Controversial emissions of Valentinian III

[antvwala]

The controversial emissions of Valentinian III are those reported by the RIC from no. 2140 at no. 2164. Kent attributes them (doubtfully) to the mint of Rome, Mostecky to that of Carthage. Very rare in Italian hoards, however they are very frequent in North African ones.

Their shape is mostly triangular. In my database I have 498: of these, 63% have a triangular shape.

[antvwala]

The triangular shape can be decomposed into four main shapes, without there being a clear division between one and the other: a) equilateral flan with three curvilinear sides; b), c) and d) with vertex angles of 45, 60 and 90° respectively.

[antvwala]

The most frequent hypothesis is that these coins were made by breaking old coins, especially Theodosian AE2.
A coin can be easily broken into two or four parts: any other breaking seems difficult to make and therefore improbable. The dividing into four parts gives rise to four triangular flans with an angle of 60° and the opposite curvilinear side, which is what is most frequently observed. However, dividing is not easy and would often give rise to logs with an angle greater than 60°, up to 90°, or less than 60°, up to 45°, which is what is observed. Furthermore, since most of these triangular coins can be inscribed in a circle of about 15 mm in diameter, it follows that if they originated from the breaking of an old coin, this should have a diameter of about 30 mm with a thickness similar to that of the nummi of the fifth century: a diameter incompatible with the numerals of the fourth century, the largest of which - maiorine and decargiri - have a diameter of about 21-23 mm, and also that of the follis born from the Diocletian reform, about 25 mm, does not appear consistent with the size of the triangular coins struck in the name of Valentinian III and, moreover, they are perhaps too thick.

Instead, the equilateral shape with the three rounded sides and the three vertices of approximately 60°, seems to be the result of a flan to which we wanted to give this shape, and not the result of breaking an old coin.

What explanation can be given to this particular form of these controversial issues in the name of Valentinian III?

Are they the result of breaking old coins (with subsequent annealing in the oven almost to the melting point), or are they the result of a flan deliberately having this shape?

[antvwala]

To give a more correct idea of the variability of the shape of the coins of the controversial issues of Valentinian III, I propose this image taken from my database.

[Pekka K]

PdC_100 = PdC_128 one and same coin?

Pekka K

[antvwala]

yes, thank you

[Curtis JJ]

Very interesting, I had not heard this before. Your specimen D looks like it may have a chisel / cut mark. Assuming they were cut, I would expect to see that occasionally (where it wasn't obliterated by the new strike or flan preparation). I take it this applies to a range of reverse types, not just the campgates? I will have to keep an eye out for this. I always just assumed these "guitar pick" shaped minima were sloppy flans, but this seems like a good explanation on its face.

[antvwala]

In fact, I don't know what to think.
Breaking the Theodosian AE2s into four parts and then re-cooking them in the oven up to a temperature close to the melting point seems to me rather complicated, perhaps even more than remelting the AE2s. On the other hand, I find no reason to voluntarily produce a triangular rather than a round flan.
All the controversial typologies of Valentinian III are above all triangular, except the VOT XV, as can be seen in the mirror that I inserted in the first post.
In Roman times, metal lamination was a known technique, even if lamination of bronze is very difficult: therefore it is possible that a sheet of bronze was produced and then cut out: but why with a triangular shape?
Apparently, whatever technique is employed, making a coin that is loosely triangular is more difficult than making it round. And yet if these emissions, which were certainly emergency ones, are triangular, it is because it turned out to be easier to do them this way...
Again from my database, the nummo with the emperor standing (RIC 2147-2148): also in this case the vaguely triangular shape is the prevailing one

[antvwala]

From my database: the Victory (RIC 2152-2158)

[SC]

Interesting observations.

How thick are the coins?

I can see several possible scenarios - most of which you have covered.

1. Cut AE2s with little further processing.  Should be fairly thick still.

2. Cut AE2s and then heat them close to melting and/or hit them very hard when red hot.  Should be more rounded and thinner than option 1.

3. Pound/make your metal into flat sheets, cut with chisel, then strike - still heated so some deformation.  Metal sheets were very common - parts of armour, door coverings, hinges, furniture parts, etc. etc.

It would be interesting to compare the alloy someday.  Does it match the AE2s?

SC

[antvwala]

Thank you.
The thickness is slightly greater than those of the normal nummi of the 5th century.
An AE2 divided into 4 parts would be small to give rise to these nummmi. In none of them (in my database I have almost 500) is there a previous residual imprint.