Author Topic: Anepigraphic Helena from Constantinople  (Read 6527 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline seth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
  • Country: 00
Re: Anepigraphic Helena from Constantinople
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2015, 01:14:35 PM »
There are the rare vicennalia issues from Constantinople (like the one you presented here on forum a few weeks ago: http://www.lateromanbronzecoinforum.com/index.php?topic=679.0)
Also, another thing: as I am more familiar w/ the fractions from the 310s, I notice that these early 320's are also the big majority from Trier. Are there any other fractions from this period known from Constantinople?

Offline Victor

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4081
  • Country: us
  • all my best friends are dead Romans
    • Victor's Imperial Coins
Re: Anepigraphic Helena from Constantinople
« Reply #16 on: May 14, 2015, 01:20:25 PM »
There are the rare vicennalia issues from Constantinople (like the one you presented here on forum a few weeks ago: http://www.lateromanbronzecoinforum.com/index.php?topic=679.0)

Yes, I added this (unless you include the anepigraphic type with reverse legend in wreath), maybe while you were posting.

Offline Nikko

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Country: it
Re: Anepigraphic Helena from Constantinople
« Reply #17 on: May 14, 2015, 01:25:24 PM »
that was also my initial thought - the connection to the vicennalia, considering the weight and module.

No, there is no connection. Constantine's vicennalia celebration started July 325 and ended in Rome in July 326. There was no bronze coinage celebrating this event in Constantinople (unless you include the anepigraphic type with reverse legend in wreath) and, furthermore, minting of bronze in the city did not even start until late in 326.

Dynastic, anepigraphic bronze coins were struck at Constantinopolis in the name of Constantine I, Constantine II, Constantius II and probably Crispus too, on march 326 when Constantine I stayed at Constantinopolis during his vicennalia tour (cfr Ramskold 2011 and Zschucke 2000).
« Last Edit: May 14, 2015, 01:36:15 PM by Nikko »

Offline Victor

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4081
  • Country: us
  • all my best friends are dead Romans
    • Victor's Imperial Coins
Re: Anepigraphic Helena from Constantinople
« Reply #18 on: May 14, 2015, 01:32:04 PM »
Dynastic, anepigraphic bronze coins were struck at Constantinopolis in the name of Constantine I, Constantine II, Constantius II and probably Crispus too, on march 326 when Constantine I stayed at Constantinopolis durng his vicennalia tour (cfr Ramskold 2011 and Zschucke 2000).

Yes, that is a theory; which is why I said and will repeat one more time -- (unless you include the anepigraphic type with reverse legend in wreath)


Offline seth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
  • Country: 00
Re: Anepigraphic Helena from Constantinople
« Reply #19 on: May 14, 2015, 01:35:46 PM »
I still think Victor's pairing w/ DAFNE is most likely true and that makes this issue even more interesting as it is possibly the only known type for this denomination at Constantinople.

Offline Nikko

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Country: it
Re: Anepigraphic Helena from Constantinople
« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2015, 01:44:57 PM »
The legend HELENA AVGVSTA is ideally connected with the CONSTANTINVS AVG legend of the vicennalia issue.

It could also be related with the Dafne coinage if we assume that the anepigraphic Dafne was the first issue of this new series.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2015, 02:04:34 PM by Nikko »

Offline seth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
  • Country: 00
Re: Anepigraphic Helena from Constantinople
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2015, 02:26:19 PM »
Interesting. I could see the merit of such a theory also.
So maybe 326-327 more likely than 328, you'd say?

Offline Victor

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4081
  • Country: us
  • all my best friends are dead Romans
    • Victor's Imperial Coins
Re: Anepigraphic Helena from Constantinople
« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2015, 02:44:20 PM »
Interesting. I could see the merit of such a theory also.
So maybe 326-327 more likely than 328, you'd say?

No, because then you would have to discard (or seriously rearrange to squeeze in) all the coinage before the DAFNE issue-- GLORIA EXERCITVS, GLORIA ROMANORVM, LIBERTAS PVBLICA, and SPES PVBLIC.


edit- I added comments below anticipating further debate


I will elaborate on why you can be pretty certain of the order of issue. First of all though, the date. Lars is not the first person who believes that mint production started earlier than Bruun. Speck and Huston in 1992 in their pamphlet Constantine's Dafne Coinage at Constantinople, wrote that the production for DAFNE coinage needed to start in mid 327, versus the date of 328 in RIC; meaning that the mint would have opened a few months earlier than stated in RIC. This topic is starting to bog down on dates though when it should not. There is no point in trying to link events of 326 with the anepigraphic DAFNE and Helena coins which must have been minted around two years later, so circa A.D. 328 if you must date it.

Start with the new types minted just for Constantinople-- GLORIA EXERCITVS, GLORIA ROMANORVM, LIBERTAS PVBLICA, and SPES PVBLIC issues ( there was also short run of Constantine I campgates prior to these coins, which might have lasted a few months) Say that minting started around mid to late 326 and given the quantity available, ran to around mid 327. These types undoubtedly came before the DAFNE issues because of the transition of the bust types. At first all these coins have the laureate bust, then change to the diadem. All the DAFNE coinage, starting in mid 327, is diademed, so they definitely came after these issues. The first DAFNE issue could not be the anepigraphic type either, because the first type is RIC 30, a head with diadem, which is the exact same bust type as the four previous diademed issues. So the anepigraphic issue comes after RIC 30, which would at best be late 327 - early 328,  if you put the anepigraphic before the other eyes to heaven coins (RIC 32) and a bit later if you put the issue after...either way enough time separates the vicennalia of 326 from the Helena and DAFNE issue that it seems very unlikely that there is any connection.