Category: Uncategorized

Mithridates on the Republican Coin Series?

~ Liv Yarrow ~ 1 Comment
Capture
A page of my image notes from my pre-blog days. The images are all from the ANS. Click to be taken to ANS collection of RRC 405/5 specimens. Or click on the title of this post to see all the images at a higher resolution within the post itself.

It may not be immediately obvious but this little spate of blog posts are all coming out of my efforts to wrap my head around representations of Monarchy on the Republican Coin Series, a topic I’m attempting to work up for a conference paper submission today.

Gem scholars have long recognized the stylistic connection between Mithridates Tetradrachms and this republican coin type. Cf. Vermeule 1970: 206.

Capture

Crawford proposed Mercury as an other possible identification of the intended deity.  The iconographic parallel is striking but I find myself ambivalent about whether it is just an artistic choice of style or an intended reference to the Pontic king.  It’s part of a complicated series perhaps alluding the the cult of Fortuna at Praeneste and/or other Italic cults.  How it fits into the series as a whole has alluded explanation.

I would just note that with the new dating based on the Messange Hoard of RRC 405 to 58 BC, this potential regal allusion comes in the midst of a spate of such allusions to foreign kings on the reverses of the series:

  • Perseus of Macedon (reverse of RRC 415/1; 62 BC)
  • Aretas of Nabataea (reverse of RRC 422/1; 58 BC)
  • Ptolemy V of Egypt (reverse of RRC 419/2; 58 BC)
  • Bocchus of Mauritania and Jugurtha of Numidia (reverse of RRC 426/1; 56 BC)
  • Bacchius of Judaea (reverse of RRC 431/1; 55 (or 54?) BC)

Spiral Columns? Rusticated Drums?

~ Liv Yarrow ~ 1 Comment

C. Marcius Censorinus, As, Rome, 88 BC, AE (g 11,33"; mm 29; h 8), Jugate heads of Numa Pompilius, bearbed, and Ancus Marcius, not bearbed, r.; on l., NVMA POMPILI; on r., [ANCVS MARCI], Rv. Two ships crossing; behind, spiral column on which statue of Victory; above, C CENSO / ROMA. Crawford 346/4a. Art Coins Roma 8, lot 350.
C. Marcius Censorinus, As, Rome, 88 BC, AE (g 11,33″; mm 29; h 8), Jugate heads of Numa Pompilius, bearbed, and Ancus Marcius, not bearbed, r.; on l., NVMA POMPILI; on r., [ANCVS MARCI], Rv. Two ships crossing; behind, spiral column on which statue of Victory; above, C CENSO / ROMA. Crawford 346/4a. Art Coins Roma 8, lot 350.
I think the form of the column on this bronze issue can be productively used as comparative evidence for how numismatic artists thought to represent monolithic columns.  The importance of the rendering of the shaft can be seen even on less well preserved specimens:

A. Takalec AG Sept 2008, lot 258
A. Takalec AG Sept 2008, lot 258

This is relevant for how we think about the rendering of the column on the early Minucian coins:

ANS sample specimens. Image links to further examples as well as these.
ANS sample specimens of RRC 242/1 and 243/1. Image links to further examples as well as these.

Evans in her 2011 paper originally presented at Glasgow congress emphasizes the uniqueness of the form of this column:

The form of the column itself also requires some comment, owing to its archaic-looking features. I can find no parallel to this type of column shaft in Greek, Etruscan or early Roman sources, nor can I find any early versions of rusticated column drums. (p.659)

She continues with a comparison to the column on the Marsyas coin (RRC 363) saying:

The shaft of the column can be shown as smooth, or fluted in a spiral or, on a small number of dies, with rounded drums with moldings between each drum. If this Marsyas depicts the statue of Marsyas in the Forum (as generally acknowledged), then the column shown is the Columna Maenia, erected in 338 (Plin. NH 34.20). Although the column shaft is not shown in a consistent fashion, when it is shown with rusticated drums, the die engraver may again be
referring to the early date of the column.

I cannot readily identify any specimens in trade or at the ANS or BM collections I would readily describe as rusticated or spiral (with the possible exception of Ghey, Leins & Crawford 2010 363.1.16).  Finally she concludes that:

the shaft of the column injects a note of fantasy to the depiction

I cannot particularly agree, especially in light of the above bronzes.  It seems to me that the articulated column shaft is one banal means of rendering a column on a coin.  The shaft is a red herring in any argument for the historicity of the Minucian monument.

The Diadem on Anti-Autocratic Coin Types

~ Liv Yarrow ~ 2 Comments

This seems to be the earliest coin (c.53BCE, RRC 435/1) in which the symbols of Hellenistic kingship, the diadem and the scepter, are used in such a way as to suggest their rejection in favor of the traditional symbols of Roman power in this case the curule chair.  For this coin, the context is the threat of Pompey assuming sole control of the Roman state.

We see a similar iconographic strategy on a coin of Brutus after the murder of Julius Caesar (RRC 507/2):

The question in my mind is should a similar interpretation also apply to this type (RRC 505/3):

Today the type is invariably photographed with the orientation shown above, but Crawford had his plates printed at the 90 degree rotation of the reverse:

1275129

Crawford is silent on the symbolism of diadem saying only: “Part of one issue of Cassius records his capture of Rhodes after a battle at Myndus, opposite the island of Cos; the rose of Rhodes and crab of Cos both figure, together with an aplustre as a symbol of victory” (p. 741).  I must say, the aplustre doesn’t seem very victorious to me as it is clutched in the claws of the crab.  Or perhaps its just Cos offering the naval victory to Cassius…

I also think I prefer symbolically the crab and aplustre read as over and above the more diminished Rhodian rose and the diadem, just as the curule chair symbolically sits over the diadem and sceptre in the first type above.

The Cassius coin is often connected to this quote from Plutarch’s Life of Brutus 30:

“Cassius, having taken Rhodes, behaved himself there with no clemency; though at his first entry, when some had called him lord and king, he answered that he was neither king nor lord, but the destroyer and punisher of a king and lord.”

I’m not sure this is specifically the allusion the die engraver was aiming at but it is certainly a reflection of the same rhetorical impulse.

1/17/16: on Crabs on coins:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/750132

12/1/25:

Images replaced, citations corrected, broken links fixed.

Cicero Imperator

~ Liv Yarrow ~ 1 Comment

obverse
Silver cistophorus, Laodiceia ad Lycum. ANS 1967.144.1. Stumpf 92.a. (?Ex Leu and M&M 3 Dec 1965, lot 419?)

https://i0.wp.com/numismatics.org/collectionimages/19501999/1967/1967.144.1.rev.noscale.jpg

Reading a PhD dissertation draft on Asia Minor and came across a reference to this coin type and others issued in the name of Cicero during his time as governor in the province of Cilicia (51/0 BC).

Other known specimens include:

M TVLLIVS M F CICIIRON (sic) PROCOS above (STUMPF 91): Berlin 35/1909 = Hirsch 21, 16 Nov. 1908, 3550; M – TVLLIVS  / IMP above (STUMPF 92-93, PINDER 201): Paris 2726; Athens = Hierapytna hoard; Berlin (Löbbecke); Berlin 453/1891; ANS 1967.144.1 = Leu and Münzen und Medaillen; 3 Dec. 1965 (Niggeler), 419 (but TVLLIV / IMP)

[I disagree with the reading of the ANS specimen.  I think a small badly formed S is visible after the V.]

Anyway, I’m throwing it up here because these cistophori don’t get enough press in the average undergraduate or graduate classroom when Cicero’s governorship is discussed.

For more on this chapter in Cicero’s career the thing to read is:

Magnus Wistrand: Cicero Imperator. Studies in Cicero’s correspondence 51–47 BC. (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, XLI.) Pp. viii + 230. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1979. Paper.

To read about how Cicero became Imperator in his own words click here.

Reading time is short for this draft so I must crack on.  More later.  We sure want to connect this caduceus with our early discussions of its symbolism…Not to mention IMP as a coin legend.

keyword: Tullius

Laurel Branches vs Olive Branches

~ Liv Yarrow ~ Leave a comment
Obverse of RRC 494/24. 0000.999.3394
Obverse of RRC 494/24. ANS 0000.999.3394

I really shouldn’t open a coin database on a day I need to prep teaching, its far too distracting.  I’m keeping this post shortish just so I have a note of the issue.

We’ve talked else where about the symbolism of the caduceus and its association with peace.  Given that, when I first saw this coin my impression was that branch behind Caesar’s head was an olive branch, but it’s labelled by Crawford a laurel branch.  So after a bit of poking around I’m fairly convinced that republican engravers were quite sloppy about the difference between these two species in their numismatic representations.  So for instance it’s mostly context that let’s us say these are olive branches not laurel branches, i.e. representations of peace (supplication!?), not victory.

In trade
In trade

As an aside the Macedonian type is a great example supporting Clare Rowan’s thesis that Roman images of power were often created in the provinces (cf also the numismatic portrayals of the supplications of Bocchus and Aretas).

Similarly laurel branches are identified as such based on context:

In trade

In trade

So with comparative iconography really struggling to offer any help, how do we resolve the type of species and its symbolism on the Caesar coin?  We could rely on a semantic bleeding over from the caduceus.  Or we could use a bit of deductive reasoning.  Laurels connoting victory are usually laurel wreaths not branches.  Laurel branches are more often associated with the cult of Apollo and as there is no good reason to bring the cult of Apollo in the mean being the Caesar coin, we might conclude that an olive branch is more likely…

Update 1/17/16:

Both Laurel and Olive Branches are attested in ancient cases of Supplication:

Naiden, Ancient Supplication (OUP 2006) :

Capture

Capture

Added 1/19/16:

Pliny NH 15.40: The laurel itself is a bringer of peace, inasmuch as to hold out a branch of it even between enemy armies is a token of a cessation of hostilities. With the Romans especially it is used as a harbinger of rejoicing and of victory, accompanying despatches and decorating the spears and javelins of the soldiery and adorning the generals’ rods of office. From this tree a branch is deposited in the lap of Jupiter the All-good and All-great whenever a fresh victory has brought rejoicing, and this is not because the laurel is continually green, nor yet because it is an emblem of peace, as the olive is to be preferred to it in both respects, but because it flourishes in the greatest beauty on Mount Parnassus and consequently is thought to be also dear to Apollo, to whose shrine even the kings of Rome at that early date were in the custom of sending gifts and asking for oracles in return, as is evidenced by the case of Brutus…

 

Measuring Sticks, Decempeda, Pertica etc…

~ Liv Yarrow ~ 1 Comment
RRC 78/1

A while back when I first looked at this type I asked a colleague who works on science and technology in the ancient world and their representations in literature what he thought about Crawford’s suggestion that this “staff” is actually a measuring tool, specifically the decempeda.   He wrote back that he thought it a plausible identification and added:

“It doesn’t have ten divisions, but I don’t think that matters; it’s clearly some kind of ruler. Also called ‘pertica’: see Propertius 4.1.127-130 for association with land confiscation. And ps.-Vergil Dirae (‘Curses’) line 45.”   The key line reads:

nam tua cum multi uersarent rura iuuenci,
    abstulit excultas pertica tristis opes.

Even though many bullocks ploughed your fields, the merciless measuring-rod stole your wealth of land.

What the literary tradition suggests is a generally negative connotation of symbol.  An emphasis on the confiscation aspects of its application.  Could this really be a numismatic symbol?  Is it just a staff?  I’ve been a bit ambivalent, until today.

I was skimming for a good Caesar coin or two in the ANS database for my next class and came across this beauty.  Outside the time frame of my book project, but still very interesting indeed.

Here we have a young Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (quaestor designate!) trading on the reputation of his famous name by aligning himself with contemporary land distributions, particularly to Caesar’s veterans.  Notice the Legionary standards set right next to a plow and our measuring stick.

The flip side of confiscations is always distributions.  The power of the measuring stick as political symbol is its appeal to those to benefit from the rearrangement of property holdings.  Its power as a literary device is just the opposite.

What resonance would the symbol have in Sicily c. 209-208 BCE?  The Romans certainly engaged in some territorial redistributions on the island as rewards to their allies.  I do not want to say RRC 78 refers to any one such confiscation and allocation, but as an illustrative example, I provide a passage from Livy (26.21) that will be quite familiar to numismatists already:

Not the least conspicuous feature of the spectacle was the sight of Sosis the Syracusan and Moericus the Spaniard who marched in front wearing golden crowns. The former had guided the nocturnal entry into Syracuse, the latter had been the agent in the surrender of Nasos and its garrison. Each of these men received the full Roman citizenship and 500 jugera of land. Sosis was to take his allotment in that part of the Syracusan territory which had belonged to the king or to those who had taken up arms against Rome, and he was allowed to choose any house in Syracuse which had been the property of those who had been put to death under the laws of war. A further order was made that Moericus and the Spaniards should have assigned to them a city and lands in Sicily out of the possessions of those who had revolted from Rome. M. Cornelius was commissioned to select the city and territory for them, where he thought best, and 400 jugera in the same district were also decreed as a gift to Belligenes through whose instrumentality Moericus had been induced to change sides. After Marcellus’ departure from Sicily a Carthaginian fleet landed a force of 8000 infantry and 3000 Numidian horse. The cities of Murgentia and Ergetium revolted to them, and their example was followed by Hybla and Macella and some other less important places. Muttines and his Numidians were also roaming all through the island and laying waste the fields of Rome’s allies with fire. To add to these troubles the Roman army bitterly resented not being withdrawn from the province with their commander and also not being allowed to winter in the towns. Consequently they were very remiss in their military duties; in fact it was only the absence of a leader that prevented them from breaking out into open mutiny. In spite of these difficulties the praetor M. Cornelius succeeded by remonstrances and reassurances in calming the temper of his men, and then reduced all the revolted cities to submission. In pursuance of the senate’s orders he selected Murgentia [i.e. Morgantina], one of those cities, for the settlement of Moericus and his Spaniards.

Images and links fixed 3-4-26. Nothing else changed.

No More Meaningful Than a Postage Stamp?

~ Liv Yarrow ~ 1 Comment

One can’t seem to give a paper at a conference about coin designs without someone asking, if they’re really any more meaningful than a modern postage stamp [usually in a really special tone of voice].  Because of this ever present question and the resulting need to justify oneself, an apologetic reference to the metaphor is found in most modern books on ancient coin types (examples here and here and here).

The old trope comes from a 1950s debate between Jones and Sutherland.  Jones in Essays Mattingly 1956 and Sutherland’s rebuttal in the widely read 1959 JRS article.  [The latter some kind soul has put up on the web.]

Here’s the thing that gets me.  Who are coin geeks to disparage stamps?!?!  You’ve got to be kidding me that academics and enthusiasts alike can’t see the problem with this analogy as a negative analogy.  There is good, fascinating work out there about the importance of stamp imagery as a vehicle for studying national identity, social norms, cultural trends over time…  Why aren’t we reading this work?

Here’s a good place to start:

Posting Nationalism: Postage Stamps as Carriers of Nationalist Messages by 
Here’s a case study I find really interesting.
The next time someone brings up postage stamps, I’m going to congratulate them on their great positive analogy showing the power of studying coin imagery.
[And if you’ve said this to me or in my hearing in the last two weeks, don’t worry I’m not actually insulted, I just like a good rant. ;-)]
Bye-the-bye.  Just to prove there is an enthusiast for everything here’s a great website that specializes just in images of coins on stamps!

 

Infantilization of the Colonial Other

~ Liv Yarrow ~ 1 Comment

Speaking today at the Warwick Coin Day, “Currencies between Cultures”. Here are two slides cut from the presentation and their accompanying script.

infantilization1

“One of the most common visual metaphors of American and European imperialism is the infantilization of the colonial Other.  We’ve already met it today in Lewis’ speech to the Sioux about the symbolism of the medallions. We’re most familiar with the image from various comic renderings of the ‘White Man’s Burden’. Notice themes of feeding, teaching, and nurturing.  And, in fact, in Kipling’s 1899 poem about America joining the ranks of the imperial powers through the take over of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War the last stanza ends with the characterization of the colonial subjects as half devil and half child.  At first glance, this is not a particularly classical conception of empire, even if a classical personification of liberty does show up occasionally.   …

infantilization2

…However in its more romanticized version we can easily see how Roman models are once more adapted to meet the ideological needs of Colonial Europe. Beyond the obvious visual parallels and basic elements such as hierarchy of scale, also notice parallels in language in the legends. We have Gallia Tutrix in the upper left hand picture and in the middle right Lepidus the Tutor of the king, tutor meaning guardian in Latin.  The middle left image from Augustus’ ara pacis is probably not a personification of Empire but rather of the earth and harmonious bounty she can produce under the Roman peace.  However that peace conceptualized as a gift of empire and the later European adaptations simply take out a conceptual layer by making the female figure the personification of the imperial power in her own right.  And of course we have our now very familiar our palm trees and huts and rays of light.  This idea of motherhood rather than fatherhood as a metaphor for the colonial relationship is of course not restricted to medallic art. This is a postcard making a joke about the popularity of the French 1931 colonial exposition, what has been called by some commentators a human zoo. And This is an Onion article lambasting today’s voluntourism and its propagation of colonialist values from this past January.”

P on Roman Voting Tablets

~ Liv Yarrow ~ Leave a comment

Image

Image

Image

It is a remarkable coincidence that all of these types, RRC 292, RRC 335, and RRC 384, all made by different moneyers from different families each represent a voting ballot* with the letter P. I find it hard to accept that in each case the P stands for a tribe.  Why would they all select the same tribe or initial if it is indeed generic?  Compare the voting tablets market V for V[ti Rogas], RRC 413 and also as a controlmark for Piso Frugi (obv. 33, Crawford 1974: table XLII), or the A[bsolvo ] C[ondemno] of RRC 428.  I think the P needs a bit more investigation.

* – On the Nerva coin the P on the tablet is more commonly understood as a placard identifying the unit presently voting at the polling station.

A better example of the Papius control mark in question:

Capture1.JPG

I’ve been using Tom Elliott’s list of latin epigraphic abbreviations to think through this P.

Maybe… Praesens or something similar?!

OR just PRO as in for or on behalf of as in the titles of speeches!  That, I might just believe…

___

P(accio), p(ace), p(aeses), p(agani), p(agi), p(agina), P(alaestinae), P(alatina), p(alma), p(almarum), P(almyrenorum), P(annonia), P(annoniae), P(annonicae), P(annoniorum), P(aphlagonum), P(apiria), p(arentes), p(arenti), p(arentibus), P(aria), p(arte), P(arthica), P(arthicae), p(artis), p(assum), p(assus), p(assuum), p(ater), p(ater), p(aterna), P(aternae), P(aternam), p(aternis), p(atinam), p(atre), p(atre, p(atres), p(atri), p(atriae), p(atriae, p(atribus), P(atriciae), p(atrimoni), p(atrimonii), p(atrio), p(atris), p(atroni), p(atrono), p(atronus), p(atrum), p(ax), p(ecunia), p(ecunia, p(ecuniae), p(ecuniam), P(edes), p(edes, p(edibus), P(edites), p(editum), p(edum), p(er), p(eregrinorum), p(erfectissimi), p(erfectissimo), p(erfectissimum), p(erfectissimus), p(erfetissimum), p(ericulo), p(eriit), p(erpetua), p(erpetui), p(erpetuis), p(erpetuo), p(erpetuus), P(ertinaci), p(ertinebit), p(ertinet), p(es), P(estiensia), P(etronius), P(huensium), P(i), P(ia, P(ia), p(iaculum), p(iae), p(iae, p(iam), p(ie), p(ientissima), p(ientissimae), p(ientissimi), p(ientissimis), p(ientissimo), p(ientissimus), p(ietate), p(ietatem), p(ietatis), P(ii), P(iis), p(iissima), p(iissimae), p(iissimis), p(iissimo), p(ili), p(ilo), p(ilus), P(io), P(io, p(iperis), p(istorum), p(ituitae), P(ium), p(ius), p(lacerent), p(laceret), p(lano), p(lebis), p(lus), p(lus, P(oetovionensium), P(olybium), P(ompei), P(ompeia), P(ompeio), P(ompeius), p(ondera), p(onderata), p(onderatum), p(ondere), p(ondo), p(ondos), p(ondus), p(onendam), p(onendum), p(oni), p(ontes), p(onti(fex), P(onti), p(ontifex), p(ontifice), p(ontificem), p(ontifices), p(ontifici), p(ontificis), p(ontis), P(ontius), P(opidium), p(opuli), p(opuli, p(opulique), p(opulo), p(opulum), p(opulus), P(orolissensis), P(orolissensium), p(ortori), p(ortorii), p(ortus), p(ortuum), p(osita), p(ositi), p(ositum), p(ositus), p(ossederunt), p(ossessionem), p(ossint), p(ossit), p(ost), p(osterique), p(osterisque), p(ostulante), p(osuerunt), p(osui), p(osuit), p(osuit), p(osuuerunt), p(ot(estate), P(otaissa), P(otaissensis), p(otestate), p(otestate), p(otestatis), p(raecepto), P(raedia), p(raediis), p(raedio), p(raedis), p(raeerit), p(raeerunt), p(raeest), p(raefecti), p(raefecto), p(raefectorum), p(raefecturam), p(raefectus), p(raeposito), p(raepositus), p(raeses), p(raeside), p(raesidi), p(raesidis), p(raestare), p(raesunt), p(raeteriens), p(raetor), p(raetore), p(raetoria), p(raetoriae), p(raetorio), p(raetura), P(rastina), p(ria), p(ridie), P(rima), p(rimae), p(rimi), p(rimigenia), P(rimigeniae), p(rimigeniae, p(rimno), p(rimo), p(rimus), p(rinceps), p(rincipe), p(rincipi), p(rincipibus), p(rincipis), p(riores), P(risci), p(rivata), p(rivatae), p(ro), p(robaverunt), p(robavit), p(robe), p(roconsul), p(roconsuli), p(rocurandis), p(rocurator), p(rocuratori), p(rocuratoris), p(romiserunt), p(romotionem), p(ronepos), p(ropio), p(ropria), p(roprio), P(ropter), p(rosedente), p(rovincia), p(rovinciae), p(rovinciarum), p(roximae), p(roximi), P(soricum), P(ubli), P(ublia), P(ublias), p(ublica), p(ublicae), p(ublicam), P(ublicani), p(ublicarum), p(ublice), p(ublici), p(ublicis), p(ublico), p(ublicorum), p(ublicos), p(ublicum), p(ublicus), P(ublii), P(ublio), P(ublio), P(ublio, P(ublium), P(ublius), P(ublius, p(uella), p(uellae), p(uellam), p(uer), p(ueri), p(uero), p(ugnabunt), P(ulli), p(urus), P(usinnus), P(ylis)