Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes  (Read 803 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Virgil H

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« on: November 21, 2021, 06:54:52 pm »
Hi all,

The more I get into reading and learning about Roman coins, one thing that strikes me is that the mints seems to have been quite responsive to Emperor changes. Some of these emperors ruled for only a matter of months. Back in those days, news travelled relatively slowly, although perhaps not as slowly as some might imagine. Still. Yet it seems that the mints reacted pretty quickly to changes in coinage requirements. Much faster than I would have thought, in any case. There are a few emperors I was surprised even have coins, rare as some might be. Does anyone know of any resources that address these questions, such as how were mints notified, what was the process for changing coinage and emperor portraits, etc.?

Thanks,
Virgil

Offline Victor C

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 811
  • all my best friends are dead Romans
    • Constantine the Great
Re: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2021, 08:43:31 pm »
A  new emperor sent  images to  colleagues and  other  important  people.  This  was called transmission  imagines,  which  was the equivalent  of  a request  for recognition of  imperial  status. For  more see Patrick Bruun “Portrait  of  a Conspirator,  Constantine’s Break  with the  Tetrarchy.”  Arctos  10  (1976) :  523, and “Notes on  the Transmission  of Imperial Images in  Late Antiquity.”  Studia romana  in honorem Petri  Krarup  septuagenarii   (1976) : 122-  131. Lactantius  also  talked  about this—“A  few  days later the image of  Constantine  wreathed  in laurel leaves was brought to  the evil  beast (Galerius),  who  deliberated  for a long time whether  he should accept it.”Lactantius.  De  Mortibus Persecutorum, Translated  by J. L. Creed (New  York: Clarendon Press,  1984) ,  39.
Victor Clark

LRB gallery

Offline Virgil H

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
Re: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2021, 11:12:57 pm »
Victor,
Thank you for this information. This is fascinating and I will look for these articles and more info now that I have a term to use. Transmission images is such an interesting term and idea. It is like all government offices in the US get new photos of the president every time there is a change and it doesn't take long for the old ones to be replaced. For us, we have advance notice since elections are before inaugurations, plus our transmission methods have to be far quicker.

Regards,
Virgil

Offline Mark Fox

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1270
Re: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2021, 12:16:08 am »
Dear Virgil, Victor, and Board,

A long time ago, I stumbled across the existence of a paper by Prof. Ramsay MacMullen that I think discussed the awareness of the average person living under the Roman empire of who was emperor at a given time.  I doubt the question was tackled very heavily from a numismatic perspective, but I do think it indirectly ties in with the discussion here.  I personally thought the topic was deeply fascinating, but I never bothered to track down a copy and I now can't even remember what the title was!  A quick search just now turned up nothing on that score, but that being said, Prof. MacMullen seems to be still available for friendly questioning (see his Yale and Academia.edu profiles).  If anyone should know about the article, he should!  He might also be able to recommend further literature to satisfy one's curiosity.

There is also a long coin article I wrote on the usurper Avidius Cassius in which I lightly addressed some of Virgil's questions.  It was published in the August 2007 issue of The Celator:

https://community.vcoins.com/thecelator/The-Celator-Vol.21-No.08-Aug-2007.pdf

My follow-up letter clarifies and corrects a few points made in the article:

https://community.vcoins.com/thecelator/The-Celator-Vol.21-No.10-Oct-2007.pdf

Hope some of this continues to fan the flames of Virgil's interests! 


Best regards,

Mark Fox
Michigan

Offline Virgil H

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
Re: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2021, 01:26:57 pm »
Mark,

Thank you so much for the response. The article in The Celetor, as well as the comments in the next issue, were fascinating and do address the question to quite a degree. I enjoyed the part about what coins would be appropriate for a collection of a Cassius related set, even with no specifically minted coins. I will try to look up the MacMullen information when I have some time.

Thanks again,
Virgil

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2021, 02:29:49 pm »
Issuing coins appears to have been a surprisingly high priority for at least some emperors. A particular case in point is Maximinus II who very briefly took control of Licinius' Heraclea mint in 313 AD while Licinius was in the west meeting with Constantine. It seems Maximinus only controlled the mint for a couple of weeks, yet issued surprisingly plentiful coinage from it while he did so.

Of course back then if you wanted to get the word out that there was a new boss in town, there would have been limited ways of doing it. I'm not sure if they had anything equivalent to England's town criers to spread the news. Coins, especially the bronze which would get into may hands, was one way of doing it.

I'm somewhat reminded of the recent rapid takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban, with little resistance. I've read that part of how this happened was by just spreading the word on social media that they were already in control!

Maybe getting the message out as fast as possible, to represent any regime change (especially by a usurper) as a fait accompli, was considered as a smart thing to do?!

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2021, 04:35:33 pm »
Maybe getting the message out as fast as possible, to represent any regime change (especially by a usurper) as a fait accompli, was considered as a smart thing to do?!

You are absolutely right: the importance of propaganda should not be underestimated. As for Maximinus, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that some of these coins were minted earlier in Nicomedia with false Heraclean mintmark.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2021, 05:41:56 pm »
And not just propaganda.  Many new Emperors, especially in turbulent times, would have had a need or interest in paying at least some soldiers relatively quickly.  Even though the official donatives and other payments were likely primarily made in precious metal, base metal coinage would also be needed as change.

There was clearly an understanding among the bureaucracy of what had to be done during the turn over of rule from one Emperor to another.  Jovian (363-364) is an interesting case.  He began rule on 27 June 363, effectively still on the battlefield, and then turned back westwards passing through Antioch in October 363.  He passed through no other mint city before he died near Ankara on 17 February 364.  But his coinage is common and was struck across the Empire.  Thus even in the field - in the comitatus - the bureaucratic machine got into motion rapidly.  Interestingly even his bust designs were radically different from Julian's.

Even usurpers like Procopius new what to do.

SC
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Virgil H

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
Re: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2021, 08:59:06 pm »
Thank you all for those latest comments. The comments about Afghanistan ring true, although in most of the country, the Taliban were never out of control, especially outside of Kabul. As a poor country, my experience there was that most folks in rural areas and even small towns and cities didn't even have electricity. Yet, all it takes is one rich guy with a satellite phone to get the word out. I was in one district there that was super rural and I spent time with some folks from the Afghan National Police. They told me only one person in that district had a TV and that was run with a generator when it was used. hat person was the richest guy in the district, too. So, things haven't changed so much in some parts of the world as far as modern communications. I had an Afghan cell phone and most places I had no signal. To be honest, I actually loved not being able to check in with my boss at a distant FOB. LOL. Not being connected has its attractions.

Anyway, in thinking about the Romans and news flow, they did have a very good network of couriers, so I imagine that news of importance was sent overland rather quickly, a matter of days, at most a week or two. I am thinking about the transmission images mentioned, as well as other important news. As Mark's article mentions, news going to places like Egypt was much slower, requiring ships and longer journeys. But, as you all have mentioned, the mints seem to have been very quick to act and the engravers must have been pretty quick. And it seems that coins as means of propaganda, as well as just news in general, were much more important that I had previously thought.

Thanks again for such great responses from all. Truly a fascinating topic to me.

Virgil

Offline lawrence c

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
Re: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2021, 09:22:58 pm »
A comment and a question on the imagery. At times, it was clear that the news that a new sheriff was in town preceded the imagery. Several coinages featured somewhat generic portraits initially. A good example that is noted in RIC was an initial coin of Vespasian that looked an awful lot like Vitellius. An example of this is at https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=7253&pid=169318#top_display_media Several other early coins of others seemed to follow a similar pattern.

My question is that I seem to recall reading somewhere that the images of the new emperors/wannabees were in the form of busts rather than 'flat' portraiture. Is this correct (as near as we know)?

Finally, a very interesting article by Mark.

Best,
Larry

Offline Virgil H

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
Re: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2021, 11:42:14 pm »
I just read the narrative parts of the 1991 (I think) van Meter book on Roman Empire coins and he specifically says that busts were sent for use by the engravers (and I suppose others, such as other artists). He doesn't list references, but it does seem like he has quite a lot of knowledge. That is actually part of where my question came from, reading this book. Especially the bust part as I just assumed that busts weren't made in a day, especially multiple busts. But, I guess a good artist could do one pretty quickly. Very fascinating. I am not sure one book talking about busts makes it so, but it is a start.

Virgil

Offline Mark Fox

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1270
Re: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2021, 01:43:52 am »
Dear Board,

A few quick notes to hopefully build on the excellent observations given in this thread and on what I wrote years ago. 

When we think of the amazingly quick response time of the Roman mints (imperial and provincial) when a new Roman emperor was acclaimed, we are usually thinking of the later Roman empire rather than the earlier (Pax Romana) years.  I think there is a reason for that, because in the beginning, none of the mints expected sudden, messy transitions that would later define the highest imperial office.  The Year of the Four Emperors (A.D. 69) was a turbulent exception, but then again, like the name suggests, the turbulence was relatively short-lived and marked with almost comical numismatic peculiarities as pointed out by Larry.  On the provincial stage during this same time, we also have these interesting pseudo-autonomous issues which hint at unpreparedness and/or indecisiveness to take firm action until more information was supplied:
       
https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/2/360

https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/2/1307

Busts were almost certainly used in the early years to disseminate the likeness of a new emperor during (relatively) peaceful transitions, especially when an heir apparent was known for a while.  In other words, competently made busts would have been carved before the anticipated successor became emperor.  They would also have been spread across the empire.  Based on the numismatic evidence alone, the chain of imperial accessions in A.D. 69 was anything but smooth.  A deficit in reference material definitely seems to have existed, which likely spurred die cutters to scramble towards less conventional means in order to get their imperial pictures across. 

What changed in later centuries was no doubt the mind-frame of the minters.  They now expected and trained for messy transitions where speed was critical (for the reasons given by the other contributors to this thread).  As such, I suspect busts, if they ever were the prime medium of transmitting the imperial likeness, gradually faded away in favor of art that was not just more 2-dimensional in nature, but also schematic and "impersonal."  Beginning in the 3rd century, the personality of the imperial portrait was slowly toned down until, from roughly the Dominate onward, it became so standardized that it was necessary in many cases to rely on a coin's legends to identify the ruler.  This shortcoming from the perspectives of aesthetics and accuracy was also a die cutter's strength, since the minter no longer needed anything fancy to work from.  A quick sketch would do or perhaps even a verbal description---just something to very lightly differentiate the new emperor from his predecessor without breaking the imperial mold.  The increased ability this would have given a mint to respond on very short notice when a change in purple was taking place should not be underestimated.               

I went on a little longer than I probably should have...  Off to bed now.


Best regards,

Mark Fox
Michigan                   

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2021, 06:49:36 am »
I am not sure if we know what exactly was sent.

I believe that most of the sources that speak about this use the term "imago" or "imagine", from which we get the word image, and that this word could mean a plastic (3D) image like a bust or a 2D image like a painting or sketch.  I don't know if any refer specifically to a bust or sculpture.

During the 3rd and 4th centuries the successor was often not known before the death or assassination so there could be no image prepared beforehand in such cases.

The speed of distribution would certainly be easier with a rolled up parchment than a bust but who knows.

SC
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Steve Minnoch

  • Tribunus Plebis 2007
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2307
Re: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« Reply #13 on: November 23, 2021, 02:34:25 pm »
There may have been no need to dispatch any image at all, at least not to Rome.  There might very well already be a bust or a wax mask already in existence.  It certainly makes sense that if a potential death mask is needed for a family member sent to govern a province that it be made before that person leaves.

"In the halls of our ancestors it was otherwise; portraits were the objects displayed to be looked at, not statues by foreign artists, nor bronzes nor marbles, but wax models of faces were set out each on a separate sideboard, to furnish likenesses to be carried in procession at a funeral in the clan, and always when some member of it passed away the entire company of his house that had ever existed was present. The pedigrees too were traced in a spread of lines running near the several painted portraits."

Pliny nat hist 35.6, taken from http://www.attalus.org/translate/pliny_hn35a.html

Offline Mark Fox

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1270
Re: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2021, 02:36:48 pm »
Dear Shawn and Board,

I am not sure if we know what exactly was sent.

I believe that most of the sources that speak about this use the term "imago" or "imagine", from which we get the word image, and that this word could mean a plastic (3D) image like a bust or a 2D image like a painting or sketch.  I don't know if any refer specifically to a bust or sculpture.

During the 3rd and 4th centuries the successor was often not known before the death or assassination so there could be no image prepared beforehand in such cases.

The speed of distribution would certainly be easier with a rolled up parchment than a bust but who knows.

SC

By and large, I think we are in agreement, because even if there is an ancient text (probably should look in my volumes of Testimonia Numaria for one!) mentioning the details of such a process, that still would be no guarantee that the described process was followed for every emperor (and much less usurper).  I can't see how everything would have stayed the same when the coins themselves changed so much over the centuries.  That is why, when I mentioned about busts having been made before an emperor's elevation (and not necessarily in every case), I was specifically referring to "the early years," within the Pax Romana, although I think the time period can be extended into the Severan Period as well.  It is a fact that many die cutters throughout the Roman empire already had reference material on hand for such emperors as Nero, Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, and Caracalla, because coins had already been minted for them while they were of Caesar status.  For these rulers, there would have been significantly less need to send anything.  Many mints were also prepared for the possibility of other men becoming emperor, such as Germanicus, Aelius, etc.  It is, admittedly, more debatable if the artwork in question consisted of busts, paintings, sketches, or a combination of different media.  Roman provincial coinage is filled with amazing references to famous ancient statues, so we know that die cutters did consult 3-dimensional art, indirectly if not directly.  I will stop there.

As for not knowing who would be emperor next during most of the 3rd and 4th centuries, that is why, again, I think the process of transferring the imperial image had changed (from whatever it had started out as).  It needed to adapt, just as with nearly every other aspect of coin production, from the organization of the mints to a coin's fabric and designs.  If we are to maintain that at least some of the die cutters faithfully reproduced what they were copying, then the idea that they were being guided in the beginning by something like an imperial bust starts to crumble a bit, because where was the urgency to rush over an abstract (and sometimes ugly) sculpture that looked so much like the emperor's predecessor?  And if most of the die cutters were inept or more of a utilitarian streak, than why bother go to the effort to produce something as grand as a sculpture for them only to struggle with or halfheartedly copy?  A drawing would be easier in many respects, including from an engraver's perspective.  The story would likely be different for an imperial die cutter of the 1st century who wanted to strive for a degree of personality and realism and had more time to do so.   

Granted, the above minting situation was probably far more complex than the simplistic picture I am painting.  Take the Colossus of Constantine for example.                   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_of_Constantine

It is hard to deny its very strong resemblance to certain coins of the same emperor.  A couple of examples:

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2122902

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1890-0804-11

However, these coins were produced well within Constantine's rule.  Let us not forget that some of Constanine's earliest coins (as a tetrarch Caesar) looked like this:

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5430148

Hmmm.  Well, anyway, that is enough for now!  Or almost...  A thought just occurred to me:  what if some of the coins themselves served as models for others?  They certainly would be more convenient than just about anything else to transport on short notice, not to mention resilient!     
 

Best regards,

Mark Fox
Michigan                   

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2021, 05:06:39 pm »
Yes, there were clearly differences between the principate and the "anarchic third century"/tetrarchy/late Roman period. 

So idea of busts made before, possibly stored at Rome as Steve notes, could be part of the answer for the principate but is increasingly unlikely later.

I think further understanding of the Roman bureaucracy could only help to better understand issues like this.  I still have never fully read through my A.H.M. Jones The Later Roman Empire.

Dated but still likely a good source.

SC
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline lawrence c

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
Re: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2021, 09:39:39 pm »
I think an argument might be made for the later empire that with the expansion of imperial mints that images might simply not have been bothered with. This probably is not provable one way or the other, but given the almost identical portraits on coins of different emperors of the same period and, conversely, the rather different portraits of the same emperor from different mints, it might have been a matter of simply plugging in the new nomenclature of essentially the same portrait by the particular mint. There obviously were some more distinct portraits such as Eugenius and Julian II, but not many more. I think the suggestion that the coinage portraiture simply followed existing dies or copied them makes a lot of sense for this period.

Offline Virgil H

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
Re: Roman Minting Volumes and Quick Response to Emperor Changes
« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2021, 01:12:18 pm »
I just started reading Shawn Caza's new book, A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types, 324 - 395. Found this interesting passage just now:

"Dates: Dates when the coin was struck. Explanation is provided in the Notes section whenever the dates differ from those found in other key sources. Striking coins in an emperor's name did not necessarily start with his accession or end with his death. News and descriptions of the new emperor, and instructions on the types to be struck, took time to travel across the Empire. For example, news of Jovian's death in 364 took nearly two months to travel from Turkey to Alexandria, while news of Procopius' usurpation in 365 took over a month to reach Lutetia (Paris). In addition, there was often a short transitional period in which the dead emperor remained the legal ruler meaning coins might continue to be struck for a week or two after his death. For this reason the dates provided are close estimations at best."

A reference is cited. Kent (1994), which appears to be The Roman Imperial Coinage, volume X, The Divided Empire and Fall of the Western Parts (395-491).

I found this quite interesting.

Virgil

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity