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: Valens AE3 Interesting Rarity: GLORIA ROMANORVM, 2 Crosses, CONSΔ (RIC IX 41b.7)  (Read 604 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Curtis JJ

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
    • CONSERVATORI: Ancient Coins & Their Provenances
Here's a curious and rare, albeit unattractive, Valens AE3 from my "barbarians, captives & enemies" collection [website LINK or my FAC album]: Two crosses as rev. controls are what make it rare.

It's not entirely unpublished: the sub-type with two crosses is cited in RIC IX (but not illustrated). Interestingly, of the 10 sub-types for RIC 41b (p. 220), this is the only one (No. 7) for which there is no specimen cited in a museum or other published reference. There may be a few more places to look, but I've never found another.

Has anyone else seen another example photographed or published?


Quote
Valens AE3 (17mm, 1.91g, 6h). Constantinople, 367-375 CE.
Obverse: D N VALENS P F AVG. Bust of Valens, pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed, right.
Reverse: GLORIA ROMANORVM. Emperor advancing right, dragging captive with right hand and holding labarum in left. Crosses in fields to left and right; CONSΔ in exergue.
References: ERIC II p. 1098, No. 493 (tentative) = RIC (IX, Constantinople) 41b, Subtype 7 [+/+//CONSΔ]; OCRE 41b.7 (Zero examples cited); Esty Reverse Type 5 [LINK] for GLORIA ROMANORVM Emperor dragging captive.
Provenance: Acq. 9 Oct 2013 from N. Hochrein (Holding History Coins [DePere, WI USA]) for $2.11.

Within my collection, the significance of this type is that the GLORIA ROMANORVM (among many other types) appeared during a transition in "captives" imagery on late Roman coinage. Beginning with the sons of Constantine, the captives were no longer depicted merely as military "enemies" and cultural "barbarians," being taken as the result of Imperial conquest -- that is, as prisoners of war and/or slaves.

Now, starting mid-4th century, the barbarians were being taken in the name of a Christian enterprise, and were presumably pagans (or at least the wrong kind of Christian). Usually the message is conveyed by a Chi-rho or cross on the labarum carried by the Emperor (and the clothing and hairstyles of the "barbarian" captives).

In this case, the mint apparently felt the Chi-rho labarum was too subtle, and the point needed to be driven home by adding a pair of crosses in each field!

Having only seen this one example, though, I'm not sure how confident to be that it is actually an official issue of the Constantinople mint. The style is a bit crude (even making allowances for wear). Could it be an imitation?
“Collect the collectors…” John W Adams’ advice to J Orosz (Asylum 38, 2: p51)

Galleries https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=27154

Online quadrans

  • Tribunus Plebis 2019
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 10691
  • Ad perpetuam rei memoriam. Ars longa, vita brevis.
    • My Gallery Albums
Hi, Curtis JJ,

I think that there is a probability that this coin is a barbarian imitation because especially on the obverse the face is of very poor quality, which cannot be explained by wear because there are positive bulges and the rim is also interesting.
Despite the above, it is a very interesting coin, I have many so-called "barbarian imitations" of this period in my collection (mostly the Constatinian era), many of very good quality. The coins of the Valens and Valentinian periods are still usually very well made at this time, so the "ugliness" of this coin is a bit strange.

 Regards

 Joe /Q.

All the Best :), Joe
My Gallery

Offline Curtis JJ

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
    • CONSERVATORI: Ancient Coins & Their Provenances
Thanks, Joe. That's in line with my thinking. (It also looks like maybe a very unconventional legend break on the obverse.) I do enjoy barbarian Late Roman Bronze Coins -- especially the barbarous issues depicting "barbarians" and captives! (One wonders if the makers recognized any irony there. I do note that this captive's posture suggests he's struggling a bit more strenuously than usual.)

I really wish I knew what coin it was that the editors of RIC IX saw. (They didn't cite any source or collection.) Was theirs also a "barb"? Was there an actual official issue that this one imitates? It may just remain one of those little mysteries that linger with LRBCs. (Until one day the answer unexpectedly appears!)
“Collect the collectors…” John W Adams’ advice to J Orosz (Asylum 38, 2: p51)

Galleries https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=27154

Online quadrans

  • Tribunus Plebis 2019
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 10691
  • Ad perpetuam rei memoriam. Ars longa, vita brevis.
    • My Gallery Albums
Yes, The "Barbarian imitations" coins are interesting of course. I have a small part of my barbarian collection here in the forum:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=3920

also some examples of the captives:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=5367

 and also the "limes coins":

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=6209

 may be interested you... +++

 Regards

 Joe
All the Best :), Joe
My Gallery

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
It's a great mint mark.  Sadly I don't have an example in my collection nor do I have an image of an official issue one.  The lack of cited examples or images makes me wonder now if it should still be included in the list of official mint marks....

Interesting that the same double cross mint mark was (re-)used at Constantinople on issues under Theodosius 386-392 and then again 393-395.

It is interesting to speculate about the captives.  I am not sure about whether the captives shown were all meant to be pagans at this period.  While the labarum - the banner with chi-rho - was definitely a Christian symbol, we have to keep in mind that during large parts of this period the bulk of the wars fought were civil and therefore the bulk of the real captives taken were fellow Romans.  Though Christianity was apparently much slower to be adopted by the Roman military than some other segments of society that is irrelevant if Roman soldier fights Roman soldier. Both sides would generally be "equally Christian".  Whether or not the persons responsible for the design intended to portray a foreigner or a Roman the average Roman citizen was not dumb.  After say the Battle of Adrianople they would have looked at captives on coins and thought of other Romans.

SC




SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Curtis JJ

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
    • CONSERVATORI: Ancient Coins & Their Provenances
Shawn, Thanks for the comments about the captives and who/what they were. That’s very helpful. It gets to the main questions of my “captivescollection.

It sounds like the period where the Christian vs. Non-Christian imagery was strongest was probably right after Constantine, when Constantius II and Constans were showing a lot of clearly Eastern (Persian, Parthian, Sassanid) captives being held under the labarum. (Though not exclusively Eastern.)

But, yes, there’s clearly a big change by the late 4th, and I need to put more thought into that. It’s interesting that Christian symbols were so prominent on coinage if the army wasn’t especially so, since the army may have been a primary intended audience for at least some of the numismatic imagery. (How the typical Roman received those images is a very interesting additional question.)

I’ve been assuming the practice still held of not celebrating victories against other Romans. At least that’s my understanding of earlier coinage, though there is reason to question it at least by Constantine, if not earlier. (I’ve also wondered about Constantine’s London ADVENTVS captives; were they his Roman enemies, or a promise of future captives?)

And that, while the late 4th century captives might have defined themselves as Christian, one of the major divides at that time was who counted as a proper Christian, wasn’t it? I’ve been reading Douglas Boin’s Alaric the Goth, and the impression I take is that the Romans (Theodosius and successors) defined very narrowly who counted as “actual Christians,” excluding large segments of their society and its neighbors (e.g., Goths and others).

I need to look more closely at exactly which conflicts might have been reflected in the coins at each period, and how exactly the Romans understood their different enemies, internal and external.

But my thinking has been that, while the “non-Christian captives” might have considered themselves Christian, perhaps the Emperor did not. But I don’t mean to take a strong position on that -- it’s what I need to learn more about.
“Collect the collectors…” John W Adams’ advice to J Orosz (Asylum 38, 2: p51)

Galleries https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=27154

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
More study would definitely be worth it.

While the military was less Christian the degree of Christianization obviously changed through the period.  The army of 335 was not the army of 385.  Would have to look into it in more detail.

It would be interesting to chart out captives types vs. concurrent wars.

SC


SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity