Problems in Attribution (4th Century Roman Bronze)

[Sulla80]

A detail from The Battle at the Milvian Bridge, 1666, an etching by Gérard Audran (1640-1703) after a painting by Charles Le Brun (1619–1690).  The unfinished painting by Le Brun, was meant to prove he had surpassed the famous version designed by Raphael for the Vatican in the early 16th century. In the painting, Constantine charges across a bridge (today Ponte Milvio) toward Maxentius who falls into the Tiber. (image Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons)

This coin caught my attention, first for its state of preservation and detailed rendering of Jupiter, an eagle with wreath and Victory on globe reaching out to crown Jupiter....as I started to attribute in details, I ran into difficulty - help is appreciated from any experts in these 4th century bronzes.

I think this coin is properly attributed as RIC VI Heraclea 75.  Although there is at least one other candidate in RIC VII Heraclea 5.  Either way it was issued by Licinius who controlled about 5-8 eastern mints at this time including Heraclea. 

This coin interests me not only for it's excellent preservation and artistry, but also for the time of issue a turbulent period for the Roman Empire and spread of Christianity.  There was a lot going when this coin was minted.  Yet another civil war was being waged for control of the Roman Empire - uneasy alliances formed and battles raged. 

• 312 Maxentius and Maximinus II (Daia or Daza) join forces, driving together Licinius and Constantine. 
• Licinius marries Constantine's half-sister, Constantia to cement their partnership. 
• Constantine defeats Maxentius at the Battle of Milvian Bridge on 28 October 312, after which Maxentius is found drowned.  According to popular interpretation it is before the battle of Milvian Bridge that Constantine has a vision that leads to his acceptance of (perhaps conversion to) Christianity, "(ἐν) τούτῳ νίκα" (with this symbol conquer).
• February 313, Constantine & Licinius issued the "Edict of Milan" granting tolerance for Christians 
• 30 April 313, Licinius defeated Maximinus (aka Daza, aka Daia) at the Battle of Tzirallum.  
• Maximinus fled and died of illness in Tarsus. 
• Constantine and Licinius struggled between co-rule and battle for supremacy in from this point on.
• 18 September 324 Licinius was defeated by Constantine in the Battle of Chrysopolis (in Bithynia near Chalcedon)  and although initially spared, circa 325 Licinius was hanged for conspiring against him.

Problems & Clues

Weight: This coin seems heavier that I should expect from the two entries at RIC Online (where average weights of 3.25 and 3.55 are reported for my two candidate coins)

Die Axis: The average die axis doesn't seems to help differentiate: 6 and 8 vs. my coin ~12h

Officinae: The officinae in use for each seems to suggest: RIC VI Heraclea 75 as a Γ (3rd) officina is not recorded (at least in RIC Online) for RIC VII Heraclea 5

Legend Spacing:  perhaps the legend spacing on the reverse ( CONSER-VATORI ) which points to RIC VI Heraclea 75  vs. (CONS-ERVATORI) for Heraclea 5

Auction Examples: A search in ACSearch for "heraclea jupiter Γ" finds 50 coins most of which are for Licinius, some for Diocletian and none for Constantine. and a Search for "heraclea jupiter victory constantine" turns up 76 coins, none of which have the officina Γ.

Constantine I the Great (307/10-337), Follis (4.27g, 22mm), Heraclea, struck 313-314

Obv: IMP C FL VAL CONSTANTINVS P F AVG, laureate head right

Rev: IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG, Jupiter, nude, chlamys draped across left shoulder, standing left, holding Victory on globe in right hand and leaning on sceptre with left hand; to left, eagle holding wreath, ∈ in right field, and SMHT in exergue.

Ref: RIC Heraclea 75?

Any advice in coping with my many attribution problems above is appreciated - share your coins of the Tetrarchy, Constantine & Licinius, or anythign else your find interesting or entertaining.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Sulla80

[shanxi]

9 minutes ago, Sulla80 said:

This coin seems heavier that I should expect from the two entries at RIC Online (where average weights of 3.25 and 3.55 are reported for my two candidate coins)

If you look on OCRE, for example, at the entries for RIC VI Heraclea 75, OfficinaMark: ∈, you will find a range of weights from 3.07 to 4.74g.

I don't think this is any different for your officinia, and that the 4.27 is not outside the expected range.

[Sulla80]

15 minutes ago, shanxi said:

If you look on OCRE, for example, at the entries for RIC VI Heraclea 75, OfficinaMark: ∈, you will find a range of weights from 3.07 to 4.74g.

I don't think this is any different for your officinia, and that the 4.27 is not outside the expected range.

Thanks @shanxi - a related question - how much can I trust the attribution of coin examples in OCRE? - I have been hesitating to use them as reliable information given things like - this coin under RIC VII Heraclea 5 which is essentially my coin (and I think not correctly attributed - certainly not matching the legend spacing reported).

Edited May 7, 2023 by Sulla80

[shanxi]

There are a few errors, of course, and the extra comments are missing, but in general OCRE is OK. I have sent you a screenshot of the original RIC entry.

Edited May 7, 2023 by shanxi

[John Conduitt]

9 minutes ago, Sulla80 said:

Thanks @shanxi - a related question - how much can I trust the attribution of coin examples in OCRE? - I have been hesitating to use them as reliable information given things like - this coin under RIC VII Heraclea 5 which is essentially my coin (and I think not correctly attributed - certainly not matching the legend spacing reported).

The examples are incorrect more often than you'd think, particularly when you get down to minor details. Sometimes it might be because the coin isn't even in RIC. Sometimes whichever museum it is has put it down as the wrong coin, particularly if it's a poor example. But you can see from the description it isn't right, and there are usually other examples on the page. I usually cross-reference to Wildwinds to make doubly sure.

[CPK]

I don't have RIC, but the Sear no. is 15958, with a cross-reference to RIC vi, p.541, 75, and vii, p.542, 5.

I guess that doesn't answer your question. Hope someone with the actual printed RIC can help solve it for you!

[Sulla80]

17 minutes ago, CPK said:

I don't have RIC, but the Sear no. is 15958, with a cross-reference to RIC vi, p.541, 75, and vii, p.542, 5.

I guess that doesn't answer your question. Hope someone with the actual printed RIC can help solve it for you!

looks like Sear considers them both one issue - which leaves me to puzzle whether or not there is any difference between the two options - now I am probably digging too deep into details, as I see that there is no Victory and no eagle mentioned on RIC Heraclea 75...

75: Heraclea (p 541 VI)

5: Heraclea (p 542 VII)

Edited May 7, 2023 by Sulla80

[Heliodromus]

I'd attribute your coin as RIC VI 75, based on the CONSER-VATORI break.

RIC VI seems to be in error in describing the reverse legend break of RIC VI 73-75 as "CONS-ER (or CONSER-V)" since 100% of the 30+ specimens of RIC VI 74 (Maximinus II) I've recorded are CONSER-V, and the death of Maximinus II is the end-point of RIC VI (and start of RIC VII), so it seems CONSER-V was used exclusively on this issue(s) during the time period of RIC VI.

The CONSER-V vs CONS-ERV break started with the addition of AVGG to the earlier "IOVI CONSERVATORI" legend, which had necessitated squeezing in more of the legend before the break.

At some point, presumably after the death of Maximinus, we see the CONS-ERV break for Constantine and Licinius, but there's no reason to suppose that all CONSER-V dies were destroyed on Maximinuss death, or that no new ones were engraved. There just appears to have been a stylistic shift to having Jupiter's victriola be taller and extend into the legend area, thereby leaving less room for the legend before this (victiola) legend break point.

So it seems that while RIC VI is exclusively CONSER-V, RIC VII must have had a mix of at least some CONSER-V, and a majority CONS-ERV, making it impossible to attribute to one time period vs the other. RIC VI = CONSER-, RIC VII = CONS- is the best we can do.

The weight control of bronze at this time was very loose, but as far as I can see Licinius' reduction from 1/72 lb (4.57g) to 1/96 lb (3.43g) took place at the same time as the reverse design changed from wreath in field to eagle. I expect Licinius may have made this change in coordination with Constantine. The weight of individual coins varies so much that it's not really much use for attribution.

Incidently, the painting depiction of Constantine pursuing Maxentius' troops across the actual (stone) Milvian bridge seems to be historically incorrect. According to contemporary sources Maxentius had deliberately partially destroyed the Milvian Bridge, perhaps as a defensive measure, and replaced it with a pontoon bridge which he in turn cut loose having crossed it himself to meet Constantine's army. Cutting off his own escape route turned out to not be such a great move!

 

Edited May 7, 2023 by Heliodromus

[Sulla80]

On 5/7/2023 at 4:18 PM, Heliodromus said:

I'd attribute your coin as RIC VI 75, based on the CONSER-VATORI break.

RIC VI seems to be in error in describing the reverse legend break of RIC VI 73-75 as "CONS-ER (or CONSER-V)" since 100% of the 30+ specimens of RIC VI 74 (Maximinus II) I've recorded are CONSER-V, and the death of Maximinus II is the end-point of RIC VI (and start of RIC VII), so it seems CONSER-V was used exclusively on this issue(s) during the time period of RIC VI.

Thank you, @Heliodromus, very much appreciated!  The weight & legend break then point in the same direction: before the death of Maximinus II and before the reduction in weight.

Any thoughts on the officina?  It seems to me that officina "Γ" didn't generally issue coins for Constantine at this time. Perhaps the wrong reverse die used for Constantine? The lack of  auction examples of Constantine and "Γ" is surprising to me unless I am doing something wrong in my search. Also generally interested in advice on how to consider die axis (or not).

On 5/7/2023 at 4:18 PM, Heliodromus said:

Incidently, the painting depiction of Constantine pursuing Maxentius' troops across the actual (stone) Milvian bridge seems to be historically incorrect. According to contemporary sources Maxentius had deliberately partially destroyed the Milvian Bridge, perhaps as a defensive measure, and replaced it with a pontoon bridge which he in turn cut loose having crossed it himself to meet Constantine's army. Cutting off his own escape route turned out to not be such a great move!

Looking at the Rafael School painting the bridge is shown in that image as "intact" , perhaps illustrating the separate "bridge of boats" option:

the full version of the etching from Audran appears to show the bridge breaking in the moment (or rigged to fail in the moment).

Perhaps not unreasonable for the artists to be historically inaccurate or misinformed with contemporary accounts and other early sources varying in their detail of exactly what happened:

• a separate bridge of boats
• a rigged bridge that would callapse
• a bridge cut before the battle

In agreement with your statement "turned out to not be such a great move" - I like Eusebius' description: "he dug a pit and opened it and fell into the hole which he had made".

"when he [Maxentius] fled before the power of God which was with Constantine, and passed through the river which lay in his way, over which he had formed a bridge with boats, and thus prepared the means of his own destruction. In regard to him one might say, he dug a pit and opened it and fell into the hole which he had made; his labor shall turn upon his own head, and his unrighteousness shall fall upon his own crown."

-Eusebius, Church History, 9.9.5-6

"Maxentius, while engaged against Constantine, hastening to enter from the side a bridge of boats constructed a little above the Milvian Bridge, was plunged into the depth when his horse slipped; his body, swallowed up by the weight of his armor, was barely recovered."

-Aurelius Victor, Epitome, 40.7

"The bridge in his rear was broken down. At sight of that the battle grew hotter. The hand of the Lord prevailed, and the forces of Maxentius were routed. He fled towards the broken bridge; but the multitude pressing on him, he was driven headlong into the Tiber."

-Lacantius, Mort. Pers., 44.9

[2.15.3] Both being thus prepared, Maxentius threw a bridge over the Tiber, which was not of one entire piece, but divided into two parts, the centre of the bridge being made to fasten with irons, which might be drawn out upon occasion.

[2.15.4] He gave orders to the workmen, that as soon as they saw the army of Constantine upon the juncture of the bridge, they should draw out the iron fastenings, that the enemy who stood upon it might fall into the river.

-Zosimus, New History, 2.15.2-3

.....and others.  I think the Arch of Constantine is used as definitive authority in support of "cut before the battle".

P.S. for more fun with this thought:

"This article proposes that nearly all of the sculpted frieze of the Arch of Constantine in Rome, generally regarded as Constantinian, derives from a triumphal monument of Diocletian commissioned shortly after his Vicennalia in 303 CE."

-Reconsidering the frieze on the Arch of Constantine, Journal of Roman Archaeology , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , June 2021 , pp. 175 - 210, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759421000015

Edited May 9, 2023 by Sulla80

[Heliodromus]

On 5/7/2023 at 8:39 PM, Sulla80 said:

Any thoughts on the officina?  It seems to me that officina "Γ" didn't generally issue coins for Constantine at this time. Perhaps the wrong reverse die used for Constantine? The lack of  auction examples of Constantine and "Γ" is surprising to me unless I am doing something wrong in my search.

There seems to have been a partial assignment/emphasis of officinas per emperor at Heraclea at this time, but not a strict division.

Constantine mostly B and E

Licinius mostly A, D, and G

Maximinus majority A and some D

Officina G for Constantine is certainly not common, but OCRE has examples from Vienna and ANS collections (below). I think these are intentional (not mules) since Constantine, who in reality was clean-shaven, appears with beard on all these coins (incl yours), while he doesn't at officina B & E where the majority of coins for him were struck. I think this is best explained by different engravers working for each officina, with the officina A and G engravers used to depicting the bearded Maximinus and Licinius. Constantine appearing with beard at these officinas suggests these obverse dies were cut there and therefore not mules.

 

Hard to say what exactly to make of this pattern of officina soft-assignments. I think sometimes these can be explained by a brief period of unassigned production followed by change to a strict assignment of officinas, but not sure it that was the case here.

On 5/7/2023 at 8:39 PM, Sulla80 said:

Also generally interested in advice on how to consider die axis (or not).

I don't pay attention to die axis myself - never found any use for it. No doubt there were different practices at different mints and times, and unexpected die axis can help detect fakes, but I've never noticed cases (not to say they don't exist) in Constantine era coinage where they can help disambiguate issues.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Heliodromus
Removed off A specimen - different issue

[Sulla80]

15 minutes ago, Heliodromus said:

There seems to have been a partial assignment/emphasis of officinas per emperor at Heraclea at this time, but not a strict division.

Constantine mostly B and E

Licinius mostly A, D, and G

Maximinus majority A and some D

Officina G for Constantine is certainly not common, but OCRE has examples from Vienna and ANS collections (below), and I've also seen an officina A specimen (Naville 57.655). I think these are all intentional (not mules) since Constantine, who in reality was clean-shaven, appears with beard on all these coins (incl yours), while he doesn't at officina B & E where the majority of coins for him were struck. I think this is best explained by different engravers working for each officina, with the officina A and G engravers used to depicting the bearded Maximinus and Licinius. Constantine appearing with beard at these officinas suggests these obverse dies were cut there and therefore not mules.

Hard to say what exactly to make of this pattern of officina soft-assignments. I think sometimes these can be explained by a brief period of unassigned production followed by change to a strict assignment of officinas, but not sure it that was the case here.

I don't pay attention to die axis myself - never found any use for it. No doubt there were different practices at different mints and times, and unexpected die axis can help detect fakes, but I've never noticed cases (not to say they don't exist) in Constantine era coinage where they can help disambiguate issues.

Thank you, again, and especially like the thought on bearded Constantine!  here he is on another relatively heavy flan (4.27g, 22mm) without beard at one of his more customary officinae (∈ in right field):

Edited May 8, 2023 by Sulla80

[DLTcoins]

From what I can see, there is no objective difference between RIC VI 75 and RIC VII 5. The problem seems to be that Vol. VI ends when Maximinus ends and Vol VII picks up post-Maximinus. The coinage continues through essentially unchanged. RIC VII (pp. 533-534) notes "a slight change of the break of the reverse legend" but both listings include both variants. In other words, there is a slight overlap between the volumes; an historical distinction without a numismatic difference. There are other places in RIC where "issues" are similarly defined by changes in the imperial college but the coinage itself crosses unchanged, creating duplicate listings. 

Edited May 8, 2023 by DLTcoins

[Sulla80]

DiMaio, Zeuge, and Zotov note that a planetary event on October 27, 312 could have been behind Constantine's vision. Shortly after sunset in the southwest, the planets Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, and Venus were visible close together in almost a straight line in the constellations Capricorn and Sagittarius. (see image below)

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by Sulla80

[DLTcoins]

1 hour ago, Sulla80 said:

DiMaio, Zeuge, and Zotov note that a planetary event on October 27, 312 could have been behind Constantine's vision. Shortly after sunset in the southwest, the planets Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, and Venus were visible close together in almost a straight line in the constellations Capricorn and Sagittarius. (see image below)

 

Interesting! However, as related by Eusebius, the Sun plays a central role. The imperial cult of Sol Invictus was already nascent monotheism. The syncretic beauty of Constantine's vision is that it equates the "one god" of the imperial cult with the "one god" of the Christians. My suspicion has long been that what Constantine actually "saw" that afternoon was a sundog:

 

Edited May 21, 2023 by DLTcoins

[Sulla80]

9 minutes ago, DLTcoins said:

Interesting. However, as related by Eusebius, the Sun plays a central role. We mustn't forget that the imperial cult of Sol Invictus was nascent monotheism. The syncretic beauty of Constantine's vision is that it equates the "one god" of the imperial cult with the "One God" of the Christians.

yes, the authors argue that the Lactantian account represents the true course of events, while the Eusebian account is "imperial propaganda"...it does seem that such an unusual astronomical event could have been a contributing factor in the events.

Quote

 

Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be delineated on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle. He did as he had been commanded, and he marked on their shields the letter Χ, with a perpendicular line drawn through it and turned round thus at the top, being the cipher of CHRIST. Having this sign (ΧР ), his troops stood to arms. The enemies advanced, but without their emperor, and they crossed the bridge. The armies met, and fought with the utmost exertions of valour, and firmly maintained their ground. In the meantime a sedition arose at Rome, and Maxentius was reviled as one who had abandoned all concern for the safety of the commonweal; and suddenly, while he exhibited the Circensian games on the anniversary of his reign, the people cried with one voice, “Constantine cannot be overcome!”

-Lacantius, https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/lactantius_constantine_heavenly_vision.htm, written roughly contemporary with events

 

Edited May 21, 2023 by Sulla80

[DLTcoins]

Yes, Eusebius would have been right at home in modern politics.

[DonnaML]

On 5/7/2023 at 3:25 PM, John Conduitt said:

The examples are incorrect more often than you'd think, particularly when you get down to minor details. Sometimes it might be because the coin isn't even in RIC. Sometimes whichever museum it is has put it down as the wrong coin, particularly if it's a poor example. But you can see from the description it isn't right, and there are usually other examples on the page. I usually cross-reference to Wildwinds to make doubly sure.

Another frequent cause of errors in attributing the coin photos at OCRE to particular RIC numbers is the publication of new editions of the RIC volumes (as one example, the 2019 publication of RIC II.3, devoted to Hadrian), long after the photos on OCRE were catalogued according to the old RIC numbers by the museums and other institutions where the coins reside. I don't know how much effort OCRE makes to try to re-attribute all those photos to the new RIC numbers (especially when one old number is divided in a  new volume into several different numbers), but whatever they do seems to have been a miserable failure -- not much better than throwing darts at a wall.