323 out of 410 days: A Slight Rotation

~ Liv Yarrow ~ Leave a comment
The JD collection of Roman Republican Coins part II – session II; A. Licinius Nerva. Denarius 47, AR 3.88 Babelon Licinia 24. Sydenham 954a. Sear Imperators 30. Crawford 454/1.

This beautiful specimen has been photographed just like most specimens are.  This orientation of the reverse is necessary to have it match Crawford’s description, ‘Horseman galloping, r., with r. hand dragging naked warrior, who holds shield in l. hand and sword in r. hand.”  The difficulty with the photography and this description is that it ignores the ground line.  Here’s the same image slightly rotated.

Image

The warrior is kneeling.  He may be wearing pants.  He’s clearly a ‘long haired barbarian’.  The horse is rearing.   And, the most likely interpretation of the scene is that the barbarian is stabbing the horse.   If you remember from a couple of posts ago, having two horses cut out from under him (and living to fight on) was part of the heroic career of Sergius.  Facing horse stabbing enemies is part of the motif of the brave Roman warrior.   And, it shows up in artistic representations left right and center.   I don’t have to collect the information because one military historian, Prof. Michael P. Speidel (University of Hawaii – nice work if you can get it!), has collected a whole chapter’s worth of examples.  I kid you not, chapter 17 of his book, Ancient Germanic Warriors (Routledge 2004) is called ‘Horse Stabbers’.   While his presentation of the evidence is strictly non-chronological and I don’t always agree with his interpretation of the evidence, he cites all his primary sources and does a fine job of making clear that Romans (and the Greeks) thought a horse stabber was a very scary thing indeed.

Does this help with answering which heroic ancestor this was?  Not particularly.  But Brennan, Praetorship (2000) 228, 246, esp. n. 38 and 39 on p. 344, relies on  Obsequens 22 and Frontinus Str. 2.5.28 to suggest that Licinius Nerva the Macedonian Praetor of c. 142 (Liv. Per. 53, Var. R. 2.4.1-2 and Eutrop. 4.15) was engaged in difficult combat with the Scordisi and perhaps the Iapydes on the Northern frontier of his province.

319 out of 410 days: A Misguided Celebration of Archaeology

~ Liv Yarrow ~ Leave a comment

Image

Yenikapi is Istanbul’s major new transportation interchange center.  It links the Marmaray (the new train under the Bosporus) with two of the city’s existing subway lines and has easy foot transfers to the ferry ports and tram and bus systems.  It’s fabulous.  It could teach NYC not just a thing or two, but dozens upon dozens of things.  It also happens to be on the site of the Theodosian harbor.   You can still look down into the massive open air pit filled with hundreds of crates of finds, bones, amphora, and the detritus of everyday life.  And some awesome exposed piers with reused marble facing.  It should be on every history and transport buff’s must see list for Istanbul.

The artistic displays in the station are meant to celebrate the layers of history exposed by the building of the station.  Mostly this is very successful.  However, the display pictured above makes me mad.  Not for the loose interpretation of stratigraphy or historical inaccuracies.  It’s art.  It’s an impression.  It doesn’t have to be true in a scholarly sense, to be true the spirit of the thing.  A transportation hub isn’t a museum.  [Although they do that pretty well in some places in Rome…]

What infuriates me is the sprinkling of fake gold coins throughout the model to make is glittery and appealing.

Treasure hunting is a huge problem in Turkey, not unlike many countries.  I’m not talking about the professional looting of antiquities.  That’s a problem but it’s an organized crime executed by people who know exactly what they are doing.   By contrast, treasure hunting comes from a lack of public education about the value of archaeology for its own sake.  There are no gold coins hidden under the pictures of birds in the Roman mosaics.   Smashing necropolis with sledgehammers or bulldozing Hellenistic foundations will not lead to a pot of gold.

Turkey’s museums are doing an awesome job educating visitors about problems with both looting and treasure hunting.   But, the average Turk who might think about treasure hunting is not the target audience of those museums. The display at Yenikapi will be seen by millions upon millions of Turks and foreign visitors.  The impression it gives is one that gold coins are the bread and butter of archaeology at all levels and all civilizations.  This can only but feed the imagination of the misinformed.

We need to do a better job educating the general public about the historical, cultural, and social value of archaeological finds, not as treasure but as time capsules that can open up a whole new world of knowledge.   Knowledge we can all partake in.  Discovers that cause awe and wonder.  Insights that will enrich our lives.

This display does not help.

Sergius, The Disabled Veteran

~ Liv Yarrow ~ 3 Comments

Update 10-13-25: In my 2021 Book, see page 54 and 100-102 on this topic. There are also a variety of other later posts on this coin type on this blog.

RRC 286/1. ANS 1941.131.92.

Really some of Pliny’s best writing in the Natural History:

But, although these cases exhibit great achievements of valour, yet they involve still greater achievements of fortune; whereas nobody, in my judgement at all events, can rightly rank any human being above Marcus Sergius, albeit his great-grandson Catiline diminishes the credit of his name. Sergius in his second campaign lost his right hand; in two campaigns he was wounded twenty-three times, with the result that he was crippled in both hands and both feet, only his spirit being intact; yet although disabled, he served in numerous subsequent campaigns. He was twice taken prisoner by Hannibal (for it was with no ordinary foe that he was engaged), and twice escaped from Hannibal’s fetters, although he was kept in chains or shackles on every single day for twenty months. He fought four times with only his left hand, having two horses he was riding stabbed under him. He had a right hand of iron made for him and going into action with it tied to his arm, raised the siege of Cremona, saved Piacenza, captured twelve enemy camps in Gaul: all of which exploits are testified by his speech delivered during his praetorship when his colleagues wanted to debar him from the sacrifices as infirm—a man who with a different foe would have accumulated what piles of wreaths! inasmuch as it makes the greatest difference with what period of history a particular man’s valour happens to coincide. What civic wreaths were bestowed by Trebbia or Ticino or Trasimeno? what crown was won at Cannae, where successful flight was valour’s highest exploit? All other victors truly have conquered men, but Sergius vanquished fortune also.

Just reminded me of conversations about how Veterans are treated depending on the public’s perception of the war in question.  WWII vets as the greatest generation vs. Vietnam vets fighting for POWs to be remembered.  The stigma of PTSD for the soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

At least Sergius got a coin in the end.  Notice he holds his sword in his left hand.  (As well as the decapitated head.)

Shame about his great grandson.

Update 2/7/2018:

VAN LOMMEL, K. Heroes and outcasts : ambiguous attitudes towards impaired and disfigured Roman veterans. The Classical world. 109, (1)1, 91-117, ISSN: 00098418.

317 out of 410 days: Private Commerce at the start of the Hannibalic War

~ Liv Yarrow ~ Leave a comment

 He further embittered the senate against him by his support of C. Claudius; he alone of all the members was in favour of the measure which that tribune introduced. Under its provisions no senator, no one whose father had been a senator, was allowed to possess a vessel of more than 300 amphorae burden. This was considered quite large enough for the conveyance of produce from their estates, all profit made by trading was regarded as dishonourable for the patricians. The question excited the keenest opposition and brought Flaminius into the worst possible odium with the nobility through his support of it, but on the other hand made him a popular favourite and procured for him his second consulship.  (Livy 21.63.3-4)

This passage not incorrectly gets cited widely as evidence about restrictions on Senators engaging in commerce (exempli gratia).  Nothing wrong with that.  The same chapter of Livy gets discussed most often for the narrative tradition that blames Flaminius for the disaster at Lake Trasimene in the Hannibalic War.  Flaminius brings down divine wrath by not following proper religious procedures in his second consulship, because he’s afraid the nobles angered by his restriction of their potential financial gain will block his leaving for his province by claiming bad auspices.  Thus, he sneaks out to his province as a privatus.   So, by extension the disaster at Trasimene is all a result of a consul supporting popular legislation.  Moral of the story: a factious nobility is a threat to the well-being of the state.  Not a bad Augustan age moral really.

But here’s my question.  Why, oh why, did some tribute or the electorate in general care a rat’s ass about senators engaging in commerce? What the heck made this legislation ‘popular’ in any sense? Why at this moment in time?  The Gauls had been quieted.  The Adriatic shipping ways were strongly in Roman control.  Sicily and Sardinia had standing governors.  The Romans still probably thought at this moment that imminent war with Carthage and the Barcids would be fought in Spain and Africa.  Is this Livy’s interpretation of a list of legislation, elections, and events?  Or someone else’s?  Perhaps restrictions on senatorial commerce could be seen as popular with the equites if there is any grounds for understanding them as a merchant class at this point in time, but I’m not sure I’m comfortable with that reading.

[I got here as I was ruminating on the state of finances at Rome during the early years of the Hannibalic War.]

314 out of 410 days: Descriptive Legends

~ Liv Yarrow ~ Leave a comment

obverse
RRC 316/1. ANS 1937.158.34 Obverse: I·S·M·R – Head of Juno Sospita right, wearing goat-skin. Border of dots.

I was thinking about the use of legends on the republican series to label or describe the images.  The above type is a nice example of the use of abbreviation to do so.  We can resolve it based on longer inscriptions in other contexts.

Image
CIL I2 1430 cf. I2 p. 987 = XIII 1030* = XIV 2090 = ILS 3097 = ILLRP 170 = Suppl. It. – Latium vetus 1, 72

I wanted to think about the phenomenon over time and by type of usage.  So I created a little color coded chart.  No promises I didn’t miss a few or mis-transcribe a couple, I didn’t want to give this too much time.

Capture

My groupings are pretty subjective, pink for hard to recognize gods, peach for divine qualities/virtues — aren’t those two pretty much the same thing?  Green for Kings, but then I threw in Faustulus because where else would he belong in these categories?  Blue for the accomplishments of individuals.  This can be hard to separate from the moneyer’s name and titular.   A slightly darker blue for military accomplishments and a slightly lighter blue for religious acts.  Purple is for buildings and monuments, but not statues.  Mud is for personifications of place.  I’ve left uncolored others that are not readily paralleled elsewhere in the series.

I’d say 63 BC onwards is the real ramp up in this coin epigraphy if we can call it that.  The trend is towards longer more complete legends, rather than just ‘helpful hints’.  It’s still a long way from the Imperial habit of labeling most reverse types.

[Of course, I’m also ignoring the question of when ROMA is labeling the goddess and when its indicating the minting authority. And, yes, I just gave up transcribing at 431/1.  I’ll save the file and come back to it later, if it should prove useful.]

Update 1/11/16: The Φ on RRC 293/1 should have been on the above chart!

313 out of 410 days: Janiform Heads

~ Liv Yarrow ~ Leave a comment

Image result for culsans

I’m worrying about the janiform heads on the quadrigati and prow bronzes today and how they might relate to each other and Roman cult practices.  This is bringing me back to a number of different posts on related subjects and has led me to some other goodies as well.

First, the three earlier posts to catch you up on my thinking:

145 out of 410 days: Argos Panoptes?

237 out of 410: Similar Images, Different Interpretations?

Dei Penates Publici and the Dioscuri

Here’s Meadows succinct footnote in his Mars Eagle essay on scholarly views:

Image

[More recently there is W. Hollstein’s ‘Ovids « Fasti » und das « aes grave » mit der Prora’ in Noctes Sinenses ; Festschrift fur Fritz-Heiner Mutschier zum 65. (2011), 59-67.  I’m not convinced by the idea of the types as references to 241 BC, but he raises many interesting observations.]

[Image lost]

“Head terracotta two-faced deity, from Vulci. III-II century. B.C. Vulci Archaeological Museum. The head comes from a rich votive deposit, found at the North Gate of the city, whose materials are stored partly in Rome, in the National Etruscan Museum of Villa Giulia. The image of the god Janus takes the type of the Roman Empire, characterized by thick beard (perhaps influenced by coin types), rather than the Etruscan youth.”  (cf. first image above)

I was leaning towards a ‘Penates as Dioscuri, Dioscuri as Penates’ reading and then I came across the bizzare late passage below.   Over 700 years after the coins.  This is the only know association of Janus with Penates, and yet looking at the coins and the young Etruscan bifrons deity, Culsans, I’m almost tempted to believe Procopius that on some level the identity of Janus was tangled up in Roman minds with that of the Penates…and the Dioscuri… and probably the Lares too.  I’m no scholar of religion.   I’ve no idea how this worked in the experiences of individual Romans, but the iconographic borrowings and overlaps seem clear enough…

Procopius’ Histories (5.25.20):

ὁ δὲ Ἴανος οὗτος πρῶτος μὲν ἦν τῶν ἀρχαίων θεῶν, οὓς δὴ Ῥωμαῖοι γλώσσῃ τῇ σφετέρᾳ Πένατες ἐκάλουν.

At that time some of the Romans attempted secretly to force open the doors of the temple of Janus. This Janus was the first of the ancient gods whom the Romans call in their own tongue “Penates.” And he has his temple in that part of the forum in front of the senate-house which lies a little above the “Tria Fata”; for thus the Romans are accustomed to call the Moirai. And the temple is entirely of bronze and was erected in the form of a square, but it is only large enough to cover the statue of Janus. Now this statue, is of bronze, and not less than five cubits high; in all other respects it resembles a man, but its head has two faces, one of which is turned toward the east and the other toward the west. And there are brazen doors fronting each face, which the Romans in olden times were accustomed to close in time of peace and prosperity, but when they had war they opened them. But when the Romans came to honour, as truly as any others, the teachings of the Christians, they gave up the custom of opening these doors, even when they were at war. During this siege, however, some, I suppose, who had in mind the old belief, attempted secretly to open them, but they did not succeed entirely, and moved the doors only so far that they did not close tightly against one another as formerly.

And just for the record we can’t assume that that statue in the temple of Janus as it is described for us was in anyway an ‘original’ representation of the God:

And then besides, King Numa dedicated the statue of the two-faced Janus; a deity who is worshipped as presiding over both peace and war. The fingers, too, are so formed as to indicate three hundred and sixty-five days,or in other words, the year; thus denoting that he is the god of time and duration. (Pliny NH 34.33)

If the fingers represented the days of year and counted 365 then Pliny and by extension Procopius were looking at a statue created after Caesar’s reform of the calendar presumably from the Augustan restoration of the temple (so Graf in Brill’s New Pauly, s.v. Ianus).

Update 2/15/2016:

From this article.

CaptureCapture1Capture2

 

Oldest Line in the Book

~ Liv Yarrow ~ Leave a comment

History doesn’t repeat itself, but the rhetoric sure does.

Antigonus, when the Spartans were thus reduced, pitying the distress of so famous a city, prohibited his soldiers from plundering it, and granted pardon to all who survived, observing that “he had engaged in war, not with the Spartans, but with Cleomenes, with whose flight all his resentment was terminated; nor would it be less glory to him, if Sparta should be recorded to have been saved by him by whom alone it had been taken.   – Justin 28.4

 

Our only enemy is Saddam and his brutal regime — and that regime is your enemy as well.  – Bush on Iraq War

 

Our enemy is Saddam and his regime, not the Iraqi people. Our forces are friends and liberators of the Iraqi people, not your conquerors.   – Blair on The Iraq War

Literary Topoi and Historical Facts

~ Liv Yarrow ~ Leave a comment

Image
From: Miles, R. (2011). Hannibal and Propaganda. In Dexter Hoyos (Eds.), A Companion to the Punic Wars, (pp. 260-279). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.

This passage above suggests that it is a ‘fact’ that one of Pyrrhus’ advisors made such a comparison. The story is known from Cassius Dio (9.40.27):

The same man, when, upon his retreat, he beheld the army of Laevinus much larger than it had been before, declared that the Roman legions when cut to pieces grew whole again, hydra-fashion. This did not, however, cause him to lose courage, but he in turn arrayed his forces, though he did not join battle.

 

and Plutarch:

It is said, too, that Cineas, while he was on this mission, made it his earnest business at the same time to observe the life and manners of the Romans, and to understand the excellences of their form of government; he also conversed with their best men, and had many things to tell Pyrrhus, among which was the declaration that the senate impressed him as a council of many kings, and that, as for the people, he was afraid it might prove to be a Lernaean hydra for them to fight against, since the consul already had twice as many soldiers collected as those who faced their enemies before, and there were many times as many Romans still who were capable of bearing arms.

Appian pulls these two traditions together:

The Senate made answer to Cineas as Appius advised. They decreed the levying of two new legions for Laevinus, and made proclamation that whoever would volunteer in place of those who had been lost should put their names on the army roll. Cineas, who was still present and saw the multitude hastening to be enrolled, is reported to have said to Pyrrhus on his return: “We are waging war against a hydra.” Others say that not Cineas, but even Pyrrhus himself said this when he saw the new Roman army larger than the former one; for the other consul, Coruncanius, came from Etruria and joined his forces with those of Laevinus.

Appian makes clear that bon mot was not a fixed point in the received tradition.  He knew it from at least two different sources with different variations.  We can’t be sure if Appian’s sources were riffing on Silenus’ motif or faithfully recording an actual piece of rhetoric from the time or if the metaphor is just so pervasive that it provides a nice plausible exclamation in any history.

Heck.  There are dozens upon dozens of popular histories to day that still use the metaphor.  The loose use of the metaphor is found in many earlier Greek works including Plato’s Republic, p426E.

All that said, this Florus passage (going back to a lost bit of Livy?) might be the best evidence that some lost historian made something of the Pyrrhus = Hercules, Rome = Hydra symbolism on a more meaningful level that a simple metaphor.

For Pyrrhus said, “I plainly see that I am sprung of the seed of Hercules, when I see all these heads of foes cut off springing up again from their blood as they sprang from the Lernaean hydra.”

Perhaps tellingly for the attribution to Pyrrhus, Plutarch uses it when discussing the actions of Alexander.

The use of metaphor in relationship to Pyrrhus is not irrelevant to a discussion of Silenus, but I’d hesitate to move it from a conversation about the historiographical tradition and into one about propaganda.

Note also how the hydra in Pyrrhus tradition is not a negative characterization of Rome, not emphasizing her monstrosity or destructive capacity, but instead resilience and depth of martial resources, especially her manpower base.  It’s a complement.

312 out 410 days: Dickenson College Commentaries

~ Liv Yarrow ~ Leave a comment

312 out 410 days: Dickenson College Commentaries

In the Fall semester, when we can hope this adventure in my head continues post-sabbatical, I’m running a graduate seminar on Commentaries.  I want at least one meeting to be on digital commentaries.   So I was just delighted, to find this new project with a really creative and functional interface.  Texts run a wide gamut, but look particularly appropriate for 3rd or 4th semester Latin undergraduates.   Maybe the next time I teach one of those I’ll have to try out an online textbook as it were.  I’m all for open access.

It’s a teaching and language oriented version of something like this site which is more historical in its explication, or the Vergil project which seems aimed at a more advanced student.  But the real leap forward is that DCC is crafting new commentaries specially for the web instead of building interfaces to existing print texts.