Flavia Helena Augusta

How does this coin tie in with the historical Helena? Looking more closely at the coin we can see an inscription on both the left and the right side of the head of Helena. This inscription reads FL HELENA AVGVSTA from left to right, the slightly abbreviated form of her full name Flavia Julia Helena Augusta. Romans used different naming systems for men and women, and status within Roman society also influenced the composition of a name. For this coin we will take a look at the naming conventions for free-born Roman citizens, both male and female, as these conventions changed gradually from the later republican to the later imperial periods (first century BC to fourth century AD) and it is interesting to see how the name of Helena ties in to these changes.

For Roman males the names were usually made up of three separate components: the praenomen, the nomen and the cognomen. The most important part of the names was the nomen, which is roughly similar to a surname. This indicated the family to which a person belonged. While most freeborn Romans had only one of these nomina, from the second century onwards it was not uncommon to have two or more nomen (‘binary nomenclature).Salway, “What's in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c. 700 B.C. to A.D. 700” in: The Journal of Roman Studies 84 (1994) 131 The Roman praenomen was comparable to what we now call a first-name, which identified the individual within the family. There were only about eighteen different praenomina in general use, which was sufficient to distinguish members within a family. The final part of a name would be the cognomen, the unofficial surname for individuals, used to supplement the function of the praenomen. The cognomen ‘Caesar’ would be used to tell Gaius Julius Caesar apart from others named Gaius Julius who might be wandering around. There were many different cognomina available, both Latin and non-Latin. These could be references to physical attributes, mental qualities, occupations, events, etc., and using a cognomen would make each free-born Roman different. The naming system for free-born Roman women was similar, but they did not have a praenomen of their own by this time. Women took the family name of their father, or could change it after marriage, and cognomina were also in use. Thus the names of Roman women were composed of only two parts. Oxford Classical dictionary (4th edition, 2012) 1024-1026

How does the name on this coin tie into all of this? We see a name consisting of four parts: Flavia, Julia, Helena and Augusta. The latter was a title granted to her by Constantine in 325 to honor her. Present day historians view this part of the name as a title, but in antiquity this was commonly acknowledged as being part of the nomenclature Flavia could be a name taken from her husband Constantius, as Flavius was one of his names. Taking a husband’s name was rare, but it did happen, and in this case the name Flavius was significant for the dynasty of Constantine and his successors and could perhaps in this way also be attested to his mother. Flavia could also be a reference to the appearance of the mentioning of the Flavia tribus, or voting tribe, in the decades after 212. This tribe was common with praetorians from the Danube region and might attest some kind of ancestry of Helena.Salway, “What's in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c. 700 B.C. to A.D. 700” in: The Journal of Roman Studies 84 (1994) 135

So that leaves Julia and Helena for the last parts of the name. Helena was a common name in the eastern parts of the empire, and it is attested that she was Greek by origin, and this might thus be her cognomen given to her at birth. Her nomen, or family name, would then be Julia. However, by the means of ‘binary nomenclature’ both Julia and Flavia might be her family names, Julia by birth and Flavia by marriage. Only Flavia is mentioned in the inscription, which might make the connection with the dynasty of Constantine all the more significant. While this is interesting, this has not been confirmed by historians and is solely an interpretation on my part.