This text was cut from my recent RBN article. It provides a narrative imagining how and why we see a revival of the semuncia at the end of 2nd Cent BCE.
A speculative reconstruction
If I were to create a plausible sequence of events to explain this pattern, it would look something like this. This version is not fact, but rather serves as reasonable narrative to connect our known points of commonality.
In 105 BCE Saturninus was already politically ambitious and was starting to campaign for his first step on the cursus honorum, the quaestorship. He uses his moneyership to make a distinctive coinage that would stand out in the hand of any individual: ‘hey this coin has two heads?!’ ‘wait, this one has two tails!’[1] He also revives the uncia, but he may have left off the ROMA legend. He looks all the way back to Metellus’ issue [256/5] of the late 130s for design template distinguishing his own issue from those created more recently in the 110s. As we saw above Metellus’ reverse design echoed design choices known from Roman-Sicilian bronzes. Perhaps Saturninus used his time in the Roman mint to create a a series of uncia for his own private use. Perhaps to be passed out to potential voters as he campaigned, a coin that was unofficially official and useful, but too small to be a bribe exactly.
The next year Balbus, Tubulus, and Herennius take office. Balbus is a convivial man from Lanuvium, perhaps pressured by family to make a name for himself at Rome even as is own inclinations are otherwise.[2] Herennius is beginning to be known for his oratory and has ambitions beyond his equestrian rank. Marius’ career gives him hope at what might be possible. Perhaps Marius’ rise also inspired Balbus or those pushing him toward politics at Rome. Tubulus has a noble, if ancient and nearly useless, pedigree and yet here he was starting on a public career. His grandfather (or great grandfather) had made a name for himself extorting bribes from litigants as a judge in his praetorship (142 BCE) and when prosecuted went into exile and finally took poison to end his life. Tubulus had been fed on a diet, though, of the accomplishments of his grandfather’s grandfather a hero of the Second Punic War, a time when his family had been true heroes.
This college knew Saturninus has made hay out of his moneyership, landing the quaestorship and was now butting heads with the leaders of the Senate for his ‘unusual’ manner of controlling the trafficking of grain upriver from Ostia to the docks at Rome. A highly visible post that was setting him up well for his political future. Why not follow suit and get creative?
Tubulus takes inspiration from a much older coins he has found, perhaps they were stored in his family tablinum said to have been struck by an ancestor, or perhaps the mint archives (tabularium) preserved examples of older coin types.[3] He liked that it had Diana on it as his C. Tubulus has been stationed at Capua during the Second Punic War. Regardless, he likes that it was old and thus properly traditional regardless of whether it was truly connected to the family history. Tubulus wanting to emphasize his traditionalism copied the obverse of the old coin nearly exactly even the backward sigma.[4] He encourage Balbus and Herennius to follow suit.
Herennius was game and also struck a semuncia and likewise used Diana, but he wasn’t convinced that that backwards sigma was correct and he wasn’t going to copy bad Greek onto his coin. Maybe he had seen small coins from Campania (around Minturniae) that had used cornucopiae on the reverse?[5] He did, however like, the idea of minting uncia in large enough numbers to be useful: with all the ugly small change floating around how could it be a bad idea to make something more legitimate and official.
Thorius had made the family happy by putting Sospita on the coinage, why not please his fellow moneyers too by following suit? He could mark his out but still echo their work. He wasn’t convinced that the backwards sigma was a mistake but rather some other ancient symbol marking the denomination. He had the engraver redraw what he ‘saw’ on the old coin and place it explicitly as a denomination mark on both obverse and reverse. For the obverse he decided to echo rather than emulate his fellow moneyers. If they used Diana why not use an aspect of Apollo and add Veovis’ oak crown?[6] This has some precidence if in a different aspect Apollo on the uncia of Curtius, Silanus, and Domitius. Regardless the oak would nicely echo the oak of the reverse.
Is this picture true? Perhaps in part, but like so much of ancient history it is speculation. Numismatists tend to prefer knowable truths.
[1] Stannard 1987.
[2] See above discussion of Epicurean leanings.
[3] Cf. consistent design elements across multiple generations of families, e.g. RRC 149 and RRC 362.
[4] The backward sigma like shape appears on both RRC 160/5 and also the new semuncia of the RRC 216 series, cf. Campana 2023.
[5] Stannard 2018 and Stannard and Carbone 2018.
[6] Cf. RRC 298/1 and 304/1 for precedence.
Liv Mariah Yarrow 