Nicomedia reaction to Crispus death

[Heliodromus]

Normally we expect to see Constantine's mints all pretty well synchronized, so it's always interesting when some mint does something different.

When Crispus was executed c.326 AD, his step brother Constantine II, next in seniority, was handed control of Crispus' prior gallic territory, and Arlelate was renamed Constantina in his honor. We see this reflected in the Arelate mintmarks which change from PARL to PCONST.

Aside from the renaming of Arelate, Constantine II's moving up in the pecking order is barely reflected on the bronze coinage (not sure about the gold - would be interesting to look). No doubt Crispus death was a rather shameful affair, and the less attention brought to it the better.

One interesting exception to this is at Nicomedia where we see a tiny reflection of the change. While Crispus has been alive Nicomedia had used "LDC left" busts for all 3 caesars, but after his death they switched to an LDC (right, not left) bust for Constantine II, apparently as recognition of his elevated seniority. What's interesting is that this change appears to have happened immediately, in the middle of the "MNA" issue mark.

 

It seems coining in the MNA mark (when the campgate reverse was in effect) can be divided into three phases:

1) Initially the reverse legend for the caesars is PROVIDENTIAE CAESS and coins of Crispus and Constantine II appear equally common, and fairly abundant.

2) The mint inexplicably changes to a PROVIDENTIAE CAES. legend, while continuing to coin for Crispus. Whatever the reason for this legend change (aesthetics - more symmetrical break?) it would therefore appear unrelated to Crispus. During this phase Constantine II still has an LDC left bust. Coins of Crispus and C2 are both R4 - evidentially this phase did not last long.

3) The mint switches to the new LDC bust for C2, with these coins being R1, apparently having dropped Crispus at the same time.

The corrdination of this unexpected mid-issue bust change for C2 with the dropping of Crispus (RIP) can best be seen by the relative rarity of the coins. If Nicomedia had instead continued to coin for Crispus until end of the MNA "issue" mark then we'd expect continued similar abundance for CR & C2 until the end, rather than only up until the bust change.

So, perhaps only a minor point of interest, but always interesting to see one mint acting alone.

[six2ten]

Thanks for the great post Ben - it intrigues me as to what the specific rules for the mints were (and why for example London has about a million variations of legend x bust type whereas the Eastern mints are very consistent). While there are patterns, there are sometimes so many exceptions you can never be sure!

[Heliodromus]

Thanks, Allan.

Yes, it's the combination of patterns and exceptions that make it interesting. Sometimes the reasons for the exceptions can easily be guessed, othertimes not...

Coinage production overall was obviously centrally controlled, with same types, busts, legends rolled out at all mints, then there was a regional level of management as well as local. Shawn Caza gives the corresponding offices as the "coinage office" (scrinium a pecunis) at the top level, operating under the Comes Sacrarum Largitionum, then a number of regional Rationalis Summarum positions, and finally the local per-mint Procurator Monetae. I'm talking about the bronze of course - the gold coinage followed it's own rules per the travelling imperial mint.

You can see the regional coordination among mints with some of the issue marks such as the T-F/T-F/F-T used at London/Trier/Lyons, or PLONu/PTRu/PLGu under Crispus. Nearby Arles seems to have always been somewhat of a renegade mint, presumably partly as a result of it's late establishment and partly due to being under control of Constantine unlike the other gallic mints under Crispus (then Constantine II).

There also seems to have been a kind of "rolling" lead taking, maybe best explained by imperial presence, so under Constantine we seem to start with London taking the lead and establishing new types, later Trier, then later again Lyons (perhaps due to influence of Maximianus?). Later c.318 when the VLPP type is rolled out, we see Thessalonica and Rome zigging while the other mints are zagging, presumably due to Constantine's presence in Thessalonica, and because, well, Rome. But even with the zigging vs zagging (different type sets) we still see consistent cross-mint usage of the the VLPP D6/D7 bust types.

When Constantine gains sole rule in 324 AD, all mints issue campgates for Constantine except Heraclea (only for caesars), seemingly best explained by the fact that Heraclea has issued campgates under Licinius, so screw that!

Of course there are plently of other examples too, of patterns and exceptions ... Certainly interesting why Nicomedia acknowledged Constantine II's de facto "promotion" at this time. Constantine and family were either still in Rome (for his vicennial celebrations) or perhaps starting to slowly travel back at the time, so it can't be explained by Constantine's presence. I guess not the boldest of moves, so perhaps the Nicomedian Procurator Monetae felt this was a reasonable thing to do without any instruction from higher up ? Under Licinius Nicomedia had also shown some independence.