The literary sources only have woodpeckers associated with the wolf and twins narrative (Ovid, Fasti 3.37 and 54). One type of woodpecker with a crest was known as Mar’s Woodpecker hence the connection (Pliny NH 11.44). But that doesn’t mean other birds aren’t found in art. More than I want to list here. But just as a taster. Here’s an eagle on a glass paste to which we might compare the Ostian Altar:
And another glass paste with a ‘non-descript’ bird on a grape vine (NOT the ficus Ruminalis then):
This last is a pretty common type of image. Sometimes the grape vine has a bird, sometimes not.
Then there are the other republican coins (RRC 39/3 and 235/1) and that mirror we discussed ages ago that should be brought into the discussion but I’ll leave it there for now. Except for just wondering if this weird BM gem with a mysterious head in the scene might not be Roma’s head, like a reverse scaling of the Roma plus wolf-and-twins motif above:
Update 2/5/2014: The important bibliography on this is
A. Dardenay, Les intailles républicaines figurant la louve romaine: essai d’identification des modèles iconographiques. Pallas 76, 2008, 101-113.
Of course, I had this on file the whole time but didn’t remember the relevance until today….
I used to think I was the only person who might mess up Lanuvium and Lavinium. NOT SO! Apparently Dionysius of Halicarnassus made the same mistake when he told this story:
Why should we assume he’s wrong? Or at least that the attribution of this prophecy is disputed? Whelp. The obverse of the above coin looks like this:
That’s Juno Sospita, the patron goddess of Lanuvium! The moneyer’s family is well known for celebrating their connection to this city on their coins. If there was a statue that looked like the reverse, it probably stood in that forum, not at Lavinium. Add in this tantalizing bit of Horace:
And we can be pretty sure that Lanuvium that claimed the she-wolf and by extension the eagle as prodigies of its foundation.
It’s also a nice example of the wolf as a non-Roman, but still Latin, symbol, one that is morphed into a proto-Roman symbol through its alignment to the Aeneas narrative.
Pity its too late for the book. Thank goodness for this blog as a thought dumping space.
Update: since writingthis post some 5 years ago I’ve continued to work on the problems of the pound. Related posts.
I also recommend Riggsby’s Mosaics of Knowledge (OUP 2019).
My concerns about Duncan-Jones’ potential overconfidence in his knowledge of the exact weight of the Roman pound (322.8 grams) and thus his reading of Pliny’s famous statement about 84 denarii to the pound (Money and Gov. 1994: 214-215; NC 1995: 110), led me to the publication of the above objects. It also made me very sad to have missed this conference.
Anyway, the thing about the big post-Constantinian weight above that seems striking to me is just that its weight, or more accurately its Mass. 1645 g. It’s high. And given things like corrosion we’d generally expect these things to be a little on the light side. It is clearly marked with its standard: 5 pounds. That makes 329 g to the Roman pound! See this recent discussion about the problem from a Byzantine perspective. A conservative ball park is usually 325 to 327 g for the Late Roman/Byzantine pound.
It’s a huge shame that the weight doesn’t have provenance: no mention of who current owns it and only very vague references to the eastern Mediterranean as to its find spot.
—
Here’s Pliny’s quote just so you have it:
In spurious coin there is an alloy of copper employed. Some, again, curtail the proper weight of our denarii, the legitimate proportion being eighty-four denarii to a pound of silver. In consequence, a method was devised of assaying the denarius: the law ordaining which was so much to the taste of the plebeians that in every quarter of the City there was a full-length statue erected in honour of Marius Gratidianus. (Pliny, Natural History 33.132)
This little coin, a silver sestertius of 45 BC or there about, has me worried about the chronological limits of my book project. Yes, stopping in 49BC to leave the discussion of Caesar and the Civil Wars to another book does make good sense. However, a good number of post-49BC coins are intimately thematically related to earlier coins in the series. The issue of Palikanus taken as a whole is a good illustration of the “republican” characteristics of some of these later issues.
The above coin was thought to show a money pot or olla and a banker’s tessarae. This at least was Wiseman’s suggestion, based on the banking interests of the moneyer’s family.
Wiseman, T. P. (1971) New Men in the Roman Senate, 139BC-AD14. Oxford p. 85-6.
His idea is largely endorsed by Crawford and even to an extent by Zehnacker.
Zehnacker, H. (1972) ‘La Numismatique de la République romaine: bilan et perspectives’, ANRW I.I (Berlin), 266-96, at 284: “En tout cas, l’appartenance au monde de la finance expliquerait trés bien le mélange caractéristique chez les monetales de noms illustres—des cadets de famille qui ont préféré l’argentaux honneurs—et de noms quasi inconnus—de parvenus”
Based on the themes of the rest of the series as a whole, I think L. R. Taylor’s original suggestion of voting urn and ballot is far more likely (VDRR p. 226). The series celebrates:
Libertas and the Tribune’s Bench on the Rostra:
Honor and a Curule Chair flanked by Grain:
Then on the quinarius, Felicitas and Victory:
Given that all the other elements in the series celebrate civic virtues, even popular virtues, interpreting the smallest denomination in the series as a banking advert seems a bit of a stretch. A voting theme would harmonize much better.
All that said, there was a temple of Ops (wealth) in Roman. If its not voting being represented, I’d go with another divine personification before assuming a reference to a family banking business.
Also the use of the genitive on all these is types is striking.
Perhaps I’ll just need to include a flash forward to work a few of this series in.
—
Update 24 January 2014: So I was re-reading Witschonke 2012 on the possible uses of control marks at the Roman mint. Really the very best thing on the subject. Speculative in places by necessity, but logical and solid reasoning throughout. It depends on the important work of Stannard (Metallurgy in numismatics vol. 3 1993: 45-68 pl 1-2) on the evidence for mint practices revealed by gauging, namely that the mint worked in batches. What if money pot and tessarae (if that’s what they are) aren’t banking icongraphy but in fact minting iconography? A claim to the rigorous control of the issue. A celebration of Juno Moneta. Something like this coin of c. 46BC:
The top coin is a Roman didrachm (RRC 25/1). There is a another series (RRC 27) that is usually dated a little after with a similar head:
The Roman coins are invariably identified as Mars. The logic is really no more complicated than this: Helmet = War Deity –> Male War Deity = Mars. This Mars just happens to be beardless as compared to earlier bearded Mars:
[This is by our best reckoning the first silver Roman coin.] Or late bearded Mars like these beauties:
But if we go back up and look the ‘beardless Mars’ of the Roman coin and the ‘Achilles’ of the Pyrrhus coin, I think you’d agree we’d be hard pressed to actually claim there is any iconographic difference. They match pretty well in their rugged Hellenistic faces and even share the gryphon motif of the helmet. We need not make too much of that. Gryphons appear on Corinthian helmets in this position on and off in Hellenistic coinage, regularly enough that we don’t need to attribute special significance to it. Here’s a specimen from Syracuse. And a gold Alexander stater of Sidon.
Are the two separate identifications warranted even with the close iconography? Probably. The Achilles attribute rests on the Thetis image on the reverse and the mythical connection. If Rome copied the image or they simply share some common prototype there is no reason to think that it would be mean anything other than male war god, i.e. Mars to a Roman audience.
Update 2/5/2014: A. Burnett, The Iconography of Roman Coin Types in the Third Century BC. Numismatic Chronicle 146 (1986) 67-75:
Yes, 30 seconds is an arbitrary number. Many comparisons will be much faster, after much longer. And, no consideration is given to the collection of the images for comparison. But,the numbers a still good to think when consider what sorts of studies are feasible until a meaningful type of machine assist is developed or just the work involved in any individual project.
So for instance, I supervised a masters thesis that was a die study of 383 specimens. If the student had take a full 30 seconds on each comparison that would have been nearly 153 8-hour work days, nearly half a year. Not counting the write up. [The chart above using 24-hour days.] Obviously, on the republican series certain variations within a type, especially control marks when present, can speed up a die study, but even such sorting requires individual consideration and intense record keeping. Without such control marks limiting the number of comparisons required, De Ruyter’s 1996 study of the Coins of L. Julius Bursio would have required upwards of 5,287,700 unique comparisons (NC 156: 79-147).
Based on the New Italy Hoard (Hersh NC 1977), Mattingly holds that the denomination the Dodrans (3/4s of an as = 9 unciae) was first introduced by C. Cassius, not M. Metellus (2004: 220). This rules out his original theory echoed by Crawford in RRC that the type was introduced by the later to provide a space to commemorate a divine ancestor via the legendary Caeculus. Why would Cassius create a new denomination for Vulcan? Mattingly gives a terse answer: “The Vulcanal near the forum was the center of popular and tribunican activity in the early republic.” No footnote. It’s a hard assertion for which to find much support.
Does it have anything to do with Liber on his other new denomination the bes (2/3s of an as = 8 unciae)? What do Vulcan and Liber have in common? Not much but we do have his intriguing passage:
That the two gods could be linked is shown in this little passage from Hyginus’ Astronomica:
This text however seems to me another explanation of a common artistic motif “Hephaestus’ return to Olympus”:
The narrative might go back to a lacuna in the Homeric hymn of Dionysus, some speculate. The narrative is mostly deduced from various vase paintings with the help of this passage in Pausanias:
On the denarius series the reverse is more flexible than the obverse and we see more variation soon there. The first big break in the design of both is likely to be this type of c. 137 or 136 BC:
This type can be seen as borrowing from earlier Roman coin types and is thus at once a radical change and a conservative choice. [Note that Mattingly thinks this is the second big change in the reverse, hypothesizing that the coins with the wolf, twins, Faustulus and fig tree where made the previous year (2004: 214).] It will be nearly two decades before the obverse changes again this time borrowing from the bronze coinage, i.e. keeping the choice in the familiar repertoire:
Then, about five years on another Janiform head:
This feels again like a throw back to to earlier silver designs on Roman diadrachms and the reverse of a ship makes the whole type echo the standard Janus/prow type of the as. The same year, or perhaps the next year, this unusual obverse appears:
Does the legend identify this female divinity as Roma in a different guise that we’ve seen her previously? Maybe. Or perhaps another goddess entirely is intended.
The next year sees even more experimentation on the obverse:
From this point onward — 113/112 if you want to follow Crawford, 110 Mattingly — the obverse design remains flexible and expressive just as the reverse had been since c. 137. Conservative types re occur throughout the series on both obverse and reverse, but after the mid seventies (RRC 387/1) the Roma and biga combination fails to re occur again together. In fact after this Roma appears more often on the reverse than the obverse. She’s not seen on the obverse again until 53BC (RRC 435/1)!
This little silenos figure on a lid of cista no. 45 in the Pierpont Morgan Library collection is labelled EBRIOS. Ebrius is the Latin adjective meaning ‘drunk’. Think English inebriation. Not an inappropriate name for a dionysiac character. I wonder if there is any relation to the river name where Ovid says the Bacchic throng discovered honey (Fasti, book 3):
liba deo fiunt, sucis quia dulcibus idem 735 gaudet, et a Baccho mella reperta ferunt. ibat harenoso satyris comitatus ab Hebro (non habet ingratos fabula nostra iocos); iamque erat ad Rhodopen Pangaeaque florida ventum: aeriferae comitum concrepuere manus. 740 ecce novae coeunt volucres tinnitibus actae, quosque movent sonitus aera, sequuntur apes; colligit errantes et in arbore claudit inani Liber, et inventi praemia mellis habet.
Liv Mariah Yarrow 
