This direct link to the PDF should
work.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/54848785.pdfI've only skimmed it so far, but my impression isn't
very good ...
Here's an excerpt from the introduction:
Under his reforms, Diocletian not only standardized coin size, weight and purity but also standardized the legends and iconography on all new issues, replacing the previous iconographic variety with a single type. The obverse of this type has a simple legend with a portrait of Diocletian in the nondescript tetrarchic style. The reverse has the legend GEN(IO) POP(VLI) ROM(ANI)—to the spirit of the Roman people—with a genius figure holding an orb.19 While the proliferation of a single coin type was discontinued almost immediately following Diocletian’s retirement in 305, it is still generally accepted by most scholars that the coin iconography of the fourth century did not have the variability or responsiveness of iconography before the reforms and perhaps the crisis.
There have been a few attempts to explain this phenomenon in general numismatic literature....
Having set up this straw man position, the thesis then sets out to enlighten us as to the local variation that continued to exist in the coinage, and seems to want to explain this as a partial continuation of the local autonomy that existed at the
provincial mints.
Of course it's true that there
was plenty of regional variation after Diocletian's reform, but the
bulk of this can better be explained by other factors such the changing landscape of tetrarchs and usurpers, each with their own
types, as well as local
types issued due to the emperor's presence in the city (hence better understood as an "imperial" issue rather than one produced under local autonomy). A full 1/4 (50/176 pages) of the thesis is an appendix listing all the
reverse types known to
RIC VII and
VIII, which seems to be presented as evidence, but might equally well be interpreted as a refutaton of the premise that numismatic scholars are unaware of this variation or unable to explain it.
The thesis chooses to use Constantine's coinage as a vehicle to illustrate the local variability of the coinage, which certainly provides
plenty of "evidence", but mostly not for reasons that actually support the premise of some degree of local autonomy (vs imperial control by a local emperor). There is a particular focus on
Rome and
Constantinople as cities showing "
provincial" signs of independence, which (from what I've skimmed so far) seems to be partly based on the existence of their city-specific godesses of Roma and
Constantinopolis; However, I think these are better understood as icons of the old/new capital rather than tyche-like local godesses, and certainly we see their empire-wide use on the
VRBS ROMA and CONSANTINOPOLIS
types - an
imperial message promoting the new capital while acknowledging the old.
Of course, we don't need to wait until Diocletian's retirement to see local variation in
his post-reform coinage, so it doesn't appear it was ever
part of
his plan to have all imperial mints marching in lock-step. In addition to
GENIO POPVLI ROMANI (all mints, except
Carthage), we also have:
GENIO AVGG ET CAESS NN (
Cyzicus,
Nicomedia)
SACRA MONET (various mints, but not all)
FELIX ADVENT (
Carthage)
FORTVNA REDVCI (Trier)
IOVI/HERCVLI (
Alexandria)
As well as a slew of local post-reform radiates from Trier,
Alexandria,
Carthage, etc.
Ben