Late Roman Bronze Coins
Coin talk => Unlisted => Topic started by: Victor on May 13, 2015, 01:03:35 PM
-
This coin just sold for 375 euros - http://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?auction=1923&category=39915&lot=1675557
It is not in RIC, but is the second example that I know about. The weight is given as 1.43gm, but no size is recorded. The first known example was 12mm though. The half-follis size is unusual, so this coin may have been a special piece like a donative. I would say it was probably struck around the same time as the anepigraphic Constantine DAFNE issue (also unrecorded in RIC) circa A.D. 328. The first picture below is the coin that just sold, the second picture is the older example from 2007.
Helena
Circa A.D. 328
Circa 12mm 1.4gm
OBV: Anepigraphic; diademed and mantled bust right.
HELENA AVGVSTA; Victory seated left on a cippus, right foot on a prow; holding a cornucopia in the left arm, and right holding an olive branch; A in left field.
In ex. CONS
-
That's something you don't see every day. I remember seeing the first one on FAC some years ago and wondering about the type. Of course it makes sense the pairing with Constantine's DAFNE anepigraphic. Would there be a Fausta too somewhere?
And most importantly, did you buy this one?
-
Would there be a Fausta too somewhere?
And most importantly, did you buy this one?
There will not be a Fausta as she was killed in A.D. 326 and proclaimed damnatio memoriae and this coin was most likely issued a few years later circa A.D. 328.
I didn't bid because now that I am primarily a dealer of coins, I can't afford to get into a bidding war and pay more for a coin that I could potentially sell it for later.
-
There will not be a Fausta as she was killed in A.D. 326 and proclaimed damnatio memoriae and this coin was most likely issued a few years later circa A.D. 328.
Of course, where was I thinking.
Although come to think of it, by the low weight of this new one (can't recall the weight of the previous one on FAC or if it was actually stated) it could be that this issue wasn't necessary parallel to the DAFNE series but rather either to the vicennalia or the small commemoratives of 330, more likely the latter.
At 400EUR I wouldn't have afforded it either and the condition isn't exactly top notch, but great find!
-
Although come to think of it, by the low weight of this new one (can't recall the weight of the previous one on FAC or if it was actually stated)
It's not a low weight for a half-follis
it could be that this issue wasn't necessary parallel to the DAFNE series but rather either to the vicennalia or the small commemoratives of 330, more likely the latter.
It seems too much of a coincidence that a DAFNE anepigraphic was also issued and both coin types share a similar reverse of Victory on a cippus.
-
So you favor the possibility that this Helena was actually half the denomination of the DAFNE?
You might be right. But are there other half-follis issues known from the 320s? Besides of course the POP ROMANVS commemoratives that were another thing altogether and were minted likely in 330.
-
But are there other half-follis issues known from the 320s? Besides of course the POP ROMANVS commemoratives that were another thing altogether and were minted likely in 330.
There are other half-folles from the RIC VII period, but they are very distinct from the Helena coin and issued for specific reasons, like the FVNDAT PACIS and GLORIA PERPET types issued from Rome in A.D. 313 to commemorate the defeat of Maxentius. There are the posthumous issues like MEMORIAE AETERNAE Divus Maximianus coinage issued A.D. 317- 318 from Rome. The Helena coin, besides being issued along with the anepigraphic Dafne, may have also been issued for her 80th birthday. We do not know her actual birthday, only that it was around A.D. 248- 250. So an issue of A.D. 328 for this coin could have fallen on her 80th...this is purely speculation on my part though and does not lessen the chances that this coin was struck along with the DAFNE issues. Another thing that convinces me this was issued around 328, is the mintmark in left field, which is like the DAFNE issue (and all Constantinople issues from 327- 328) but completely different from the POP ROMANVS coins circa A.D. 330, with the officina in the exergue. Note also the similarity of the legend, where it starts and breaks etc. So, even if not issued at exactly the same time as the DAFNE coinage, it was issued very close.
Below is a Constantine anepigraphic DAFNE
-
You are, most likely right.
I knew about the 310's fractions but I have no info on any potential 320's fractions. This is perhaps the first known issue of the times for that denomination.
-
I have no info on any potential 320's fractions. This is perhaps the first known issue of the times for that denomination.
There are some, like the series of half-folles (and some 1/4 folles) from Trier struck for the quindecennial celebration of Constantine and issued A.D. 320- 321 with VBERTAS SAECVLI, VICTORIA LIBERAE, and VOT reverses.
-
C-F Zschucke had listed these fractions (for Trier) in : "Die Bronze-Teilstück-Prägungen der römischen Münzstätte Trier"
-
Very interesting. Apart from the Vota type of 320, I can't recall seeing none of the other types.
Thank you so much for the scans, Genio! :)
-
Very interesting. Apart from the Vota type of 320, I can't recall seeing none of the other types.
I have examples of them on my assorted reverse types for Constantine
http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/types/
-
Very interesting. Apart from the Vota type of 320, I can't recall seeing none of the other types.
Thank you so much for the scans, Genio! :)
Take a look ;)
http://www.lateromanbronzecoinforum.com/index.php?topic=589.0
I would say this issue and the Dafne issue shared the same engraver.
It could also be related with the Constantine's vicennalia commemorative issues.
-
Wonderful! How did I miss these?
Nikko, that was also my initial thought - the connection to the vicennalia, considering the weight and module.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Interesting. I could see the merit of such a theory also.
So maybe 326-327 more likely than 328, you'd say?
-
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.