I just came across Arthur Wylene’s sensible views on Saturn on the coinage of Caepio Piso (RRC 330/1) as a reclaiming of the god from its association with Saturninus. I’ve not previously bumped into his short notes on Roman republican topics, but will certainly be reading more. If you enjoy this blog you may also enjoy his notes.

292/4 was I believe subject to imitation in antiquity (hence the greater number of specimens).

These three heavy-weight die-linked specimens I believe to be the product of the Roman mint. Notice the small neck and fine features, both common at the Roman mint at this time.

Here’s a selection of light weight crudely carved specimens without known die links:

I thank both Schaefer and McCabe for discussing 339/4 with me and thus getting me thinking about weights and imitations.

I remember someone telling me about a numismatist who only collected photos to assemble a dream collection of the absolute best coins for illustrating a type. Perhaps you can remind me. If I were to build a dream collection this photo would be a good contender to illustrate RRC 232/1 (138 BCE, date confirmed by Molinari 2016):

I’m writing up my notes-thoughts on RRC 290/6 for the paper on small change for the RBW conference next week. I just wrote this sentence:

The unciae looks like the type was designed to be used on a denarius that was never struck.

As I stare at the two known specimens I wonder if I see traces of the uncia denomination mark having been carved out of what was meant to be an X behind the head. Or maybe its just confirmation bias…

The third known specimen is no use as this portion of the die is off flan.

This specimen of RRC 290/2 now in the Andrew McCabe collection (London) has something funny above the M on the reverse. What’s going on? I don’t see anything like on any of the other known specimens. Although I feel sure I’ve noted before on this blog or twitter the funny A like scrape on the obverse dies of this lovely Paris specimen.

(images from trade)

The curved back means their based on an African elephant at least originally.

So all the ELP and LPDAP issues are listed as c. 91-90 BCE by Crawford. Mattingly concurs about would put them all in 90 BCE.

No numismatist I know of has had a problem with this date, It didn’t cross my mind as even a question until moments ago when I decided to try to figure out which Papirius it was who was responsible for this law. Crawford knew Broughton’s dating but doesn’t directly address the issue.

What does Broughton say? He thinks the law goes in 89 BCE and to C. Papirius (34) (Cn. f.) Carbo.

Crawford would attribute it to this guy’s brother Gnaeus, Tribune of 92 or 91. The was the same Carbo that was consul three times and thus obviously was a major Marian/Cinnan partisan: 85, 84, 82. This brother ends up proscribed by Sulla and executed by Pompey. By contrast the Tribune of 89 was a Sullan partisan likely holding the praetorship in 81 BCE under the dictatorship and in 80 his own troops mutinied against him and he died.

So was it the Marian or the Sullan brother who brought this legislation. Crawford puts weight on the fact that the reduction in the bronze was a ‘cost saving’ measure in the face of the Social War. They didn’t NEED to strike bronze at all (esp. in a lot of little denominations), so why even bother if one is trying to cut costs. The ELP sestertii now those seems like they might be useful in a crisis, I guess, kinda, no I don’t buy that all…. Too few to actually be part of any real economic strategy or plan. BUT The denarii of the series that made ELP types, Silanus and Piso, are huge, absolutely part of a war effort and Social war makes the most sense.

So the Marian soon to be Cinnan is our guy. Just as Crawford said, but maybe not precisely for the reasons he says. But I need to go pull the Numismatic Chronicle 1964 article to see the details. More after that.

I’m guessing I’m not the only one to flip to p. 606-607 in volume 2 and feel a little frustrated that the list of names has no RRC numbers, isn’t in RRC order, and has no dates. This stuff happens. I was looking to annotate my physical copy but it turns out I’d already at some earlier date annotated my scan a bit and that need fleshing out.

Some stray thoughts on this annotation

Cetegus is only known from two coins, Laterensis from one. They muddy the big picture.

I think given that Sergius and Torquatus are quaestors; We should probably consider whether the Q on the issue of Ti. [mouse/rat] (RRC 297) means that that too is a quaestor issue. I think the DSS must be correlated with these abbreviations esp. given its appearance on coins of C. Cassius and L. Salinator.

It is also esp. noteworthy how little SC (etc.) is used before the Cinnan regime and mostly then by quaestors. Then it seems adopted from the Cinnan regime by the Sullan allies. The function of its use in the 70s is messy and deserves better investigation. It then is correlated from 69 onwards with Aedilician issues (an other innovation of the Cinnan regime continued). There is the flurry of SC issues with Pompeian imagery (venus victrix etc) in the mid 50s. And then we slide into civil war. I find myself starting to think SC issues are more exceptional/crisis moments than I thought before. The only place its hard to see whats going on with reference to historical circumstances are the 70s but the 70s are always a little bit of a black hole because Cicero isn’t in full swing and Sallust’s histories are lost…

Hmm… I’ve strayed from my writing goals but still learned a good deal.