There is only one of these coins known. It’s in Berlin, although a modern photo is not available on their website. One coin and thus just one set of dies isn’t much evidence to go on. It’s dated purely on stylistic and prosopographical grounds to c. 83 BC. The RRC entry says it represents a triumphator. The figure in the quadriga holds a trophy and palm branch(?) and seems to have some sort of spiky substantial head piece on. Holding a trophy is not typical triumphal iconography. In fact the only references to a triumphator holding a trophy in his triumphal chariot in the republican period which I know of is Plutarch’s Marcellus, and that is in connection with his dedication of the spolia opima. Flower has argued that his is the only historically likely case of this type of dedication, a view nuanced by Beard 2007: 292-295. I’m not ready to say that the figure in the chariot is Marcellus, esp. not without some connection between the moneyer and Marcellus or some other identifying characteristic. Marcellus and his spolia opima do appear latter on coins (RRC 439/1; 50 BC).
The motif of chariot and trophy is not alien to the republican series:
90 BC, RRC 342/4-6 Minerva in a ‘fast’ quadriga holding trophy
130 BC, RRC 255/1 Hercules in a ‘slow’ quadriga hold trophy
131BC, RRC 252/1 Mars in ‘fast’ quadriga holding trophy
134 BC, RRC 244/1 Mars in ‘fast’ quadriga holding trophy
(Cf. also RRC 306/1 Mars naked trophy over shoulder and RRC 353/3 Naked warrior standing on cuirass next to trophy)
Both the laurel wreath and the bead and reel borders have plenty of precedents on the series, neither in any helpful pattern I can see (notes below).
The three-quarters profile chariot is unusual as is the lack of indication of motion in the horses, neither slow, nor fast, just still. The stillness and the palm branch and the laurel wreath are the best arguments for seeing this as triumphal.
The head on the obverse is usually identified as Jupiter but it isn’t a typical representation of him. My first reaction when looking at the head type is to see it as Hercules, but this may be overly influenced by his later iconography during the high empire. This sort of image:
All in all my thoughts tend in a conservative and reductive direction. I’m not sure we can be certain of the identity of the figures depicted on either the obverse and reverse type. The unexplained elements I’d want answered are regarding the headgear and also the long flowing drapery off the figure and out the back of the chariot. Isn’t the latter usually associated with a female deity? I’d also want an explanation for why this palm branch is more “S” shaped instead of a single fluid arch such as Victory normally holds. Perhaps its the 3/4 perspective or perhaps its some other attribute:
Given its low production its hard to see it as a large, or significant, or influential issue. A curiosity, but perhaps not historically meaningful?
Similar border types (post 49BC types excluded)
Laurel Wreath Borders: RRC 232/1 – 138BC (chunkier, fixed bottom tie); 290/6 – 114/113BC (Unica – non vide); 324/1 – 101BC (distinct central stem); 329/1 – 100BC (loose thin, but same V execution); 336/1 -92BC (loose thin, but same V execution, not all v’s close: some become more parallel); 342/3a – 90 BC (non vide); 402/1- 71 BC (Pompey Aureus – perhaps most stylistically similar but lacks definitive dot at top join of Vs); 411/1a -64 BC (more leaf like, space at bottom); 418/1-2 – 61BC (more leaf like with berries and tie at bottom).
Bead and Reel: RRC 97/1a&b Luceria, 211-208BC; 103/1a Apulia 211-210BC; 236/1 (occasionally?!) 137BC; 366/2 82-81 N. Italy and Spain; 384/1 79BC; 392/1 75 BC; 409/1&2 67 BC
Update 30 November 2013: Compare the radiate crown on this representation of Jupiter below. The triumphator is said to have dressed like the statue of Jupiter on the Capitoline who is dressed in regal costume. Can’t be bothered to look up the reference but surely in Beard or Versnel.
2 thoughts on “53 out of 410 Days: One of a Kind”
[…] on it provides a better resolution. There is only one known specimen. I’ve talked about how problematic that can before, twice in fact it […]
[…] earlier post on the type. (I still agree with my observations […]