Constantinian London 1/40 lb

[Heliodromus]

Here's two coins that happen to have arrived at same time, from the early London 1/40 lb weight standard. These were separate finds despite the similar patination and overcleaning.

This issue represents the first "2nd reign" reappearance of Maximianus at London, now in cahoots with Constantine, in spring of 307 AD.

The LDC bust is unlisted for Maximianus for this issue, although it had been in use earlier on the unmarked London coins. It's not clear whether the Genius on the Maximianus coin is sporting a modius or tower/turreted headgear (RIC assigns them different numbers).

Constantine's mints at this time (London, Trier and Lyons) were as usual roughly in sync in terms of types and weight standards, but not exactly so. At Trier and Lyons the early weight reductions are more apparent since the long GENIO POPVLI ROMANI legend was still being used when Maximianus first reappeared, and then only changed to GENIO POP ROM after the weight standard reduced to 1/48 lb.

At London, the shorter GENIO POP ROM legend was initiated at the same time as Maximianus reappears, at the 1/40 lb weight standard, then continued after the reduction to 1/48 lb. RIC VI does not do a very good job with these early London coins and fails to note the weight reduction. A better reference is Bastien's "Some comments on the coinage of the London mint" from Numismatic Chronicle 1971.

As typical, the weight control for the bronze coinage was very poor, so it's impossible to distinguish the earlier 1/40 lb (8.22g) issue from the reduced 1/48 lb (6.85g) one on that basis. Instead, as Bastien notes, the way to identify these London issues is by the center-to-center diameter of the beaded edge (aka PRD). The 1/40 lb coins have a PRD of 24-24.5mm, while the reduced 1/48 lb ones have a PRD of 23mm.

Ben

[SC]

Nice coins.  I am hoping that when the re-write of RIC-VI is finished it will address the current "nightmare" regarding weight standards with new stats, but who knows.....

SC

[Heliodromus]

Has someone actually started a rewrite ?

Given the amount of work involved, and the small market, numismatic books seem to be more a labor of love than a sane endeavor.

The problems with London are actually a lot more than just the weights - the sequencing of issues/types is wrong too, not to mention missing types.

For anyone interested in London, who is still relying on RIC as a source, you should read that Bastien reference (or the Toone/Cloke book) to see what comes next after this 1/40 lb PLN issue. You might be surprised ! Then try to explain it ...

Ben

[Lech Stępniewski]

As typical, the weight control for the bronze coinage was very poor, so it's impossible to distinguish the earlier 1/40 lb (8.22g) issue from the reduced 1/48 lb (6.85g) one on that basis.

Weight control was good enough while the weight fluctuations (even 30-40%!) are due to the al marco technique. So if anyone wants to find out the real weight standard, he needs 100-200 from one issue.

Instead, as Bastien notes, the way to identify these London issues is by the center-to-center diameter of the beaded edge (aka PRD). The 1/40 lb coins have a PRD of 24-24.5mm, while the reduced 1/48 lb ones have a PRD of 23mm.

Yes, it is a good hint. Sometimes more important than weight, diameter of the flan, die axis etc. Unfortunately, rarely noticed - even in very detailed scientific papers.

[SC]

According to Spink all the oldies are being slowly updated.

Lech's point is key.  I am not sure that the now-traditional weight attributions for this chaotic period are based on such large samples.  I might be wrong but I therefore wouldn't be surprised if a future work adjusted these standards somewhat.....

SC

[Lech Stępniewski]

for this chaotic period

I personally don't believe that in such circumstances (civil war, struggle for power) changes in weight standard were precisely planned and executed: 1/40, 1/48, 1/60, 1/72 etc. It was probably often an ad hoc activity. The emperor needed money for the army, so they minted from libra 65 coins, not 60. At best, the new standard was established only post factum and confirmed what had already happened step by step.

[Heliodromus]

I personally don't believe that in such circumstances (civil war, struggle for power) changes in weight standard were precisely planned and executed

I doubt that chaotic times would have, in general, made much difference to the operation and coordination of the mints. There would have been some official in charge of the mints, and they would have been responsible for accounting for raw materials consumed and numbers of coins produced. We know for a fact that "numbers of coin per pound of material" was a targeted/controlled number since at various times we see coins marked as such (LXXII, XCVI, etc).

These reductions in size/weight must have been planned in advance since we see coordinated activity across mints, whether it's just London, Trier and Lyons early on, or later across the whole empire. More often than not, these changes were introduced together with new reverse types, again indicating the central planning and coordination involved.

306 Reduce to 1/40 lb, drop Consecratio type (produced at all three mints at 1/32 lb)
307 Reduce to 1/48 lb, replace GENIO POPVLI ROMANI with GENIO POP ROM
310 Reduce to 1/72 lb, SOLI/etc coinage reform
313 Reduce to 1/96 lb, unusual in that coin types remain the same (although PRD reduced); coordinated with Licinius
317 Change intrinsic value by changing silver content, VLPP/etc coinage reform
330 Reduce to 1/132 lb, replace campgates/votives with Gloria Exercitvs and commemoratives
335 Reduce to 1/196 lb, replace Gloria Exercitvs 2 standards with more compact Gloria Exercitvs 1 standard

We're only talking about a total of 7 weight reductions/changes over a span of 30+ years, coordinated with new coin types, and communicated to all mints all the way from London to Alexandria. This really has all the hallmarks of central planning rather than ad hoc local decisions to meet local needs.

Ben

[Lech Stępniewski]

We know for a fact that "numbers of coin per pound of material" was a targeted/controlled number since at various times we see coins marked as such (LXXII, XCVI, etc).

Well, it is a two-edged argument. One may say that the coins were marked because it was not obvious if the old standard still applies. For example, what was the reason to put LXXII on ANTIOCH 98-104? For decoration?

The question is: why it was not obvious?

These reductions in size/weight must have been planned in advance since we see coordinated activity across mints

First of all, I don't say that there was no central activity but I believe that it was often a later attempt to regulate what happened before.

And what we really see? We see mainly our own theoretical model - which is partially accurate and backed up by reality. But are there any analyzes of specific emissions based on 500-1000 examples? I mean: 500-1000 coins from one issue.

[Heliodromus]

Well, this is a separate discussion from whether the changes were centrally planned or not.

1) Why are some issues marked with weight standards ?

We need to look at these on a case-by-case basis. There are all sorts of weight, composition and value marks and each have their own reason (some obvious, some not).

The solidus was well controlled in terms of both fineness and weight, widely accepted, and anyways would likely have been weighed at point of use/exchange. The LXXII mark on some Antioch solidi c.337 is probably best regarded just as part of the issue mark - a local decision with little meaning, for the most part not even intended to be understood by those using the coins. The mint may have chosen it just as a boast of their fine work and adherence to standards.

We could contrast this to the the "XCVI" argenteus design used by the Italian mints c.300 AD. Here the XCVI basically *is* the design, not just an issue mark, and is used in coordinated fashion within this administrative area. The argenteus wasn't new at this date, so maybe this reassertion of the weight standard was mean to boost confidence in this nonetheless relatively new denomination, coming as it did after years of debasement of the prior "silver" coinage.

The LXXII used by Aquileia and Siscia on some later fallen horsemen Fel Temps may well have been a justifiably needed reminder of the standard, despite the coins presumably being accepted at "face value" without being weighed. The whole Fel Temp coinage was confusing with it's initial three denominations with differing silver content. In his portion of the empire Constans marked the larger denomination (incl. fallen horseman) with an "A" and at the Italian mints the middle denomination with an "N" to help differentiate them. When the rest of the Fel Temp series was discontinued c.350 AD, with only the ever-shrinking fallen horseman continuing, it's understandable their may have been confusion as to what the denomination was. On top of this, rampant inflation had lead to the Fel Temps often being smelted for silver content, and Constantius has passed severe laws (death penalty ?) against this practice. All told the value and denominations of the coinage was in flux, and the decision by Aquileia and Siscia to mark these coins (previously "A", before they shrunk) with "LXXII" may well have reflected this.

2) What were the actual weight standards/distributions ?

There seems to be a common assumption that these Constantinian weight standards were all divisions by 8 of the pound (1/32, 1/40, etc), but as you note the weight control was so poor that only a large statistical sample will help determine this (not so easy since it would ideally require mint-state coins). Division by 8 would make sense for convenience if the metal was being physically divided into flan-sized pieces, but if flans were cast in bulk then the moulds could be made however they liked in any "1 pour per N flans" ratio. The early "1/40 lb" and "1/48 lb" standards seem particularly in need of confirmation (some authors suggest 1/42 instead of 1/40).

It's possible that there may have been some official weight reductions that have been missed due to not having been accompanied by any change in die size or types, in which case any statistical study may show double peaked distributions. The later Trier PTR S-A to PTR T-F heavy period is a case in point.

Ben

[Heliodromus]

Another issue is that while we see some coins marked with a "per pound" number, that still doesn't tell us exactly what was being measured.

Was the targeted number:

a) Numbers of finished coins per pound (i.e the weight of the finished coins themselves, that we might expect to see in a statistical study)

OR

b) Numbers of coins produced per pound of raw material. This is different from a) because of wastage during the flan manufacturing process, such as oxidation during casting or annealing, or metal loss during the surface silver enriching step (acid etching).

It seems these numbers have to be different. I doubt a pound of bronze alloy ever produced exactly a pound of finished coins - presumably a bit less than a pound. I'm specifically just talking about silvered bronze coins here. For gold the numbers likely closely matched since there would be no oxidation and flan preparation was different.

We don't even know, as far as I'm aware, in what form the raw material was provided to the mint. Was bronze (or silver-bronze alloy) provided in clean ingots, or in case of demonetized coins being recycled would the raw coins themselves be what was provided and weighed? If the latter, then the weight of recovered metal would again be less due to oxidation on the recycled coins.

It seems that accountability at the mint must have been based on number and weight of coins produced relative to amount of raw material provided by the treasury. It can't have just been number of coins produced, else the mint could cheat by producing underweight coins.

It's possible that the controls were something like "for every 100lb of material, you must produce 100*72 coins, which must weigh no less than 99lb (to allow for loss)", which would then mean that individual coins weights would always be less than the number of coins per pound of raw material by the corresponding percentage (in this made up example, coin weights would average 99/100 x 1/72 lb).

Ben

[Lech Stępniewski]

I agree that we have a whole bunch of problems here. And that our knowledge is small and often contradictory.

There are even several theories about the exact weight of the Roman libra. For sure (?) we know that it was something between 310-330 g. But was it a stable measure? As everyone knows, the ancients used many measures, sometimes with local variations.

The solidus was well controlled [....] The LXXII mark on some Antioch solidi c.337 is probably best regarded just as part of the issue mark - a local decision with little meaning, for the most part not even intended to be understood by those using the coins."

The argenteus wasn't new at this date, so maybe this reassertion of the weight standard was mean to boost confidence in this nonetheless relatively new denomination, coming as it did after years of debasement of the prior "silver" coinage.

These two opposite explanations could be easily reverted.

The argenteus was well controlled and the XCVI mark was local decision with little meaning, for the most part not even intended to be understood by those using the coins.

The solidus wasn't new at this date, so maybe this reassertion of the weight standard was mean to boost confidence.

BTW, Sutherland writes about Ticinum silver as follows:

"The chronological evidence furnished by the Sisak hoard as a whole indicates that it was buried c. 295—6. The two unsigned issues of Ticinum silver thus fall c. 294—5. Weight was c. 3.2 gm.
The issue with rev. XCVI and mark T (also rare today) was probably produced c. 299—300: monetary preparations for the Maximal Edict prompted the same XCVI type at Aquileia and Carthage, and were responsible also for the widespread appearance of Sacra Moneta types on central and western aes. Weight remained c. 3.2 gm".

3.2 gm x 96 = 307.2 gm (I am giving it as a curiosity)

It seems that accountability at the mint must have been based on number and weight of coins produced relative to amount of raw material provided by the treasury. [...] It's possible that the controls were something like "for every 100lb of material, you must produce 100*72 coins, which must weigh no less than 99lb (to allow for loss)"

I am firmly convinced that no one was counting 100*72 bronze coins. They probably weighted raw material and then weighted minted coins. Finally, there was random control. The relevant official counted 72 coins and weighed them, or weighed one libra of coins and counted them. 70 or 74 as a result was probably good enough. At the same time, he examined the quality of the coins.

But of course this is just my fantasy

[Heliodromus]

These two opposite explanations could be easily reverted.

The argenteus was well controlled and the XCVI mark was local decision with little meaning, for the most part not even intended to be understood by those using the coins.

The solidus wasn't new at this date, so maybe this reassertion of the weight standard was mean to boost confidence.

Well, you can make those "reverted" statements, but do they actually make any sense ?

Was XCVI a local issue mark, or was it in fact a regional -- all of Italy -- reverse type ?

Had the denarius been debased into oblivion or should Romans have had trust in the fineness of the silver coinage ?

Was there in fact any need to boost confidence in the solidus ? Why ? Why only at Antioch ? Why only c.337 AD ?

[Lech Stępniewski]

Was XCVI a local issue mark, or was it in fact a regional -- all of Italy -- reverse type ?

Yes, it was still local. And was there in fact any need to boost confidence in silver coins? Why? Why only in Italy?

In fact, we know quite well that after Reform especially silver coins were trusted and withdrew from circulation. That is why we now have so many of them in nearly mint condition. And we also know that people hoard good money (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law),

So, please, explain this sudden "need to boost confidence in silver coins". And why not in Siscia or in Thessalonica?

[Heliodromus]

I'm just pointing out that there is a difference between these two cases.

One was at a single mint, one was coordinated across a whole region.

One was in essence an issue mark (in size if nothing else), one was a reverse type.

I'd suggest the faith in gold coinage might differ to than in silver coinage. You seem to disagree.

etc.

We might not know the exact motivations for each of these uses of "weight marks", but it seems that any answer needs to acknowledge and be guided by these differences not gloss over them or suggest they don't exist.

I don't think we have any common basis for further discussion on this topic, so I'm out.

[Lech Stępniewski]

I'm just pointing out that there is a difference between these two cases.

Maybe you are right but I still don't see on what ground except your good intuition.

One was at a single mint, one was coordinated across a whole region.

Yes, Antioch is a single mint but with big output and of big range. I also believe that the gold coins were carefully observed. And in this case, we have a whole series of gold coins with declaration: "I am a good gold coin minted to the good old standard".

And you commented it: "...a local decision with little meaning, for the most part not even intended to be understood by those using the coins".

Why LXXII on gold coins should be treated as unnoticed or incomprehensible to users, while XCVI on silver coins should be treated as important. We now know that it was some kind of coordinated action but I doubt that it was clear for ordinary people. It was probably only after a long time that someone realized in Ticinum that similar coins were minted in Carthago. But then someone in Thessalonica might wonder why not in our mint. What is it all about?

Of course, silver coins were used by many more people but LXXII on gold coins was enough to create a rumor, so it would be very reckless to use such mark as a technical mint mark without any meaning. Why not a wreath, a dot, a crescent or a second star?

In short: I do not believe that these two situations are completely different and that we can solve this problem by labeling one as meaningless and the other as important. Perhaps it is better to admit that we simply do not understand why these marks were placed.