 347-8.
Obv.: VRBS ROMA; Bust of Roma left wearing visored and crested helmet and ornamental mantle.
Rev.: VOT XX MVLT XXX in four lines within wreath // SMH-
Reference: RIC 49.

 

There's a loosely related video here that I found very enjoyable, about a treasure found in the Rhone river dating to Constantinian Arles. Among the finds were a number of these silver interregnum medallions, as well as a large unlisted gold medallion of Constantine II.



You may have watched this video "Le Tresor du Rhone" before, but it seems to have been updated with some new material, so maybe worth watching again.

The video is in french, but if you enable closed captioning (CC at bottom right of YouTube player), you can then go into YouTube settings (cog icon beside CC) and ask it to auto-translate them into English.

A previous version of the video showed some rather brutal cleaning of the medallions, but on a quick scan I think they may have edited that out!