"Invasion coinage" of Constantius

[jamesicus]

See post below for my personal Intermediate Group (Bastien) scheme.

[Fitzwilliam05]

Hi, James:

Just getting back to your question about the lower image. I think this is a standard RIC VI 6b, not an intermediate coin.

Fitz

[jamesicus]

Originally Posted by Fitzwilliam05

Hi, James:

Just getting back to your question about the lower image. I think this is a standard RIC VI 6b, not an intermediate coin.

Fitz

Thank you for your valued opinion, Fitz. Then your attribution of the Zsigmunt coin as an "Intermediate Group" type is based on the more elaborate Cuirass?

James

[jamesicus]

Originally Posted by jamesicus

Ah yes, Lee -- very good -- starting with 01 (through 09) provides for easy tabular alignment -- and for ease of sorting for me as I build an RDFa extracted data catalog for my coins.

James

I am starting to build an online catalog (a database that is) of my Roman coins using RDFa that will be accessible, searchable and usable in other applications by those employing XML compliant Browsers (as usual XML is not available for MSIE Browsers) and W3C Semantic Web Tools such as GRDDL (Griddle), OWL, SPARQL (Sparkle), etc.

The first step is the making of online "reference cards" from extracted machine readable semantic data (Dublin Core Metadata) -- here by way of example for my portal page -- Semantic data extraction of Roman coins of the London Mint 296-325 AD (the DC data needs some refining). The way to see the tabulated XML data is to use a Firefox Browser with The Tabulator Extension installed.

As I make up the reference cards for individual pages I will include London Mint "Intermediate Group" information (such as that we are discussing here) updating it as needed.

James

[jamesicus]

Remember the following coin photo I posted earlier? I purchased the coin as RIC Volume VI, Londinium, 14b. I re-attributed it and posted it as RIC Volume VI, Lugdunum, 17b based on my knowledge at that time. I subsequently wrote the Dealer and asked if they had accidentally miss-attributed the coin in their listing (also thinking they may have been familiar with Bastien's Intermediate Grouping scheme). Their reply was "We have cataloged the coin to the best of our knowledge" (after very nicely thanking me for bringing the matter to their attention). Quite a convoluted story, eh?

James

C VAL MAXIMIANVS NOB C ............................ GENIO POPV -- LI ROMANI
GALERIUS
Intermediate Group (a) attribution (my scheme): RIC VI (Lon), unlisted 14b (var)
Originally attributed as RIC VI, (Lugdunum), 17b

[leetoone]

Ah, if we supposed "specialists" struggle sometimes, I think it no wonder that dealers misattribute coins outside their specialities. That, of course, also means that we can pick up bargains occasionally.

[maridvnvm]

I am far from a specialist in this field but have a focus on the coinage of Lugdunum though this period is only one that I have dabbled with. I have little/no knowledge of the early London coinage though.
I have three coins lying forgotten in my trays that I believe fall into the Lugdunum class here including one which is Lugudnum 17b and I have included their images in this thread for comparison. Seeing this thread made me go look for them and take new photos of them.



Maximianus Herculius
Obv:– IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG, Laureate, bust right
Rev:– GENIO POPV-LI ROMANI, Genius standing left, modius on head, naked but for chlamys over left shoulder, left hand holding cornucopiae and right hand holding patera
Minted in Lugdunum (No Marks). c. A.D. 296
Reference:– RIC VI Lugdunum 14b. Bastien XI Annex AN3



Constantius I Chlorus
Obv:– FL VAL CONSTNTIVS NOB C, Laureate bust right
Rev:– GENIO POP-VLI ROMANI, Genius standing left, holding patera and cornucopia
Minted in Lugdunum (No Marks). c. A.D. 296
References:– RIC VI Lugdunum 17a. Bastien XI Annex AN8



Galerius
Obv:– G VAL MAXIMIANVS NOB C, Laureate, bust right
Rev:– GENIO POPV-LI ROMANI, Genius standing left, modius on head, naked but for chlamys over left shoulder, left hand holding cornucopiae and right hand holding patera
Minted in Lugdunum (No marks).
References:– RIC VI Lugdunum 17b (Scarce) (RIC has O/L as C VAL in error). Bastien XI Annex AN9

Regards,
Martin

[jamesicus]

Originally Posted by maridvnvm

I am far from a specialist in this field but have a focus on the coinage of Lugdunum though this period is only one that I have dabbled with. I have little/no knowledge of the early London coinage though.
I have three coins lying forgotten in my trays that I believe fall into the Lugdunum class here including one which is Lugudnum 17b and I have included their images in this thread for comparison. Seeing this thread made me go look for them and take new photos of them ..........

Great coins, Martin! A nice little treasure trove you have there.

James

[Congius]

Originally Posted by jamesicus

C VAL MAXIMIANVS NOB C ............................ GENIO POPV -- LI ROMANI
GALERIUS
RIC Volume VI, Londinium, No. 14b, Intermediate Group 1 attribution (my scheme)
Originally attributed by me as RIC Volume VI, Lugdunum, 17b

Hi James,
I think you need to at least throw a "variant", or better yet "unlisted" in there to acknowledge that it's a different bust type than 14b, especially as it's the bust type that gives it class I vs class II affinity (i.e. Stewartby Ia vs IIe).

Ben

[jamesicus]

Originally Posted by Congius

Hi James,
I think you need to at least throw a "variant", or better yet "unlisted" in there to acknowledge that it's a different bust type than 14b, especially as it's the bust type that gives it class I vs class II affinity (i.e. Stewartby Ia vs IIe).

Ben

I agree, Ben -- I will fix it ASAP.

James

[jamesicus]

Well, I found my previous personal Intermediate Group scheme (brown text) too clumsy and awkward to use for my taste. My revised scheme follows. I imagine we will each individually have to rely on our own schemes and textual descriptions to attribute the folles we identify as belonging to the London Mint Intermediate Group (Bastien) until a consensus is somehow reached. Of course, RIC itself can only be changed by the Publisher.

Group I folles

LON mint mark and laureate heads

Intermediate Group - unmarked with Lugdunum style heads/busts and London style lettering
.......... (a) laureate heads
.......... (b) laureate and cuirassed busts

unmarked with cuirassed busts
......... (a) With small heads on tall necks
......... (b) With larger, elongated heads on shorter necks

unmarked with large, spread busts

For Ben -- I have applied attribution information to the Galerius coin (previous posting) in accordance with the above revision -- please check it out and let me know what you think.

James

[Mauseus]

Hi,

Regarding the classification and arrangement of coins, which is where this thread is going, plus the movement of staff I would have the following comments to make.

1. It may seem obvious but you can’t ignore mintmarks to give you the origin for a particular series. So, the LON marked issues are going to be London. The question then becomes how you arrange the other issues around that fact.

2. The Roman minting “system” was accustomed to moving coin around and producing specific issues for specific regions. Take, for example, the Antoninus Pius Britannia asses and dupondii. These occur almost exclusively in British finds and it was postulated at one point that they were made in Britain. This was not the case, they were made in Rome and transported to Britain en bloc. Stephen Hobley’s study of second century bronze coins identifies other distinct movements of particular types.

3. It is possible to demonstrate the transfer of either personnel or punches. When Gallienus established the Milan mint c.259/260 AD the letter ‘N’ that was used resembled that of Rome being made up of three vertical (or near vertical) strokes. The characteristic Milan ‘N’, well formed, does not really occur until a little later. The ORIENS AVG reverse has been noted with both styles of ‘N’, 'Rome N' left, 'Milan N' right (see CHRB VIII, The Normanby Hoard, for more information on that).

To my mind the difference between the Rome/Milan situation and the Lyon/London situation is that there was an existing mint at London so would not necessarily require the movement of personnel or equipment.

Given that this period is the aftermath of the period I collect/study, the reigns of Carausius and Allectus, it does link in really well and I do have an interest (and embryonic collection) of the period and have been following this thread with interest.

Regards,

Mauseus

[Congius]

I can't recall exactly what Bastien's reasoning is for suggesting a Boulogne mint, but as I recall it's based on little if any actual evidence - I think it's as much due to logistical considerations as anything else... the suggestion that it may have been easier to move mint personel and equipment to the coast (but then have to set up a mint and supply materials locally) than to mint a considerable weight of coins in Lyons and then need to transport them a long distance.

I'm not even sure how much evidence there is for these "Boulogne" coins being destined for Britain (are a preponderance of the finds there?), other than the lack of a mintmark giving them some connection to the British coinage, and setting them apart from the other Lyonese issues. I guess the fact that this is the first introduction of Diocletian's reformed coinage into hostile territory also suggests a motivation in that an initial external supply may have been useful to ensure an immediate supply.

That said, I think one can anyways classify these various unmarked coins into distinct issues based on style, and to my mind the "LON" coins and the proposed following intermediate issue(s) reflect the prevailing style of Allectus more than Lyons. It's only the unmarked Lyonese style coins that are obviously not a product of British celators.

While most of the discussion has centered on the Lyonese connection, for me a subject of at least equal interest is the abrubt change in style from the class I to the much cruder long-necked angular class II ones. What happened? Are these the product of a different mint, or if not what happened to the celators/style that produced the "LON" issue? It's also interesting to note the subsequent appearance of this absurdly long-necked style in the following Lyonese issues.

Ben

[RobertB]

"a subject of at least equal interest is the abrubt change in style from the class I to the much cruder long-necked angular class II ones. What happened? Are these the product of a different mint, or if not what happened to the celators/style that produced the "LON" issue? It's also interesting to note the subsequent appearance of this absurdly long-necked style in the following Lyonese issues."

I was wondering about that very point myself. I was wondering if in fact they were produced at Camulodunum -- or some other non-London Carausian/Allectan mint. The scenario I would envision is that post-invasion orders might have gone out quickly to a branch mint to immediately start producing new coinge in the names of the new emperors so as to immediately publicize the new order. Perhaps the London mint was supplied with dies or official likenesses carried over from the continent, that Camulodunum would not have immediately had, hence the drastic style differences. Presumably shortly thereafter the mint would have been closed as part of a general mint re-organization under Constantius' new administration.

--Robert

[jamesicus]

Mauseus, Ben, Robert: I am enjoying this discourse very much -- the information each of you presents is well stated and most illuminating.

I would like to resurrect a previous posting of yours, Ben, because I think the information you present there is very nicely detailed:

http://www.ancients.info/forums/show...54&postcount=5

James