Welcome to the next edition of Coin Relief! In this issue, Sam Moorhead looks at the “fallen horseman” coin type.

FEL TEMP REPARATIO and SPES REI PVBLICE nummi

In a previous edition, I wrote about the Reformed
Coinage of AD 348-50, outlining the three different nummi
(AE2a, AE2b and AE3 sizes) and their types. In the early years of the reformed coinage, the AE2a with the legend FEL TEMP REPARATIO and type of a soldier spearing a fallen horseman is quite scarce in the Western Empire. I briefly discussed this type before, but intentionally deferred full coverage of the issue until this later piece. This is because the ‘fallen horseman’ type becomes increasingly common after AD 350 and ultimately becomes the only type issued with the FEL TEMP REPARATIO legend after AD 353.

On the Database, there are almost 6,000 FEL TEMP REPARATIO ‘fallen horseman’ coins (a search brings up 5,987, but there are probably more). Of these, around 3,825 (64%) pieces are listed as being contemporary copies, but I believe the proportion is higher. Of these coins, it appears that around 50 date to the period 348-51, the vast majority being official pieces and contemporary copies dating to c. AD 353-61. There is still much editing to be done of these coins and so more precise figures can be given in the future.

Varieties of ‘Fallen Horseman’

Different RIC numbers often depend on the reverse legend break in FEL TEMP REPARATIO (as noted for specimens illustrated in this article: FEL TEMP REPARATIO; FEL TEMP R – EPARATIO; FEL TEMP RE – PARATIO) and on the style of the ‘fallen horseman’. Sometimes, the horseman falls forward over the horse’s neck and at other times he turns to face the soldier with one or two arms extended; on a few issues, he is bare-headed, but on most he wears a pointed, or Phrygian, cap (a common symbol used for barbarians in Roman art). There are an infinite number of different varieties which are noted in RIC VIII. Also helpful for analysing the reverse type is G. Bruck, Late Roman Bronze Coinage – An attribution for poorly preserved coins (trans. Alisdair Menzies) (Geneva, 2014).2

AD 348-50 at Western Mints
This type (up to 23mm in diameter, and weighing over 5g) was struck across the empire but was struck in far fewer numbers than the ‘galley’ types in the West. It was the preferred type at Eastern mints. Hence, few of these coins are found in Britain. However, in recent editing, I have come across another piece from Lyon, dating to this period with an unpublished mintmark, shown below.

Arles (Arelatum) was to strike a number of issues of these coins from AD 348-50. The examples below (left and centre) are standard types, struck alongside the bulk of the reformed coins in AD 348-50. The example on the right, though, is interesting in that it is apparently struck later in 350 after Magnentius had usurped power in the West.

AD 348-54 at Central and Eastern Mints
In the west, the ‘fallen horseman’ type ceases to be struck under Magnentius and Decentius (AD 350-3), but in Central and Eastern Mints it continues to be issued, at mints such as Rome, Siscia , Thessalonica, and Constantinople, for Constantius II and his Caesar, Constantius Gallus. Although common in the Mediterranean region, these coins are much scarcer in Britain.

Mint of Amiens (Ambianum), AD 353
In 350, Magnentius had set up a new mint in his hometown of Amiens (Ambianum) where extensive issues were struck for him and his brother Decentius. After Magnentius’ defeat in August AD 353, Constantius II continued to strike coins for a few months, in his own name and that of Constantius Gallus, his Caesar. These coins are sometimes found in hoards containing coins predominantly of Magnentius and Decentius.

The Reforms of AD 354-64
Soon after the defeat of Magnentius and Decentius, the size of the nummi starts to decline from over 20mm to around 17mm in the late 350s. The weights declined from around 4-6g to just over 2g. The legislation that led to this change appears to have survived. Preserved in the Theodosian Code, a collection of laws compiled under the emperor Theodosius II in AD 438, is a decree that was probably made in 354, and possibly re-issued in 356 (CTh IX.23.1). It has been interpreted in different ways by scholars, but it appears to have dealt with trade between Arles (in southern France) and Africa and includes a reference to three types of coins which were banned or whose movement was restricted:

1: “Coins which are known to be forbidden.” These are almost certainly the coins of Magnentius and Decentius which would have been demonetized after the death of Magnentius in 353. It is interesting that there are a large number of hoards which terminate with coins of Magnentius, or soon afterwards. These hoards were probably buried after the defeat of Magnentius when Constantius had outlawed his coins. The owners of the coins probably hoped that might be of value at some time in the future. In fact, some of these large module coins were cut down for use when coins were reduced in size.

2: “Maiorinae” which might be the large (and smaller) AE 2 coins mentioned above. It does seem that all the FEL TEMP REPARATIO large module coins were now restricted in their movement or even banned from use. A blanket ban of all large coins would certainly quickly remove all the coins of Magnentius and Decentius from circulation.

3: “Centionales Communales” might be the pre-348 coins (or possibly the AE2b nummi) which were still in circulation. That pre-348 coins were banned is suggested by their over-striking with the smaller module FEL TEMP REPARATIO
‘falling horseman’ types.

AD 353-61 – Smaller module FEL TEMP REPARATIO ‘fallen horseman’ issues from Trier, Lyon and Arles

After 353, the only FEL TEMP REPARATIO type to be struck was that of depicting the ‘fallen horseman’. As noted above, the module and weight of the coin was reduced until in the late 350s it could be a piece of around 17mm in diameter with a weight of little over 2g. These coins were struck in much larger numbers in the western mints than the earlier ‘fallen horseman’ types and the majority of the pieces on the PAS Database with legible mintmarks come from Trier, Lyon and Arles. The vast majority of coins were struck for Constantius II who is shown wearing a pearl-diadem or rosette-diadem. In the period 353-4, coins are also struck for Constantius Gallus, who as a Caesar is depicted bare-headed. From 355 to 360, Julian is Caesar and is also shown bare-headed. On coins with bare heads, but unclear legends, it might not be easy to differentiate between Gallus and Julian, although Gallus’ coins tend to be larger and Julian’s pieces are generally quite scarce.

Mint of Trier
Having been the major mint in the West for much of the Fourth Century, the output at Trier appears to decline after AD 353. Compared to the output of Lyon and Arles, that of Trier is modest in the period AD 353-5, Fig. 16 showing the only common entry (RIC VIII 350) recorded. After 355, no ‘fallen horseman’ types are recorded. However, contemporary copies of Trier pieces are relatively common, apparently outnumbering official pieces amongst the 135 specimens on the PAS Database. This is a conundrum because one would expect fewer copies of coins when official pieces are scarce.

Lyon (Lugdunum)
There appear to be considerably more official coins struck at Lyon in this period than at Trier. Of the c, 280 or so pieces on the Database, the vast majority are for Constantius II with only five for Constantius Gallus and one for Julian. Amongst these coins, there are also copies, identified by their mintmarks.

Arles
Arles has a comparable number of pieces (125) to Trier, but a much higher proportion of the coins are official pieces. Again, the majority are for Constantius II, with but around 11 for Constantius Gallus and two for Julian. Note how the reverse legend break is used to differentiate many of the common type.

AD 352-61 – Smaller module FEL TEMP REPARATIO ‘fallen horseman’ issues from Central and Eastern Empire Mints

‘Fallen horseman’ types continued to be struck across the Empire (even whilst Magnentius was ruling in the West) with small numbers arriving in Britain from Mints such as Rome, Aquileia, Siscia, and Thessalonica. These mints have fewer than 10 records each on the Database, except for Siscia with 20 records.

Contemporary Copies of FEL TEMP REPARATIO ‘fallen horseman’ types, c. AD 355-615

As noted above, there appear to be around 3,825 contemporary copies on the Database, making up 64% of the total for ‘fallen horseman’ types. However, the practice of editing shows that there are probably many more contemporary copies in the corpus. Copies range from good quality pieces, often with accurate or plausible inscriptions and mintmarks to small and crude copies which can be less than 10mm in diameter. Some of the smallest pieces can be quite dumpy, sometimes apparently due to the flans being cut from bronze rods. These small, dumpy pieces are quite distinctive and are normally from this period, so if you have a poorly preserved piece, look for any defining feature of the ‘fallen horseman’ type: the horse’s rump is often quite pronounced. On the PAS Database, we date these copies to c. AD 355-61, but it is possible that some were produced up to AD 363 or even later, before the massive issues of Valentinianic nummi began to arrive in Britain in the later AD 360s. These coins were probably issued in great numbers because of a dearth of official small change, the official pieces of Trier, Lyon and Arles (see above) being insufficient to satisfy demand. They are found in hoards, but also often at temple or shrine sites, such as 1630 specimens in a hoard from the Temple of Nodens at Lydney in Gloucestershire (found during the excavations by Mortimer Wheeler in 1929 – see IARCH-E8C9B4). It is possible that their presence on religious sites is because there was an upsurge in activity at many ritual sites across the province in response to the promotion of paganism by the emperor Julian (AD 360-3).

Overstrikes of FEL TEMP REPARATIO ‘fallen horseman’ copies on earlier issues 

Above, I note how it is possible that pre-AD 348 coins were outlawed in 354. It is quite possible that they had already been prohibited from use in 348 with the new coinage reform enacted then. However, with the banning of large denomination coins in AD 354, it is possible to see how older, small module, coins could come back into play. There are many examples of FEL TEMP REPARATIO ‘fallen horseman’ copies being overstruck on pieces of the period AD 330-48. The example below shows an example with the GLORIA EXERCITVS undertype clearly visible. Older coins would have provided a good source of ‘ready-made’ flans for striking, precluding the need to provide fresh flans from scratch. If you have a fourth century nummus with a supposedly unintelligible reverse, check to see if it is not one of these coins.

SPES REI PVBLICE nummi of c. AD 355-61
In the second half of the 350s, a new smaller bronze denomination was issued from mints across the Empire. The SPES REI PVBLICE issue depicted the emperor standing left, holding globe and spear. (They should not be confused with VIRTVS AVGG NN and VIRTVS AVGVSTI pieces of AD 337-40 with roughly similar types – see DCR 11, Figs. 26-29).

Although RIC includes the issue in the period AD 355-61, I believe that, from hoard evidence, the coins started to be struck later in the 350s. These coins are quite commonly found on sites in the Mediterranean region, but are rare in Britain, with only around 90 specimens on the PAS Database. Very few were struck at Trier and Lyon; Arles was the only Western mint to strike them in any number but, even so, only four specimens for Arles have been identified on the PAS Database so far. Amongst the mints represented on the Database are Rome, Siscia, Sirmium, Thessalonica, Heraclea, Constantinople, and possibly Cyzicus. The rarity of these coins in Britain is another reason why there was an apparent need to produce contemporary copies of ‘fallen horseman’ pieces.

References and further reading

The standard reference for the FEL TEMP REPARATIO ‘fallen horseman’ coinage is Roman Imperial Coinage volume VIII, published in 1981. 

S. Moorhead, ‘The Easterton Hoard of Mid-Fourth Century Roman Coins’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 78 (1984), pp. 41-9 – one of these coins is the latest piece in the hoard.

I discuss these reforms in more detail in S. Moorhead, ‘Emperors, Usurpers, Decrees and Forgery, AD 348-56’ UK Detector Net Issue 11 (July 2008). 

The best overall summary of contemporary copies in Britain remains G. C. Boon, ‘Counterfeit coins in Roman Britain’, in J. Casey and R. Reece, Coins and the Archaeologist (Seaby, 1988), pp. 102-88.

The most comprehensive study of these copies is R. Brickstock, Copies of the Fel Temp Reparatio Coinage in Britain: a
study of their chronology and archaeological significance including gazetteers of hoards and Site Finds (BAR
British Series 176, 1987).

The Imperial Women of Elagabalus 

Elagabalus struck coins for five female members of the imperial family, his grandmother Julia Maesa, his mother Julia Soaemias, and his wives Julia Paula, Julia Aquilia Severa and Annia Faustina.

Julia Maesa, AD 218-222 or later

Julia Maesa was the sister of Julia Domna (Septimius Severus’ wife) and grandmother of Elagabalus. The coins of Julia Maesa are normally assigned to the reign of Elagabalus, AD 218-222. However, she survived the death of Elagabalus and Julia Soaemias, in AD 222, and remained in the imperial court as grandmother of the new emperor Severus Alexander (AD
222-235) until her death in AD 225. It is known that provincial coins were struck for Maesa under Severus Alexander, and given that her coins outnumber (by almost a factor of three) those of Julia Soaemias (see Table 1) it is entirely plausible that imperial coins continued to be struck for her after AD 222. This larger number of coins might also reflect the fact that Julia Maesa was probably the most important of the imperial women in Elagabalus’ court.

For PAS purposes, coins are dated to AD 218-222 which places them in Reece Period 10. Future research and editing could change and narrow down some of the dates.

Mint of Rome
The bulk of Julia Maesa’s coinage was struck at Rome, in gold, silver, and base-metal. It appears that all the coins of Julia Maesa on the PAS Database are from the mint at Rome, although future editing might identify a few from the Eastern Mint / Antioch.

Silver ‘Radiates’
We saw in a previous blog that Elagabalus continued to strike radiates, which had been introduced by Caracalla in AD 215, for a short time in AD 218-219. Whereas the emperors were shown with the radiate crown of Sol on the obverse, the empresses were to be shown with their bust on the crescent moon of Luna. There is only one radiate of Julia Maesa on the PAS Database.

Silver denarii
Silver denarii make up the vast majority of coins of Julia Maesa found in Britain. There are 147 (excluding the 17 IARCW Welsh pieces), although a number of these are contemporary copies. As for Elagabalus, the silver was debased and this means that many coins are either darker in colour or have surface verdigris. Below are listed the different types recorded on the PAS Database, most of the known issues being represented. The most common are PVDICITIA and SAECVLI FELICITAS, types which also predominate in the Shapwick Hoard.

Base-metal coinage
There are only four base metal coins of Julia Maesa on the PAS Database. Given the rarity of base metal coins of Elagabalus (see Daily Coin Relief Edition 68), this comes as no surprise.
Two are sestertii and one a dupondius or as. The other is a contemporary copy (limesfalsum) of a dupondius or as (PUBLIC-76C893). Limesfalsa will be covered in another blog.

Eastern Mint / Antioch
Elagabalus struck a significant number of gold and silver coins in the East. Antioch is traditionally given as the site of the mint, although it could well have moved with Elagabalus some of the time. Kevin Butcher has suggested that it moved as far west as Nicomedia in western Turkey in the first year of his reign.4
The attribution of coins to the Eastern mint to the empresses, as for Elagabalus, is often on the basis of style. An example in the British Museum collection, does show a distinctly different obverse style from the Rome coins. However, no coin of Julia Maesa on the PAS Database appears to be from the Eastern Mint.

Julia Soaemias, AD 218-222

Julia Soaemias was the mother of Elagabalus and played a major role in his accession. Along with Julia Maesa, Julia Soaemias was instrumental in maintaining a stable government during Elagabalus’s reign. Of course, in the end Elagabalus became too much for Rome and he and his mother were assassinated.

Mint of Rome
Elagabalus struck in gold, silver and base-metal for Julia Soaemias at Rome. Gold is very rare and it appears that silver ‘radiates’ were not struck for Soaemias. Again, silver denarii are the most common coins; in fact, they are the only denomination recorded on the PAS Database with 59 specimens (excluding 11 IARCW pieces). Of these, the two VENVS CAELESTIS types are by far the most common, again mirroring the Shapwick Hoard. Single specimens, but without images, are recorded for ANNONA AVG (RIC 234), PIETAS AVG (RIC 237A) and PVDICITIA (RIC 238).

Base-Metal coinage
Sestertii, dupondii and asses of Julia Soaemias are scarce. None have been recorded on the PAS Database.

Eastern Mint / Antioch
Coins of Julia Soaemias from the Eastern Mint appear to be very rare and there are none on the PAS Database.

Julia Paula, AD 219-220

Julia Cornelia Paula hailed from an aristocratic Roman family. She married Elagabalus in AD 219, but they were divorced the following year.

Mint of Rome
Rome struck for Julia Paula in gold, silver and base-metal. However, the silver denarii are by far the most common and are the only denomination recorded on the PAS Database. Of the 16 pieces, the CONCORDIA type is by far the most numerous with 12 specimens recorded.

Base-metal coinage
Base-metal coins of Julia Paula are rare and none are recorded on the PAS Database.

Eastern Mint / Antioch
Identifying Eastern mint coins for Julia Paula is open to some debate. It appears that pieces with braided hair are more likely to emanate from the Eastern Mint, although one such piece
is attributed to Rome in BMC V (pl. 88, no. 15). It does seem that there are more coins struck in the East for Julia Paula than for any of the other empresses, at least four being recorded on the PAS Database.

Rome or Eastern Mint / Antioch

This type, VENVS GENETRIX, is recorded in BMC V for both Rome (p. 555, no. 177) and the Eastern Mint (p. 583, nos. 323-5). The coin attributed to Rome does not have the distinctive Rome bust with ridged hair (see Fig. 22, above) but has braided hair (BMC V, pl. 88, no. 15). This piece does not have ridged hair, but nor does it have braided hair; in some ways it resembles the hairstyle of Julia Maesa at Rome. It does appear to have the feel of an
Eastern Mint coin, but only further research can confirm this.

Ancient forgeries
The first coin shown here appears to be an ancient forgery copying the obverse of Julia Paula with the reverse type, PROVIDENTIA AVG, common to emperors. The second is a much cruder coin, inspired by the obverse of Julia Paula and again a reverse type, AEQVITAS AVG, common to emperors. Both portraits appear to have been inspired by Eastern Mint coins.

Julia Aquilia Severa, AD 220-222

Elagabalus’s second wife was Julia Aquilia Severa who was a Vestal Virgin, responsible for tending the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum. This union was scandalous because Vestal Virgins were forbidden from having sexual intercourse; the punishment was to be buried alive. However, Elagabalus claimed it was permissible as he was the high priest of his
religion, and she the high priestess of hers. He rejected Aquilia in AD 221, in favour of his third wife Annia Faustina, but returned to Aquilia by the end of AD 221. Therefore, it is safest to date Aquilia Severa’s coins to AD 220-222.

Mint of Rome
Coins were struck in gold, silver and base-metal. Denarii are the most common denomination, but even they are rare. There is only one example on the PAS Database.

Eastern Mint / Antioch
The coin, below left, is worn, but the style of the coin does appear to be that of the Eastern Mint. However, we can be more confident with the coin on the right which has a reverse type which might only have been used in the East.

Annia Faustina, AD 221

Elagabalus’ marriage to Annia Faustina was very brief. This is reflected by the rarity of her coins which are known to have been struck in Rome. Only denarii and sestertii are known, the sestertius illustrated below being in the British Museum collection.

The coinage of Elagabalus, AD 218-222

After the death of Caracalla in AD 217, Macrinus and his son Diadumenian reigned for just over a year. However, the Severan dynasty was not finished. Elagabalus, born Varius Avitus Bassianus, was the grandson of Julia Maesa; she was the younger sister of Julia Domna, the wife of Septimius Severus. Elagabalus’ mother started to spread the falsehood
that her son was in fact fathered by Caracalla himself. This succeeded in turning Legio III Gallica and on May 16th, 218, Elagabalus was declared emperor at the age of only 14. The following month, Macrinus was overthrown.

The Sun-God Elagabal

Elagabalus was named after the god Elagabal (meaning ‘God of the Mountain’) who was the Syrian Sun-God worshipped at Emesa (hometown of Julia Domna’s family). Elagabalus was in fact the hereditary high priest of Elagabal and his veneration of the God was to cause a great stir in Rome. He transported the black baetyl stone of the god to Rome where it was installed in a new temple, the Elagaballium, on the Palatine. Rome was shocked by the worship of this new deity because the emperor placed Elagabal above all the traditional Roman gods, including Jupiter. On numerous coins, the emperor is shown as the priest (sacerdos) of Elagabal: he is ‘Priest of the Sun-God Elagabal’; he is the ‘Invincible Priest’; finally, he is the ‘High Priest’.

Elagabalus’ personal life and demise
Elagabalus had a notorious personal life which shocked Rome. He was married three times, to Julia Paula (AD 219-20), to the Vestal Virgin Aquilia Severa (AD 220) and to Annia Faustina (AD 221) – he struck coins for all of his wives, his mother and grandmother which will be covered in another blog. Furthermore, it is said he had relationships with other women
as well. However, he was bisexual and had male lovers; at one stage he even asked for a physical operation to enable a sex-change. Added to his religious beliefs, his sexual activity was another factor in the young emperor’s unpopularity. It appears that it was his grandmother, Julia Maesa, and mother Julia Soaemias who oversaw the government of the
empire. In an attempt to stabilise the imperial house, Elagabalus’s cousin, the young Severus Alexander, was raised to Caesar in AD 221. The following year, Elagabalus tried to have Severus murdered, but failed; the tables were turned and Elagabalus and his mother were murdered, leaving Severus Alexander emperor (AD 222-35).

Elagabalus’ coinage on the PAS Database
There are 465 coins of Elagabalus (excluding 90 IARCW pieces from Wales) on the PAS Database. This total comprises 442 denarii, 13 ‘radiates’ and 10 base-metal sestertii, dupondii, and asses. Amongst the silver coins, there are contemporary copies which will be the subject of more editing. Elagabalus’ coinage was struck at two mints, Rome and a mint in the East, often given as Antioch. Coins of both mints are on the Database and this piece will look each of the mints in turn. Elagabalus did strike coins for five imperial ladies, but these will be the subject of the next piece.

Mint of Rome

Silver ‘radiates’ (Antoniniani), AD 218-9
Caracalla had introduced the ‘radiate’ in AD 215. From a study of dated coins, we can ascertain that it continued to be struck by Elagabalus in AD 218-219, at Rome only. After 219, it was not resurrected as a denomination until the reigns of Balbinus and Pupienus in AD 238. There are 19 radiates of Elagabalus on the PAS Database, being scarce finds in Britain.

Silver denarii – dated issues
Both Rome and Antioch issued dated coins, Table 1 showing the different reverse legends found. These dated coins help us to give broader date ranges to undated coins. 

Dated coins from the Mint of Rome (c. 100 specimens)
Dated coins were issued at Rome in each of the five years of Elagabalus’ reign. The totals by year can be compared with the coins found in the Shapwick Hoard, as shown in Table 2. 

The PAS and Shapwick hoards show a similar proportion of coins (%) by year which does suggest that this profile represents the relative quantity of coins arriving in Britain for each year. The coins of AD 221 are by far the most common coins of the dated issues on the PAS Database and in the Shapwick Hoard. The vast majority of Elagabalus’ denarii are undated, but by comparing with dated coin types and obverse legends it is possible to give broad date ranges as follows:

• AD 219 IMP CAES ANTONINVS AVG
• AD 219-20 IMP ANTONINVS AVG
• AD 220-22 IMP ANTONINVS PIVS AV

Base-metal issues from Rome
Elagabalus struck sestertii, dupondii, and asses at Rome only; the Eastern Mint only struck in gold and silver. Since c. AD 196, the number of base-metal coins arriving in Britain had fallen dramatically; Severan base-metal pieces are particularly rare as finds in Britain. This paucity of coins is clearly shown by the PAS data for Elagabalus – there are only 4 sestertii, one dupondius and 5 asses (excluding 2 IARCW Welsh entries), making a total of 10 coins; there are 455 denarii and radiates showing clearly how silver predominates. One has to question if these coins were actually sent by the imperial authorities to Britain, or just arrived in dribs and drabs with soldiers, merchants or other travellers.

Sestertii

There are only four sestertii on the PAS Database, all in rather poor condition. The illustrated piece shows considerable wear, suggesting it remained in circulation up until the
time sestertii went out of use in the AD 260s.

Dupondii
Only one dupondius on the PAS Database can be attributed to Elagabalus. Dupondii became increasingly rarer during the 3rd century.

Asses
Asses are the most numerous base-metal coins of Elagabalus on the PAS Database with 7 examples (including two IARCW pieces).

Eastern Mint (Antioch)

There are 15 coins of the Eastern Mint on the PAS Database (of which 6 are IARCW pieces from Wales). If we exclude IARCW pieces from the analysis, 2% (9 out of 442) of the PAS denarii come from the Eastern Mint; for Shapwick it is 1.6% (11 out of 685). It should be noted that more Eastern Mint denarii might be found amongst the PAS coins after more editing.

Contemporary Copies

There are a number of contemporary copies of Elagabalus’ silver pieces on the PAS Database. However, it is very important to note that the official silver coins had an increasing amount of copper added in the early third century. This often results in green verdigris appearing on the coin which is often interpreted as representing a plated copy; however, in many cases this is not the case. There still needs to be further editing of coins which have been noted as copies which are in fact probably official.

Welcome to the latest edition of Coin Relief. This time Dr. Andrew Brown examines the nummi of Reece Period 19.

Reece Period 19 nummi – House of Valentinian, c.AD 364-378

In this blog post we will look at the bronze coinage of the House of Valentinian struck between AD 364-378 (Reece Period 19) that was in circulation alongside the siliquae and solidi examined in previous editions. These appear in large quantity in Britain and with the exception of the Constantinian nummi of AD 330-348 (Reece Period 17) are the most well-represented of all the 4th century coins on the PAS. At least 26,836 bronze coins from this period have been recorded to date on the PAS database, many of which can be identified to type and mint, if not ruler. Their distribution is significant and appears to provide good evidence for the exploitation of the agrarian landscape by the Roman administration – we will look at this in more detail below.

By the middle of the 4th century, nummi struck and used around the Roman world still contained small quantities of silver. Production of these adulterated1 nummi ceased with the joint reign of emperors Valentinian I (AD 364-375) and Valens (AD 364-378) in AD 364, and a law of April AD 371 recalled to the mint and outlawed any adulterated coins remaining in circulation altogether. Nummi of the House of Valentinian – initially the joint reign with Valentinian I and Valens, subsequently including Gratian (AD 367-383) and, after Valentinian I’s death, Valentinian II (AD 375-392) – are therefore essentially base metal coins struck from alloys of copper, in some mints like Arles and Lyon perhaps containing increasing quantities of lead. Although there are some larger AE1 and AE2 denominations briefly in circulation, as
well as much smaller AE4 types, these are practically non-existent as PAS finds. We are essentially dealing with three key AE3 types that make up almost all of the known PAS examples: GLORIA ROMANORVM, SECVRITAS REI PVBLICAE, and GLORIA NOVI SAECVLI (see below). These were struck in relatively large volume, the GLORIA NOVI SAECVLI type solely for Gratian at the mint of Arles, but the other two types empire-wide at all mints operating during the Valentinianic period and for all issuers. It is notable that eastern mint coins are rare, with the exception of the mint of Siscia, which has an unusually high showing in this period – you are quite likely to see Siscia mint coins from Reece Period 19 within the PAS data. If you are recording or identifying Valentinianic coinage, being familiar with these three key AE3 types should allow you to identify almost every coin you are likely to see!

When dealing with coins of this period RIC IX is the standard reference, although LRBC is equally useful and perhaps more accessible. One thing to keep in mind with the mintmarks
listed in LRBC is that the officina letters in the field can sometimes be transposed (usually for the GLORIA ROMANORVM type) – check the notes section at the back of LRBC if you
have a coin where the mintmark doesn’t at first seem to be the correct way around!

AE 1 – RESTITVTOR REI PVBLICAE, Emperor standing facing, head right, holding standard and Victory on globe

The largest of the Valentinianic copper-alloy denominations measures about 25mm in diameter and was struck largely in the eastern half of the empire from the mints of Rome eastward. These had a short life span, probably going out of circulation by AD 371 and are rare with no examples yet recorded through the PAS.

AE 2 – GLORI-A ROMA-NORVM, Campgate with S above

An AE2 sized nummus measuring c.22mm in diameter was struck at the mints of Trier and Constantinople with campgate reverse type. This is again a rare type not to be confused with
Constantinian campgate types of the AD 320s or much smaller Theodosian types of the AD 380s. The distinctive feature is the S above the campgate on the reverse. There do not appear to be any PAS examples of this coin type yet.

AE3 nummi

The PAS dataset still requires some editing but, to date, a total of 10,863 AE3 nummi have been assigned to on of the three key reverse types. I think it likely that this will be possible for the majority of Valentinianic nummi, however, particularly those with images.

While the GLORIA NOVI SAECVLI type was struck solely in the mint of Arles for Gratian, the other two reverse types were struck across the empire and for all four emperors. Those coins with mints currently identified on the PAS database demonstrate that the western mints of Lyon and Arles are by far the most common, followed by Siscia, Aquileia, Trier and Rome. However, the mints east of Aquileia are so far extremely rare.

GLORIA ROMANORVM, Emperor advancing right holding standard and dragging captive

The mints of Lyon and Arles are best represented for the GLORIA ROMANORVM (‘the Glory of the Romans’) type. A useful diagnostic tool lies in those coins with mintmarks containing the officina number in the field: those with the letters OF (for officina) to the left of the emperor are for the mint of Arles, while those where the O and F are split either side of the emperor are for the mint of Lyon. As with all coins of this period, the eastern mints are rare, with the exception of Siscia, which has quite a large showing and a wide, varied range of mintmarks – LRBC is really useful here.

Arles (Arelatum) was known by its dynastic name Constantia from AD 353 until the end of the 4th century. Coins in this period with mintmarks containing CON or CONST are therefore for Arles and not Constantinople (which uses CONS). The latter is very rare in Britain and there are very few PAS examples. If you have nummi from the Valentinian period with mintmarks containing CON, therefore, they are almost certainly going to be for Arles rather than Constantinople – the two shouldn’t be confused!

SECVRITAS REI PVBLICAE, Victory advancing left holding wreath and palm

The Securitas type with Victory reverse is the most frequently seen of the Valentinian bronze types recorded to date on the PAS – at least amongst those that have had a reverse type securely attributed to them. It should be noted here that there are other similar types with Victory reverse in the latter half of the 4th century that are much rarer and shouldn’t be confused with the Valentinian period coin. The two most commonly confused with the Securitas type are as follows:

The Reece Period 17 coin is usually c.15-16mm in diameter and is very rare on the PAS. The type is included in R. Reece and S. James Identifying Roman Coins (Spink, 1986, 1994, 2000)), p. 37, but is not at all common in Britain. There are numerous examples of this type being selected instead of the Valentinian type on the PAS, but it is far more likely that nummi
depicting Victory advancing left are of the latter type.

This type, for Reece Period 21, was highlighted in a previous edition. Although the Victory type is similar, it shouldn’t be confused with the Valentinian Securitas type – the Theodosian coin is much smaller, at c.14mm or less and the distinctive feature is often the GGG of AVGGG at the end of the reverse legend.

GLORIA NOVI SAECVLI, Emperor standing facing, head left, holding standard and leaning on shield

The third standard type of Valentinianic nummi seen in Britain is that with GLORIA NOVI SAECVLI (‘the Glory of the new age’) reverse type. This is struck solely for Gratian between AD 367-375 and only in the third workshop at the mint of Arles. All coins of this issue carry mintmarks for the third officina that are either OF III or TCON. The type is unique to Gratian so should be easily identifiable.

Alongside the Securitas and two Gloria reverse types, there are a number of rarer AE3 sized types that appear during this period, some of which are also present on the PAS database. These form just a small percentage of the totals of Reece Period 19 nummi recorded, but it is worth illustrating them in case other examples turn up.

RESTITVTOR REI P, Emperor standing facing holding standard and victoriola

A smaller, AE3 version of the RESTITVTOR REIPVBLICAE reverse type, with legend abbreviated to RESTITVTOR REI P, was issued early in the reigns of Valentinian I and Valens. Struck at most mints empire-wide, the type should not be confused with either the larger AE1 coin or earlier issues of Magnentius. These are not common coins on the PAS, there are fewer than 30 PAS examples identified to date, most probably from the western mints.

GLORIA ROMANORVM, Victory advancing left holding wreath and palm

This type with Gloria Romanorvm legend but Victory reverse type is only struck at the mint of Trier. It is much rarer than the standard Gloria or Securitas types – I can find no more than
about 10 examples that have been securely identified to date on the PAS. Do be careful when recording these coins, they could easily be confused with the Securitas types and it is likely
there could be others that have been identified as such.

A(nother!) usurper – Procopius, c.AD 365-366

We have seen, particularly in the 3rd century but also in the mid-4th century, the relatively common incidence of usurpation, notably during the transition of power between one ruler and the next. The start of the Valentinian period was no different. With the death of Jovian in February AD 364, Procopius, the maternal cousin of Julian II (and therefore of the Constantinian dynasty) and part of his retinue in the east, was arrested in Caesarea (Kayseri, Turkey) by soldiers loyal to the new emperors, Valentinian I and Valens. However, Procopius managed to flee east with his family and, securing the support of two legions there, proclaimed himself emperor in September AD 365. Two decisive battles against the forces of Valens followed and resulted in his defeat. On the 27th May AD 366, following his capture by
Valens, Procopius was executed in a rather gruesome manner – Ammianus (XXVI.9.1-10) suggests he was simply beheaded on the spot. However, other sources, like Socrates (Ecclesiastical History 4.5), recount that his legs were tied to bent trees, which when they sprung back to an upright position tore him in half!

Coins of Procopius are understandably very rare in Britain. He ruled for just a short period of time and only struck coinage at the mints of Constantinople, Cyzicus, Heraclea, and Nicomedia. The reverse legend for the bronze coinage is invariably REPARATIO FEL TEMP and a distinctive feature of Procopius’ issues are the use of a left instead of right facing bust – he is also bearded much like his cousin Julian. If you have a nummus of this period with a left facing bust, therefore, do check to see whether it is Procopius as this is highly likely! To date there appear to be only two securely identified coins of Procopius recorded through the PAS.

Valentinianic nummi in Britain

One of the most interesting things about the Reece Period 19 bronze coinage is what it potentially tells us about Roman Britain. Sam has done much work on this over several decades, most notably with regard to Roman Wiltshire. During the Valentinianic period, areas of the west country in particular appear to have become increasingly wealthy, notably areas like Wiltshire and Hampshire (and urban centres like Cirencester) have produced large quantities of nummi. This isn’t confined to the south west, though, and there is a very clear swathe of material spreading east into East Anglia and north as far as Yorkshire. In
continental Europe, high concentrations of bronze coinage in this period have been linked to military activity and Roman officialdom and the situation in Britannia has been interpreted
in a similar way. A combination of factors suggest that the areas with high volume of Valentinianic bronze coin losses reflect Roman military activity within the province likely also associated with agricultural production and the collection of the annona militaris – a tax levied in foodstuffs to support the legions during their campaigns. The fortification of key centres, like Cunetio (Mildenhall) in Wiltshire, might provide evidence for this, particularly at a time when Count Theodosius, sent by Valentinian himself, sought to restore order within the province and secure Roman interests. Similarly, we might see this reflected in the presence of other important groups of objects, such as zoomorphic late Roman belt buckles likely associated with Roman military activity and local officialdom, that are found in the same areas as the high concentrations of nummi. 

After Julian had restored order in Gaul in the late-AD 350s with significant victories over the Alamanni and peace with the Chamavi, there are various literary sources that highlight the importance of his rebuilding projects and the restoration of the granaries here. Ammianus (XVIII.2.3) states that “He also replaced burnt out granaries with new ones, so that they could house the corn which was regularly shipped from Britain”; Libanius (Oratio
18.82-3) that “In the past, grain was shipped by sea from Britain and up the Rhine”; and Eunapius (fr. 12) that “without the acquiescence of the Chamavi it is impossible to transport the supplies of grain from the island of Britain to the Roman garrisons”. The extent to which grain appears to have been transported across the channel from Britain is highlighted by
Zosimus (3.5.2), who recounts that “Julian built 800 vessels, larger than fast galleys, which he sent to Britain to bring back grain” and by Julian himself in his Letter to the Athenians where he tells us that “…a complete fleet of many ships had arrived from Britain. I had got together a fleet of 600 ships, 400 of which had been built in less than ten months, bringing them all together into the Rhine”.

What the literary sources suggest is the importance of the grain supply from Britain to Gaul and the Rhine, with potentially several hundred vessels plying across the channel carrying the all important resources needed for the Roman garrisons in Gaul.
It is quite plausible that the clear growth in bronze coin use and loss, the fortification of key settlements like Cunetio, and the presence of other objects that suggest military and administrative
control in the British landscape, like the zoomorphic Roman buckles, reflects this continued importance of the annona militaris and the transportation of grain from Britannia to Gaul during the Valentinianic period. There is still more work needed to clarify the precise nature of this activity in Britannia, but the PAS data is providing vital corroborating evidence to other
archaeological material and the patterns that Sam has been able to identify since the 1980s.

References and further reading:

S. Moorhead ‘The Coinage of the Later Roman Empire, 364-498’ in W. Metcalf ed. The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage (OUP, 2012): 615

S. Moorhead ‘Roman coin finds from Wiltshire’, in Ellis, P. (ed.)
Roman Wiltshire and After (Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, Devizes, 2001), 85-105; S. Moorhead and D. Stuttard The Romans Who Shaped Britain (2012): 226-227; S. Moorhead A History of Roman
Coinage in Britain (2013)

J.-P. Callu ‘The distribution and the role of bronze coinage from AD 348 to 392’ in C. King (ed.) Imperial Revenue, Expenditre and Monetary Policy in the Fourth Century AD (BAR International Series 76, 1980): 105-
106

S. Moorhead, 2001; 2012; P. Walton Rethinking Roman Britain: Coinage and Archaeology (Moneta, 2012)