Minissimus (het muntje van Zina) - Minissimus (Zina's coin)

[Goodies]

Voor adrianus.. Voorbeeld van een vierde-eeuwse minissimus (9 mm) deze thread van Zina.

Example of a fourth-century "minissimus" (9 mm) deze thread.


Courtesy: Zina..

 
Goodies

[adrianus]

Hi Lex,

Why do you say this is 4th century? Surely it is a small Radiate copy with an INVICTVS derivative reverse from the coin of Victorinus. There are no reasons to me why this coin should be classed as 4th century.

Regards,

Adrianus

[Goodies]

hi @adrianus, as I understood, the consideration was primarily: size. But that has been just an idea. Concrete: many of these pieces (for example this one) were found in Nijmegen in a river-harbour complex, some in a relatively good condition, in conjunction with large amounts of late Constantini and Valentiniani coins (2nd half 4th century). It seemed improbable to us, such fragile little bronzes would have been in circulation for nearly a century. Two experts (aurelianus and Catuvolcos) stated on this forum, these very small coins even when they are radiate, could be late 4th and 5th century.

As I explained in the Urbs Roma hybrid thread, I do not completely agree with this analysis, because I think these coins can be late third century pieces ("late radii") that reached (more intensive?) circulation at the point in time that the official coinage approximated these in size. Thanks for your surprized reaction here.

Please enlighten us if you have yet a different opinion on these coins, we found very little references. They are all 6-9 mm, based on either radiate, or much later, example coins.

 
Lex

[adrianus]

Hi goodies et al,
Lex is quite right.
The idea that these radiate copies are very late is a very old one, dating back to Mattingley and his colleagues in the 1930s and 40s (and even 50s). These men were great numismatists but in this they were wrong. The discovery of the Verulamium theatre hoard (discovered in a secure archaeological context to the late 3rd century and containing many of these radiate minimi has proved these ideas to be wrong. Also one does not find any numbers of these small radiates in exclusively 4th-5th century contexts. If you can get hold of a copy read Boon's excellent article 'Counterfeit coins in Roman Britain' in Coins and the Archaeologist (London 1988, Casey and Reece eds). He explains all this in great length which I can't do here for reasons of space   .
I have never come across a radiate copy with an undisputably 4th century obverse - if these copies were being produced in the 4th century surely 'mules' would happen with e.g. radiate/Fel Temp combinations?
Regards,
Adrianus

[Goodies]

One thing is sure, they were still used in the late Constantini age. As for their makers, I think we can conclude the newer insights provide us with a different view that should be considered seriously. These coins are 3th century in origin as indicated by the obverse (radius portrait) and reverse.

Thanks for the explanation and the references.

One question that remains open: is it sensible to make a division (in time?) between barbaric imitation of Antononiani like these issued in the time of Tetricus and Victorianus on one hand, and these (very) small minimi and minissimi on the other hand ? Where does this difference in size come from ? And was it a step-wise change or gradually ?

Similar coins with much later looks were found in similar context, e.g. with  with Fel-temp and other 4th century symbols. No radii indeed.. but same size and looks.

 
Lex

[adrianus]

Hi Lex,
I have doubts as to whether they were still used in the late Constantinian period; I have heard of no stratified sites where they have been found in the same stratified archaeological context as e.g. Fel Temps.
The decreasing size seems to have been chronological - there are no Tacitus or Probus copies of large size because these emperors were in power after the larger copies were produced. The (very rare) copies of these emperors are not large. Copying seems to continue until the mid-280s until Carausius comes to power. Mostly these also copy the Gallic emperors with a gradual decrease in size. The minims would seem (from evidence like the Sprotborough hoard and particularly the Fenny Stratford hoard among others) to belong to the 280s.
Regards,
Adrianus

[Goodies]

hi @adrianus, So if I interpret you right, the truth is in the middle, that is the barbaric tribes did continue to produce (small copies of) Antoniniani with the Gallo-Roman emperor Victorinus and the traditional reverses (Sol, Spes, Salus) long after Aurelianus came to power.. so you reckon Zina's coin would be struck, e.g. during the first Tetrarch era, that is somewhere before Diocletianus reform, between 280 and 287 ? Would the monetary reform have stopped the production of these coins ? That  seems plausible, because the "radius crown" would disappear from the example coins.

Do you have a picture of a barbaric imitation of Probus or Tacitus ? I've never seen that before..
 
 
Lex

[adrianus]

Hi Goodies,
Yes, these radiate minims are generally dated to the 280s. It does seem reasonable that they cease with the introduction of the nummus in the 290s, or probably Carausius' reform of c291 where he brings his radiates into line with those of Diocletain and Maximian.
I have a Tacitus and Probus (left-facing with shield and spear at 12mm ) but they are not with me at the moment. I shall post them in a month or so when I have them back with me)
Regards,
Adrianus

[Goodies]

@adrianus, thanks for your accurate answers and the current submits here and in other threads. I really appreciate your expert "type III" (4th century) comments. This "crash-course" will allow me to add some documentation (with proper references!) regarding this period. And skip a few assumptions and speculations, that as well...

As said: we're learning more every day !

 
Goodies

[aurelianus]

Eigenlijk is een minisimus tot 8 mm groot en hoort deze strikt genomen bij de minimi
mvg A