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: Thesis paper about Constantinian coinage...provincial ties...lots of pages  (Read 19154 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Vincent

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
Just doing some web surfing and came across this.link

https://core.ac.uk › pdfPDF
Between Imperial and Provincial: Questions of Center and Periphery in Constantinian Numismatics - CORE


by SA Nichols · 2011 — Art and Art History Graduate Theses & Dissertations. Paper 5. ... Roman imperial coin is one that is listed in RIC, and a Roman provincial coin is one  ...
186 pages·25 MB
Pretty good read of about 100 pages and extensive listing of coin types and even rarity.
Has a long bibliography listing too. Dr. Lars Ramskold paper is there...see people do read your work!

Nice limited plates too...very generous to post it on the web. Must check out the site to see if other papers are available

Think one needs to copy the link and paste it in google search and will provide the link to upload the PDF file to view

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
This direct link to the PDF should work.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/54848785.pdf

I've only skimmed it so far, but my impression isn't very good ...

Here's an excerpt from the introduction:

Quote
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

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
You're absolutely right, Ben, but I would be more understanding. This is just a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts. Not doctoral thesis, probably never published etc.
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.
No, I have to agree with Ben.  An MA should require at least a grasp of the basics.

I have yet to read the full thing but I read the intro and then skimmed bits.  Not impressed.

As the thesis relates in particular to the question of Imperial vs. provincial influence in Constantinian coinage I expected to see some serious discussion of the Imperial bureaucracy of this period.  But there is nothing.  Two references to a "supposed" comes sacrarium largitionum, that's it.  [Why on earth would one call a historically documented office supposed???]  No references at all to the scrinium a pecuniis or the rationalis summarum or the procurator monetae.  The "mint structure" appendix is simply about which Emperor controlled which mint at which time.

In my opinion this is a damning and fatal flaw.  All serious previous discussion about regional variety of 4th century coinage has related to these different levels of bureaucracy.  Each Emperor had a comes sacrarium largitionum.  One was in theory senior when the Emperors ruled together.  Its coinage office - the scrinium a pecuniis - was in charge of the coinage.  A procurator monetae was in charge of each mint, but a rationalis summarum appears to have been in between these two levels. 

There is much scope for study an debate - the interplay between competing comes sacrarium largitionum, examples when a  rationalis summarum may have played a role {for example with the Propontic mints acting together], when and to what degree did an individual procurator monetae affect the coinage.

Now of course no scholar has to accept the conventional wisdom, though one should provide evidence to back up ones views.  But to completely ignore, or be ignorant of, the existing scholarship is not good.

SC
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Vincent

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
Sorry guys that the reading did miss the mark...too bad it had so many flaws
Liked the idea behind the theme and parts of her inguiry I found interesting, read it very quickly.
She did have a lot of research references and the appendix was extensive, especially of the listing of coin types. Don't know about rarity, though and the maps were colorful and helpful
If I go back to see other papers that look interesting will post.
Suppose many here could get a Masters degree🤔.

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity