Interesting coin from Constantine - Ancients.info - The Online Resource for Ancient Coins & Antiquities

RobertB · Aug 2, 2011, 07:13 PM

Here's a nice coin from the Constantine's T-F series from Treveri. This is from the coinage reform following his break with Maximianus and Maxentius, the first issue in which he began striking coins for Licinius and Maximinus, consonant with the Carnuntum Conference.

What's interesting is that this coin is struck in the name of *Galerius* -- RIC doesn't catalog ANY coin struck in Galerius' name by Constantine, from any mint, after his pre-Carnuntum break with Galerius. Even after he decided to recognize the other eastern rulers, Galerius was--rather pointedly, it seems--omitted.

The portrait is clearly Galerius and not Maximianus (which would, nevertheless, still be an extraordinary coin for this issue, but for different reasons). Has anyone seen other examples of similar coinage from this era, from any of Constantine's mints?

--Robert

Congius · Aug 2, 2011, 07:41 PM

I'm more inclined to think it may just be a legend error - intended as MAXIMINVS rather than MAXIMIANVS.

Ben

RobertB · Aug 2, 2011, 08:08 PM

The most obvious objection to a simple error is the beard. Portraits of Maximinus and Constantine from this T-F issue are not bearded, while Licinius is. (One would expect that a portrait of Galerius would be bearded also.)

I think there are other stylistic cues arguing against Maximinus II, but IMO the beard is fairly cut-and-dried.

Of course, you can't rule out it being a simple engraving error, but Constantine's coinage at this period was becoming very regular, ordered, and meticulous. The fact that any coin was struck for Galerius was probably a mistake that one imagines was quickly clarified; but still, it looks to me as if the intent here with this die was to represent Galerius.

(One also imagines that the mint workers responsible did not fare too well at their next performance review...)

Congius · Aug 3, 2011, 05:03 AM

Well, Daia shouldn't have had a beard per his normal Trier depiction, yet at the same time at London he (Daia) commonly/normally was depicted with a beard... It may (also) have been an error here.

I think it's more plausible to attribute it as an error than an officially intended Galerius reverse, since given the situation there was no reason, political or otherwise, for Constantine to suddenly start recognizing him.

Ben

vozmozhno · Aug 12, 2011, 11:14 PM

Neat stuff. Of course, it could be an error, but I always like to open my mind to the possibility that there is something we don't know which may explain it. So often what we assume was a mistake turns out to have been intentional after further investigation. We know so little about this period with certainty. Very intriguing at any rate.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Aug 2, 2011, 07:41 PM	#2
Congius Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 210	I'm more inclined to think it may just be a legend error - intended as MAXIMINVS rather than MAXIMIANVS. Ben

Aug 2, 2011, 08:08 PM	#3
RobertB Registered User Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Connecticut Posts: 161	The most obvious objection to a simple error is the beard. Portraits of Maximinus and Constantine from this T-F issue are not bearded, while Licinius is. (One would expect that a portrait of Galerius would be bearded also.) I think there are other stylistic cues arguing against Maximinus II, but IMO the beard is fairly cut-and-dried. Of course, you can't rule out it being a simple engraving error, but Constantine's coinage at this period was becoming very regular, ordered, and meticulous. The fact that any coin was struck for Galerius was probably a mistake that one imagines was quickly clarified; but still, it looks to me as if the intent here with this die was to represent Galerius. (One also imagines that the mint workers responsible did not fare too well at their next performance review...)

Aug 3, 2011, 05:03 AM	#4
Congius Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 210	Well, Daia shouldn't have had a beard per his normal Trier depiction, yet at the same time at London he (Daia) commonly/normally was depicted with a beard... It may (also) have been an error here. I think it's more plausible to attribute it as an error than an officially intended Galerius reverse, since given the situation there was no reason, political or otherwise, for Constantine to suddenly start recognizing him. Ben

Aug 12, 2011, 11:14 PM	#5
vozmozhno Registered User Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 375	Neat stuff. Of course, it could be an error, but I always like to open my mind to the possibility that there is something we don't know which may explain it. So often what we assume was a mistake turns out to have been intentional after further investigation. We know so little about this period with certainty. Very intriguing at any rate.