The deity on the obverse of this is always identified as Jupiter. Based, I suppose, primarily on the reverse which is clearly Jupiter in a quadriga with his lightening bolt and scepter. However, the iconography, especially the three thick locks of hair down the neck, looks an awful lot like typical representations of Saturn from the same period:
Of course, these are all likely to be the work of the same die cutter and that could account for most of the visual similarity. Nevertheless it strikes me that if that die cutter had wanted to differentiate two different deities on these obverses, he would have done so in a more dramatic fashion.
Update 2-5-24. Back here still thinking same thoughts about RRC 311/1
Reading a draft of a chapter by a friend, I was completely taken by the use of the Amazon-on-a-Pile-of-Arms Type to personify Aetolia. He pointed out how the arms start out a Gallic arms to which a large Macedonian shield is added, as on the specimen above. I love how this illustrates that the Romans are simply deploying an already fully formed numismatic iconographic vocabulary on their own coins. I am also captivated by the diversity of this basic reverse type on the Aetolian issues:
The usual assumption is that the type is modeled on a statue dedicated at Delphi to commemorate the defense of the sanctuary by the Aetolians against Gauls. However the variations in the reverse mean that we can’t see to an exact one to one match between the two. The gold specimen with Artemis and the Nike is most intriguing. Perhaps a reference to Artemis’ epiphany to defend Delphi?
Anyway. Where does this Amazon-on-a-Pile-of-Arms Type show up on Roman coins? All over!
And of course it also comes to be adopted as the personification of Britannia, which has itself Roman origins. What we shouldn’t do is conflate the Roma seated on a curule chair with this image, as the symbolism of the two has different connotations:
The arms represent conquest, the curule chair just rule.
I need to find out what artistic precedents the Aetolian type is based on…
Update 8/12/2013.
Silver Tetradrachm of Lysimachus, Pella, 286 BC – 281 BC. ANS 1944.100.81269
I found it asserted in an old gem catalogue (see p. xv under cat. no. 45) that Roma on a pile of arms derives from the Athena on the coinage of Lysimachus. It is certainly might be a basic prototype for personifications of Aetolia and Roma seen above but she is clearly enthroned with her own shield beside her, a very different symbolism than being atop the spoils of war.
Much of the ‘noise’ in the scholarship regarding the Flamininus stater is over whether it is closer to Hellenistic Royal Portraiture, esp. Philip V, or if it is instead an example of Roman verism, the ‘warts and all’ style so well known from the late republic. Is it more like this:
Most seem to have become bored with this argument lately and have settled on a both/and answer. The royal die cutter was used to making royal style portraits but conceded certain details to give it a more authentically Roman air. All plausible enough, but the conversation seems to have done little to incorporate other evidence for Roman portraiture in the early period. Some items that might be contemporary are hard to date without archaeological context and poor comparative evidence. Take for instance this signet ring found at the site of ancient Capua and now in the Naples Museum:
This portrait is such a prestige piece that it is signed by the artist. Opinions vary from the 3rd to the 1st century BC. I’ve no strong opinion, other than to emphasize that to ‘identify’ it as one of the Scipios, especially one of the famous ones, is pure fantasy. What we need are some portraits with provenance. And, lo! we have them. They just are barely published (as far as I can find so far and I’d be very happy to learn I’ve missed shiny new fully illustrated catalogue). 1,756 readable seal impressions were found in a controlled excavation of a Hellenistic Archive beneath a sealed deposit layer securely dated to 145BC. Of those 20%, that’s right TWENTY percent are portraits. The only color image I can find is the one above. These are the only other images I can find from the preliminary publication of the archive.
There has been some attempt to integrate these new findings with what we know about Roman self presentation, but we won’t be able to say much until they are properly published. [Surely, someone must be working on the collection for a dissertation…]
My first reactions are two fold. Portraits as seals were not limited to royalty and the style of these portraits is comfortable between ‘dynamic idealism’ and ‘rugged verism’. Are any of them Roman? Who knows. But they are all part of Hellenistic repertoire. Flamininus could have easily have a portrait seal ring in such a style, but that’s not even required. Just the idea that objects could be validated and made official by the impression of a portrait might be catalyst enough for the creation. Yes, portraiture on coins is predominantly associated with kings, but kings put many many other images on their coins as well. The portrait-equals-king and king-equal-portrait formula may not be as rock solid in 197 BC as we often flippantly assume in Roman numismatic discussions: no one was worried about Flamininus overthrowing the Roman body politic in the same way they were about Caesar in 45/4 BC.
[There are other such archives with massive collections of sealings, but it’s the fixed deposit layer and secure dating that makes Kedesh so special.]
I came across this image in my reading today and was immediately struck by the visual similarities with the Doson coin I posted about earlier. How common is this image? Not that common really. Besides Doson, Magnetes of Thessaly has a similar type with Artemis:
And it is also a standard type of Histiaea in Euboia:
But that seems to be about it. The publishers of the seal focus on the coins of Sidon, such as this:
OR this:
Neither is really that close in design or style even if they show a figure on a ship. There might be a lost Sidonian type with a figure seated on just prow, but I suspect the inspiration for the design came from trade connections with the North.
I’ve stared at this particular specimen of this particular type so much that when I came across an image of a different specimen in a book this morning part of me wanted to say oh that’s not the right image. This can happen with famous or just easily accessible specimens of types. The historian or student can start to think the one illustrative example IS the type. This leads to some unfortunate readings.
One of my favorite Roman historians have used the above image to argue that the Italic Bull is raping the Roman Wolf. [No, no I’m not going to give you a page reference for this. I don’t really want to be bitchy about it.I got frustrated by my own cageyness when I came back to find the reference….]I’ve even read it on student exams. But other specimens make clear that only significant penetration on this type is an old fashioned goring with the horns:
The lesson is that unless one has seen as many specimens of a type as possible its really very dangerous to start generalizing. A lazy die cutting can turn into a whole (sexualized!?) reading.
There are ten Flamininus specimens according to C. Botrè, “Lo statere d’oro di Tito Quinzio Flaminino: una coniazione straordinaria,” RIN 96 (1994/1995): four in museums: Athens, Berlin [??], London and Paris; and six in private hands including: WAW, 109 = Hunt I, 111, the Ley collection piece = Triton III; 30 November 1999, 815; LEU 81, 187; NAC 39 (16.05.2007), 85. His face may be fatter or thinner, rougher or smoother, hair wilder or sedate based on the specimen. The controversy over how this image fits into Hellenistic portraiture traditions and/or Roman aesthetic conventions is not going to be resolved soon, but any discussion should be based on the examination of all possible specimens.
So first, I averaged 8.28 minutes per mile for 3 miles. Yes, I did I fist pump at the end. And, Yes, that’s even stopping at traffic lights. In six weeks that’s a 50% increase in speed and my recovery time felt good too. The other more important number was 750 words. I put it in easily and then some. It felt good to writing in linear fashion knowing that if I didn’t have exactly the right word for a concept I could fix it later. I also was able to start seeing the huge number of cross references the book is going to contain. Something I already new from my image lists and notes on what chapters they needed to be mentioned, but I really I found myself writing about a type that might end up being mentioned in every chapter. I am opening chapter 6 on Imperators (Marius, Sulla, Pompey and co) with a contrast between M. Aemilius Scaurus cos. 115 and his son of the same name. The former has no coins and his deeds are not commemorated on coins, even thought Cicero tells us he ruled the world with a nod of his head, by contrast his son as just an aedile brags about his own accomplishments! The type is illustrated above. Notice the big REX ARETAS legend on the obverse. This is Scaurus claiming to have brought the king of the Nabataeans to his knees during his side excursion while under Pompey’s command in 62. According to Josephus his ill advised trip to Petra left his army suffering famine and resulted in Aretas simply bribing him with some 300 silver talents to go back from whence he came. Not a very glorious deed all in all. This morning I was struck by the contrast between Aretas III’s self presentation and Scaurus’ desire to show Aretas as an outlandish foreigner (Camel, trousers, long scruffy hair):
This of course plays on some Roman stereotypes and may have even created a new typology. Compare this type of three years later (55 BC):
And yet this same monarch went farther than any other Nabataean ruler to craft a self image in line with Hellenistic standards:
It’s not just the diadem or the tyche its the actual inscription labeling himself as a Philhellene! His successor kept Hellenistic imagery and even used a Greek regnal year, but he returns to Nabataean Aramaic to name himself and identity. I wonder how they’ve resolved his successor’s regnal years. Is it circular? did they decide he must have taken the throne shortly after Scaurus’ campaign and thus year 26 must equal 35 BC? Or is there an outside confirmation of this and thus we know Aretas III lost his throne shortly after Scaurus’ campaign. I must find out…
But that’s a little off topic for the book. So back to where else does this type fit in:
First it an issue by two aediles, not regular moneyers. Why? Does it have to do with their games? Scaurus lived long in the mind of Romans for the extravagance of these ludi. Or, is it because aediles might also over see the grain supply? Then there is sheer volume of this issue. It would need to be part of a discussion of estimating mint outputs and possibility of correlating that with state expenditures. And then there is the reverse with the capture of Privernum. The should get a mention in the conquest of Italy section but the moneyer’s family connection is fanciful at best so that goes nicely with my discussion of familial legends. Oh and it’s one of the rock solid coin types for dating as we have independent testimony regarding the issuers aedileship, meaning lots of other types are dated by relation to this one. It’s like a book in one damn coin.
Okay. Now that I’ve got that out of my system I’m going to go write 750 words or more for the actual book.
I seem to be spending too much time with imperial coins for someone writing a book on the Republic. I came across this coin in this article. It has its weak points, many of which are pointed out by this more recent piece. It too is not as complete in its treatment of the evidence as I’d like. The type above seems very likely to provide the prototype for the EETIA? type I’ve been obsessing over. Most obvious is the bare-headed obverse with the prominent ear. Second is the ‘civilian’ dress of the pig holders on the reverse, as well as the suspension of the pig. Obviously its not a perfect match. These pig holders have their heads covered as is appropriate for a Roman making a sacrifice and the altar is depicted and their outer arms are not outstretched. And,yes, the pig is upside down! The legend even tells us what we’re seeing, the Foedus Gabinum. Unfortunately, nothing about the legend, however, helps us puzzle out what is on the EETIA? coin. The type is repeated a couple years later in gold by a member of the same gens:
This time Augustus is laureate. Farney gives the only really substantial discussion of these moneyers’ choice. For the background of the foedus and the role of the Antistius see Dionysius of Harlicarnassus’ account. He says the treaty still existed in his day written on the cow (not pig!) hide that was the sacrificial victim at its consecration. All in all, it is a story that paints the Tarquinii in a really awful light, with the Gabini being incorporated into the Roman power structure as a calculated and unexpected gesture of magnanimity designed to ensure their loyalty, even after being the victims of a terrible deception in which they were tricked into stoning one of their most loyal leading citizens… The story as Dionysius tells it is hardly appropriate for numismatic commemoration. R. E. A. Palmer, ‘A new fragment of Livy throws light on the Roman Postumii and Latin Gabii’, Athenaeum 78 (1990), 5-18 thought there was a different foedus in the forth century but his reading of the new fragment is rebuffed by Gabrielli. Perhaps there is new light on what the coins might mean in this newer article, but its still behind the pay wall even with my university’s subscription, so I won’t know today.
Other thematically relevant bibliography may include: Bensmann, Alexa. – Die « republikanische » Seite der augusteischen Münzprägungen : Bemerkungen zur Bildsprache der « IIIviri aere argento auro flando feriundo ». Numismatisches Nachrichtenblatt: 2008 57 (9) : 346-349 ill.
I just ordered up via ILL a piece of German scholarship which from the abstract seems to redate some early Roman coins (aes grave with a prow and the quadrigati) and connected them with the events of 241BC. I’ll reserve judgement on that until I see the article. However, it also reminded of this portion of Ovid’s Fasti, calendar of the Roman year in poetic form:
Asses did stay in circulation for a very very long time and were minted very sporadically during the late Republic. Ovid’s Augustan age testimony provides evidence that worn base metal coins had become the norm but that the types were generally known. The prow however did not hold a particular meaning for a contemporary viewer. Ovid has the god explain that the prow commemorates Saturn’s arrival. This would have seemed plausible because Saturn was the god of the treasury, even if it is unlikely to have been the original inspiration. Crawford suggests the visual inspiration comes from this beautiful type of Antigonos Doson, c.227 BC (See RRC p. 42 esp. n. 5):
Naval imagery first appears on Roman coins, unsurprisingly, when they become more adept as a military power. And it has even been argued that naval imagery on aes signatum commemorated the very battle in which the bronze itself was captured in the form of rams, armor, and other spoils from the Carthaginian enemies. However awareness of symbolism slips away as particular images stop resonating with contemporary audience, hence Ovid’s deduced explanation.
To get inspiration for writing the book today I opened up Rosenstein’s latest, very readable, introduction to the Imperial Republic. He starts at Sentinium and how P. Decius Mus’ self-sacrifice provided a turning point in Rome’s conquest of Italy. He and his father and his son, all bearing the same name, became a standard exempla of dedication unto death to the fatherland; Cicero mentions them thirty times in his extant works (cf. Van der Blom, p. 101). And yet unlike so many exempla with wide communal resonance, they appear no where on the republican series that we can see. Noteworthy by their absence. Crawford thinks the line died out and without ancestors numismatic commemoration was unlikely. Interestingly the lack of commemoration was so keenly felt that the Emperor Trajan made up a type to ‘restore’ in his name (see image above). The image he chose to augment with Decius’ name is this type:
The carnyx and shield clearly link the otherwise completely standard type with Celtic victories. And, the Decii did engage with the Celts as well as the Samnites, but it is unlikely that Trajan has any ‘inside’ knowledge 300 years later about who made the original type. Instead it is filling a void in the numismatic record. The Decii deserved a coin type so the must have had one. Did Trajan do the same for other republican heroes? There are some modern copies for Cocles. I’ve not see an authentic specimen yet, but two are listed in RIC so perhaps they do exist:
Images and their links updated 18 Dec 2024. Text and information left the same.
I don’t want to reiterate what appears in the Triton catalogue on this specimen, as you can read it yourself by clicking on the image. In the article I linked to earlier today, Callataÿ mentioned the phenomenon of these coins of a “pretender” to the Macedonian throne being overstruck on denarii.
The one above is apparently using this type as its flan:
The Crawford type is re-dated by the overstrike, just pushed down a couple of years. It’s striking [always my favorite numismatic pun] that two of the known specimens of Andriscus are known to have been overstruck on the this same type. Here’s the link to the other one. The obverse dies are linked but the reverses are unique. Another un-die-linked specimen is overstruck on a Thesalian League type. Of course, Callataÿ is right that it shows use of the denarius in the East, at least sufficient to allow Andriscus to produce a (small?) series.
The other minor mystery is whatever is Andriscus wearing on his head. Macedonian head gear is always a wee bit baffling, but more on that some other time:
Liv Mariah Yarrow 