THE ROMAN MINT OF LONDON: A COLLECTOR’S PERSPECTIVE Paul DiMarzio In late 286 or early 287, the rebel Roman military commander Carausius took control of the province of Britain and opened several mints, including one at London, which produced a large coinage portraying him on par with the legitimate Augusti, Diocletian and Maximian. Coin of Carausius issued in the name of Maximian from his London mint (286/7 – 293)1 Before ten years had passed, Carausius had been dispatched by his chief minister Allectus, Diocletian had established Tetrarchic rule over the empire, and the Caesar responsible for the western provinces of Gaul and Britain, Constantius, was fi nalizing preparations for what would be his successful restoration of the island province to the empire. This paper focuses on the coinage of the London mint once restored to imperial authority in 297 through to its closing in 325. Although a span of less than thirty years might seem inconsequential in the long per- spective of Roman history, the events of this period marked a signifi cant shift in Roman life along several fronts. Politically, the Tetrarchic system established by Diocletian was intended to establish an equal sharing of power across the empire, complete with term limits and merit-based succession. By 325, the empire had reverted to single Augustan rule with hereditary succession. 1 Unless otherwise noted, all coins illustrated in this paper are from the author’s personal collection; illustrations are not to scale and credit is given for the original sources of the images. 9 Paul DiMarzio Socially, at the start of this period the traditional Roman gods were worshipped and featured on the coinage, while Christians were persecuted. By 325, Christianity had become the preferred religion of the Empire and the Roman gods had disappeared from the coinage. The coinage of the Empire also underwent dramatic change. The everyday base metal AE coinage of 297 was struck at a standard weight of 1/32 lb (10 g).2 By 325, infl ation and debasement had radically reduced the weight of the follis to 1/96 lb (3–1/3 g). I subtitle this paper ‘A Collector’s Perspective’ because it is not my intent to break any new scholarly ground on the topic, but rather to intermix an historical narrative – based on others’ work to date – with my own market insights into the coinage derived from more than ten years of focused collecting within this particular fi eld. I have divided this paper into two main narratives. First, I will review the events of the years 296 through 325, taking notice of how the coinage of London refl ects these events, promoting specifi c political agendas, and shaping public opinion. The second part summarizes my collecting observations on the output of the London mint by type, mintmark, issuer, bust and title, and highlights some of the challenges to cataloguing and collecting the series. 296–306: A healthy tetrarchy returns Britain to the empire Under the Tetrarchic system established by Diocletian in 293, the Roman Empire was divided into four administrative regions. Diocletian and Maximian, as Augusti, ruled the east and west respectively. As Ceasars, Galerius ruled a portion of the eastern provinces and Constantius I ruled the far western territories. As the following territorial map shows, the breakaway province of Britain was part of Constantius’ domain, so the task fell to him to reclaim it. 2 Although we don’t know defi nitively what this coin was called, the term ‘follis’ (referring to the name of the bag typically used to hold these coins) is generally accepted. 10 The Roman mint of London: a collector’s perspective The Roman world under the First Tetrarchy3 Although there was some degree of seniority in the Tetrarchic system (Diocletian was the senior Augustus and Constantius the senior Caesar), great pains were taken to portray the rulers publicly as full equals. As a result, they are virtually indistinguishable in offi cial portraits and sculptures. 3 Tetrarchic map by Coppermine Photo Gallery; reproduced here under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (Wikimedia Commons). 11 Paul DiMarzio The Tetrarchs are shown with similar features and dress in this sculpture4 The practice was to strike coins in the names of all four Tetrarchs regardless of who controlled the territory of the issuing mint. We will see how these coinage rules were bent and, ultimately, shattered as the system broke down and the players grappled for power. My collecting interests begin a year before the retaking of Britain, in 296, as Constantius was preparing his invasion. The group of unmarked GENIO POPVLI ROMANI (‘to the guardian spirit of the Roman people’)5 folles of Lyon is gener- ally considered as Constantius’ ‘invasion coinage’, probably intended to pay the invading military force, as these pieces are more typically found in Britain than on the mainland. Once the conquest was complete, Constantius used the captured London mint to issue the fi rst offi cial coinage of Britain, continuing the GENIO series, but using the mintmark LON for the fi rst and, as it would turn out, only time. The stylistic link between the unmarked folles of Lyon and the LON folles of London makes it apparent that Lyon workmen were involved in the task of reopening the London mint under Imperial control. There followed a few years break. Then, around the turn of the century London began issuing coins of the GENIO series in quantity, this time with no mintmark. This would be the only type to be produced in London until the year 305. 4 Image of the four tetrarchs on the Basilica of Saint Mark, Venice, by Nino Barbieri. Used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (Wikipedia). 5 All translations of Latin inscriptions are approximate and based on Google search results. 12 The Roman mint of London: a collector’s perspective GENIO POPVLI ROMANI folles of Diocletian:6 unmarked issue of Lyon, 296;7 LON issue of London, 297;8 unmarked issue of London, 300-59 Both the invasion coinage of Lyon and the unmarked folles through to 305 are quite collectible. The LON coinage of 297 is much more diffi cult to fi nd due to its popularity. All are relatively large, heavy coins, struck at the 1/32 lb (10 g) standard of Diocletian’s coinage reform of 294. On 1 May 305, Diocletian and Maximian abdicated their positions following the celebration of their Vicennalia (20th anniversary of joint rule), as seems to have been envisaged when the Tetrarchic system was established. This event was commemorated by the PROVIDENTIA DEORVM QVIESS AVGG (‘the restful peace of the Emperors by the providence of the gods’) series – a very popular group of coins from all mints. Abdication issues of Maximian10 and Diocletian,11 1May 305 – Early 307 As the two Augusti stepped down, the Caesars Constantius and Galerius were pro- moted to the rank of Augustus, and Severus II and Maximinus Daia were appointed as new Caesars to complete the 2nd Tetrarchy. Power was transferred in an orderly fashion and the GENIO coinage was modifi ed to recognize the new Tetrarchic order. 6 Citations from Roman Imperial Coinage (RIC) volumes VI and VII are for London except as noted. 7 VI.14a for Lyon (Herakles Numismatics) 8 VI.1a (Spink) 9 VI.10 (Jean Elsen & ses Fils) 10 VI.77b (Freeman & Sear) 11 VI.77a (Classical Numismatic Group) 13 Paul DiMarzio The fi rst issue of the 2nd Tetrarchy, 1 May 305 – Early 307: Constantius I as Augustus,12 Severus II as Caesar,13 Galerius as Augustus,14 and Maximinus II as Caesar15 However, a series of events occurred in the years 305–6 that would, eventually, destroy the system that Diocletian had established just over ten years earlier. The transfer of power would never again be so orderly. It was common practice at this time in history for the families of the ruling Tetrarchs to attach themselves to the courts of the other rulers, in part to enhance their education but also to ensure good behavior all round. Constantius’ son, Constantine, had served Diocletian and, later, Galerius, at the court of Nicomedia. At the time that the Second Tetrarchy was formed or shortly thereafter, Constantius engaged in battle with the Picts in northern Britain. In deteriorating health and perhaps sensing an implicit danger to his son at the transfer of power, Constantius petitioned Galerius to allow Constantine to join him. The contemporary historian Lactantius relates that Constantine fl ed Nicomedia immediately following the unexpected promotion of Maximinus and Severus, killing the horses at each public staging point, fearful that Galerius and/or the new Caesars would have him pursued and murdered.16 But, since Lactantius writes from a later, par- tisan Christian viewpoint, this may be an exaggerated version. In any case, Constantine was able safely to manoeuvre his way through the territories of Galerius and Severus, and join his father in the west. Constantius grew increasingly ill and, on 25 July 306, he died at the Roman fort of Eboracum in modern-day York. Before his passing, Constantius declared that his son should succeed him and the troops of Eboracum hailed Constantine as Augustus. (The contemporary account of Eusebius, Constantine’s hagiographer, notes that Constan- tine had been chosen ‘long before them by the Supreme Ruler, God Himself’.)17 When Galerius (now the senior Augustus) received Constantine’s petition to fi ll his father’s position, he felt it unwise to reject the request outright and compromised by granting Constantine the position of Caesar. Severus was elevated to Augustus, thus forming the 3rd Tetrarchy.