Numa is the second legendary king of Rome and more than the individual heroic founders of the city (Aeneas, Romulus, etc…) he gets his own numismatic commemorations in the late Republic. Moreover, he’s commemorated by a number of families in a variety of styles. The moneyer on this specimen has put Numa’s name on the diadem to save room on the flan for for his own name!
Perhaps most interesting is this denarius where his ‘portrait’ is unlabeled on the obverse:
But which is clearly identified with a legend on the bronze coinage in the same series:
Ancus Marcius, his grandson, also gets an obverse of his own:
Some of these commemorations are simply tying the moneyer to the legendary kings of Rome, but the the narrative of these kings was also particularly attractive. Numa especially was remembered for establishing religious traditions and thus the state’s continued well being through a correct relationship with the gods.
***
The last few days as I’ve been writing just about every image seems to me to lead to five new thoughts, leading off in a dozen different directions. I find I keep telling myself ‘not now!’ come back to it later. And yet, just the time to put a note in the correct file or update an old blog post (which amounts to the same thing these days) so I can come back to it later seems to consume all the space for writing. “Where was I?” feels like a constant refrain. I need to find away to stay more focused and efficient as a I fact-check what I’m writing. Perhaps that’s the difficulty: that I want to check my accuracy as I write, instead of saying what I generally believe to be true and then editing and correcting at a later stage.
The fabulous Dr. Hannah of Oxford pointed out in comments that this type (RRC 460/4) would be relevant to yesterday’s post. That Victory carrying a caduceus: with victory comes peace! Such a perfect summation of Roman ideological rhetoric during the Civil Wars. I’ve been turning a blind eye to everything post Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, because that’s when the book terminates, but, of course, it is still the same monetary system. The chaos of the symbolism of that later period through Augustus really does deserve its own book and I prefer the earlier periods, but I am missing out on some fun with the present schema.
This type is really intriguing to me because of the other side.
The RRC description reads “Lion-headed Genius terrae Africae (head surmounted by disk), holding ahkh in r. hand…” That is no ahkh, that is the sign of Tanit, the patron goddess of Carthage. [A scholarly friend has suggested that there might in fact be a connection between the two symbols.]
A flickr search or a google image search can give you a sense of the variations on this symbol and its contexts. And the image as a whole is clearly the same as this statue in the Bardo:
The connection was made in 1918. The publication is now in the public domain; see p. 241-242 for the relevant discussion. The identification as Genius Terrae Africae comes from the resolution of the “C . T . A” legend on the coin above the figure’s head by Babylon. I wonder if any other epigraphic parallels exist for this abbreviation or even the existence of this Genius in this form? Crawford (and others? ) see a link with the “Genius of Carthage” (Δαίμονος Καρχηδονίων) of Polybius 7.9.2.
Based on the abstract this might be relevant: Salcedo Garcés, Fabiola. – El relieve tetrarquico de Rapidum (Sour-Djouab, Argelia) : política y religión en el Africa romana. Antiquités africaines 1996 32 : 67-85.
Gabriela Vlahovici-Jones has given the type some discussion online. She treats the deity as “Sekhmet holding ankh” without any reference to Tanit.
Much of the concern over the identity of the Genius Terrae Africae or the Genius generally in N. Africa, seems to be in scholarship on the Late Antique and the Church Fathers, so for example this discussion and notes.
Linderski, Jerzy. “Q. Scipio Imperator.” In Imperium sine fine: T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic. (1996), pp. 144–185 is probably the most through description of the coin series.
And while we’re at it, I might as well mention that the sign of Tanit is often combined with a symbol similar too (and perhaps the same as?) the caduceus.
British Museum
I’m no expert on North Africa so I’m going to stop here before I say anything stupid.
[Oh. And I think Victory is holding a shield not a patera (possibly even a Macedonian shield?)]
[Broken images and links update 10/10/25, no other changes to content made. For my published views on this topic, see page 154 of my 2021 coin book with CUP.]
The figure on this reverse type is usually seen as representing Sulla triumphator. He’s clearly labelled as Sulla, but the caduceus in his hand is curious. “Victory hoped for” is Crawford’s reading. He doesn’t want to align it with the agnomen Felix because of the chronology of the time, though felicitas in the imperial times is most definitely shown with this attribute:
I tend to agree with Crawford and am puzzled because a caduceus is a very odd thing for a triumphator to hold:
After a thorough reconnaissance had been made, it was ascertained after a few days that all was quiet as far as the Gauls were concerned, and the whole force was thereupon marched to Privernum. From this point there is a twofold story. Some state that the city was stormed and Vitrubius taken alive; other authorities aver that before the final assault the townsmen came out with a caduceus and surrendered to the consul, whilst Vitrubius was given up by his own men. (Livy 8.20)
No, I don’t think Sulla is suggesting his willingness to surrender! This passage is even more explicit:
3 An indication of this is found in the following word and act of each of the two peoples: Quintus Fabius, a Roman general, delivered a letter to the Carthaginians, in which it was written that the Roman people had sent them a spear and a herald’s staff [‘caduceus’ in the Latin], signs respectively of war and peace; they might choose whichever they pleased and regard the one which they should choose as sent them by the Roman people. 4 The Carthaginians replied that they chose neither one; those who had brought them might leave whichever they liked; that whatever should be left them they would consider that they themselves had chosen. 5 Marcus Varro, however, says that neither the spear itself nor the staff was sent, but two tokens, on one of which was engraved the representation of a staff [‘caduceus’ in the Latin again]; on the other that of a spear. (Gellius, Attic Nights, 10.27)
[Update 24 Sept. 2013 – The sending of the spear and caduceus is proverbial in the Hellenistic World. See Polybius 4.52.4 and 24.12.1 with Walbank’s Commentary on the former.]
The herald’s staff was certainly read most often as a peaceful symbol, one of reconciliation and concordia. Just to give a taste of this, here are two coins one from 70 BC representing ‘concord’ between Italy and Rome and another from 48 BC during the Civil Wars of Caesar and Pompey.
Sulla is victorious and an imperator on this coin, but he is also togate and bearing the caduceus and through the later I believe he may also be suggesting his potential harmonious return. It didn’t turn out that way, of course, but that may well have been how he wished to be seen. He certainly wished to be remember as one who restored order.
Came across this image of a very earlier coin in the Roman series and immediately thought about our discussion the other day of this specimen and the Bocchus monument:
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
131BCE, RRC 252/1 Mars in ‘fast’ quadriga holding trophy
134 BCE, RRC 244/1 Mars in ‘fast’ quadriga holding trophy
(Cf. also RRC 306/1 Mars naked trophy over shoulder and RRC 335/3 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:
[Herakles was associated with athletics going back to Pindar and this ‘portrait’ style has Hellenistic antecedents. – 1/6/26]
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.
Kinda looks like a Christmas wreath, doesn’t it? This occurred to me yesterday when I was in a local boutique buying bangles as Eidi for the young people who invited me to celebrate with their family today. [I’m really excited.] The woman in the shop suggested an up-sell: gold cloth bags to hold each bangle set. My first reaction was “ooo …nice! well-worth 2 bucks” and then she pulled them out of the cupboard and they had a holly leaf and berry design over them. I quickly back pedalled. I can’t exactly bring gifts looking like I used left over Christmas wrapping. I was worried about being perceived as uncouth or insensitive. At the same time it was Muslim woman in a muslim shop advising me on my purchase. I took them home and wrapped them myself.
And then when I got home I find myself reading about the reception of the cult of Cybele, a.k.a. the Magna Mater, in Rome. This is the first coin at Rome to depict the goddess.
Her cult object was originally an aniconic (non-figurative) black stone. That got set inside a silver statue. And, all the Roman representations follow the Greek model. I’m not going to go on about this as there is an award winning book on the subject. Most intriguingly in the earliest archaeological layers of her temple at Rome terracotta plaques representing Juno Sospita were found. This is not one of those finds, but gives a visual point of reference as to what Juno Sospita’s iconography looked like in the early period.
What’s my take away? I know that Eid isn’t Christmas, and I also know there is nothing inappropriate about borrowing one set of traditions to augment the celebrations of a different religion. The elisions are more comfortably made by insiders, than outsiders. I find the phenomenon bemusing, but not confusing. After all the holly and the ivy and the presents and many other festive trappings all entered Christian celebrations from earlier pre-existing religious traditions.
I don’t want to stretch the parallels with ancient worship too far. Monotheism and polytheism often work very differently, so too communally versus individually driven worship. And, yet. I think my understanding of Cybele is just a little more nuanced for having gone present shopping.
It’s debatable whether the Flamininus Stater we’ve talked so much about already was made by Greeks to honor him or by Flamininus himself to pay his troops. As usual, I’m inclined to favor Callatay’s views and thus go with the later based on the reasoning that the number of dies suggests a sizable issue and thus some practical function. That would make that the first living Roman on a coin, but the issue is clearly not the work of the standard Roman mint. So when did it become okay for the mint to put a living Roman on a coin, let alone for an individual to put himself on a coin?! Caesar? Brutus? Nope. Probably these guys:
We can’t exactly call it portraiture, but it certainly shows the two men conducting their business as quaestors responsible for Rome’s grain supply. As the coin itself tells us they were instructed by the Senate to create this extraordinary issue to fund their important work. They took that opportunity not only to put their names on the obverse, but also to depict themselves fulfilling their duties.
A far more radical choice of imagery than this near contemporary issue:
From Babylon onwards its been suggested that that is Marius in the triumphal chariot with his son on the trace horse. This has led to a dating of the coin to 101 BC. The year before the issue above. Mattingly (1998; reprinted 2004) has used hoard evidence to down date the Fundanius issue to 97 BC. I accept his dating, but still think that the triumphator is intended to be Marius. Fundanius’ celebration of the victor of the Cimbric and Teutonic Wars seems very tame and appropriate in light of the choices of Caepio and Piso.
This is an Athenian coin from 89/88 BC in the crisis of Mithridatic Wars. Notice that one of the moneyers is KOINTOS, i.e. someone named Quintus. At this time and in the years just before the Athenians were adding and erasing and replacing various symbols in this position on their coinage to indicate their loyalties (Callatay 2011: 65 [Again, I just love this article of his AND how he puts his work in the public domain!]).
The dating makes the identification of the iconography pretty rock solid. I wish I could see what she’s seated on. It almost looks like she’s enthroned. Is there something she’s holding across her lap? (maybe a sword?)
While looking for a clear image of this or a related type, I also came across the beautiful specimen with a very clear representation of Cybele. Even on a very small scale key iconographic details can be made visible if they are critical to the meaning of the symbol:
Look at how exaggerated the headdress and lotus are of this little tiny Isis:
If the figure above being crowned by Nike is Roma and no particularly distinctive attributes are visible we have to assume the scene as a whole would be unmistakable to a contemporary viewer.
Hölscher in 1980 proposed that this monument was the base of the Bocchus Monument, so well known from literary descriptions (Plutarch, Marius 32, Sulla 6). The best discussion of the literary sources is Mackay. If this is true the statues on the top of this base would look something like this:
This coin was struck by Sulla’s son, Faustus and probably copied his father’s seal ring (cf. Marius 10,Sulla 3). So far so good by way of background. It has been suggested that the base is not the original base BUT was restored after Sulla’s return. The logic being that Marius would not have let such an offensive monument remain standing when he controlled the city. The two trophies of the relief are seen as representations of the Sullan trophies of Chaeronea (again see Mackay, link above), just like on this coin:
[There is also a regular denarius with the same design, but I am showing the aureus because it’s prettier.] This image is also associated with a Sullan seal ring by Crawford based on Dio 43.18.3 and the iconography is also seen on the Athenian New Style Tetradrachms (BM specimen):
From my 2021 book
Already Crawford brought in the Sant’Omobono relief into the discussion of Sulla with reference to the other block. He sees an analogy between the two wreaths hanging out from the palm branch and the two trophies. I’m interested in same detail but because of how it echoes the iconographic strategy of a later coin type (Pompeian?).
Notice how the four wreaths hang from the palm branch to presumably symbolize multiple victories. And, NOW, as I type this and check my RRC entry for 436/1, I see that Crawford saw the exact same connection…. [Insert footsteps-of-giants sentiment here.]
Not everyone thinks the Sant’Omobono Reliefs are the Bocchus Monument. Detractors include: Hafner German. – Zu den vermeintlich sullanischen Waffenreliefs von S. Omobono. Rivista di archeologia 1989 XIII : 46-54 and Alexander Thein’s unpublished dissertation on Sulla of 2002. Another dissenting opinion is Reusser, C. 1993, Der Fidestempel auf dem Kapitol in Rom und seine Ausstattung: ein Beitrag zu den Ausgrabungen an der Via delMare und um das Kapitol 1926–1943, Rome, p. 121-37.
Santangelo gives a concise up-to-date survey of the literature and its conclusions (p. 2-3, n. 7), but also see his later discussion at p. 206.
Minor reference updates 27 August 2013 & 16 June 2014
The personification of Victory (Nike, Victoria) is an exceptionally common motif in the Roman Empire. I appears on large imperial monuments (Trajan’s column, Marcus Aurelius’ column), on small domestic items such as lamps, and all over imperial and provincial coinage.
I’m hard pressed to think of a Hellenistic precedent; perhaps there is one lurking out there… Thus, I was surprised to find a very early example of the type amongst the quinarii of the mid 90s BC (97 BC according to Crawford, 94 BC according to Mattingly).
Liv Mariah Yarrow 
