Thrax, Thraex, Thracian

Machine translation: The Thrax (Thracian) was a gladiator equipped with the arms of the Thracian people. He likely first appeared during the time of Sulla, after the Romans captured soldiers of that nation who had been serving in the forces of Mithridates; Cicero is the first to mention him. The gladiator known as the Thrax carries a small shield (parma, parmula); while sometimes round, it is most often square, though on certain monuments it appears triangular. His offensive weapon is the sica—a short sword with a curved blade—though sometimes the blade features an angular bend midway along its length. For protection, the Thrax wears a manica on his right arm, a balteus (belt), and a subligaculum (loincloth); his helmet takes various forms—sometimes a simple metal cap with a wide brim but no visor, and at other times a design where the face is completely concealed by a perforated visor topped with a very high crest. Finally, since the Thrax lacks the long shield used by the hoplomachus and the secutor—possessing only a parma that covers little more than his chest—he is equipped with two greaves (ocreae) rather than one; these two greaves are among the surest signs by which he is recognized. Often, his thighs are also wrapped in braies (breeches) or fasciae (bandages)—presumably made of leather—which serve to cushion blows that slip past the shield. Figure 3583 reproduces the funerary relief of a Thrax from the time of Trajan, M. Antonius Exochus; it displays virtually all the details just described, notably the two greaves, the sica (cf. Fig. 3370), and, opposite him, the… …crested helmet. Figure 3384 shows two Cupids fighting in the manner of Thracians—sword in hand—just as Roman children played at being gladiators, much like our own children play at being soldiers. We have already noted that the Thracian’s usual opponent was the *hoplomachus*, though he could also be pitted against the *murmillo*. Monuments even show instances where two Thracians were matched against each other, as seen with the two Cupids in Figure 3384. Finally, it should be noted that some Thracians are depicted holding a straight sword—similar to that of the Samnite—instead of the *sica*, while others hold a spear; however, these are merely exceptions.

From Daremberg, Charles Victor, and Saglio, Edmond  – F-G (vol. 2.2)

For the the origin of the Thracian Gladiator, D&S cite Plutarch, Crassus 8. While logical, certainly not definite.

The citation to Cicero’s Philippics seems to contain an error. The passage meant is surely Cic. Phil. 6.13:

We see in the forum a statue of Lucius Antonius; just as we see one of Quintus Tremulus, who conquered the Hernici, before the temple of Castor. Oh the incredible impudence of the man! Has he assumed all this credit to himself, because as a mirmillo at Mylasa he slew the Thracian, his friend? How should we be able to endure him, if he had fought in this forum before the eyes of you all? But, however, this is but one statue. He has another erected by the Roman knights who received horses from the state; and they too inscribe on that, “To their patron.” Who was ever before adopted by that order as its patron? If it ever adopted any one as such, it ought to have adopted me. What censor was ever so honored? what imperator? “But he distributed land among them.” Shame on their sordid natures for accepting it! shame on his dishonesty for giving it!

Cf. Cic. Phil. 7.17:

O ye gods! who will he able to support this man’s power? especially when he has brought all his dependents into the lands. Who ever was the patron of all the tribes? and of the Roman knights? and of the military tribunes? Do you think that the power of even the Gracchi was greater than that of this gladiator will be? whom I have called gladiator, not in the sense in which sometimes Marcus. Antonius too is called gladiator, but as men call him who are speaking plain Latin. He has fought in Asia as a mirmillo. After having equipped his own companion and intimate friend in the armor of a Thracian, he slew the miserable man as he was flying; but he himself received a palpable wound, as the scar proves. What will the man who murdered his friend in this way, when he has an opportunity, do to an enemy? and if he did such a thing as this for the fun of the thing, what do you think he will do when tempted by the hope of plunder? Will he not again meet wicked men in the decuries? will he not again tamper with those men who have received lands? will he not again seek those who have been banished?

Thracians themselves had a long tradition of wearing Phyrgian helmets:

Three terms are associated with the swords of the thracians, all are curved.

While I’m not convinced we really know how these ancient terms match on to material culture we observe, this is generally how the terms seems to be used in modern accounts.

Rhomphaia (longer, heavier, whole bladed is bowed)

Falx (medium, curved at tip)

Sica (short, bent)

Livy’s ‘rumpiae’ are clearly very long weapons, but probably not lances as the Loeb translates the term (31.39).

Aulus Gellius gives us no characteristics of the sword only to help us see the association of the vocabulary with the peoples from an early date in Latin (AN 10.25)

Plutarch, Paulus 18

Πρῶτοι δ᾿ οἱ Θρᾷκες ἐχώρουν, ὧν μάλιστά φησιν ἐκπλαγῆναι τὴν ὄψιν, ἄνδρες ὑψηλοὶ τὰ σώματα, λευκῷ καὶ περιλάμποντι θυρεῶν καὶ περικνημίδων ὁπλισμῷ μέλανας ὑπενδεδυμένοι χιτῶνας, ὀρθὰς δὲ ῥομφαίας βαρυσιδήρους ἀπὸ τῶν δεξιῶν ὤμων ἐπισείοντες.

First the Thracians advanced, whose appearance, Nasica says, was most terrible,—men of lofty stature, clad in tunics which showed black beneath the white and gleaming armour of their shields and greaves, and tossing high on their right shoulders battle-axes with heavy iron heads.

carrying on their right shoulders upright rhomaiae heavy with iron

Thus far none of the literary passages seems to describe a curved weapon. Do you know of one?

Anyway.

All of this is for Papius (RRC 384/1) control mark no. 18. And my belief it likely evokes Thracians to the Roman viewer, perhaps also gladiatorial. The curved sword is a type often developed by cultures who fight on horse back.

Republican Variation in Legionary Standards

Let’s start with some kitten joy!

Coriander and my 2022 glasses

Yes. I’m wearing kittens in a hoodie in late July. Silly but anything to socialize these little demons. Yesterday I got TWO wonderful emails about the next academic year. It is still hush hush but let’s just say I have no reason to be cranky. I’ve been making the most of my minimal ability to really look at a screen. Cooking complicated dinners. Organizing the house. Time with kiddos. Gardening. Today I’ve even booked a volunteer shift. And yet… The best news of all was that my replacement eyeglasses finally came in this afternoon and I can see again!

I wasn’t even going to write a post until I saw this first coin below which so nicely linked my previous obsession to youthful Mars (key words: young, beardless). Right now, I’m interested in the parts of the legionary standard. Yes this is a Papius (RRC 384) related post. Hence I’ve been looking at the column of Trajan and seeing other things as I go. Those are pretty uniform but do have some variation.

Notice on both the coin and there relief the horizontal bar on the standards stacked with other shapes objects. These bars are called antennae and on the column and on the above coin they have ribbons coming down ending in a heart shaped ivy leaf shaped decoration.

Let’s go back a bit.

On the rare specimen of RRC 365/1 where the top is not off the flan and we can see the line border intersect the standard top there is a ribbon tied to the shaft itself. The ribbon has a small end as its defining feature. Also note that on the clearest of specimens the eagle clearly is grasping a snake in its talons with the snake head beneath the eagle head and the tail beneath the tail. The legs of the eagle are given extra prominence in the design.

trade

RRC 441/1 revives the same reverse type but adds a radiate border (unusual!) and the snake is no longer very snaky at all. But for our purposes the ribbons with their narrow endings at the top have stayed the same, and are easier to see.

RRC 413/3 is of no help with the forms of ribbons or antennae, but does help us see that these items are not required elements.

trade

RRC 525/2 and 3 look very similar on the reverse but there don’t seem to be over lapping dies and the standards of the two also seem different. Those of RRC 525/3 have antennae with decorations hanging down, whereas RRC 525/2 has no antennae or two lines at 45 degree angles, like a V shape at the top of the standard. Also notice that there is no emphasis on the legs of the eagle the body just rests on a little cup. The eagle also has a dot just under its chin on all the specimens I’ve seen. Is it intentional?! Who would put a bell or collar on an eagle?! Yet on the best preserved specimens in trade it really does look like a collar with a bell.

So now I have to talk about Marc Anthony’s legionary coinage, something (else) I try to avoid. RRC 544 is the series with so many subtypes because of legion variations. Notice the collar and bell on the eagle again. AND notice the horizontal antennae with circular termini and no ribbons hanging down. This is consistent even when the dies are poorly carved. sometimes the line is just a line but it is always there. As is that little 45 degree branch from the pole for which I have no explanation (it is also visible on the first coin of this post struck by the young Caesar). The bar is even there on the one special issue with special standards and no eagle, RRC 544/12, but as if to be the exception that proves the rule these antennae have little heart (ivy leaf) symbols hanging down BUT not long ribbon for suspension.

based on all of this above I hope most will accept my identifications of controlmarks 16 and 17 legionary standard obverse and different component piece reverse.


Images of things called standards but not of the type I’m discussing here.

Is RRC 335/9 really showing standards (vexilla)? if so why is there no pole. These really don’t look like other vexilla.

trade
Same but different die

The best parallel I’ve found is the vexillum on the kneeling Parthian types under Augustus

Augustan standards on coins have antennae without ornamentation and the aquilae all have that funny grip similar to on some hunting spears cf. papius reverse control mark no. 19.

Women on the Column of Trajan

I’m jonesing to write and research and more. My glasses disappeared at an amusement park Thursday and I’m trying to make do with a pair from 2022 until my new ones arrive. I’ve even order clip on readers to try to work. The focal distance was too short. I have to hold a book or a screen far too close to my face to be comfortable. Now I’ve got my font as big as my computer can make it but the stigmatism means it is still blurry and headache inducing. See I really am an addict for my work. That and I have a brace of kittens in my office I’m trying to socialize so I really should be in this room and that means reading and writing. I’m not really over the loss of my old cat but the family was ready and kittens are adorable and who am I to deny my children the experience.

The images of this post were collected from a physical book I held next to my nose.

Colonna Traiana: Atlante fotografico del fregio istoriato (Trajan’s Column: A Photographic Atlas of the Historiated Frieze) published by the Italian Ministry of Culture (specifically the Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione – ICCD) in collaboration with Gangemi Editore

This isn’t every woman on the column but it is a fair selection. There are at least a couple more divine manifestations/personifications (including obviously Victory).

The most remarkable scene is the one of women torturing prisoners. While sometimes the prisoners are said to be Roman, this cannot be correct. Clearly the shaggy hair, beards and mustaches are meant to be read as barbarians. The women are often called widows and it is seen as an act of revenge for their dead husbands but that seems over stepping without external evidence to support it.

The other extraordinary figure is in the first image below. See what appears to be a woman in a peplos-like garment with a shield and spear (lost) on the front lines. Of course some my night say this is a male beardless male figure and perhaps but I really wanted at least one female fighter and this is the closest possiblity I spotted in my blind(ish) search.

Another maybe a woman figure is in the Ancona departure scene. Right above the arch and standards two figures wave off the Emperor as he sails away. It seems possible that the one with the larger cloak might be female. What are they holding in their hands, my first thought was torches but I can’t really tell maybe palm branches.

The other female figures (non-divine) seem to fulfill traditional Roman conceptions of gender roles. They are mothers with children or daughters with fathers or they they are girls providing music for religious sacrifice. There are more Dacian women and children but in the Ancona departure scene we do get a few matronae with children at the back of the group coming through the arch.

I was surprised that in the suicide scenes there are no women. We know that that the Romans conceptualized the noble savage as one who would rather kill himself and his kin rather than be taken prisoner and enslaved or executed. And, that includes images of killing ones wife (e.g. Ludovic Gaul in Palazzo Altemps, shown below), but not on the column!


Ok. Here are the kittens.

Coriander (Cori for short) and Sterling (we think but are not yet positive)

Romans as Head Hunters, Literally

Not recruiters for high level exec jobs, no not that. The kind who like to turn heads into trophies of war.

Y’all know that Sergius’ coin (RRC 286/1) is one of my favorites (There is a good summary in my 2021 book).

Earlier Posts

So I’m looking for something else on the Column of Trajan Images this morning and all these heads as trophies have been distracting me. If I find similar iconography as I go I’ll now have a place to add it.


28 July 2026 Update:

David Meadows (aka the Rogue Classicist) recommended:

Les Romains, chasseurs de têtes – Persée https://www.persee.fr/doc/efr_0000-0000_1984_act_79_1_2537

I also went through the whole column scene by scene in a print book to refresh my memory, More heads presented to the army commanders, more heads and spikes, and a great (horrific) scene of a head being taken with the body nearby.

Mysterious Baskets

I’m thinking about basket shapes and their representations in Roman Art today. And, as so often, the things I’m not looking for seem far and away the most interesting.

There are at least two Campana plaque types with an oddly shaped basket full of fertility symbols including an erect phallus. [I love this type of plaque. so there are earlier posts]

This one is in the Louvre:

They have others of the same type.

Link
Link

I wish I knew more exactly what was restoration and what original on these pieces. They certainly don’t all come from the same mould even if they have basically two of the same figures on all three.

Louvre
also in the Louvre
Once more, the Louvre

My interest in these is because the clearly show the precedence for the scene on the East Wall of the Villa of the Mysteries with the revealing of the basket contents and the winged figure.

The second type shows other uses of the same ritual basket shape and its striking contents.

I’ll come back and add more if I find more.

Next Day.

I spotted the same basket shape in another fresco in Naples Museum but need fuller citation.

I don’t know what the mango shaped fruit like objects are, maybe badly rendered figs?! The eggs don’t inspire confidence in the artist’s skill. there might be a head of garlic above the glass pitcher. There are clearly two torches and a covered garlanded basket with ribbons. These and the ivy vine lets us be confident the artist is invoking not just a domestic still-life scene but also a ritual one.

Anvils, Again

I was checking notes on Papius’ controlmarks (RRC 384/1). A mindless task of a sort. I’ve looked at them many times; there should be no surprises.

No. 4 obverse [click for more images of the same]

So my first concern was that bump on the top. On some specimens it looks more like a shallow dome. Anvils are known in numismatic art, as well as lots of other art media:

RRC 464/2

There is even a really convincing Anvil on the Fabatus control mark series (RRC 412/1 Obverse 4). I have post full of images of anvils. And I even went to Arachne to be sure I’d not missed any thing relevant. I found more images confirming the same but no significant variation. An Anvil is typically rectilinear. It often has little feet. The top surface is often slightly larger than the bottom. I see none with a top and bottom edge and central shaft like in the controlmark above. And none with a rounded top.

For a hot minute I contemplated if the thing on top could be a shield because of this relief, but then dismissed the idea.

Sarkophagrelief mit der Darstellung der Bewaffnung des Achilles, Capitoline museum

This is frustrating as anvil was such a clean and tidy ID, but I no longer believe it. Altar or Puteal would seem more likely but why the tongs and why the domed top?

I wonder if it could be the fire for heating the metal prior to striking. These often look like altars with a clam shell backing to keep the heat in.

Musée Borély, Marseille, Frankreich, Inv.-Nr. 172
Baths of Diocletian, Rome
Link
House of the Vettii

I’m not at all convinced. So I went looking for objects found with Tongs. Not much. Bah. I will leave it for now.

The altar in the relief below has some little steps on it.

Capitoline museum

The medical tongs look quite different here.

Berlin

Dipping my toe into the Hannibalic War

Image files are licensed Public Domain Mark 1.0. Hamburger Kunsthalle, ID2474. Photographs by Martin Ziegert.

If I had my book to do over again, I could do better with the Hannibalic War, the mid war monetary reforms before and after. A colleague asked me to read a few chapters of book manuscript for input. I enjoyed them a great deal, but realized I did not want to trust his view of the recent scholarship without better reviewing it myself and formulating an independent opinion.

I’m starting my re-education here.

Albarède, Francis, Janne Blichert-Toft, M. Rivoal, and P. Telouk. “A glimpse into the Roman finances of the Second Punic War through silver isotopes.” Geochemical Perspectives Letters 2, no. 2 (2016): 127-37.

The science is good. Are the historical conclusions? The model of events they propose does not account for debasement. Or the apparent shift in the apparent unit of account, from one system for silver and one for bronze.

While many museum coins are not better sourced, I’d be more confident in the results of this study if the coins came from archaeological finds with clear record of deposition. This practice below is completely out of line with the guidance of the AIA and could not have been published in one of their journals. It makes me wonder about how we should treat citing such work and if the AIA has guidance on that.

A key issue with buying coins to test is that we cannot assume these are even a random sample. The dealers did not disclose the source of the material and there is a possibility that similar coins sold together were acquired from the same findspot/hoard. The continuity that has been found could potentially reflect coins struck at the same time in the same place and a single batch of metal supplied to that mint at that time.

I really appreciate this very complete display of their data.

Only three quadrigati were tested. These are all from the early series, those which show fewer signs of debasement. To validate the historical conclusions put forward by this study and implied by their primary graph, I would want to ensure we also tested later quadrigati, RRC 30/1, 31/1, 32/1, 33/1, 34/1, and especially 42/1. I want to go back to the work of Holstein from 2000 to see their results on similar material; it is a real shame that Butcher and Ponting did not evaluate material this early. I wonder if I’ll find stuff from the Orleans team already published or in the works. As I said I’ve not been following Hannibalic era questions and now feel I need to get up to speed.

All this said this helps support the pattern of the hoards that suggests a connection between the Quadrigati and Spain and that they represent a monetary innovation.

My desire to not engage in these questions is something of an intellectual shortcoming. It feels like taking my medicine rather than the normal joy of working with the data. Maybe I’ll come round to it.

The things that feel revolutionary:

  • This is the first issue by the Romans large enough to represent significant military payment, far exceeding early silver and even bronze production.
  • Fitting all the quadrigati between 219/218 and 212/211 makes these issues far larger in terms of economic impact and certainly explains why they are found hoarded alone and in large numbers.

As we’ll see below I remain hesitant to endorse this down dating. Did the Romans know from the moment they decided to send troops to Iberia that they would be paying troops in a new way?

Lets run a thought experiment.

Saguntum is under siege by Hannibal. Saguntum is south of Ebro and thus not really in Roman sphere of influence based on their existing treaties, but a separate Roman ally from when or how not clear. There was direct communication between Saguntum and Rome.

But the Saguntines sent repeated messages to Rome, as on the one hand they were alarmed for their own safety and foresaw what was coming, and at the same time they wished to keep the Romans informed how well things went with the Carthaginians in Spain. The Romans, who had more than once paid little attention to them, sent on this occasion legates to report on the situation.

Polybius 3.15.1-2

It is so weird to be reading this stuff and thinking about it. I’m transported back to my earliest tutorials with Peter Derow. I feel a rush of familiarity, excitement, and imposter syndrome. I know some of you don’t appreciate my inner narrative intruding on my scholarly posts but they work for me, allowing the work to continue through the noise.

[Hannibal] arrived with his forces to winter at New Carthage, which was in a way the chief ornament and capital of the Carthaginian empire in Spain. Here he found the Roman legates, to whom he gave audience and listened to their present communication.The Romans protested against his attacking Saguntum, which they said was under their protection, or crossing the Ebro, contrary to the treaty engagements entered into in Hasdrubal’s time.

Polybius 3.15.3-5

The Saguntines could have sent bullion payment directly to Rome with these messages to pay Rome to pay attention. Or, the legates who visited Hannibal in winter quarters could have picked up bullion from Saguntum or other sources and transported it back Rome to aid in preparations for War after they realized diplomacy had failed. Saguntum was a wealthy city and Polybius believed Hannibal was motivated by the plunder that would be possible.

Besides, Hannibal would then have abundant funds and supplies for his projected expedition, he would raise the spirit of his troops by the booty distributed  among them and would conciliate the Carthaginians at home by the spoils he would send them

Polybius 3.17.7

A great booty of money, slaves, and property fell into his hands. The money, as he had determined, he set aside for his own purposes, the slaves he distributed among his men according to rank, and the miscellaneous property he sent off at once to Carthage.

Polybius 3.17.10

Polybius also believed that the Roman senate felt that the war in Spain would require special new preparations

[The Senate] foresaw that the war would be serious and long and the scene of it far away from home

Polybius 3.16.1

Polybius flat out denies there was any debate about the necessity for War and assumes it would already have been declared. He does this through his invective against earlier historians who published speeches.

Livy’s account is very different in tone and more detailed, perhaps following a different source. I’m sure there are dozens of commentaries on this portion of Livy.

I love Livy and yet again my resistance to the Hannibal war has been strong. Those commentaries are not on my well stocked bookshelves… yet.

Notice he gives the full names of the Envoys. The Whole account makes Rome look less neglectful. But I’m inclined to believe that those envoys knew War was coming and brought resources back to make it more feasible. Funding war with coinage was a whole new thing for the Romans, this took time and extra preparations both Polybius and Livy emphasize. Notice also below that Livy also emphasizes the material wealth of Saguntum.

IF at least some of the Quadrigati were dependent on new Spanish Silver and a reason to strike in volume then Sanguntum looks a pretty good guess. The coin need not have been used exclusively for Roman troops, but may have been spent partly as a means of motivating local Iberian populations to ally with Rome against Hannibal

See earlier post for more about this map and its source.

Ok. Next Article.

Westner, Katrin Julia, Thomas Birch, Fleur Kemmers, Sabine Klein, Heidi E. Höfer, and H‐M. Seitz. “Rome’s rise to power. Geochemical analysis of silver coinage from the Western Mediterranean (fourth to second centuries BCE).” Archaeometry 62, no. 3 (2020): 577-592.

A much bigger over all study. 70 coins total. And the drilling allows results without influence of any surface enrichment. But of these 70 only four were quadrigati, RRC 28/3 (x3) and RRC 30/1 (x1). The four quadrigati they tested show just the opposite of what Abelarde et al found. The ones they tested fit better with the silver of earlier Roman and Brettian coinage.

Their coins were sourced from a range of museum collections.

This probably provided better randomization but the coins still do not have associated find spots. I also find it frustrating that on the visuals I cannot know exactly which coin corresponds with each dot. Notice the two light purple dots hanging out with Groups IIa and IIb above. These seem interesting outliers.

I really appreciate the attempt to put their data into dialogue with previous studies and finding through data visualization

They see 209 as the critical date though so that is what the distinguish when comparing their data to Albarède et al. (Left graph). I’d really like to be able to pick out which coins are the victoriati in both studies. I guess I could write Fleur. She’s always so generous. But I should check if there is supplemental data on the journal’s site first. The middle graph shows how closely Group Ia coins (212 or before) map onto coins from Magna Graecia and other Eastern Greek coins. This includes the Victoriati. The far right graph shows that post 209 coinage clusters near silver associated with the Sierra Cartagena as we would expect.

How to reconcile and explain such different findings. I think the science is good in both studies and that discontinuity likely arises from small non random nature of the samples. What we need is a Quadrigati focused analysis with more specimens and ideally ones from known find spots. While it is plausible Spanish Silver funded some of the start of the war based on Albarède et al.’s results the Westner results show this cannot have been the only source of silver for the Quadrigati.

One more article:

Chico, David Martínez. “El origen del metal en un cuadrigato hispano (ca. 215-214 aC).” Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid 51, no. 2 (2025): 233-252.

The following article tests a single coin. The benefit though is that this coin was likely found in Spain ahead of its enter into the Museo de Prehistoria de Valencia (núm. de inv. 58756 = MIB 181002). It shows significant debasement.

This coin an eighth that has been tested seems indicative of recycle metal primarily but not exclusively a Punic source at S’Argentera (Ibiza), perhaps using a mixture more similar to that used by Iberian mints. It does not look like any of the Cartagena (or Mazarron) material.

So where Am I? Hoarding suggests that yes Quadrigati should be associated with Spain, even Spanish production. The metallurgical testing shows at least some of the Quadrigati were made with Spanish silver, but about half of what has been tested does not show that pattern. We cannot really know when the series started based on these mixed metallurgical results and relying only on Albarède will serious mislead us. We must collect a more robust and archaeologically grounded sample set before we draw firm conclusions.

Boar-Skin Helmet

In the last post on Laran I didn’t include statuettes only labelled images. This is because otherwise the reasoning can be circular. Figure has helmet must be war god, all war god must have helmets…

Anyway that doesn’t mean that my search results didn’t force me to look at a great deal of such warrior(god) statues. The most interesting was this one from Florence. With the unusual helmet and also the two wings(?!) off the shoes. Could this be a Mercury (Turms) figure?! Or a Perseus (Perse)?! I want to see how the right leg would have been positioned. IN the original whole composition, was this figure flying and stabbing some enemy? Or was this little statuette always meant to be displayed alone as a single figure?

I’ve been interested in animal-esque headgear for a while and specifically have been looking for parallels involving boars to better understand the unusual RRC 39 series, which I know others are working on as well. One of my working hypotheses is that this series may be intentionally invoking Italic divinities. This idea originated as an outgrowth of my interpretation of the semuncia as Feronia.

Other posts on RRC 39/2. (Iconography repeated on RRC 42/2, 69/5, and 72/7)

Laran, the Etruscan War God

So I’m wrestling with the variation in Roman depictions of Mars and wondered if maybe looking to Etruscan iconography might help. Here’s a round up. I’ll add more as I find images.

Youthful, shoulder length hair, clean shaven, heroically nude with lap drapery, spear, boots, shoulder strap for sword, helmet devoid of plumage, fancy boots

Wikimedia image with incomplete citation, but showing from left to right shows: Laran, Thalna, Menrva, Tinia, Uni and Maris Tiusta, probably c. 400-200 BCE

Older, bearded, helmet with visor, large crest and tail plume, small, neck guard, curaiss and cloak, sword in hand, barefoot

Wikimedia image taken by Nancy De Grummond, from Populonia in Florence museum, c. 400 BCE. Laran left, Celsclans right. [alternate image]

No helmet, full curly hair above collar, cloak, spear, clean shaven, heroically nude, barefoot

Wikimedia image with incomplete citation, but showing from left to right shows: Thesan, Turms, Mariś Isminthians, Menrva, Mariś Husrnana, Turan, Laran, Amatutunia, Mariś [Halna above] [Hercle below]

No helmet, full curly hair above collar, lap drapery, clean shaven, heroically nude, boots, no weapon

Villa Guilia, c. 300-270 BCE, Left to Right: Aplu, Menrva, Turan, Laran

No helmet, full curly hair down to collar, cloak, clean shaven, heroically nude, boots, sword

BnF (Paris). c. 300 BCE. Left to Right: Aplu, Menrva, Turan, Laran

helmet with suggestion of a crest, but mostly obscured by wreath border of composition, full curly hair to shoulders, lap drapery, clean shaven, heroically nude, boots, no weapon

Florence: Left to right: Laran (Ares), Turan (Aphrodite), Helen (Elinai), Paris/Alexander (Elaxsatre) [further images of same object are on wikimedia commons]

New(ish) Civil War Type?

Sold by Elsen 134, lot 160

I”m usually circumspect about stuff that appears in trade for fear that I will inadvertently effect (or worse, encourage) sales. Trade happens. I will not be ignorant, but I will be careful. This sale gets a post even quoting the sales catalogue because multiple examples of this type that is missing from RIC have come to light in the last twenty years, most brought to market by one auction house.

Was there a new hoard discovered by a metal detectorist and these civil war rarities are being dribbled on to the market? Have we seen an increase in other civil war coinage in the market that might confirm this? I”m not going to look into it at least not any time soon.

ROMAN EMPIRE & Lots GUERRE CIVILE (68-69), AR denier, 68. D/ B. féminin diad., dr. à d., coupant le mot LIBER-TAS. A d., une branche de laurier posée sur un pileus, symbole de la Liberté. R/ Sept aigles militaires. En dessous, CONSENSVS. BMC -; RIC -; B.N. Rome -. 3,38g Revers légèrement décentré. Fines griffes sur le bord au droit entre 3h et 6h. presque Superbe about Extremely Fine Dans sa publication très fouillée d’un denier identique (Un denier inédit des guerres civiles de 68-69 de n.è.: l’organisantion de la révolte de l’armée rhénane, dans CN 191, mars 2012, p. 21-37), D. Bocciarelli date précisément cette émission d’octobre-novembre 68, quand Valens, légat en Basse-Germanie, réunit les sept légions stationnées en Germanie contre le nouvel empereur Galba pour porter au pouvoir Vitellius, qui reprendra d’ailleurs la légende CONSENSVS EXERCITVVM.

ROMAN EMPIRE & Lots CIVIL WAR (68-69), AR denarius, 68. Obv.: Diademed, draped female bust right, breaking the word LIBER-TAS. To the right, a laurel branch resting on a *pileus* (cap of liberty), symbol of Liberty. Rev.: Seven military eagles. Below, CONSENSVS. BMC -; RIC -; B.N. Rome -. 3.38g. Reverse slightly off-center. Fine scratches on the obverse edge between 3 and 6 o’clock. About Extremely Fine In his in-depth study of an identical denarius (*Un denier inédit des guerres civiles de 68-69 de n.è.: l’organisation de la révolte de l’armée rhénane*, in *CN* 191, March 2012, pp. 21-37), D. Bocciarelli precisely dates this issue to October–November 68, when Valens, legate in Lower Germany, rallied the seven legions stationed in Germany against the new emperor Galba to bring Vitellius to power—Vitellius who would subsequently adopt the legend CONSENSVS EXERCITVVM.

I sincerely hope that some examples of these v rare coins have ended up in a public collection or two or three. We need to be able to test and study these before determining if they are genuine… If you purchased one, please consider donating it to major museum engaged in scientific research and testing.

SMH

An no I will not speculate on where such a hoard could have been found. Really there are too many borders crossed during the year of the four emperors to make speculation meaningful. Coins also travelled some in the aftermath of the war.

Key words: Galba, Vitellius, Otho, Nero, etc…

Not a new type, but gold specimens of a type previously known in gold. Here we have to be even more sceptical because of the extra ordinary sale values. Think of the EID MAR gold (of which I’m still not sure what I think about authenticity).

The bottom specimen, the first known, seems similar to the style of this denarius also in trade (OCRE link, no images):