Constantine II Rome fraction / token (Victoria Caess)

[Heliodromus]

I just received this interesting little coin today, a prix fixe eBay snack!

This is RIC VII Rome 142, VICTOR-I-A CAESS for Constantine II as caesar, measuring 15x13mm.

RIC describes this as a half follis (nummus), dating it to 318 AD, but seems to be wrong on both counts, certainly the date!

This type, and the associated PRINCIPI IVVENT "fraction" (RIC 137-142) are in fact related to the Festival of Isis celebrations, and have been shown to be obverse die linked to the Festival of Isis tokens. Alfoldi, in his seminal "Festival of Isis in Rome" (1937) was the first to make the connection, and more recently Lars Ramskold has built on his work to identify and date the distinct Festival of Isis issues and die links among both those and these PRINCIPI/VICTORIA pieces.

The graphic above is from a earlier presentation by Lars, but his complete paper is:

A die link study of Constantine’s pagan Festival of Isis tokens and affiliated coin-like ‘fractions’

https://independent.academia.edu/LarsRamskold

What Lars has shown is that after Constantine's initial FoI issues of 313 and 314 AD, he seems to have settled into a pattern of basically celebrating on his 5 year anniversaries of 315-316, 320-321, 325-326 and 330-331 (last issue), with an additional celebration in 317 AD on occasion of the caesars being appointed. Contrary to RIC's suggestion of the PRINCIPI/VICTORIA pieces (RIC 137-142) all being issued in 318 AD, it seems clear by the bust progression, and die links, that these were issued on three occasions c.317 AD, 321 AD and 326 AD.

By comparing the bust style of my coin to the evolving bust style on the regular coinage at Rome, as well as by comparing the reverse to other VICTORIA specimens (e.g. Vienna Crispus specimen shown in above graphic), it seems to be fairly securely dated to c.321 AD. The VICTOR-I-A reverse legend break seems to be specific to the 321 AD issue, and very few dies seem to exist. My coin shares the same obverse die as the other two specimens shown by Lars, as well as reverse linked to one of them.

These PRINCIPI/VICTORIA pieces, being die linked to the Festival of Isis ones, seem perhaps to have also been more token than coins (perhaps missilia thrown to the crowd, given their small size?), although of course it's conceivable they may have been accepted as payment (at a 1/2 nummus value?) all the same, at least by some vendors.

 

Edited May 29 by Heliodromus

[O-Towner]

Very interesting post. I've collected coins of this time period for a while and never really heard about these. I do notice that none of these coins have any exergual markings to indicate where they were minted. That and the smaller size seem to be their hallmarks. Thanks for this info. Much appreciated.

[Romismatist]

I echo @O-Towner's comments... haven't heard of these previously, and appreciate the writeup. I'm always learning cool new things on this forum!

[Heliodromus]

Thanks @O-Towner & @Romismatist !

These PRINCIPI/VICTORIA pieces are part of the puzzle that point towards the circumstances of the "Festival of Isis" celebration, especially on the 5-year celebrations when these pieces were issued.

1) The Isis and ship-themed reverses are what really catch our attention, and evidence supports that the dates of issue must have been the "Navigium Isidis" on March 5th, the beginning of the Mediterranean sailing season after the rough winter months, with Isis being called upon to protect the sailors for the new season. A large percentage of the "Festival of Isis" tokens are holed, suggesting they were worn as protective amulets.

2) Despite the Isis reverses, we have the reverse legend of "VOTA PVBLICA" referring to the emperors 5-year public vows, as confirmed by the 5-year dates of issue (per Lars). So, we have an almost equal emphasis on the emperor and his vows, despite the fact that those should/would have taken place at the beginning of the year in January, not in March.

3) After the appointment of the caesars in 317 AD, we now see them also included, not only associated with the Isis types, but also with these PRINCIPI/VICTORIA ones, where the focus is on the caesars themselves, in particular Constantine's sons, with Licinius II only known from a PRINCIPI type of 317 AD.

We also know that Constantine I didn't like the city of Rome, and rarely visited! He was there at the beginning of 313 AD, but then we only have records of him visiting for his decennalia (and dedication of his Arch) in 315 AD, and again 10 years later for his vicenallia in 326 AD. Constantine initially had his imperial residence in Trier, then as he won new territory, moved progressively east to Sirmium/Serdica and finally his new capital of Constantinople.

We're able to pinpoint Constantine's locations on various dates thanks to the Theodosian Code, a roman law book assembled by Theodosius I, which gathers together laws passed by various emperors from 312-438 AD. What's useful is that we not only have the laws themselves (very interesting!), but also the cities and dates where they were issued, with the practice having been for the emperor to sit and adjudicate on various cases when he was visiting a city.

Here's a summary (from Depeyrot) of Constantine's known locations, per the Code, in his vicennial year of 325-326:

We can see that while Constantine was in Rome in July 326 for his vicennial celebrations (the last stop on his vicennial tour, when his anepigraphic tour coins were issued), he was NOT there in March when the "Navigium Isidis" was being celebrated. Similarly in March of 317 AD and 320-321 AD Constantine was also stationed in the east.

So, what to make of all of this?

We have the Navigium Isidis celebrated in Rome (Isis, at least in her protective role of Isis Pelagia "Isis of the Seas", apparently supported by the increasingly Christian Constantine!), but also jointly celebrating the emperors 5 year vows, and dynastic heirs, and all in the absence of the emperor himself, in a city that he didn't particularly care for!

It seems that the best way to interpret this is probably that these Navigium Isidis celebrations in Rome were organized by members of Rome's monnied patrician class, still predominantly pagan. The Navigium Isidis, start of the sailing season, was presumably celebrated every year, but Rome appealed to Constantine to support celebrations on his 5 year anniversaries, appealing to his vanity, making it a joint celebration of his vows, dynasty, and the Navigium Isidis itself. By getting imperial approval, and presumably financial support, Rome was able to get the popular Isis amulets minted, with imperial obverses.

Of course, this is all speculation, and the celebrations *might* have been called for by Constantine himself, but that seems much harder to explain, especially as his (belatedly celebrated) 5-year vows seem to have been secondary, and it's hard to see him being enthusiastic about supporting Isis as opposed to accepting of it in this traditional protective role.

 

Edited June 1 by Heliodromus